36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 237
CONTENTS
Thursday, June 3, 1999
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1005
| CANADIAN FORCES
|
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| INCOME TAX ACT
|
| Bill C-518. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| PETITIONS
|
| Taxation
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1010
| Impoverished Nations
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Canada Post
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Kosovo
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Nisga'a Treaty
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Motion
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
1015
1020
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1025
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
1030
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1035
| Amendment
|
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
1040
| Mr. David Iftody |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1045
1050
| Mr. Mike Scott |
1055
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1100
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
1105
1110
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| Mr. John Bryden |
1115
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1120
1125
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Mr. David Iftody |
1130
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1135
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1140
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1145
1150
| Mr. David Iftody |
1155
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Mr. John Duncan |
1200
1205
| Hon. Raymond Chan |
1210
| Mr. David Iftody |
1215
1220
1225
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1230
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
1235
1240
| Mr. John Duncan |
1245
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| Mr. Randy White |
1250
1255
| Mr. David Iftody |
1300
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1305
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1310
1315
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1320
| Hon. Raymond Chan |
1325
1330
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1335
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
1340
1345
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1350
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Mr. David Iftody |
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| KINGSTON COMMUNITY CREDIT UNION
|
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
| CANADA PENSION PLAN
|
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
1400
| CROATIA
|
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
| CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY
|
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
| SOCCER
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| RIGHT TO VOTE
|
| Mr. John Richardson |
| MANITOBA FLOODS
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| KOSOVO
|
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
1405
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| PARTI QUEBECOIS
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| TIANANMEN SQUARE
|
| Mrs. Maud Debien |
| BARREAU DU QUÉBEC
|
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1410
| ONTARIO ELECTION
|
| Mr. Jim Jones |
| TUITION
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| NISGA'A TREATY
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| THE NEW MILLENNIUM
|
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1415
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| KOSOVO
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
1420
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| KOSOVO
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1425
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1430
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Jim Jones |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Jim Jones |
| GOVERNMENT GRANTS
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1435
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| BILL C-54
|
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| GOVERNMENT GRANTS
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1440
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1445
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Lou Sekora |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Randy White |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| HOUSING
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1450
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Bill Matthews |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| Mr. Bill Matthews |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1455
| THE RCMP
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| RAIL TRANSPORTATION
|
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| PRIME MINISTER
|
| Mr. John Solomon |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| MAGAZINE INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| Mr. Stan Dromisky |
1500
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Subcommittee on Tax Equity for Canadian Families with
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| The Speaker |
1505
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1510
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1515
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Nisga'a Treaty
|
| Motion
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1520
1525
1530
| Mr. David Iftody |
1535
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1540
1545
| Mr. John Bryden |
| Mr. David Iftody |
1550
| Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
1555
1600
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1605
| Mr. John Bryden |
1610
1615
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
| Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew |
1620
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1625
1630
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1635
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1640
1645
| Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew |
1650
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
1655
1700
1705
| Mr. Mike Scott |
1710
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Mr. Allan Kerpan |
1715
| Division deemed demanded and deferred
|
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
|
| Bill C-405. Second Reading
|
| Mr. Raymond Lavigne |
1720
1725
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
1730
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1735
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1740
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
1745
1750
1755
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1800
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
1805
1810
| Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
1815
1820
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Justice
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
1825
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
| Government Contracts
|
| Mr. Jim Jones |
1830
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 237
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, June 3, 1999
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1005
[Translation]
CANADIAN FORCES
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing
Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official
languages, the annual report of the provost marshal of the
Canadian forces.
* * *
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to four petitions.
* * *
[English]
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.) moved for leave to introduce
Bill C-518, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction of
property taxes paid in respect of a principal residence).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to introduce this private
member's bill today because it illustrates one of the greatest
areas of double taxation in this country, where we pay taxes on
taxes.
This particular bill will amend the Income Tax Act in such a way
that property taxes can be deducted from taxable income so that
we stop giving the federal government 66% of the amount of money
we pay in municipal taxes.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
TAXATION
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have double
delight in presenting a petition today because the very first
name on it is the name of my daughter.
She is a parent who chooses to be a full time mom, who is
discriminated against by our Income Tax Act. Her family has to
pay more taxes because of the choice that she makes to stay at
home with our two wonderful grandchildren.
I am pleased to present this petition on behalf of some 60
voters from Regina, Saskatchewan. She got all of those people to
sign this petition and I am very pleased to present it today to
call for fairness in taxation for those families who choose to
have one parent stay at home.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate
to the Chair that it is my belief that either reading the names
into the record of those signing a petition or saying whether an
MP agrees with the petition he is tabling have both been ruled
out of order countless times by the Speaker in the past.
The Deputy Speaker: I was listening to the hon. member
for Elk Island and, while he sounded sympathetic, I do not
believe he expressed his support or otherwise for the petition.
Had he done so he would have been properly admonished by the
Chair as the government House leader knows because the Chair does
tend to admonish members who do that.
On the other hand, I think the hon. member for Elk Island did
slightly step over the line in saying who had signed the
petition. Normally the names of the petitioners are not
revealed. However, in the circumstances, since it was his
daughter, the Chair overlooked it. The government House leader
is quite correct in pointing out that it is not proper to read
the names of the petitioners into the record. Had the member for
Elk Island named anyone else, the Chair would have admonished him
and rebuked him properly for this breach of the rules.
1010
IMPOVERISHED NATIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to present another petition on behalf of citizens of Peterborough
who are concerned about the debt of the world's poorest nations.
They believe it is time to cancel the backlog of unpayable debts
by those nations. They urge the leaders of lending nations to
write off those debts by the year 2000. They also urge that
Canada promote sustainable, economic and social development
instead of supporting measures demanded by international
financial institutions.
Therefore, they urge the Parliament of Canada to support the
cancellation of debt owed by the poorest countries and to take
effective steps to prevent high levels of debt from building up
again.
CANADA POST
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
another petition concerning rural mail couriers.
The petitioners call upon parliament to repeal section 13(5) of
the Canada Post Corporation Act.
KOSOVO
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
a final petition and, again, I have presented a number of
petitions on this subject.
It is from citizens concerned about Canada's involvement in the
bombing campaign in Yugoslavia. They suggest that the bombing
campaign is ineffective in its purpose of helping the people of
Kosovo and that its impact is having the opposite effect.
They call upon parliament to immediately stop Canada's
involvement in the bombing campaign and to work toward a
diplomatic solution before any more lives are needlessly and
tragically lost.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (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 Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—NISGA'A TREATY
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.) moved:
That this House recognize that there is significant public concern
in British Columbia with respect to how modern treaties and Aboriginal
self-government initiatives may affect individual rights, including
Aboriginal people; and given the recent controversies, such as the Musqueam
Leaseholders controversy and the Kamloops Indian Band's intention to ban
trade unions, this House urge the Government of Canada to refer the Nisga'a
Treaty Agreement to the Supreme Court of Canada and ask for a judicial
ruling clarifying:
(a) whether the terms of the Nisga'a Final Agreement constitute
an amendment to Canada's Constitution, and
(b) whether the self-government provisions of the agreement could
be used to usurp, diminish or subrogate the individual rights of
Nisga'a people as defined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms;
And, further, that all activity leading to the introduction of
legislation to ratify the Nisga'a Final Agreement in the House of
Commons be held in abeyance pending judicial clarification.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I think you would find consent for the following motion:
That at the conclusion of the present debate on today's
Opposition Motion, all questions necessary to dispose of this
motion be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and
deferred until the expiry of time provided for Government Orders
Tuesday, June 8, 1999.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. deputy government whip
have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I would like to inform the Chair that during today's
debate the Reform members speaking to this motion will be
dividing their time.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is an
honour to rise to speak to this motion today and to apprise the
House of the seriousness of the nature of this motion and why
Reform has advanced it.
First, I would like to say that after 130 years of waiting this
should be a great time of celebration for the Nisga'a people. It
should be a time of putting history behind us, for the Nisga'a
people to put their history behind them and to step forward with
the new arrangement with the Government of Canada and the
province of British Columbia.
1015
This treaty is also the source of much controversy in British
Columbia because both the provincial government and the federal
government have not bothered to listen to the people of British
Columbia and the other people of Canada.
As a matter of fact there is another modern treaty in British
Columbia known as the Sechelt agreement. It is very instructive
to note that the Sechelt agreement does not generate nearly the
same controversy as the Nisga'a agreement because of the
self-government provisions in the Nisga'a treaty.
In 1987 the Sechelt people entered into a self-government
arrangement with the province of British Columbia and the federal
government. It was done through an act of legislation, but it is
specifically not included as an aboriginal right within section
35 of the constitution. Therefore it is not protected by the
constitution. It is not a constitutionalized third order of
government.
The Nisga'a treaty, or the Nisga'a final agreement as it is
known, is primarily a self-government deal. This is interesting
when we take it against the backdrop of other treaties, the
numbered treaties as they are called or the historical treaties,
because those treaties are not about self-government at all. They
are about the exchange of land, resources, cash consideration and
other considerations in return for the surrender of lands for the
benefit of all Canadians. That is the history of the numbered
treaties in Canada.
The Nisga'a treaty is not about that. It is primarily a
self-government arrangement. It is a relatively new initiative,
this self-government initiative. The concept of it has been
around for about two decades now. It came to flower in the
Charlottetown accord in 1992. It was one of the five key
components of the Charlottetown accord.
The people of Canada, and I might add the people of British
Columbia, defeated the Charlottetown accord. In British
Columbia, members might be interested to know, it was defeated by
almost 70%. It is also instructive to note that aboriginal
people in British Columbia defeated it at about the same
percentage level. This was not an aboriginal-non-aboriginal
divergence of views. This was a common view that was held in
British Columbia.
One of Canada's most pre-eminent scholars or experts on the
constitution, a man who was well known to this side of the House,
had some very instructive points to make about the Charlottetown
accord and about the aboriginal governance provisions in that
accord in 1992 in a speech to Cité Libre in Montreal, and that
man was Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
He warned of the dangers of unfettered aboriginal
self-government where there was no provision for charter rights
for aboriginal people and where there would be such a division of
powers between governments and the creation of a new third order
of government that we would eventually end up with a chaotic
system of governance right across Canada.
This was a man who was leader of the Liberal Party for almost
two decades. Whether or not people on this side of the House
agreed with all of his policies, we certainly respected his
ability to understand, discern and speak about the constitution.
He made that his life's work. He was a professor of law and a
constitutional expert before he ever became a parliamentarian and
before he became prime minister.
After the defeat of the Charlottetown accord we would think that
the Liberals and other political parties in Canada would have
understood that Canadians did not agree with this concept because
they specifically voted no.
The government does not get it. It immediately adopted an
inherent right policy. It was in its red book. Everybody
remembers the infamous red book in 1993: 200 pages of small print
that very few Canadians actually ever read. The Liberals have
used that red book to justify an inherent right policy. That
inherent right policy means that it has adopted a policy of
recognizing an aboriginal inherent right to self-government.
Until Nisga'a came along we really did not know what it meant.
1020
I recall writing letters to the Minister of Justice and the
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development back in 1993,
1994 and 1995 asking what was meant. We never got an answer. We
got a bunch of mumbo-jumbo, airy-fairy, pie in the sky motherhood
answers, but we did not get a specific answer as to what they had
in mind. Now we see it in the Nisga'a agreement and what we see
goes against the express wishes of Canadians including aboriginal
people from coast to coast and for what they voted in 1992 on the
Charlottetown accord.
I want to get into some of the specifics. The federal and
provincial governments in the Nisga'a treaty have agreed to cede
legislative authority in at least 14 specific areas for all
times. I remind the House that the Supreme Court of Canada in
1950 in the Lord Nelson Hotel case had the following to say about
the division of powers in Canada's constitution vis-à-vis
legislative authority of the provincial and federal governments.
I quote Chief Justice Rinfret:
The Parliament of Canada and the Legislatures of the several
Provinces are sovereign within their sphere defined by the
British North America Act, but none of them has the unlimited
capacity of an individual. They can exercise only the
legislative powers respectively given to them by sections 91 and
92 of the Act, and these powers must be found in either of these
sections.
The constitution of Canada does not belong either to Parliament,
or to the Legislatures; it belongs to the country and it is there
that the citizens of the country will find the protection of the
rights to which they are entitled.
Chief Justice Kerwin further wrote:
The British North America Act divides legislative jurisdiction
between the Parliament of Canada and the Legislatures of the
Provinces and there is no way in which these bodies may agree to
a different division...To permit such an agreement would be
inserting into the Act a power that is certainly not stated and
one that should not be inferred.
The Supreme Court of Canada's ruling, which was unanimous and
unequivocal, says one order of government could neither give away
to nor receive from another order of government its rights and
jurisdictions as defined under sections 91 and 92 of the
constitution.
The federal government did not consult Canadians on this matter.
It did once in 1992 but it did not listen to the answer. British
Columbia as a result of the federal government's unilateral
decision has agreed to give up this legislative jurisdiction and
authority, going precisely against what the Supreme Court of
Canada said in 1950 in the Lord Nelson Hotel case that it was not
permitted to do.
How does this affect real people on the ground in British
Columbia and in the rest of Canada? This will have implications.
This will reverberate back and forth across the country before
all is said and done.
The charter rights of Nisga'a people have been put in peril as a
result. Even though it says in the agreement that the charter
applies, it also says in the charter when speaking about rights
and freedom, that the guarantee shall not be construed as to
abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal treaty or other rights
or freedoms.
By constitutionalizing the self-government arrangements the
government has made the Nisga'a treaty an aboriginal right. It
has therefore put the aboriginal right ahead of the charter
rights of Nisga'a individuals. There is no doubt about that
whatsoever and there will be profound implications for Nisga'a
people down the road.
We will be talking about this subject more today, but our
concern is the unconstitutional initiative the government has
taken against the Supreme Court of Canada ruling in 1950 and the
diminishing of the charter rights of Nisga'a people.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to ask the hon.
member a question, particularly around his original assertion
that we have not listened to or consulted people.
Has the hon. member talked to the Nisga'a who live in his riding
of Skeena? How will he respond to their belief that this is a
good treaty?
1025
Has the hon. member talked to the mayor and the council of the
city of Terrace who, I would note, made a particular week in
April Nisga'a appreciation week in honour of the Nisga'a treaty?
Has he talked to the 133 businesses in his riding that support
the Nisga'a treaty? In fact they made financial contributions to
the latest general assembly of the Nisga'a. Has he listened to
those people? If he has, how will he respond to them when they
strongly support the Nisga'a treaty?
Mr. Mike Scott: Mr. Speaker, the minister asks if I have
talked to the Nisga'a people. Yes, I have talked to the Nisga'a
people on many occasions. It might interest the minister to know
that Chief Joe Gosnell and I had a two hour televised debate on
treaty making back in 1996, I believe it was. It was carried all
across northern British Columbia. I have also talked to many
small business people in my community. As a matter of fact I am
talking to them all the time.
I would point something out for the minister's benefit. She
seems to think that Nisga'a people are a homogeneous group who
all think the same way and all want the same things. She should
recognize that 40% of the Nisga'a people did not support this
agreement. Sixty per cent is hardly a big mandate to proceed
forward with this kind of treaty.
The minister also asked about the support of the mayor of
Terrace. In our community we recognize that the mayor of Terrace
is a good Liberal. We would expect that he would fall into line
and support whatever the minister and the government come up
with. That is hardly a surprise.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
Alice was right: things get curiouser and curiouser here in
Wonderland.
I look at the resolution introduced by the Reform Party and I
must say it is a conversion of faith in the supreme court that is
worthy of the conversion of Paul on the road to Damascus.
I have been in the House for two years. I have been on the
justice committee for two years. Repeatedly members of the
Reform Party have said that parliament is supreme. They have
repeatedly criticized applications to the supreme court allowing
the judiciary to interpret the charter of rights. Here they are
today quoting the former prime minister and leader of the Liberal
Party as a constitutional expert.
Does the resolution today signal a profound change of direction
on the part of members of the Reform Party and indicate faith in
the judiciary of the supreme court and its interpretation of
proposed laws and laws that come before parliament, or have they
abandoned their idea that parliament is supreme?
Mr. Mike Scott: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note
that this government and the government before it deferred to the
Supreme Court of Canada every time. When the Supreme Court of
Canada comes out with a ruling we know that the government will
not have the backbone to use the notwithstanding clause or to
take firm action to protect individual rights.
In this instance we are not asking the Supreme Court of Canada
to chart us into uncharted territory in terms of social policy or
anything else, which is our primary concern with the courts. We
are asking it for a judicial interpretation of the charter of
rights vis-à-vis the collective aboriginal rights the Nisga'a
people will have in advance of this treaty being implemented.
Then the Nisga'a people and other Canadians will know how the
Supreme Court of Canada views that potential conflict. No doubt
there will be conflict. We would like to know now and we think
it is the responsible thing to do.
We would also like to have the supreme court's interpretation of
whether this is even a constitutional agreement. There are four
separate legal challenges in British Columbia right now. Three
of them speak to the very heart of the issue of whether or not
this agreement is even constitutional. How can the government be
responsible and proceed until it has the supreme court's ruling
on that very critical issue?
1030
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my hon. colleague from Skeena just spoke quite eloquently about
the history and the potential consequences of the Nisga'a treaty.
I would like to take this opportunity to address how the
government has shut Canadians out of the treaty process with the
Nisga'a people.
The hon. minister just mentioned how she feels she has talked
long and hard and consulted with everyone. I certainly beg to
differ.
In my opinion the Nisga'a Treaty has been a disaster from the
outset. The federal government, along with the Government of
British Columbia, negotiated, signed and are now ratifying a
treaty rife with controversy. I submit that the provincial
government, by shutting down debate and ramming it through the
legislature in Victoria, did nothing but add to the stigma
already attached to this treaty.
There are hundreds of questions that politicians, scholars,
journalists and citizens, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal
alike, would like to ask and answers have always been in short
supply.
Responsible government is a term that has been used throughout
our nation's history. It has many connotations but boils down to
being accountable to the citizens for the administration of their
country.
Responsibility and accountability have been absent in the
Nisga'a treaty process from the outset. The treaty sets an
enormous precedent for past and future treaty negotiations. It
creates a third level of government that is outside the
jurisdiction of the Constitution and the charter of rights. My
hon. colleague just addressed that. It allows taxation without
representation. It divides rights and freedoms based on
ethnicity. It abandons the marital property rights of Nisga'a
women residing on Nisga'a land.
These are very serious consequences that require explanation.
When we ask the government to answer these questions we are
called racists and fear-mongers. Tell us a name and the members
across the way call us it. These diversion tactics are a
disservice to the thousands of Canadians, both Nisga'a and
non-Nisga'a, who are directly affected by the treaty.
It is the responsibility of the government to inform Canadians,
in particular in northern British Columbia, of the details of the
treaty and to allow them a say in how their land is to be used,
not just for a year, not even for a decade or so but for all
time.
Several bands surrounding the Nisga'a claim have overlapping
claims which need to be settled before the treaty is ratified.
The Indian affairs minister has been anything but accountable
throughout the treaty process and has been irresponsible in her
use of words like “self-government” and “aboriginal nations”
in response to our questions.
Since the minister is in the House, I will draw to her attention
an Ottawa Citizen article of May 31, 1999 by Dan Gardner
where he wrote:
—the feds habitually describe aboriginal peoples as “nations”.
As Pierre Trudeau has warned, “nation” is a dangerous word
because it has two meanings: a discrete ethnic group or a state.
Politicians have the ethnic meaning in mind when they speak of
aboriginal nations, but their audiences often hear aboriginal
states...What is needed is frank public discussion of what is
really on the self government table.
I have always refrained from using the term first nations for a
couple of reasons. For one, it suggests that these bands are
separate countries within Canada. If one listens to the
president of the Nisga'a band, that is exactly what he is
seeking. There are no mechanisms within the Constitution to
create states within a state. In fact it has been the
government's position for questioning Quebec's argument for its
independence, and rightfully so.
The second reason I do not use the term first nations is that it
suggests supremacy. As a member of the Reform Party, I adhere
strongly to the principle that all Canadians are equal. Although
I recognize that the term “first nations” refers to the fact
that the aboriginal people were here first, the connotations can
be used to argue supremacy over our constitutional and charter
rights.
The Nisga'a treaty delves into areas where the Canadian people
are unresolved. The Charlottetown accord addressed aboriginal
self-government in the same obscure manner as this treaty and
Canadians rejected it soundly. Rather than consulting Canadians
on the issue, the Liberals do what they always do and either slip
contentious issues in the back door or they ram them through
regardless of the consequences. They feel they know better than
the millions of Canadians who voted against Charlottetown. To
the Liberals, government knows best and the simple-minded public
should just fall in line with the changes that are made to their
lives without their consent. Canadians are tired of it. If they
were not, the Reform Party would never have been born.
We in the Reform Party undertook to consult and inform the
people of British Columbia. We shared our concerns with them and
in return received hundreds of questions and comments back. What
we heard most often was that there was not enough information.
Based on the information they have received, the majority are
against the treaty.
In March of this year I commissioned a survey in my riding on a
number of issues including the Nisga'a treaty.
The respondents were asked: First, should the people of British
Columbia have a voice on the principles of the Nisga'a treaty
through a province-wide referendum? Of my constituents, 75% said
yes, 14% said no and 11% were undecided.
1035
The second question was: With the information you now have
about the treaty, how should your federal MP vote when it comes
before parliament in Ottawa? Of the respondents, 17% wanted me
to vote for the treaty, 50% said they wanted me to vote against
and 33% were uncertain.
These results tell me a few things: My constituents want to
have a say in this treaty, they are opposed to the passage of the
treaty and fully one-third of my constituents are uncertain
because they have received nothing but whitewash and propaganda
from both their governments in Victoria and Ottawa.
The B.C. legislature recently ratified the Nisga'a treaty. In
one of the most anti-democratic manoeuvres outside of Ottawa, the
NDP government shut down debate with over half the treaty left
untouched. Fully 200 clauses were not even discussed in the B.C.
legislature. We know all about shutting down debate in this
place. The federal Liberals have shamefully used it 53 times
since coming to power in 1993.
Why would any democratic government deny open discussion on a
bill that changes forever the way land claims and treaties are
negotiated in Canada? I cannot think of a legitimate answer that
comes close to justifying it. Only that it is too politically
sensitive to risk exposure. That must be what the New is all
about in the New Democratic Party.
The negotiations were closed, the provincial ratification
process was a disgusting farce and off to Ottawa comes the treaty
for a rubber stamp and a photo op. The Indian affairs minister
thought she could sweep the treaty under the carpet and have it
through the House in no time flat. After all, it only affects
British Columbia. Where have we heard that before? Oh yes, when
the Liberals left B.C. children unprotected against child
pornographers.
The Indian affairs minister's plans were spoiled when the
members for Skeena and Delta—South Richmond started asking hard
questions that were tugging at the cloak of secrecy around the
Nisga'a treaty. What happened? The minister signed the treaty
for her own vanity before being shuffled and has delayed the
process until the fall.
That brings us to the debate today. The House is about to
adjourn for the summer, along with the much rumoured prorogation
of the House. While the House is in recess we want the
government to refer the Nisga'a treaty to the Supreme Court of
Canada for its interpretation on the constitutionality and
application of the charter of rights and freedoms as they pertain
to this treaty.
Just as the issue of the unilateral declaration of independence
of Quebec was referred for interpretation, so to should the
Nisga'a treaty. This interpretation would clarify most of the
constitutional questions we have raised before debating the
ratification of the bill hopefully when the House resumes in the
fall. Is that not simply responsible? What could be more
reasonable?
Lastly, I would like to move an amendment to our motion. I
move:
That the motion be amended by inserting before the word
“urges”, the word “strongly”.
The Deputy Speaker: The amendment is in order. Debate is
on the amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have
listened carefully to what my colleague from the Reform Party
has had to say.
He has quoted some interesting statistics, including the fact
that public opinion in British Columbia seemed to be against it.
I have two questions for my colleague. Are the Reform MPs not
acting somewhat as agitators, conditioning public opinion in
their respective ridings to believe that the treaty and coming
legislation on the Nisga'a are terrible things?
In the many press clippings from British Columbia I have read, I
have not seen one single positive comment from a Reform member
on the Nisga'a treaty.
I also heard my colleague say that the people of British
Columbia had objections, that the Reform Party represented these
people very well and that he was very representative.
1040
Can he draw a parallel with Canadians' voting intentions
concerning the Reform Party, with only 9% of people now
indicating that they would vote for his party? Is this not
proof that the Reform Party is quite simply barking up the wrong
tree as far as aboriginal issues go?
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe we have been
filling the role of agitators, as the member put it. I would
challenge the hon. NDP member from Kamloops to talk to the people
in his riding about this particular treaty.
It is pretty universal throughout British Columbia, and
especially strong in rural British Columbia, where people
understand the issue of land claims, native self-government and
all the problems inherent with the existing reserve system in
Canada. People have some very strong opinions on this matter.
They certainly do not take a back seat to anyone when it comes to
expressing those opinions. All we have to do is tune in to some
of the radio talk shows in British Columbia to hear those
opinions expressed very strongly.
These opinions were certainly expressed strongly by the Liberal
opposition in Victoria in the short amount of time they had to
debate this legislation before the NDP government shut it down.
The Liberal opposition, headed by Gordon Campbell, were very
strong in denouncing the treaty and the way it had gone through
the process.
There were a number of mini referendums conducted in different
municipalities. I do not have all the details nor the time, but
an overwhelming number of people in British Columbia are opposed
to the treaty at this time.
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will be brief because I know my colleague from Manitoba would
like to ask a question as well.
During the Charlottetown accord and the five point plan that the
member for Skeena properly referred to, he is wrong again in his
numbers. The Angus Reid polling throughout 1992 during the
Charlottetown accord showed that the component of aboriginal
peoples, that particular component of the Charlottetown accord,
received the strongest support across Canada.
An hon. member: Wrong.
Mr. David Iftody: Mr. Speaker, that is the truth.
If the member had 2,500 members in his riding, which he of
course does, and in any particular town, would he, being a Reform
Party member who has pledged and vowed publicly before the
Canadian people to support them, oppose 2,500 of his own people
under those circumstances as the member for Skeena now does?
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know
that it is often difficult to represent all the people in our
ridings, especially on contentious issues. What we endeavour to
do is identify the majority point of view, something that the
Liberals never care to do.
I have always been appreciative of the fact that I was elected
by two-thirds of the people who took the time to go and cast a
ballot. That is the level of support I had in the last election
when I came to the House. Very clearly the majority of those
constituents are opposed to this treaty as it is presently put
together. That is why I stand here and speak out against it.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, after having the
responsibility over the last two years of being Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development, I have spent considerable time
talking to British Columbians about the Nisga'a treaty. This is
an extraordinarily important undertaking, not just for the
Nisga'a, not just for the people of British Columbia, but indeed
for all of Canada. It is critical.
As the Reform Party points out, it is critical that we talk about
the legitimate concerns and issues, the challenges and the
support that exists for the Nisga'a treaty.
1045
Typically as we have conversations about the treaty itself, the
questions revolve around three particular areas. People ask why
treaties. They want to understand the treaty process and why we
are engaged in that. They ask why self-government and what
particularly is in the Nisga'a treaty. I would like to briefly
make comments on those three questions.
Why treaties? Let me say that it was not I as the minister of
Indian affairs who came up with the notion of treaty writing. It
was not the province of British Columbia, nor was it Joe Gosnell,
the president of the Nisga'a council.
Treaties have long been part of the history of Canada. In fact
they date back to 1763 when in the royal proclamation King George
said that we had to find a fair and practical way of working with
indigenous people in the colonies, in the Canadas. Fortunately
chiefs and aboriginal people felt the same way. They wanted a
fair and practical way of working together in the lands we now
know to be Canada. Rather than conquests through war, they chose
compromise through negotiation. Treaties have been written in
Canada since that time.
History has continued. Indeed the obligations and
responsibilities that have been set out in certain treaties
across the country now find protection in our constitution. In
section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 those treaty obligations
and rights are protected. The constitution also protects future
treaty rights that would be written, as anticipated, with first
nations individually or severally over the course of time.
In writing treaties we are not changing the constitution. We
are giving modern life to section 35 of the constitution. We are
providing an opportunity for first nations who have not had that
opportunity to be welcomed into Canada as citizens in the fullest
sense under our laws.
When we talk about laws, that takes us to the second issue. Why
self-government? Why are we taking this approach? What is it
all about? Very clearly in those early days when Europeans sat at
the negotiating table with first nations, with chiefs, they knew
they were dealing with legitimate governance. George Vancouver
when he entered Nisga'a lands was surprised to see Nisga'a living
in two storey dwellings in a very complex society. There was
governance and quite effective governance in first nations
communities long before we ever arrived.
Over the course of time, I guess as we became the majority, we
started to think differently. We started to think that we knew
best. We started to take the approach that Ottawa should be
making the decisions on behalf of first nations people. We
started recognizing that decisions on behalf of aboriginal people
should be made by the minister of Indian affairs.
Now we have the Indian Act. Surely to goodness the Reform Party
does not agree that the Indian Act is the way we should build and
can build a positive future for aboriginal people. It is not and
it needs to be changed.
An hon. member: We should get rid of it.
Hon. Jane Stewart: Right, let us get rid of it. How do
we do that? We can do it by moving back to an original
relationship based on the understanding that there should be
community government for first nations people as there is for
other Canadians. This is tremendously important to us. It gives
us an opportunity to move forward together.
To talk about governance, Canadians understand governance. They
want clarity of jurisdictions and authorities. They want to set
tables where they can come together to resolve problems. Believe
me, no one understands the Indian Act. No one accepts that the
minister of Indian affairs should be approving the wills of
aboriginal people and should be telling them how to use their
lands. That is antiquated. It is wrong and we can do better. The
Nisga'a treaty gives us an opportunity to do just that.
Let us turn to the Nisga'a treaty. What is in the treaty? It
sets out very particular obligations and responsibilities that we
have to the Nisga'a people and in turn that they will provide to
us.
We will be providing them with 2,000 square kilometres of land
which they will own not as reserves—and members want to change
the reserve system—but as fee simple. As such on those lands the
exemption from taxation will not apply.
The Nisga'a will be paying provincial sales tax, provincial
income tax, federal sales tax and federal income tax. Their
corporations will be paying corporate tax. We are moving away
from the old reserve system and modernizing our relationship in a
very positive way.
1050
There are other aspects, obligations and responsibilities that
will be returned to the Nisga'a. They will have authority to
manage their resources such as timber, fisheries and wildlife.
They will be able to make decisions about those resources and use
them more effectively than they have ever been able to before.
This makes sense. It is set out in the treaty clearly. People
can read it and understand the relationship.
When we talk about governance, it is set out in the treaty. It
is complex, perhaps too complex for the Reform Party, but it is
set out there and it is explained. Fundamentally there are three
categories of jurisdiction. Let us understand them.
First and foremost, federal laws will continue to apply, such as
the constitution, the charter of rights and freedoms and the
Criminal Code. In our enabling legislation be assured that we
will confirm that the charter does apply to Nisga'a people. Those
will exist.
Second, there is another category of legislation on
province-like jurisdictions such as education and health that the
Nisga'a will take jurisdiction for. Let me be clear that when
that occurs, the Nisga'a must meet or beat provincial
legislation, meet or beat. There is nothing to worry about.
People will understand it. It will be clear.
Those citizens who are not Nisga'a members who live in the
Nisga'a territory and receive services from the Nisga'a for
education and health will have the right to stand for election to
the education boards and the health boards. There is an appeal
process that will allow them to fully participate in those areas.
This is tremendously important to understand. The treaty sets
that out. It makes it clear and it moves us ahead.
The third area of jurisdiction is associated with aspects
fundamental to the Nisga'a themselves, their heritage, culture
and language. There are no provincial or federal laws dealing
with that and why would there be? We do not know how to protect
their language, what the history and culture is, certainly not
better than the Nisga'a. These are the areas where the Nisga'a
will have jurisdiction to ensure that their history is strong and
that it continues to vibrantly develop today and tomorrow.
We have worked very hard to negotiate this agreement. We have
talked to the citizens of British Columbia about it. The AIP has
been available for a number of years. Public meetings have been
held. The communities in the Nass Valley are supportive and view
this to be an important step in the modernization of our
relationship.
We will have the opportunity to continue the debate here in this
House, in parliament, where it should be, to discuss the details.
I will continue to talk to British Columbians about their
legitimate concerns and issues because they can be answered. The
treaty provides those responses.
I want to say in conclusion that as we settle these outstanding
obligations we do a number of things. We bring certainty to the
lands. We bring an opportunity for communities to work more
strongly together, for first nations to have the opportunity to
build their own relationship with the private sector, with
surrounding municipalities and to fully engage in this great
country of ours.
We bring economic development into the province, into the Nass
Valley and provide new opportunities for prosperity and
development. Finally what we do is say to some first peoples in
this country that Canada welcomes them. They want to be part of
Canada. This is not about leaving our great country. This is
about being part of it.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I do not
know where to begin. The minister makes a very nice emotional
appeal. This is what the minister always does when she is
answering questions about the Nisga'a treaty. It is the
emotional appeal.
Is it not time that we resolved this? Is it not time that we
formed a new relationship with aboriginal people? Is it not time
that we put the dark history of our country behind us and got on
with a new relationship?
1055
Obviously everybody agrees with that but she is not answering
the questions. She is not answering the constitutional
questions. She is not answering the charter questions. She is
not responding to our question with respect to section 25 of the
charter being able to trump the individual rights of Nisga'a
people. She is not responding to the challenge that has been
raised in British Columbia that the government has violated
sections 91 and 92 of the constitution.
I cannot for the life of me understand why the minister does not
respond to the specifics. She only deals in the emotional
appeal. That is all she is interested in.
I ask the minister why would this government be opposed to
sending the agreement to the Supreme Court of Canada for a
clarification on the constitutionality and the charter of rights?
These are two very important issues. Why is she opposed to
referring this to the supreme court in advance of ratification?
What is another few months after 130 years to make sure that we
have it right, to make sure that the charter rights of the
Nisga'a people are not diminished and to make sure that this
agreement actually conforms to the constitution? What is she
afraid of?
Hon. Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, on this side we believe
we have an obligation to fulfill the statements in our
constitution. The constitution protects treaty rights as they
have been negotiated for first nations in the past and it
protects the treaty rights that will be negotiated with first
nations or groups of first nations into the future.
We have been to the courts on a number of occasions. They have
said to us “Would you please take the responsibility and
negotiate. You can keep coming back to us and we will tell you,
yes, there are aboriginal rights in Canada, but it is only you
that can sit at the table with first nations and exhaustively set
those rights out, put them in a treaty and move on”.
That is exactly what we are doing. There is no constitutional
issue here. What there is is an obligation on the part of Canada
to fulfill the protection and identification of aboriginal rights
as set out in section 35 of the constitution.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
would the minister agree that what we are seeing here today is
the last death rattle of what boils down to a two year campaign
on behalf of the Reform Party to try to discredit aboriginal
leadership and on a much broader issue than just the Nisga'a deal
to try to speak against the whole idea of self-government?
I have sat here and listened for almost two years to a day where
time after time Reform members have tried to thread together
isolated incidences of mismanagement on various reserves. They
have tried to paint a broader picture that aboriginal people are
neither able nor capable or should have any control over
self-governance.
Some people think that by broadening rights to a larger group of
people somehow diminishes their own rights. They have this
concept of human rights as one finite pie and if one group takes
too big a slice that somehow there is less of it to go around.
This is the message we have been hearing over and over again.
Is the minister aware that the Reform Party has really been the
spokesperson for the whole anti-Indian movement in western Canada
where I live, the architects of the anti-Indian movement of
western Canada, with connections that I would love to point out
if I had more time?
Hon. Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of
things I would like to say in response.
First and foremost, without question there are legitimate
questions that people have about the Nisga'a treaty. Those
questions need to be identified and responded to. We will
continue to do that I know with the help of all other parties in
the House with the exception of the Reform Party.
The other thing I would like to point out is that very often the
Reform Party takes the approach in fact in everything it does, of
identifying issues and problems. However it seems to be
absolutely impossible for it to present alternatives, united or
otherwise.
1100
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
begin by saluting the Nisga'a who are listening to today's
debate in the House, particularly Grand Chief Gosnell, to whom I
spoke yesterday.
I will not dwell too long on the content of the agreement,
because next fall we will have time to take an indepth look at
it.
In today's debate on a motion on which we will be voting, it is
important to focus instead on the democratic process.
Was the democratic process legal and legitimate? My comments
will primarily focus on that.
This process, which probably began in 1880, has been a long one.
In 1996, I heard Mr. Gosnell say that the canoe had finally
arrived, when the agreement in principle was signed. I think a
few strokes of the paddle were still necessary.
Today, we also have to do some paddling with the Nisga'a,
precisely to allow them to reach the land that they have been
trying to take possession of for over 100 years.
This was a courageous democratic course. These people have also
been very peaceful. They have always wanted to reach that land
through negotiation. They have been very courageous and
persevering and, today, they need a helping hand.
Naturally, we in the Bloc Quebecois are fully prepared to give
them such a hand.
In 1880, the chiefs began to say “We have been living on these
lands forever”. For almost a century, they made representations
to assume ownership of these lands. The Calder decision, in
1973, brought about many changes. It was agreed that there were
probably some aboriginal titles that should be recognized.
I had the great privilege of meeting Mr. Calder here, a few
years ago. I was able to see what an extraordinary person he is.
He is a Nisga'a and he has done a lot to further the cause of
his people.
Finally, in 1976 the federal government began the negotiation
process. It was only in 1990 that the government of British
Columbia got involved in the negotiations. The agreement in
principle was finally reached in 1996.
At this point Joe Gosnell said “Finally, the canoe has come in”.
However, he did not count on the Reform Party, which, in my
opinion, is blasting the Nisga'a canoe with cannon fire. They
really do not want this canoe to reach its destination.
Looking at the procedure to be followed with this treaty before
us, which was definitively signed in August 1998, in order for
it to be enforceable, the three parties must follow very
specific steps. A referendum is to be held among the Nisga'a.
The treaty must be signed by a member of the provincial cabinet
and be ratified by the British Columbia legislature. It must
then be signed by a member of the federal cabinet and ratified
by the House of Commons.
I would like to take a moment to look at the result of the
referendum the Nisga'a held on November 10, 1998: 1,451 Nisga'a
voted in support of this definitive agreement; 558 voted
against; 356 did not vote, and 11 ballots were spoiled. That
means 61% of the eligible voters supported the treaty, and 23%
did not. I would remind the hon. members that, as in any good
democracy, the rule was 50% plus one.
For the Nisga'a, the job is over. Seventy per cent of those who
voted supported it. It is important to know that not only was
the action quite legal, but it was also quite legitimate.
British Columbia's requirement has also been fulfilled. A member
of cabinet signed the agreement on behalf of the provincial
government of British Columbia. The British Columbia legislature
voted in favour of it.
At the federal level as well, a member of Cabinet signed the
treaty, as we will recall, last week. The Reformers made a big
issue over of it.
1105
I note that, in legal terms, so long as the bill has not been
passed, the treaty cannot come into force. So even though a
minister has signed it, the treaty cannot come into force until
the underlying issue has been resolved in this House.
As regards the Reform Party's motion, no one will be surprised
when I say that the Bloc Quebecois will oppose it. Referring a
matter to the supreme court involves one in it. Not too long
ago, the Minister of Justice made a reference to the supreme
court in order to prevent the democratic, legal and legitimate
action of the people of Quebec.
The Minister of Justice did the same thing in a reference to the
Supreme Court of Canada, asking for guidelines as to whether 50%
plus one would be enough, for instance. There were several
issues.
We see exactly the same attitude in this motion to refer the
matter to the supreme court in order to foil a democratic action
by the Nisga'a people. Naturally, we cannot agree with such a
motion.
The motion also refers to delaying tactics. They want another
postponement in order to stir things up even more in British
Columbia and attempt to sink the famous Nisga'a canoe.
We are also opposed because we think this is a red herring. The
motion refers to the Musqueam and Kamloops bands, but these
bands do not come under the treaty signed with the Nisga'a.
The Reform Party undoubtedly wants to use these examples to
derail the treaty, but I think they are separate issues.
I urge the Reform Party to follow my lead. I am going to visit
British Columbia this summer and check out the Musqueam band.
My colleague tells me to come. I do not know whether it is in
his riding, but I would be delighted to meet not only the band
council but also the people who are facing substantial tax
hikes.
But this is not a good enough reason to scrap the treaty signed
with the Nisga'a. It is not fair to use examples of things that
are not working well in certain places, in British Columbia or
elsewhere in Canada, as an excuse for now scrapping the treaty
with the Nisga'a.
This is another reason the Bloc Quebecois cannot support the
motion.
Nor do we agree that a constitutional amendment is required. A
number of legal experts have commented on this. There is one I
would like to cite, for the record. I am referring to Mr. Hogg,
of York University, who says, and I quote:
[English]
As a matter of policy, in my opinion, it would be undesirable to
hold a referendum every time a treaty is entered into with
aboriginal people. These treaties are intended to provide
clarity and certainty to aboriginal rights that have been held by
aboriginal people since before European settlement. The treaties
are long complicated documents reflecting years of negotiation
and much compromise on both sides. It would be very difficult to
communicate all the issues in a balanced way in a province-wide
referendum campaign.
If a referendum were held and the treaty was defeated, the
problem of achieving clarity and certainty would not go away.
The aboriginal people would have to use the courts to vindicate
their rights to land, resources and self-government. The Supreme
Court of Canada said in the Delgamuukw case that it was willing
to do that, but that it was better for governments to reach
negotiated agreements with aboriginal people. I agree with the
Court.
[Translation]
It is therefore very clear. Once the court route is taken,
there will be no end to the appeals to postpone this type of
treaty. The democratic progress of the Nisga'a can no more be
thwarted than can the democratic progress of the people of
Quebec.
Democratic action to liberate peoples cannot be blocked by the
courts, any more than by armies or, I would even argue, by
parliaments.
To achieve greater autonomy is a basic desire of any people, and
I find that the Quebec people and the Nisga'a people are very
similar in this.
I wish to tell the Nisga'a, and those who are watching us today,
that the Bloc Quebecois is going to support this undertaking for
complete freedom of this people, so that they may in future be
masters of their own destiny and no longer have to depend on
legislatures and courts to settle their fundamental issues.
1110
I wish to tell Joe Gosnell and the Nisga'a people that they must
continue their demands to paddle their own canoe, and that the
Bloc Quebecois intends to give them a hand in this, so that they
may, once and for all, take possession of the lands that have
always been theirs.
[English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am not surprised that the Bloquistes are speaking
against this motion. They at least are being consistent and true
to their beliefs, unlike certain members opposite.
I wonder what the hon. member's comment would be with respect to
the creation of a mini-state within our state or what he feels
Mr. Bouchard would say if he were to be accorded, on a silver
platter, all of the possibilities of government, all of the areas
of overriding power which are going to be granted to the Nisga'a
in this treaty, such as fisheries, wildlife, the adoption of
children, citizenship, culture and language, expropriation of
lands, health services, family services and education.
Does the hon. member believe that if the province of Quebec were
handed the same deal which this government is proposing to hand
to the Nisga'a it would not only be happy but absolutely
overjoyed?
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question
and I am glad it has been raised.
The Nisga'a treaty is a modern treaty. The James Bay agreement
paved the way for it. All that the hon. colleague has just said
about the powers to be given to the aboriginal people, we
already handed over in 1975, and then a few years later again
with the Naskapi.
Of course, there are certain areas of jurisdiction which passed
from a provincial or federal level to the aboriginal level.
But it is all done through agreements, like the agreements that
now exist between the three levels of government, the aboriginal
government, the provincial government and the federal
government.
The federal or provincial government decides what it will give
to aboriginals and this is simply a recognition of their
distinct approach or culture. Pan-Canadian or pan-provincial
programs are not the way to satisfy these people, with their own
particular approach to their culture, their health and their
education.
For the information of my hon. colleague, we have already done
this, and we see many similarities with the Nisga'a situation
today. As I see it, the James Bay agreement was a
groundbreaking model that people rely on today when drawing up
modern treaties, which resemble it in many ways.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there must have been an error in translation because I kept
hearing the member opposite use the word liberate, as though the
Nisga'a want to be liberated in the same sense that some
sovereignists want to separate from the rest of Canada.
What the Nisga'a want in this treaty is to join. The treaty is
all about giving the Nisga'a a sense of cultural unity with the
rest of Canada at the same time as their culture is respected.
This country is the creation of three great founding peoples:
those who speak English, those who speak French and those who are
of the aboriginal heritage who speak many languages. They were
the ones who welcomed us and made it possible for the English and
French speaking people to survive in the wilderness.
I suggest to the member opposite that he consider the Nisga'a in
the sense of belonging to this country. I reject his premise
that the Nisga'a need to be liberated. That is not the point at
all.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell my colleague
that there has been no interpretation error. I maintain that
the Nisga'a, through their government—because there will be a
Nisga'a government—are now going to be liberated from their
previous great dependence on the federal government.
1115
I urge the hon. member to read the report of the Royal
Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Aboriginal peoples everywhere
are seeking liberation and self-government. They want to get off
the reserves. They want control over their lives, and an end to
Ottawa taking decisions on their behalf.
For me, and for Quebec, this is also a step towards liberation.
[English]
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in
reading the Reform motion before us today, the first thing that
struck me in reading it was that the Reform Party is pursuing the
exact same agenda as the B.C. Liberals.
What is that agenda? It is an agenda about dividing people. It
is an agenda about creating fear and uncertainty. It is an
agenda that actually sabotages the progress that is being made in
bringing about an historic agreement with the Nisga'a people. It
is an agenda that creates red herrings and smoke screens.
Let us be very clear. The Reform Party does not want
clarification of this treaty by the supreme court. Reformers
have the same access to legal opinions as any other member or
political party. They do not want clarification. They want to
destroy the democratic process that has been in place, to bring
about a 111-year struggle, to finally have a modern day treaty
with the Nisga'a people.
If Reform members are surprised by the strong response which all
members of this House, other than themselves, have to this
motion, it is not just because of the motion that is before us
today, as my NDP colleague pointed out earlier, it is because day
after day, week after week, month after month we have heard
members of the Reform Party stand in this House and in public to
undermine, attack and reinforce any negative examples they can
find.
Is there any doubt that we would come to the conclusion that
they have a political agenda? It is not about clarification or
doing the right thing, but about undermining a democratic process
and creating fear among people. I find that appalling. I have
watched it in B.C. with the B.C. Liberals and now we are seeing
it with the Reform Party, whose agenda is identical.
We are told that this is about clarification of legal questions,
a very thoughtful approach. There are ample legal opinions
available which tell us that section 35 of the constitution
states that the treaty rights of aboriginal people have to be
respected. We know that section 35 covers previous treaties and
we know that it has provision and room to cover treaties in the
future. It is very clear that the Nisga'a treaty is not
something that constitutes a constitutional amendment. Legal
opinions, including that of the dean of Osgoode Hall and many
others, have very clearly outlined this, and the Reform Party
knows this full well.
It is interesting to note the following in today's debate in
looking at other positions the Reform Party has taken. Why is it
that in this particular instance Reformers want to go to the
supreme court, but in other instances, for example the child
pornography issue, they were jumping up and down, saying that we
could not go to the supreme court, that it was the powers of
parliament and the action of parliament that counted? All of a
sudden we have a double standard.
Why is it that members of the Reform Party challenge this, a
domestic treaty which is clearly within the context and the legal
confines of our constitution, the charter of rights and all of
our laws, but when we have international treaties like the MAI or
NAFTA, which do constitute a massive transfer of power from
democratically elected governments to multinational corporations,
there is silence? There is not a word. They are out there
campaigning and upholding that kind of direction. It is no
wonder there is a very strong response to this motion. This is
an issue of credibility on which the Reform Party has no leg to
stand on.
1120
I listened to the debate earlier today and I heard the member
for Skeena say that the charter of rights of Nisga'a people have
been put in peril. I thought, what does that mean?
First, the member never spelled it out, so I do not know what he
meant, but I thought it was quite a patronizing comment. We have
the Nisga'a people who, through their duly elected
representatives, have been full partners in a democratic process
to bring together this treaty and we have a Reform Party member
saying that it is the charter of rights of the Nisga'a people
themselves that is in peril.
I think the hypocrisy and the patronizing attitude that has come
forward from the Reform Party after so many months and years of
campaigning against rights and self-government for aboriginal
people is really something that is quite appalling.
Let us be very clear. The Nisga'a treaty does not create new
constitutional rights for the Nisga'a or anyone else. No one's
rights are affected. I would challenge the Reform Party to
dispute that.
What will this treaty do? For the very first time important
provincial laws will now apply to people who used to be exempt
from them because they were governed by the federal Indian Act.
This treaty does not create a racially based order of government.
On the contrary, it moves us away from what has been a very
dependent relationship.
The treaty provides powers within the constitution similar to
the powers that a municipality may have. It is very clear that
Nisga'a laws must conform to the charter of rights and freedoms
and to federal and provincial standards.
Contrary again to what members of the Reform Party and the B.C.
Liberals have been saying, non-Nisga'a who own land on Nisga'a
territory will pay property taxes to the province and the Nisga'a
can only tax their own people living on Nisga'a lands. The
Nisga'a will pay federal and provincial income taxes and sales
taxes. Let us get the record straight.
We also see in the motion that there is a reference made to
labour standards and that somehow these are undermined. I
thought that was a curious thing to be coming from the Reform
Party. I did a little research. I have a letter from the B.C.
Federation of Labour, dated April 21, 1999, from the then
president, Kenneth Georgetti, who stated:
The Labour movement in B.C. endorses wholeheartedly the
provisions respecting labour relations in the Nisga'a Agreement.
All labour rights under federal and provincial law are
maintained. This means that trade unions will continue to be
able to organize on treaty settlement land.
More than that, D.C. Haggard, President of I.W.A Canada, stated:
Members of Parliament, and the general public, should be aware
that the B.C. Federation of Labour met frequently with the
Nisga'a during the period of intense negotiations. I attended
many of those meetings.
He went on to state:
Since the laws and precedents under which those tribunals will
make decisions remain unchanged, the B.C. labour movement, and
I.W.A. Canada in particular, support those provisions and the
proposed Treaty.
That comes from the labour movement itself.
We have to be very clear about this motion today. It is members
of the Reform Party and the B.C. Liberals who are in cahoots on
this, and on many other things I might add. If they get their
way, what would happen? This is what we would have if we
followed their agenda. We would have more economic uncertainty.
We would be leaving land claim costs unresolved that amount to
billions of dollars in investment and development. We would also
have a situation where important land claims issues would be
settled by the courts, with all kinds of wrangling, instead of
through democratic, open, above-board negotiations where third
party interests are recognized and where public hearings are
held.
Again I refer to what Reform members said earlier today, that no
one bothered to listen, that there was no consultation. They
have to be joking. They should look at the record in B.C. There
were thousands of public hearings, there was public debate, and
committees of the legislature travelled around the province.
Let us be very clear. The Reform Party knows full well that the
Nisga'a agreement is not a constitutional amendment. I urge the
House to soundly reject this motion. Let us move forward on
human rights, on reconciliation with first nations people and on
settling land claims through goodwill, through negotiation; not
through court battles, not through roadblocks. Let us move
forward and let us reject this motion.
1125
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it takes some constraint to be able to express oneself after a
speech like that, in the face of the attitude from the Liberals
as well.
The member might be interested to know that later today I will
be delivering a speech to show exactly how the labour movement in
British Columbia, and indeed Bob White when he was retiring from
the Canadian Labour Congress, completely, totally, utterly fouled
up because they did not understand the implications of this act
with respect to the whole issue of the union movement.
However, I want to ask one specific question. The member has
chosen to continue to extend the myth that was created by the NDP
in Victoria that this act is nothing more than extending powers
similar to those of a municipality. If we were talking about the
Sechelt agreement, that statement would be true.
Could the hon. member tell me which other municipality, if
indeed that were true, has the ability to establish citizenship?
Which other municipality has the ability to extend taxation
without representation?
Ms. Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the member
was restrained. I think that is something that the Reform Party
is well known for, being restrained. Reform members are full of
restraint.
It surprises me that the line that is being pedalled is that it
is only members of the Reform Party who understand this
agreement. It is not the Nisga'a people, it is not the NDP, it
is not the Liberals, it is not the labour movement, it is not Bob
White, it is only members of the Reform Party who have seen the
problems, the alleged problems, of this agreement. We are all
intelligent people. We can read these agreements. We can come
to our own conclusions. I would again assert that the Reform
Party has a different agenda.
In terms of myths being perpetuated, I would suggest that it is
the Reform Party which is perpetuating myths about this
agreement. The fact is that the laws that would be conferred
under this agreement in no way violate the constitution, in no
way violate provincial law. They have been agreed to through due
process. They are within the context of the constitution. In
fact the myth that there is taxation without representation is
also false and totally incorrect. It is very clear that there
will be taxes paid and, if it is non-Nisga'a on Nisga'a land,
those taxes will go to the provincial government and the Nisga'a
laws will apply to Nisga'a people.
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I want to thank the member from British Columbia for that speech.
I note how refreshing it is in this House of Commons to see
somebody from British Columbia speaking clearly on this issue, as
is my colleague from British Columbia who is sitting beside me
now.
The people of British Columbia and those Canadians who have
watched this debate over the last number of months have
constantly heard members of the Reform Party referring to
themselves as speaking for the people of British Columbia, which
is absolutely false and untrue.
I know that the member has spoken well. There are many members
of parliament from British Columbia who support this deal.
The hon. member began her statements by making some presumptions
as to why the Reform Party is doing this. We have listened to
this for some time. The member from Winnipeg made that point.
What are the motivations behind the Reform Party in British
Columbia in opposing this deal?
Ms. Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I think the agenda of the
Reform Party is not really about dealing with substantive issues
around self-government and modern day treaties. I think the
Reform Party has an opportunity to play a very positive role in
that regard. Reform members have an opportunity to be at the
table.
However, as the member has suggested, I think there is a
different agenda.
1130
They understand there is uncertainty in what they do with many
other issues, whether taxation, social programs or the income tax
system. They play on that uncertainty and fear which divides
people. They play on peoples' emotions and set people against
each other. We have to stand up and say that we will not
tolerate it.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome the opportunity to discuss the Nisga'a treaty and to
address the motion before us today.
I will make one prefacing remark on what the minister said, and
I think we should all remember it. All debate is legitimate. All
of us may not agree on debate in that we may have different
points of view coming from different areas of the country, but
all debate is legitimate. I welcome this debate even though I do
not agree with everything that has been said today.
The motion deals with a number of issues affecting not only the
Nisga'a treaty but also other tangential aspects that have been
discussed in relation to the treaty, issues such as the Musqueam
first nation in British Columbia, a subject I want to touch upon
later.
I have had the opportunity to meet with members of the Nisga'a
first nation on two occasions to discuss this treaty. It is my
intention to travel to British Columbia this summer to look at
the situation on the ground in B.C. and to speak not only to
members of the Nisga'a Tribal Council but to Nisga'a members
themselves and to the non-native population in and around the
Nass Valley. I am hoping to have the opportunity to meet with
all members in the area.
The Nisga'a treaty is the first modern day treaty to be signed
in British Columbia and represents the end of a long process by
which the Nisga'a people want to have their own land claim
recognized. The treaty will provide the Nisga'a people with an
opportunity to gain greater self-reliance and self-sufficiency.
Moreover, it recognizes their inherent right to self-government.
The PC Party supports initiatives that advance these objectives.
That is why we have supported legislation like Bill C-49, the
First Nations Land Management Act. That bill will allow 14 first
nations to take control over the management of resources on
reserves. It removes them from the overbearing and restrictive
requirements of the Indian Act, something that is taken even
further in the Nisga'a treaty.
The Nisga'a treaty covers a wide range of issues since it will
provide the Nisga'a people with not only 2,000 square kilometres
of land but a Nisga'a only commercial fishery and salmon
allocation, jurisdiction over the judicial system, a police
force, and an environmental assessment and protection authority.
At the same time the Nisga'a people will begin to pay taxes on a
phased in approach over eight and twelve years.
The motion before us today specifically mentions the Musqueam
first nation and the problem which has erupted between the
tenants and the first nation regarding third party leases. This
problem is obviously contentious and has been generating
significant amounts of attention.
As a member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and
Northern Development I have had the opportunity to listen to the
concerns of representatives of the Musqueam park tenants. Their
problems are to a great extent due to the lease rates established
in their lease agreement. This is the kind of problem that could
occur anywhere in Canada and is not restricted to first nation
agreements.
Anytime someone enters into a lease agreement it is important to
understand the implications of the terms of that agreement. On
the other hand, the Musqueam park tenants are now faced with
significant financial obligations. Obviously no one wants to see
the same situation repeated on Nisga'a land.
A dispute like the Musqueam one hurts all parties involved since
the negative publicity decreases the value of the land. This is
a problem for both the tenants and the landlord because it is a
source of revenue for first nations to be able to lease land to
third party members.
With the Nisga'a people facing unemployment levels of around
60%, I assume all options for revenue generation will be
considered. In fact that is one of the advantages of the treaty
not only for the Nisga'a people but for the surrounding
communities. With a compensation package of $190 million there
should be economic spinoffs for neighbouring communities as well
as for the Nisga'a people.
Looking at specific aspects of the Nisga'a treaty, I have some
concerns about things like the salmon allocation and the
commercial fishery for the Nisga'a people. This was something I
raised at the meeting with the Nisga'a people. I understand that
they have a vested interest in ensuring that a sustainable and a
healthy fishery exists.
At the same time, however, I question the impact it will have on
future treaties which will be negotiated in British Columbia and
on the commercial fishing industry in general.
1135
The Nisga'a treaty may not be a template for future treaties but
it will nevertheless set a benchmark against which to compare
agreements. The Sechelt first nation has recently reached
another step toward its own final agreement and it is different
in many aspects from the Nisga'a treaty.
There will be future treaties that will look at what the Nisga'a
treaty has and has not accomplished and be negotiated based on
that information. The impact this will have on the commercial
fishery in British Columbia is something that will be determined
some time in the future but should be considered now.
The motion suggests that the question of the Nisga'a treaty
changing the constitution and therefore requiring a referendum in
British Columbia should be addressed by the supreme court. While
I do not have the legal background to address this issue and do
it justice, I suggest that past events would point to other
avenues.
Parliament has been criticized for giving greater power to the
judiciary. It is interesting that the Reform Party in particular
has been quick to state on a number of occasions that the
judiciary is too involved in the shaping of public policy in the
country. It has stated that judges should not legislate yet the
motion today calls for a reference to the supreme court. Is this
a double standard? It criticizes using the supreme court on
issues of public policy yet when it is something it does not like
it is quick to propose using the courts.
I conclude by saying that the Nisga'a treaty is a step in the
right direction. The supreme court made it clear in the
Delgamuukw decision that negotiated settlement is the way to
proceed with land claims. This is an example of such a process,
one that the Conservative government recognized in the 1980s when
the process was ongoing.
It will be an interesting debate when the legislation for this
treaty is introduced to parliament. I look forward to addressing
it at that time.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if my hon. colleague believes that the pursuit of the
current treaty negotiations is a good thing, how does he account
for the fact that treaties have been negotiated in hundreds and
hundreds of reserves for people east of the Rockies?
When one compares the situation of reserves east of the Rockies
with the reserves in British Columbia, one finds little or no
difference between the condition of the people in both those
reserves. Therefore one can assume that the negotiation of
treaties in and of themselves is not a way toward political and
economic emancipation for these people.
Mr. Clark, the Premier of British Columbia, mentioned before
enacting closure in the legislature that indeed a new third level
of government was be creating and that this level of government
would be required to negotiate the treaties with the new levels
of government? This new third level of government and the
ensuing increase of bureaucracy in the provincial government will
swallow up a lot of money that could better be used to help the
aboriginal people on the ground. Does the hon. member agree with
those comments?
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the second
question first. Both questions of the hon. member are excellent
questions. They are exactly the types of questions we need to
ask in this debate.
On the third level of government, I agree we are establishing a
third level of government. It is something beyond what has been
discussed in the Parliament of Canada or in the treaty process
previously. It is not a municipal style of government similar to
what the Sechelt agreement or the Musqueam agreement brought in.
It is a step further that we all need to look at very carefully
and cautiously. We must all recognize exactly what it is.
On the first question, I do not think we can judge the treaties
signed or not signed in eastern Canada. All of eastern Canada
does not have a treaty process in place. We cannot judge treaty
8, treaty 6, treaty 4 or treaty 2, but we can look at first
nations communities across the country.
1140
I ask the hon. member whether the problem is the treaty process
or the lack of some type of completion in the treaty process. Has
it been the restrictions of the Indian Act, which at best has
been a piece of prejudiced legislation and at worst probably
supported an apartheid type of regime?
I would tend to put more blame on the Indian Act and less on the
treaty process. If we bring in treaties that have some finality
to them and we give some empowerment to first nations that allows
them to carry on in some economic regime and build some power
base for themselves to benefit from the fruits of their labour,
as all Canadians benefit from the fruits of their labour, then I
think we have done something.
I would agree that both questions are good questions. I am not
answering completely the first one because I think it is a part
of future debate.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague
for his concise answer. Does the hon. member feel that we can
scrap the Indian Act and pursue a process of economic
emancipation and independence without necessarily pursuing
political independence?
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure we can scrap
the Indian Act by snapping our fingers. I think it is much more
complicated than that. The exact reason the P.C. Party supported
Bill C-49 is that it takes first nations out from under the
Indian Act and allows them to have control of their own resources
on their own reserves without going to the minister and without
going through the Indian Act.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the motion. It affects
the people in my province of British Columbia, but the fact is
that it will affect Canadians from coast to coast. This is the
template that will be used to negotiate more than 120 agreements
within my province and to negotiate agreements across the country
as treaties will be renegotiated as a result of the Nisga'a
agreement.
I congratulate the member for Skeena, the member for Wild Rose
and other colleagues who have done much to bring the plight of
aboriginal people to the forefront.
We have been engaging in a situation that has kept the political
foot on the necks of the most impoverished people in the country.
Through political manoeuvring for 140 years the Indian Act has
kept a political foot on the necks of aboriginal people.
Our common objective is to change the egregious situation which
affects aboriginal people from coast to coast on and off reserve.
They suffer from the highest rates of suicide, murder,
tuberculosis, diabetes, social impoverishment and child abuse in
the country. These terrible situations are symptoms of a much
larger problem.
The problem is that aboriginal people have been made wards of
the government and the country. We have pursued a course of
segregation and separation which has kept aboriginal people
separate and apart from the rest of society. We are very happy
that within the constitution there are requirements to ensure
aboriginal people have their culture, language and lives in the
traditional ways expressed and entrenched within that document.
We cannot, nor should we, ever go back to the situation that
existed years ago when the culture, language and basic rights of
these people were trampled upon. However, what we are doing
right now through the Nisga'a agreement will not make things
better. It will make things worse. For that reason the Reform
Party is opposing the Nisga'a deal.
At the end of the day our common objective is to improve the
terrible situation which exists on aboriginal reserves. However,
how we will do it is where we differ, and I will get into that a
bit later.
1145
I have seen people who have been raped, abused, murdered.
Children have been abused, shot, knifed. People are impoverished
and live in terrible conditions and circumstances which I have
not seen since I worked in Africa. These circumstances exist in
our country, a country that we believe and are told by the United
Nations is the best country in the world. That may be so for a
part of our population, but clearly it is not so for aboriginal
people.
We want to engage in a process of economic and political
emancipation and political integration for aboriginal people.
Economic emancipation is not conditional upon political
independence. That is what the Nisga'a agreement puts together.
It is political independence to a degree because it creates a new
level of government. One of the primary proponents of the
Nisga'a deal, Mr. Glen Clark, premier of British Columbia, said
in the legislature that the Nisga'a deal is going to entrench a
third level of government.
We also oppose this because the deal entrenches political and
economic power in the hands of a few. It entrenches it in the
hands of the leadership of the Nisga'a people. It does not
entrench it in the hands of the rank and file people. What we
have seen in our country for 140 years, and what we see today and
will see tomorrow if the deal goes through, is that the rank and
file aboriginal people are excluded from the power and the wealth
that has accrued to them.
There are examples of aboriginal reserves that operate very well
because they have a very powerful, strong and fair leadership
that works for the people. Unfortunately that is not so in many
cases across the country. The auditor general has repeatedly
mentioned the plight of grassroots aboriginal people, their
suffering and the abuses in some cases by aboriginal leaderships.
The aboriginal leaderships in too many communities are taking
the resources and the wealth that have accrued to them through
our system and are not sharing them properly with their people.
If we are going to change and improve the health and welfare of
aboriginal people, rather than pursue a Nisga'a deal, let us work
with them and give them the tools to take care of themselves. It
does not matter whether we are aboriginal or non-aboriginal, we
have to be able to contribute to our families, to ourselves and
to our society if we are going to have the pride and self-respect
necessary to carry on.
If we were wards of the federal government, the provincial
government and the aboriginal leaderships and resources were
given to us by virtue of who we were without working for them, we
would not have the pride and self-respect which is necessary to
change the terrible dislocates within these communities. Pride
and self-respect come from being able to contribute to ourselves,
to our families and to our communities. Rank and file aboriginal
people have not had that opportunity.
Rather than pursue the Nisga'a deal that is going to cost the
taxpayers more than $500 million and which will drain limited
resources to develop a bureaucracy within provincial governments
and within an aboriginal structure, would it not make more sense
to use that money for health care for these people and to give
these people skills training to become productive employable
members in their society?
We are not just talking about the people on reserve. We cannot
forget the large numbers of aboriginal people who flocked to the
city to look for hope. They fled the reserves where they had no
hope yet in the cities and without the skills and tools to
survive they find themselves in the same situation they were in
or worse.
1150
I have pleaded with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development to please look into the situation occurring on the
reserves today. Please act on behalf of these people. Do not
ignore their pleas for help. Do not continually tell the
grassroots aboriginal people to go to the police or their
leadership, who in many cases are strangling their own people.
She must help them.
Over $7 billion is poured into aboriginal affairs, yet what do
these people have to show for it? In many cases their situation
now is more pitiful than it was five, ten or twenty years ago.
Money is not the cure. Political independence is not the cure.
The Nisga'a deal is not the cure. It is in ensuring that
aboriginal people have the power and the responsibility to take
care of themselves and their families in their communities.
Therein lies the opportunity, the hope and the chance for them to
end a situation that is an embarrassment for everybody in the
House, but more important is a terrible tragedy and a pain for
the people who endure it.
The Nisga'a deal fails on many counts, as my hon. colleague from
Skeena and others have mentioned. It fails to provide for the
people. It fails to ensure that the people have the power. It
fails to ensure that we have a workable situation for both
aboriginals and non-aboriginals.
At the end of the day, we must work together to build a stronger
society. Separated we will sink; together we will survive and do
well. The Nisga'a deal unfortunately segregates aboriginals and
non-aboriginals. It moves them apart. It will only further the
prejudice aboriginal people endure. That is not good and it
needs to change.
We hope that the government looks at this deal again. We hope
it does not pass the Nisga'a deal. We hope it invests in
aboriginal people. We hope it listens to the grassroots
aboriginal people and not necessarily to their leadership. We
hope it puts the obligation, responsibility and accountability on
the leadership to make sure the resources for the people are
going to be used for the betterment of them and not merely put
into a huge sinkhole that is not going to benefit the aboriginal
people at all.
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I want to thank the hon. member for his comments. I know he has
spoken on these issues before.
I would like to take note of his broad sweeping approach to the
discussions. He talked about economic emancipation for
aboriginal people and said that if they are just given resources
it is not helpful to them, that it creates poor character, as it
were. He also mentioned that as a result of all this the
aboriginal people flock to the cities as economic refugees, as it
were.
I would like some clarification. Could the hon. member tell the
House precisely what he meant when he said that just giving
resources to the reserves somehow diminishes the character of the
aboriginal people, that something happens to them and they become
lazy and so on and so forth? Could he perhaps clarify for the
House precisely what he meant by that?
The hon. member is a physician and one who has spent time
working with aboriginal people. If he could quickly outline just
two points on that second matter, what would his plans be for
economic development for some of our first nations communities?
What would he advise the Canadian people to do?
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
parliamentary secretary for his questions. Unfortunately, he
misinterpreted my statements but I will be happy to correct that.
Regardless of a person's race, giving things to people creates
an economic welfare state. We have created an institutionalized
welfare state for aboriginal people by giving them things.
We need to give people, aboriginal or non-aboriginal, the power
to provide for themselves.
1155
I suggest we ensure that aboriginal people have the skills and
the technology to provide for themselves, that we make a huge
investment in health care and education for the people and that
there be an obligation to move forward from that. I suggest also
that we scrap the racist Indian Act, that we treat aboriginal
people and non-aboriginal with the same rights and
responsibilities.
I have addressed the two points. Scrap the Indian Act. Invest
in economic opportunities. Also we must ensure that there are
political opportunities along the lines of the municipal powers
that non-aboriginals have.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Madam Speaker, my
understanding is that in the fresh start booklet the Reform Party
advocates that aboriginal communities should resemble or be
structured more or less in the same way as a municipality. My
understanding at least in my reading of the Nisga'a deal is that
is exactly the goal the negotiators of the Nisga'a deal set out
to achieve. The Nisga'a will have a government comparable to a
municipality and subject to the Canadian constitution.
Can the member point out where the Nisga'a deal fails to set out
a structure like a municipality which would be in keeping with
Reform's fresh start manual?
Mr. Keith Martin: Madam Speaker, the powers in the words
of the premier of British Columbia create a new third level of
government. Clearly this is not a municipal government.
Municipal governments are given powers by the province. The
province has the right to take the powers away. This is not the
case in this situation.
The powers the Nisga'a government would have would fall under
provincial and federal levels. Furthermore, where there is a
conflict between federal, provincial and Nisga'a powers, the
Nisga'a powers would supersede the federal and provincial powers.
Those are the two clearest examples.
The bottom line is not the pursuit of political independence.
The pursuit should be to create economic independence for
aboriginal people by aboriginal people, political emancipation
not political independence, but political integration with
non-aboriginal people. Only if we engage in political and
economic integration while ensuring that aboriginal people have
their traditional rights preserved as is done under section 35 of
the constitution, will we be able to move forward with a liveable
and effective society for everybody in the future.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the challenge for me in speaking to the official
opposition motion on the Nisga'a agreement is how I address
something in 10 minutes that I have been talking about since
1995.
I believe that both levels of government in their eagerness to
embrace the Nisga'a agreement have manipulated the facts and
misrepresented the public interest. The federal government is
imposing on British Columbia a deal it was not prepared to impose
on itself in the Yukon or the Northwest Territories. The federal
government is imposing on Canadians a deal with the Nisga'a that
the separatists in Quebec would welcome with open arms. Contrast
this with the federal posture toward Toronto, a city state that
Ottawa refuses to recognize.
The B.C. government through its eagerness is leaving hundreds of
millions of dollars worth of federal transfers on the table by
virtue of a poorly configured, poorly negotiated and one-sided
federal-provincial cost sharing memorandum for treaties. The
B.C. government is a willing participant in an agreement that
threatens the fiscal integrity of its citizens. The official
opposition, federally and provincially, oppose the current
configuration of the agreement.
The great irony is that upon either party forming a government,
their hands are tied. The final agreement states that no party,
federal, provincial or Nisga'a, may challenge any provisions of
the agreement and any amendments require the consent of all three
parties. That is a veto.
The Nisga'a agreement is to prevail over federal or provincial
law in the event of inconsistency or conflict. We must remember
Meech Lake and Charlottetown.
1200
In March 1995, I presented my analysis of the Nisga'a deal at
that time largely from an evaluation of the forest resource. I
projected the costs of settling land claims in British Columbia
at $8.5 billion. The provincial aboriginal affairs minister said
that I was extrapolating figures from various sources in order to
scare people. Just seven months later the same minister stated
that the total B.C. compensation package would exceed $10
billion. Let us remember that I said $8.5 billion just months
earlier. It was a very puzzling admission given his earlier
statement and not a statement to inspire confidence in the
negotiators. Now some analysts are forecasting costs to exceed
$20 billion.
The department of Indian affairs bureaucracy has used treaty
making as an excuse to avoid responsibility and to cover its
total failure at representing the interests of rank and file band
members. It has had a fixation on chiefs and high visibility
events and politics has continued to take precedence over
competent management.
Native Indians have the worst statistics in the country. They
deserve better. Canadians in general and the rank and file
native population clearly place priority on solving social
problems. Instead, the agenda has been hijacked by academics,
lawyers, advisers, consultants and self-serving interests in
large part so that the focus has been on seeking unconstrained
self-government.
At the end of 1996, the negotiators for the Nisga'a stated that
their negotiation costs to date were $31 million. Many people
will say that would have been better spent in giving several
aboriginal communities clean drinking water.
In the past, I offered some specific recommendations to both
senior governments. Contrary to statements by the minister,
Reform is in the business of offering constructive alternatives.
Federal and provincial negotiators are non-stakeholders in the
results of the local negotiations in rural British Columbia
because they are from Ottawa, Saskatchewan, Vancouver or
Victoria. They should be at least regionally based individuals
with some connection to the area under consideration.
The second point is finality. Contrary to public expectations,
the arrangement entrenches special aboriginal interests on crown
lands outside the Nisga'a settlement lands. The public
expectation is that aboriginals would have equal rights with
other Canadians outside the settlement lands.
The third point is that the agreement should clearly state that
Nisga'a members will be covered by the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Although this may follow from removing most provisions of the
Indian Act, a clear statement that the Canadian Human Rights Act
applies would be helpful. Currently, Indians living under the
Indian Act cannot pursue a case of discrimination through the
provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act. They are excluded.
I will now talk about some specifics regarding the Nisga'a
government. The agreement authorizes the Nisga'a to formulate
and adopt their own constitution, which is exactly what Lucien
Bouchard wants to do and this government rejects, at least
for Quebec.
The lawmaking powers of the Nisga'a legislator are extensive and
include: to decide Nisga'a citizenship, Nisga'a culture,
environmental assessment projects on Nisga'a lands and assets;
to protect public order, peace and safety; the administration of
justice; taxation; forest, lands and resources; fisheries and
wildlife; subsurface rights; provision of social services to
Nisga'a citizens; health services on Nisga'a lands; adoption of
Nisga'a children; child and family services; preschool to grade
12 education of Nisga'a citizens on Nisga'a lands; post-secondary
education within Nisga'a lands; controlled possession, sale or
consumption of intoxicants on Nisga'a lands; Nisga'a police
services, including a Nisga'a police board; a Nisga'a court to
administer Nisga'a laws and corrections centres.
1205
If Lucien Bouchard was offered all this, would he say, “No
thanks?” This list represents a major divestiture of
legislative power from the Parliament of Canada to what is to be
in effect the parliament of the Nisga'a central government.
Apart from the Nisga'a legislature, there will be a bureaucracy
to administer Nisga'a laws, programs and institutions. The
agreement calls for a number of boards to oversee a host of
matters. With an adult Nisga'a population of about 1,200
residents in the area, one wonders who will not be working for
the new government.
The new Nisga'a government is to be given the power to impose
taxes on persons or businesses that own and have interest in land
within the area. If such persons are non-Nisga'a, they cannot
vote in Nisga'a government elections but they would pay taxes.
This is a classic case of taxation without representation. It is
racially based taxation.
Evelyn Gillespie, the NDP MLA for the Comox Valley, recently
wrote that the Nisga'a final agreement provides the Nisga'a with
a municipal style government. She said this knowing that the
people fully support municipal powers, as do I. The reality is
that no municipal government has any status under the
constitution while the Nisga'a will. This is the third order of
government sought by former Assembly of First Nations leader,
Ovide Mercredi, and rejected by his own people and by a majority
of Canadians in the referendum on the Charlottetown accord.
Nisga'a citizenship and not residency determines who votes.
Would Jacques Parizeau not love to have that? The Nisga'a
agreement retains one part only of the Indian Act. This is the
very worst part, that which defines who is an Indian. The
tragedy of the Indian Act is that registered Indians are treated
differently by government than other Canadians, usually to their
detriment. Why would anyone want to perpetuate this difference
constitutionally? A Nisga'a committee will review bloodlines to
protect prospective citizens. Incredibly this is what we are
entrenching in our constitution.
Registered Indians are 2.5% of the B.C. population of whom half
live on reserves or pursue what can be remotely considered to be
a traditional native lifestyle. There must be a better way.
What would I do? I will summarize it this way. I would make
the negotiating mandate public; compensate aboriginals for what
the courts recognize as their modest aboriginal entitlement;
establish aboriginal governments consistent with municipal style
governments, similar to the Sechelt Indian government; subject
the Nisga'a and all other native persons to the same tax system
as other Canadians; ensure finality and certainty; and, keep it
simple.
New Zealand eventually tired of a never-ending agenda and did
just that.
Hon. Raymond Chan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific), Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I have one question for the Reform Party. If they
are such believers in the rule of law and in the authority of the
Supreme Court of Canada, then they have to accept all decisions
by the Supreme Court of Canada and not choose between what things
they like and what things they do not like.
The Supreme Court has said the constitution is legal and
aboriginal rights are provided for in the constitution. This
Nisga'a treaty is based on aboriginal rights that the courts
continue to say that we have to negotiate what these aboriginal
rights are. This is what this Nisga'a treaty is all about.
Does the Reform Party not know that there has already been a
constitutional challenge in the B.C. court and the court has said
that it would be more appropriate for the courts to consider
questions related to the constitutionality of the treaty when the
full legislative record is available to the courts for
consideration.
1210
Why do members of the Reform Party want to now, before passing
legislation recognizing the treaty, refer it to the law courts?
If they believe in the rule of law, and if our constitution gives
aboriginal rights to natives, why would they say that those are
not the rights they want? They do not want to give them any
rights. They just want to abolish the Indian Act and treat
everybody the same, denying aboriginals their legal rights? They
are not such a big defender of rights for all as far as I can
see.
Mr. John Duncan: Madam Speaker, that question was not to
the Reform Party, it was to the member for Vancouver Island
North. We recognize existing aboriginal rights as defined by
section 35 of the constitution. We are quite aware of that. No
one would argue the case.
We are aware of the judgments that have occurred in the supreme
court. We are also aware of the myths that are propagated by the
federal and provincial governments as to what constitutes the
decision making by those courts and the spin that is put on those
decision. The aboriginal entitlement, the modest compensation
that has been put forward consistently by the Supreme Court of
Canada, is far different from what is reflected in agreements
such as the Nisga'a agreement.
I will point out to the member who posed the question that his
very own government has supported a variety of agreements. In
British Columbia we have, for example, the Sechelt Indian
government, which has been in effect since 1985 or 1986. It is a
municipal style government. I have no difficulty at all in
endorsing the Sechelt agreement. It very much represents the
rank and file members of that band, with all of the
accountability and democracy very much in evidence.
Only the Liberal Party in this place would suggest, as the
member did, that we can achieve equality by not treating everyone
equally. I find this to be something I philosophically cannot
buy into. We should in every way be attempting to move people
together not split them farther apart. I think that is what
divides the official opposition from the government on this
issue.
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I should give the House due notice that I am splitting
my time with the member for Vancouver Quadra, who I know will be
eager to speak to these issues and speak to them well and
competently.
I am pleased to rise in my place to respond to the motion by the
member for Skeena. Before I go into my written notes, I did not
have an opportunity to ask the member for Vancouver Island North
a question, but perhaps I can make a comment. He can respond
privately to me later if he likes.
The point I want to make about the legislation we are
contemplating here in the House and as part of the motion, is
that it is not race based government at all. It is based on
citizenry. Anyone can become a citizen of the Nisga'a place.
If the member for Skeena or the member for Vancouver Island
North would like to undertake the process of becoming Nisga'a
citizens, I could meet with the Nisga'a people. Being
non-aboriginal persons themselves, I would like to inform the
House that I would be more than willing to undertake that if they
are willing. This would clearly and categorically demonstrate to
them both that it is not race based government at all. If the
member for Skeena would like to become a Nisga'a citizen, I would
make that application for him beginning today.
The hon. member for Skeena, who put the motion for the
opposition, has asked that the House recognize public concern in
British Columbia over the Nisga'a treaty and self-government.
1215
I say respectfully to my good friend that we on this side of the
House fully acknowledge that Canadians in all parts of this
country recognize the significance of the Nisga'a final
agreement. We know that the Nisga'a treaty will bring us into a
new chapter in Canadian history. Unlike the members opposite, we
will not try to hold on to the ragged script that has governed
our past.
Three of the members opposite used the words racist Indian Act.
Perhaps they are correct.
Unlike the members opposite we will not try to hold on to these
old ways of the past which they seem to fight against in their
Reform Party rhetoric. We will not enter into this new chapter
of Canada's story without due regard for what has come before.
We will respect the rights of individuals and minorities and
will pay heed to the independence of the legislative and judicial
branches of government. That is why the government could not in
good faith accept the premise on which the opposition's motion is
based, that we as legislators should abrogate our duty to address
those matters of policy which shape Canada's history, its
identity and its future.
It would be irresponsible for the government to take debate
about the Nisga'a treaty from the hands of Canada's elected
representatives and place it in the lap of the judiciary, a
judiciary I might add that has encouraged this most recently in
the Delgamuukw case. I ask the member to read the words of the
supreme court justice and others who wrote that opinion to
negotiate rather than litigate land claims.
The member spoke about the $31 million that was used, for
example, for negotiations and said, astoundingly, that it should
be used for sewer and water projects. I absolutely agree. If the
member honestly believes that, would he then oppose his own party
and help me here today in voting against this motion to stop what
it wants to do with this motion which is to go back to court? It
is preposterous. Let us recognize the opposition motion for what
it really is, a failure to respect Canada's constitutional values
which the Reform Party cannot, will not and has not embraced.
I remind members opposite of the decision of Mr. Justice
Williamson of the Supreme Court of British Columbia in the recent
Campbell case. In his reasons his lordship reviewed the basis on
which a court might consider questions about the
constitutionality of the Nisga'a treaty. Paragraph 11 of his
lordship's decision affirms “the constitutional validity of the
legislation”—and he is referring here to the Nisga'a final
agreement—“arises only after the bill has been passed by both
houses of parliament, received royal assent and become law”.
In other words his lordship is saying to this House that he
respects the rule of law and parliament. He is giving us in
deference to that, proper authority that parliament would debate
this and pass this and the courts would then make their judgement
on it. Why does the Reform Party want to usurp that proper
jurisdictional ruling by the B.C. court?
Mr. Lou Sekora: Because they are racist.
Mr. David Iftody: Madam Speaker, paragraph 11 of his
lordship's decision affirms that the constitutional—
Mr. Mike Scott: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Clearly the member from Coquitlam, in speaking out of
turn was—
Mr. Lou Sekora: You are racist. You know you are.
Mr. Mike Scott: Madam Speaker, that language is clearly
unparliamentary. I would ask the Chair to ask the member to
apologize.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Yes, you are quite
right. I ask the member to withdraw his remarks.
Mr. Randy White: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of
privilege. It is not enough for a member to stand up twice in
this House and call another individual a racist; he does it and
gets away with it. This kind of attitude and this kind of
comment from the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam
is absolutely unacceptable. I ask that you turf him out of here
for a day.
1220
Mr. Pat Martin: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same question of
privilege.
The debate has been heated throughout the day. When other
speakers were in the Chair, there were remarks made from this
side of the House toward NDP speakers, swear words, a common
vulgar word starting with a that I will not repeat. We did
not bother raising a question of privilege or point of order
because we recognize that in the passion of the debate things are
said. They were not said into the record. They were said during
the debate and not on any formal record.
Seeing as these issues were not dealt with I would ask that the
same latitude—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): This is the last
point of order on this. The hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford.
Mr. Randy White: Madam Speaker, let me put this into
perspective.
I think one of the ministers just said we say it. The fact is
we do not say it. I refer you, Madam Speaker, to rules of debate
in Beauchesne's sixth edition. In citation 492 the word racist is
one of the prohibited words.
The NDP member who just spoke is talking about something else
that is quite irrelevant to the discussion we will be having here
for a little bit.
The individual opposite, the member for Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam not only said it once but he
said it twice knowing full well that when he uttered
unparliamentary language in the House he could get away with it
and all that was going to happen was that he would be asked to
withdraw the comment.
Madam Speaker, I submit to you that it is not acceptable for an
individual to keep repeating words and you asking for their
withdrawal—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The Chair has already
ruled on that. The member opposite has withdrawn his remark and
we will leave it at that.
Mr. Richard M. Harris: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point
of order. It is my understanding that when members rise in the
House in order to be recognized for anything they may say they
must be in their place.
The member from Port Coquitlam was not in his place. Therefore
I believe that the Speaker is in order to request a withdrawal,
at the very least, while the member is seated in his place. He
uttered the word racist on two occasions and continues to.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): At this point I would
like to ask the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port
Coquitlam now that he is sitting at his desk to officially
withdraw his remarks.
Mr. Lou Sekora: Madam Speaker, I withdraw my comments.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Now we can proceed.
Mr. David Iftody: Madam Speaker, thank you for your
ruling. I do appreciate it. I believe my colleague from
Winnipeg North was engaged in a similar problem with the Reform
Party this morning.
The word racist was used a number of times in the House by
Reform Party members in terms of referring to the Indian Act.
Mr. Richard M. Harris: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point
of order.
During the debate there is no member of the Reform Party, the
official opposition, since we came to this place in 1989, who has
ever had the disrespect to call anybody in the House a racist.
That is the lowest form of insult in my opinion. For the member
to suggest in any way—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid that we
are now entering debate, so we will resume debate with the
parliamentary secretary.
1225
Mr. David Iftody: Madam Speaker, I did not suggest that
any member from the Reform Party called any member here racist.
I suggested, and the record can be checked, that Reform members
referred to the Indian Act as racist. That word was used in the
House. However I would prefer, if I may, to proceed with my
comments.
I referred to the B.C. supreme court decision. Mr. Justice
Williamson states in his reasons in paragraph 28 “It is
essential that the courts respect the right of parliament to
exercise unfettered freedom in the formulation, tabling,
amendment and passage of legislation. This obligation is no less
than that of the duty of legislative and executive branches to
respect”—and I emphasize this—“the independence of the
judiciary”.
Members opposite should know that the contents of legislation
and indeed the entire legislative record is relative to the
determination of constitutional issues in this case. It is often
by this record that the judiciary deduces legislative intent. The
proceedings of the House therefore will be relevant to any
determination the courts are called upon to make on the Nisga'a
treaty.
In addition, the debate in the House is also important to all
Canadians. They deserve to know where their members of
parliament stand on the issues affecting the country. For that
reason alone this is and will be a historical debate indeed.
Would the member for Skeena prefer that his constituents not hear
the full extent of his views on an agreement which promises to
change the face of the region for the better?
In the motion the member for Skeena has put before this House he
implies that he is concerned that the treaty could be used to
usurp, diminish or subrogate the individual rights of Nisga'a
people. I would put it to the member that if he were so
concerned about the rights of the Nisga'a constituents, he might
visit that area more frequently. I know that he has to clarify
that in the House and I appreciate that.
As I have said before, I would be prepared to offer my services
to him to mediate meetings between himself and the Nisga'a people
who are eager to do that. I am certain these constituents would
assure the member that they no longer want the limitations of the
Indian Act. Even some of his own colleagues have agreed. In
fact, the Nisga'a have unequivocally said that most important of
their objectives is to remove the Indian Act. They agree and we
all agree.
After more than 20 years of negotiation, it is important at this
time that we ask the lawyers to step aside, that we pull back
from the courts, we stop the debate, we fold up the tent as it
were, and all the parties that are affected come together and
debate that. It is the House of Commons where we intend to do
that. We want a full debate on this matter. We will have an
opportunity to do that in the fall as we have talked about and
promised. The due diligence process that all our constituents
require from us will be exercised thoroughly in the House when we
debate these motions.
I believe that history will show after the vote is taken in the
House of Commons, that those who for whatever reason vote against
this treaty will in 25 or 30 years from now be judged by the
Canadian people, that while their opinions may have been right or
wrong, they were on the wrong side in opposing this treaty.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, one of the biggest fallacies is that the public hear
that this is just another type of municipal government. It is
not. It is another level of government.
I want to ask the question that the aboriginal people in my area
ask me. In this treaty will the aboriginal people be granted the
same rights as other municipal governments? Will they have
accountability, annual audited statements and all the other
rights that we enjoy? I say it is not within the treaty. Am I
correct?
1230
Mr. David Iftody: Madam Speaker, all due diligence and
proper procedures in terms of accountability will apply. I
remind the hon. member that the 14 points in the treaty fall
within the three categories of culture, language and
administration of their own assets on reserve.
We have said many times in the House that all other areas of law
such as provincial and federal continue to apply, as does the
charter. I assure the hon. member those guarantees and
protections will be there.
If they are breached in any way there are remedies available
through an appeal process to the B.C. Court of Appeal or to the
federal court on those matters.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Madam Speaker, the
parliamentary secretary is professing a great concern for
aboriginal people and I am sure his concern is legitimate.
Do not the Gitksan and Gitanyow count? Why was the overlap
situation not addressed before this treaty was implemented? Why
is the government talking about a fiduciary obligation to
aboriginal people on the one hand but completely cutting out the
Gitksan and Gitanyow people who claim that 85% of the land being
given to the Nisga'a in this treaty is actually their traditional
territory?
Let me quote for the hon. parliamentary secretary's benefit
Stewart Phillip, president of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs,
who represent a considerable number of indigenous people in
British Columbia. He says:
The fastest approach that government is taking to treaty making
will undoubtedly mire indigenous peoples and the province in
years of court cases. Until overlap issues are dealt with and
addressed among indigenous peoples, no government has the right
to enter into treaties recognizing title or rights to any
territory. I am outraged by these reprehensible actions. The
entire B.C. treaty process is not viable, is wide open to many
legal challenges.
Why does the parliamentary secretary not address that issue
which is of vital concern to many aboriginal people, including
people in my riding to whom I happen to talk on a regular basis?
Mr. David Iftody: Mr. Speaker, I find it quite
extraordinary that the hon. member opposes 2,500 Nisga'a people
who are his constituents and supports the Gitksan Wet'suwet'en
and the Gitanyow who are not. This is an oddity, indeed.
During the last break I took the opportunity to fly to British
Columbia. I sat down with the Nisga'a and our justice lawyers to
look at a mapping of the respective area. Those boundaries are
protected within the Nisga'a area. We are certain that they do
not violate the historical pathways, fishing or hunting territory
of any of the other affected parties.
In those areas that are under question, and there is a grey
area, the Nisga'a have said that they are willing to sit down
with the Gitksan Wet'suwet'en and the Gitanyow to discuss it.
They recognize that there are familiar relations which go back
historically. They are not disputing them. They want to sit
down and reasonably negotiate. Why does the hon. member want to
divide those people and end up going to court again?
Mr. Mike Scott: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of
privilege. I think the parliamentary secretary in his
intervention has led Canadians and people in my riding to believe
that the Gitksan and the Gitanyow people are not my constituents.
They are very much my constituents.
It is very important that my job as a parliamentarian is
accurately represented. I do represent these people.
The Deputy Speaker: I do not think that is a question of
privilege, but on the other hand the hon. member has made his
point.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
may I make several prefatory comments to correct the record as it
has emerged to date.
The Nisga'a treaty is not a template for the remaining 50
treaties in British Columbia. This point was politically made by
the premier of the province and later withdrawn. We recognize
the Nisga'a treaty rests on its own special historical facts.
All the other treaties will have a similar factual record.
As far as the Nisga'a treaty is concerned one of the key factors
in its rapid negotiation in these last few years—it had been 100
years in the making—was an essentially highly pragmatic
leadership on the part of the Nisga'a people and a spirit of give
and take and the absence at the time the negotiations were in
full play, and I stress this, of countervailing interests
concretely expressed.
However it was always envisaged that this and other treaties
would operate within the constitution and the rule of law and
that the ordinary legal remedies apply.
1235
I would also like to say on behalf of the very great former
member for Westmount that there was nothing in Prime Minister
Trudeau's approach that was incompatible with aboriginal rights.
Quite the opposite. He rejected the pathological nationalism
that there was in Europe between the two world wars. He was a
strong believer in minority rights and in fact sections 25 and 35
of his celebrated charter of rights are as a result of his
accepting that they must be there. They are provisions that
preserve aboriginal rights such as they are. He envisaged also
that it would left to subsequent constitutional testing to
determine their precise ambit and limit in concrete cases.
Let me make some comments on judicial review. The member for
Sydney—Victoria earlier in the debate made the comment that
there are ironies and contradictions here. I have heard, I
think, several semesters of debate on the evils of judicial
review and judicial activism. I wrote my first book on judicial
review and judicial activism. It is always interesting to find
people converted on the road to Damascus, and I welcome that. I
would not reproach that to anyone.
Let me simply say that judicial review and judicial activism do
not exist in isolation. There are not very many cases in
Canadian law establishing the parameters, but it is well
established in the jurisprudence of the World Court. In one
recent case in which I gave free advice the court quite properly
said even on an advisory opinion jurisdiction that it must
consider standing to sue. It rejected an intervention by the
World Health Organization, although accepting one by the UN
General Assembly on the issue of the legality of nuclear weapons.
More specifically and in this context even in a specific case
controversy there are limits to what courts with the proper
respect that they do exercise to co-ordinate arms of government,
like the executive and the legislature, may do and how they may
do it. In the recent ruling, admittedly by a single judge of the
Supreme Court of British Columbia, the court has rightly
established that the issue raised on the Nisga'a treaty was
premature in legal terms, that it was not ripe for adjudication,
that the issue was moot, that it should at least wait on the
adoption of the relevant federal and provincial legislation.
I have not any doubt that would be the position of the Supreme
Court of Canada. In fact when I looked at the motion here as it
is given, with a certain degree I guess of poetic enthusiasm, I
would wonder myself about any court ruling on usurping,
diminishing, subrogating or other Latinisms of that sort, in the
absence of a concrete factual record.
We have reached the situation of how and when native rights are
defined. It is not expected that the treaties are the last word.
They are the beginning of an empirical case by case development
in concrete situations. What is good and sensible for the
Nisga'a may need to be re-examined in the context of highly
urbanized settled areas such as exist in Vancouver, Kamloops and
Victoria. This will be done in the treaty making process.
Turning to the compatibility or the reconciliation of the
treaties with sections 25 and 35 in which I have a special
interest, Senator Perrault and I gave advice to Prime Minister
Trudeau on sections 25 and 35 and suggested their inclusion in
the charter. It is always envisaged that there will be in the
spirit of the common law an empirical case by case development in
the concrete factual record of specific problem situations.
The law is not frozen once and for all, for all time. We have
gone beyond provincial-federal constitutional compartment
theories. We recognize, in the spirit in which Lord Sankey
established through the privy council 65 years ago, that the
constitution is a living tree. It has constantly to be adjusted
to changing circumstances.
However we do not do that in abstract. We do it in concrete
cases. The case controversy is crucial.
1240
A number of us were involved in a negotiation within parliament,
making parliament work. New problems arose in connection with
Bill C-49 that were brought to my attention after the all party
committee had made its unanimous report. We have laboured with
the Senate and others. The Senate has come up with a suggestion
for the amendment of Bill C-49, which will be coming back to the
House, that certainly renders it more compatible with common law
principles and the charter of rights.
Some things were left out, for example the status of native
women. It is not a concrete issue in the case of the Nisga'a but
it will undoubtedly arise in the case of some treaties within the
Vancouver area. I anticipate those will go to the court when
particular persons and interest groups say that they are
concerned about this and we will get a ruling.
The whole process of treaty making rests on Jeremy Bentham's
principle that the law is not made by judge alone but that it is
made by judge and company. The treaty making process involves
the executive arms of government, parliament and the provincial
legislature legislating to implement and the courts ruling on it
when necessary.
There is nothing in the record of the negotiation of treaty
rights to date that is incompatible with the constitution. It is
all subject to the constitution and the charter of rights. There
are sections 25 and 35. See the accommodation made by all
members of parliament and in the Senate in relation to Bill C-49
after hearing representations from a very wide section of the
Vancouver community. These accommodations helped to bring the
general principles in a pragmatic orientation, in line with the
large constitutional principles and the rule of law.
I would suggest to the members of the opposition that the motion
is premature. In my view it would interrupt the principle of
comity which courts and others owe to co-ordinate arms of
government to the executive that is charged with the negotiation
of a treaty. Let it do its work. Parliament is charged with the
business of implementing the treaty in concrete legislation.
If and when in the concrete legislation it is demonstrated that
there is a concrete clash of interest between persons or groups
within the community, then take it to the courts. I have always
argued that the justice ministry should help finance such cases
that raise general constitutional issues. It was done and was
dropped in budget austerity measures earlier in the term of this
government and it could be revived. It is a constant, dynamic
process of making law compatibly with the constitution and the
charter of rights.
I invite all members of the House to co-operate in that process.
I thank those who have intervened in the debate, sometimes with
asperity, but I take notice of the fact that it was said on both
the opposition and government side that feelings were strong. We
tolerate asperity when it is in pursuit of good cause.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a very quick question for the member. Why is the
government prepared to give to the Nisga'a powers it is not
prepared to give to the province of Quebec?
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, the hon. asks a leading
question that certainly goes beyond the legislation or the
treaty. The province of Quebec is in its own process through its
present government of asking for certain measures which the
government considers not in accordance with the constitution. I
know of no parallelism between what is now being proposed under
the Nisga'a treaty and what, as I understand from the record, the
province of Quebec is asking for.
I have said before that the Nisga'a treaty and all subsequent
treaties are subject to the constitution and to the rule of law.
It was our belief in relation to Quebec proposals that they were
beyond the constitution. That caused us to say that if there is
any further referendum on this issue we would insist on drafting
a question and on having the language corrected to show that
fact, so people can determine it. If and when an affirmative
referendum arises, it will be political judgment whether to
respond to it.
1245
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Nisga'a agreement, as it is currently written, gives the
Nisga'a the ability to determine their own citizenship. I assume
that would be something none of us would want to give to the Bloc
or to the separatist faction in Quebec.
My question is exactly the same as my colleague's. There are
many aspects of the Nisga'a agreement that would be very
favourably accepted by the people of Quebec who desire to see
Quebec as a separate state. Let us be specific. Why would we be
extending to the Nisga'a the ability to determine their own
citizenship when, if we received the same request from the
separatists in Quebec, and I am sure we would, we would not give
it to them? What is the difference between those two things?
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, to repeat again, the
Nisga'a treaty and all subsequent treaties are within the
constitution and the rule of law the constitution represents. Any
definition made of citizenship is subject to judicial review and
subject to the constitution, as well as other constitutional
provisions.
What Quebec may or may not propose is another matter. However,
if proposals are made that involve a conflict with the
Constitution of Canada as it exists, then our position is very
clear, we would approach that as a request to depart from the
constitution and we would treat it accordingly. The Prime
Minister has made his views very clear on that.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to continue to pursue the same issue that has
been raised by my colleagues. Specifically, the only power that
has been asked about up to now is citizenship. However, the
member knows full well that in the Nisga'a treaty there is
provision for overriding power, a power superior to that held by
the provinces and this government with respect to, for example,
fisheries, wildlife, adoption, culture and language,
expropriation powers, health services, family services and
education. By any definition that is a country. Again I would
ask the hon. member, why is it more acceptable or equally
acceptable to have a mini-state within Canada than it would be to
have Quebec as a macro-state beside Canada?
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, once again we are using
coloured language, coloured words. We should stick to the text
of the treaty and the basic assumption, which is not questioned,
by the way, by the Nisga'a, the provincial government or the
federal government, that it operates within the constitution and
subject to the constitution. On the only thing remaining in
relation to the Quebec government, we can consider on the merits
what is being proposed, but if Quebec takes us out of the
constitution, then we recognize that a fundamental change has
occurred. The difference is as between night and day in the two
situations.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure to be debating this issue today. Coming from
British Columbia I know full well the extent of the problems that
many people perceive in aboriginal land claims, in particular the
Nisga'a agreement because of the precedence it will set for all
of us.
My riding in particular has several small aboriginal bands, and
there are land claims involved. It is not as big an issue as it
is in some areas, but more and more people in my community, which
is a good mix of rural and urban, are concerned about their
private property and how it will be affected by aboriginal land
claims, in particular the Nisga'a agreement. Many of the things
my colleagues have said are very serious considerations that
people in my community are wrestling with. For anybody in the
House to think this is some kind of political debate to score
points is very incorrect.
Some of us happen to be closer to the problem than many realize.
1250
Since I am not directly in the Nisga'a area, I am on the lower
mainland of B.C., I choose to speak to this from a fiscal point
of view. Being an accountant, I suppose I would revert to that
in this case. I have always been interested in the consequences
of the fiscal assumptions that have been made in many land
claims, not just the Nisga'a. However, the Nisga'a concerns me
greatly because of the enormous number of dollars and cents that
are bantered around by provincial and federal governments. What
scares me more than anything is that I do not think anybody
really knows the exact parameters of the agreement.
How do we possibly settle an agreement with anybody in this day
and age when the exact parameters of that agreement are not known
financially, in particular since we are talking hundreds of
millions of dollars; not $10,000 or $20,000, but hundreds of
millions of dollars?
I want to talk from my perspective of the political problems in
British Columbia, where we have the most unpopular NDP government
in North America at the moment. It is a government which was
elected by 38% of the people, much like the Liberals over there.
It does not really represent the majority of the citizens in its
area, whether it is the Liberals from the federal point of view
or the NDP from a provincial point of view. If that is the case,
the way through that to make sure that a government has a mandate
from all of the people, because it has such a minority—
Mr. Lou Sekora: What kind of votes did I get?
Mr. Randy White: The member for Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam is trying to harass me. Can
hon. members imagine that? Boy, am I ever afraid of this fellow.
Mr. Lou Sekora: You are talking about 38%. State the
facts.
Mr. Randy White: Some loser from Coquitlam comes in
because he got lucky in a byelection and he thinks that I am
afraid of that.
When a government is elected with 38% of the vote, it would be
well advised, whether it is federal or provincial, to go to a
referendum and get a mandate.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Did you not get 6% in Windsor—St. Clair?
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I suspect these fellows
across the way do not like me. Do you know what? The feeling is
mutual.
Mr. David Iftody: We love you, Randy.
Mr. Randy White: I want folks who are watching on
television to listen to this. Out of 156 members of the Liberal
government, there are five sitting in the House.
The Deputy Speaker: The House leader for the official
opposition knows the rules and he knows that he is not to refer
to the absence of members from the House. He is well aware of
that. I have had to rebuke him for this before and I know he
would not want me to do it again.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I know that
once in a while I get carried away, but I like people to know how
many people are in the House of Commons when we are talking about
an important issue like the Nisga'a agreement.
I want to point out that the only cost analyses for this Nisga'a
agreement that have been available to the people of British
Columbia have been the official estimates of the federal and
provincial governments. My colleague from Delta—South Richmond
said that we had better get something a little more objective on
this, so he commissioned R. M. Richardson and Associates to
prepare an analysis on the cost of the Nisga'a treaty to B.C.
taxpayers.
That analysis has been made public and I want to express to the
House some of the findings of the analysis with regard to the
Nisga'a agreement. If there is some doubt on the financial
aspect, surely it would be prudent for any government and all
politicians, regardless of what party they are in, to check it
out, particularly if the numbers are at serious variance.
Here is what Richardson found on the analysis. The total cost
of the Nisga'a treaty, as measured, is up to $1.5 billion, in
fact $1,515,800,000, compared with the official government
estimate of $485.8 million.
1255
Somebody might say that R. M. Richardson and Associates are
wrong. How far wrong are they? Are they wrong by $1 billion?
If they are wrong by $10 million taxpayer dollars should it not
be the responsibility of the government to stop and check it out?
We all know the record of the NDP in British Columbia. It does
not matter to those folks. They would blow tax dollars like
there is no tomorrow, and for the NDP there is no tomorrow. It
does not matter to them. However, there is going to be a good
dog fight in the next federal election. I would suggest to the
Liberal government that it check out this $1 billion discrepancy
on that item alone.
The British Columbia government has underestimated crown land
values, construction costs of the Nisga'a highway, forest
renewal, B.C. spending and third party compensation costs. We
had better think about this. Perhaps there is something wrong
and we should check it out.
Non-reserve Nisga'a settlement lands, which constitute
approximately 1,930 square kilometres, are valued at $406.4
million, compared with the $106.7 million estimate of the
Government of British Columbia. This is not $10,000 or $10
million. We are talking about $300 million.
This should not be about making everybody feel good and making
sure this goes, being the champions of this group or that group.
It should be for all taxpayers across the country because there
are a lot of dollars involved. We should reassess the situation.
It should not be reassessed by government or government
employees. Let somebody else do the job. That is what we did.
It was a fair assessment. There was no political ploy.
I call on the government to listen to what we are saying. This
valuation includes forest resources at $268.2 million, mineral
resources at $13.8 million, water resources at $17.5 million and
fisheries resources at $106.9 million.
What about the Nisga'a highway? The Nisga'a highway will cost
at least $87 million, compared with the estimate of the
Government of British Columbia of $41 million. This Liberal
government, just like that, is willing to sign on behalf of young
people and on behalf of seniors on fixed incomes who are going to
pay the bill.
There are very few members on the other side who are listening
to this very important debate. The whole darn government should
be in this House listening.
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
to the few members of the Reform Party who are here listening as
well, I would like to make a comment on the remarks made by the
hon. member.
I thank the hon. member for his comments and his premise in
terms of fiscal issues being outside the motion. The member for
Skeena wanted to talk about self-government and the debate has
gone in that direction for the past two hours.
I am familiar with the report of Mr. Richardson and I have
looked at.
1300
After checking the record, I find the testimony of the Auditor
General of Canada to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs
and Northern Development to be entirely inconsistent to the
question I posed about land evaluations that far north in areas
of Canada with that kind of space. I asked him what kind of
acceptable accounting standards and practices would be used to
make those kinds of categorizations and whether the Government of
Canada was within its boundaries and properly understood those
limits or boundaries with respect to those evaluations. I was
told by the gentleman at that committee that we were indeed
within those boundaries and it was acceptable according to the
officials from the auditor general's department.
Who would the member believe, Mr. Richardson, who I do not know
nor do I think anyone in the House knows, or the Auditor General
of Canada? If he is an accountant, could he answer that?
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, let me clarify a couple of
things.
A parliamentary secretary in the House does what he is told on
the government side. This particular individual is here trying
to defend on behalf of the government the whole Nisga'a
agreement. It is quite irrelevant to me if there is a motion on
the table as to a certain aspect of the Nisga'a agreement. I am
trying to address something very specific.
It is not just a question of whether it is the auditor general
involved in this. That is what I said originally. My colleague
from Delta—South Richmond commissioned a private firm to do it.
I would suggest to the government that it commission, and ought
to have commissioned, several private firms to undertake a cost
effective analysis on this thing.
It is not a matter of just going to the auditor general and
saying it has a variance of 5%. Does the member know what a
variance of 5% on one billion dollars is? It is a lot of money
to the Canadian taxpayer.
The premise I am trying to get across to the hon. member and
those few Liberals who are here listening is that there is much
money involved in this. They should not just assess what some
bureaucrats are telling them that this is what it is going to
cost because they want this to be put into place. They should
not just assess and take the word of the auditor general.
The government should commission a number of organizations. It
has time. We have managed to get this thing deferred until the
fall. Over the summer, why does it not commission two separate
firms to make a cost effective analysis of this? If there is
such a large discrepancy, which I am charging today there is,
then it should halt the process, re-evaluate it and look at it
not just from the social aspect of it, not just from any other
aspect of it, but look at it as well from the fiscal cost of it.
This is going to cost British Columbians and all Canadians a
great deal of money. The effects of it down the road will cost
British Columbians and all other Canadians, by virtue of other
land claims, a great deal more money. There is a lot at stake
here. It is not just a one day debate that we happened to have
called for in the House of Commons. The government has time. Why
not do it?
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, since
the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford has asked for a direct
question on the points he has raised, I will ask him a direct
question on the points he has raised and that is the value of the
land in question.
Maybe the member for Langley—Abbotsford can correct me on this,
but it is my understanding that the land in question has all been
logged. The majority of it, up to 80% or 90% of it, has been
logged. The region is second growth and much of it is much too
young to cut. That was part of the reason the companies involved
in this transaction gave it their blessing. Can the member for
Langley—Abbotsford comment on that?
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I do not live in the area,
but one of our members who does assures me that it has not all
been logged, and I am sure that is true.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: There is no access.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, regardless of whether or
not there is access to the land, we do not say it has no value
when it comes to any of our other forest renewal areas in British
Columbia that have no access.
1305
We have to look at the value of the land when there is access.
As most Liberal members are from Ontario or Quebec, I do not know
if they understand what we log in British Columbia via helicopter
from remote regions of our province. Just because it is remote,
it does not mean there is less value to it. It probably means
that there is greater potential value to it.
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am honoured to see that no Liberals have left. There are so few,
we would hardly even notice.
In speaking to the supply day motion, I will begin by pointing
out that in a court of law both sides have their experts and so
to say that one opinion or two opinions represents what is right
or not right in a particular case really needs adjudication. That
is the whole entire point.
I attended a conference just last week on the Delgamuukw
decision. The only certainty that arose out of that conference
was that certainty is the one thing that is not available from
the Delgamuukw decision.
Experts, while not a dime a dozen are in fact very expensive.
However, they are certainly not in short supply.
The supply day motion wants the Liberal government to ask the
question, prior to ratification, whether the supremacy of the
Government of Canada will still be in force after the treaty is
ratified. We are asking if it constitutes an amendment to the
Constitution? We want to know what it does does to individual
rights? We are simply asking for judicial clarification and that
we hold the agreement in abeyance until that time. That is not
so terribly much. It is about the bare minimum that should be
available to people.
The Liberals have maintained a rather cozy relationship with
aboriginal leadership and that relationship has not always been
to the benefit of individual Indians.
One of the things I found out, and I have not been here all that
long, is that in the 1950s Indians could not sell the fruit of
their labour and retain the proceeds. Grain, for instance, had
to be sold and the money was returned to the Department of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development. It was spent, of course, by
the leadership. Therefore, evolution is not always a negative
process. They now have that right but prior to that, with the
agreement of chiefs and the department of Indian affairs, that
was denied to them.
Just recently, section 77(1) of the Indian Act was struck down.
That is the section of the Indian Act that forbade band members
who did not ordinarily reside on a reserve the right to vote in
band elections.
Guess who fought alongside the chiefs and councils to deny them
that right? It was the department of Indian affairs. It had
intervened to deny non-resident band members the right to
participate in the election of the government of their reserves.
It was a denial of democracy.
On the Nisga'a land there are many members who do not live on
the reserve. We wonder, would those people have voted for this
had they been there, or were their rights denied that way?
Bill C-31 Indians who have, until now, been denied a voice in
shaping the policies that govern reserves, of which they are a
part, have finally got a voice in the government, in the way
moneys are handled, in the facilities, program administration and
all of these types of things. They finally have a voice but they
were denied that voice because they were not a part of the group
that resided on the reserve. We are saying that we need these
types of questions answered in the Nisga'a case.
Mobility rights were denied by that section. It had the effect
of impinging on the mobility rights of Indians by requiring them
to maintain residency on a particular reserve in order to
exercise their rights as band members.
I point out as well that the auditor general is critical of
Indian affairs' mismanagement of taxpayer funds directed to band
administered programs.
He cites lack of legislative authority, lack of reporting
mechanisms and characterizes it as dump and run as only a couple
of instances. We might ask who is responsible for this. The
Liberal government is responsible.
1310
Liberals may feel their motives are above question. They may
ask themselves if their motives were good, and they may feel
their motives were excellent. They may feel that their integrity
in the process was above question. They may ask themselves if
they did this with full integrity and will believe they have,
although I find that we question it. However, it is their
ability to negotiate and implement a modern treaty that is
definitely questionable and the Nisga'a treaty is just one
example of that.
I would like to point members to the auditor general's recent
comments. Chapter 14 of the auditor general's report on Indian
and northern affairs, comprehensive land claims in section 14.16
states:
Although the Parliament of Canada has jurisdiction in matters
relating to Indians and land reserve for Indians, co-operation in
settling claims is needed from the territorial and provincial
governments with respect to certain lands that fall under their
jurisdiction.
While it is admitted that the federal government has the
agreement of the current B.C. government, it is clear that there
is no such agreement with the next Government of British
Columbia. Should the government not have negotiated a treaty
that had all party support, one where when the next government is
elected it is not seeking to overturn it by court action, which
it is already trying to do, one that enjoys broad popular support
and there are no regrets. It seems to me that would be an
important issue to have been addressed prior to the signing of
the Nisga'a treaty.
The Nisga'a final agreement fails to create or address private
property rights for Nisga'a people. I think that is very
important. For about 130 years, Canada's governments have denied
individual Indians the right to own private property on reserve
lands. They have been subjected to a collectivist approach to
land holding that has termed traditional. However, I would like
to take issue with that statement.
Prior to settlement by the colonial powers, the Indian people
had a variety of societies within the boundaries of what is now
Canada. There were nomadic tribes on the prairies for whom the
idea of ownership of land would have no meaning. These were
people for whom land as such would have no value. They moved
about with the seasons following the game which they depended on
for their livelihood.
Consequently, ownership of articles that could be relocated were
really the only kind that had value to them. I would like to
list a few. their dwellings were mobile. Their horses were
absolutely essential because the buffalo moved about. If we look
at their drawings and paintings from that period we see that is
what they related to. We do not see landscapes in their
paintings. I think that demonstrates a point. No one would even
steal land, let alone buy it because no one owned any land as it
had no intrinsic value to a nomadic people. It was useful only
insofar as it could sustain them when it was necessary. Neither
communal nor fee simple ownership is traditional to such a
people. The important thing was use.
In other areas of Canada, Indians remained in one place due to
the relatively hospitable weather, the ongoing abundance of game
and the fact that some crops could be raised. It was a different
type of society. These conditions allowed for the creation of
societies in which people built permanent houses and communities.
It would be safe to say that these people were not interested in
communal ownership of their homes. That is important. Simply
because they did not have a Torrens land title system in place
and issue paper titles to their property does not mean to say
they had no concept of ownership of property.
The whole principle behind a title or a deed system is that it
simply documents ownership and may indicate extent, or to put it
in other terms, size, shape and location of property. To say
that a collectivist approach works there speaks against the
reality of the day.
As I stated earlier, the reserve system of allotting land to
Indians is based on the principle of communal ownership which I
believe is not based on actual historical facts.
It was created for the purpose of creating sanctuaries from
encroachment by settlers to ensure a land base for Indians and
their dependants. That was certainly an important and necessary
action the Canadian government took.
1315
Traditional activities such as hunting, fishing and gathering
country food were seen as major activities which would occur on
reserves with a view to preserving traditional lifestyles in what
was at the time a primarily agricultural and resource based
economy. That a different vision now exists in the context of a
modern society based not on traditional but on modern commercial
activities calls for a different approach to land holding.
Holding land in common concentrates not only economic power in
the hands of a few or of an elite, but political power as well.
Many rank and file Indians are beginning to speak out on the
issue of the abuse of power and conflict of interest, cronyism
and lack of accountability on reserves where land is held in
common.
There is no denying that ownership of land has been an effective
tool in the creation and distribution of wealth in Canada but
only for those to whom it is available. For the Liberal
government to perpetuate the collective communal approach while
refusing to admit any other approach that might recognize an
individual band member's right or desire to hold a portion of the
land in fee simple is a major weakness not only in the Nisga'a
treaty but in the ongoing policy of the government.
For the Nisga'a final agreement to be held up as a model for
future B.C. treaties while ignoring this fundamental flaw is to
perpetuate an ongoing injustice visited upon all Indians who
desire something more out of life. To be lumped into a communal
system with no means of breaking out and experiencing the same
freedom and opportunities afforded other citizens of Canada is a
miscarriage of justice in my view.
The House should refuse to deal with this treaty. It should
send it back for revision on a number of issues which my
colleagues and myself are highlighting today.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
throughout the day we have been hearing Reform's reasons why the
Nisga'a deal should be put to bed and that it should not happen.
What we are really hearing is that any move toward true
aboriginal self-government or toward the emancipation of
aboriginal people should be squashed, because for some reason
they are not ready for it, or they are too rife with corruption,
or there is a mismanagement of funds. For two years we have
heard Reform members cite isolated incidences of the misuse of
funds. They have tried to thread that together into some overall
picture that aboriginal people do not deserve control over their
own destiny.
We just heard another speaker on this subject try to point out
that there is mismanagement and abuse and that they are speaking
out for the grassroots aboriginal people. It is really galling
for most of us in the House to listen to the Reform Party try to
paint itself as the champion of aboriginal people.
Recently we heard members of the Reform Party, such as the
member for Athabasca, say that just because we did not kill the
Indians and have Indian wars that does not mean we did not
conquer these people and is that not why they allowed themselves
to be herded into little reserves in the most isolated, desolate
and worthless parts of the country. Thankfully not all members of
the Reform Party agree with this.
We also heard Herb Grubel a former MP counter this. He likened
Indians living on aboriginal reserves to people living on south
sea islands and being taken care of by their rich uncles. One of
them thinks they live on desolate little worthless pieces of
property, driven there as vanquished people by the conquerors.
Another one says that living on a reserve is like living off the
fat of the government, like some guy on a south sea island being
taken care of by his rich uncle.
Fortunately, the most recent speaker tried to be a little more
sensitive in pointing out some of the true hardships that exist
on aboriginal reserves. That is what I would like to comment on.
He itemized some of the genuine social problems that exist in
aboriginal communities and which desperately need some measure of
change.
The situation in aboriginal communities is a predictable
consequence of colonialism. It is like others in recent history
who were driven off their land, vanquished and then suffered
alcoholism, broken families and all those things.
The most recent one we could relate to is the British during the
industrial revolution. People were driven off their land and
found themselves in ghettoized situations. Would the member like
to comment on that analogy with his own history perhaps?
1320
Mr. Derrek Konrad: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his intervention.
There is no disagreement on facts. I have been on many reserves
as a land surveyor and as a member of parliament. Anybody who
has been on a reserve would not disagree with the facts. Anybody
with eyes can see that things are terrible on reserves. They
have been terrible for many years and if the present situation
continues it will be terrible for many more years.
One of the things that happened in Britain was a change in
social policies. It enabled individuals to take some control
over their own lives while the government provided support along
the way. It is not so much on the facts that we disagree but it
is on process.
There is another situation in B.C. that was resolved with the
Sechelt Band. Nobody has any question about that. It is a
completely different type of land claim which does not have
constitutional implications for its government but it does
involve the land itself.
In the final analysis it is fair to say that there are really
only two visions in this country. The Liberals, the Tories, the
NDP and the Bloc represent one type of thinking on Indian
affairs. The Reform Party has put forward a completely different
vision, that there is a possibility for individualism to make a
difference in the lives of Indian people and that they could own
their own land.
In closing I point out to the hon. member that I have relatives
who are Indians as well. They have done very well but they are
not living on reserves. They are actually landowners and private
citizens within the Canadian federation and they are very
successful.
Hon. Raymond Chan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe the Nisga'a treaty is the right
thing to do for Canadians and for the Canadian government in
recognition of the problems that have not been settled since the
early settlements of Europeans in Canada. I quote from the
Nisga'a chiefs who travelled to Victoria in 1887 and asked to
settle this issue:
We are not opposed to the coming of the white people into our
territory, provided that this be carried out justly and in
accordance with the British principles embodied in the royal
proclamation. If therefore as we expect the aboriginal rights
which we claim should be established by the decision of His
Majesty's Privy Council, we should be prepared to take a moderate
and reasonable position.
What happened is the Nisga'a accepted the white European
immigrants settling in Canada and British Columbia. They were
asking for a treaty to set down their rights and different issues
but they were denied.
It is right that we recognize what the constitution has set out
and what we owe to the aboriginal people. This is a treaty not
based on race but based on rights.
We always hear the Reform Party talk about this being a treaty
based on race. It so happens that the rights we owe are to the
aboriginals who are a race, yet the rights we are giving back to
them are aboriginal rights. These rights are based on the fact
that they were here first. They lived on this land and the
Europeans came in and intruded on their land. They accepted
them, yet their original rights were not recognized by the
government at the time.
1325
To me, it is the right thing to do. We might not be happy that
we did not get everything we wanted in this treaty, but it is a
negotiated treaty. It is a balanced treaty. That is the merit
of negotiation. The natives, the aboriginals, the Nisga'a would
like to have a lot more than is specified in this treaty, and we,
representing Canadians, would like to have a lot more and have
given much less. The merit of negotiation through so many years
is that we have to come to a compromise. We have to come to a
balance.
I support this treaty. I think it is right for the nation and
for British Columbians to move forward so that we have certainty
in the land. We can remove uncertainty so that investments can
come back to British Columbians again. The aboriginals, the
Nisga'a people can have the confidence to move onward and to be
integrated into Canadian society.
The second thing I want to address is the legality of the
agreement. The Reform Party always complains and challenges the
constitutionality of this treaty. It has tried to challenge
this. It has joined the B.C. Liberal Party to challenge this
issue.
Mr. Speaker, before I continue, I would like to mention that I
will be splitting my time with the hon. member for
Pierrefonds—Dollard.
The Reform Party has challenged the constitutionality of this
treaty yet it has already joined the B.C. Liberal Party to
challenge it in the B.C. court. The judiciary has indicated that
it would be more appropriate for the courts to consider questions
relating to the constitutionality of the treaty where the full
legislative record is available to the courts for consideration.
It does not make sense for the Reform Party at this stage to ask
us to refer this matter to the supreme court.
Members of the Reform Party always talk about the rule of law.
They believe in the rule of law. They believe in the
constitution. They believe in law and order. Yet they choose
the decision of the supreme court as support. They believe in
the rule of law, they believe in the supreme court. This is why
they want to refer this issue to the supreme court. Very often
they pick and choose what the supreme court decides. They pick
and choose what the constitution specifies.
Let us talk about aboriginal rights. They are specified in the
constitution. Reform Party members say we should treat everybody
the same. Then what about these aboriginal rights that are
different for aboriginals? They say to treat everybody the same,
that on the Nisga'a issue the solution is to abolish the Indian
Act and treat everybody the same, allow them to be Canadians and
then everything will be fine.
With that position members of the Reform Party are denying the
aboriginal rights of the Nisga'a. How can they say both at the
same time? First they deny the Nisga'a rights by treating
everybody the same. They are not the same. Aboriginal people
have aboriginal rights. They have different rights than we have
and which are guaranteed by the constitution. If they have
different rights, then they cannot be treated the same. That is
what the constitution says. If they support the supreme court
decision, then they have to agree that we have to give the
Nisga'a different rights.
The supreme court said not to go there for a ruling. It is
going to be expensive; it has been proven to be expensive. It
said that Government of Canada and the people of Canada should
negotiate with the aboriginals to settle what the aboriginal
rights are all about.
1330
If Reform members believe in the supreme court, if they want to
uphold the rule of law, then they should support this agreement.
This is a negotiated treaty between the Government of Canada, the
Government of British Columbia and the Nisga'a people.
A Reform member previously said that the NDP, because it is so
low in the polls, does not represent the people of British
Columbia. The NDP government is still the Government of British
Columbia. The notion of saying that Canada or the province of
B.C. is governed by polls is a tremendous insult to democracy in
Canada.
If we were governed by polls, according to a recent poll the
Reform Party only has about 30% support in B.C. and the Liberal
Party of Canada has about 50%. Does that mean that the Reform
members in this House do not represent the voice of B.C., but
that seven members of the Liberal Party represent all British
Columbians? There is some misrepresentation in that argument.
There are approximately 30 members of the Reform Party who
represent their ridings in B.C. and there are seven members of
the Liberal Party who represent their ridings in B.C.
This is the right thing to do. We have to move forward. After
100 years of negotiation, after 100 years of troubles with the
Nisga'a people, it is time for us to move on.
Reform complains that this treaty has some problems in that the
charter does not apply, but the charter of rights does apply to
the Nisga'a treaty.
Again Reformers are wrong when they say that this treaty does
not give protection to women. The B.C. family relations act
applies. They also said that trade unions would not be able to
organize under this treaty. Once again they are wrong. The
labour law of the province and of Canada would apply.
I urge all members of this House to support the Nisga'a treaty.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to remark on one comment made by the hon. member which
has not yet been raised today. One new idea has come up today
that we have not heard rehashed over and over again, and that is
that treating people equally is not the same as treating everyone
in the exact same way. Equality is not the same as treating
everybody in the exact same way because it does not recognize the
historic imbalances which may exist. We should be shooting for
equal opportunity or access to equal opportunity, and that may
make it necessary to treat some people unequally in order to
raise them up to the same, level platform.
I would like to quote from Judge Murray Sinclair of Manitoba in
the Manitoba aboriginal justice inquiry. He put it very well and
in very short terms. He stated:
Discrimination involves the concept that the application of
uniform standards, common rules and treatment of people who are
not the same constitutes a form of discrimination. It means that
in treating unlike people alike, adverse consequences, hardships
or injustice may result.
I want to thank the member for raising that very key point
because it helps to defuse some of the misinformation that we
have heard from members today.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
listened very closely to the speech of the member for Richmond
in which he dealt with the issue of aboriginal rights.
What happens if an amendment is made to the treaty given that
there is constitutional protection for aboriginal and treaty
rights? Will it require a more rigorous and more lengthy process
to amend the treaty?
1335
Hon. Raymond Chan: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon.
member's question, we have extensive, comprehensive legal advice
from the Department of Justice that the treaty which we
negotiated does not violate the constitution. We do not need an
amendment to the constitution to adapt this treaty. The issue of
constitutionality does not exist.
To the best of my knowledge, this treaty is constitutional and
we should be able to move ahead without amending the
constitution.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the hon. member answered
the question. The question was: Can this agreement be amended
without a more complicated constitutional amendment formula? I
would like to add to that question: Is it not true that it takes
the agreement of all parties to amend this agreement? Is it not
true that this treaty will become part of the constitution under
section 35, and protected under that section, and therefore any
changes to it would have to go through constitutional amendment
processes?
Hon. Raymond Chan: Mr. Speaker, to the best of our knowledge,
from input from judicial experts, this is protected by the
constitution. This treaty defines the aboriginal rights which
are protected by the constitution. That does not mean that we
have to amend the constitution to engage it.
The constitution specifies the rights of different peoples. We
do not need to amend it. The courts continually define the
constitution, to the best of the knowledge of those involved in
the judicial system, but we never have to amend the constitution
on those issues.
I believe that the treaty is constitutional and we do not need
to worry about a constitutional impact.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, with
this agreement, which involves the Nisga'a nation, Canada and the
Government of British Columbia, can the member explain why the
Nisga'a people were allowed to vote in a referendum, which is one
part of the agreement, when the Canadian people, namely British
Columbians, were not allowed to vote in a referendum on the same
issue?
Hon. Raymond Chan: Mr. Speaker, that was how the treaty
was negotiated. It was agreed by all parties. The people of
B.C. are represented by the legislators which they elected, so it
is not true that the people of B.C. were not represented in these
negotiations. The people of B.C. are also represented by members
of parliament in this House and we speak on their behalf. That
is how Canada is governed. Canada is not governed by referenda.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to address the motion of the hon. member for Skeena on
the Nisga'a treaty.
The signing of treaties is an opportunity for a fresh start.
Treaties signal our will, as a society, to accept responsibility
for past mistakes and to correct them.
Treaties also represent a way to bring about positive changes
and to promote the harmonization of our historical and cultural
differences, so that we can all march together toward the
future.
To gather our strengths: This is what the government pledged to
do in Canada's aboriginal action plan entitled “Gathering
Strength”. We developed an action plan as the first page of a
new chapter on relations between the Government of Canada and
aboriginal people. This chapter will be marked by the will to
build the foundations of a future that is more prosperous and
more than ever based on co-operation.
Strengthening aboriginal governance: The royal commission took
the view that the right of self-government is vested in
aboriginal nations.
The commission also noted that the exercise of extensive
jurisdictions by local communities may not always lead to
effective or sustainable governments in the long term. The
federal government supports the concept of self-government being
exercised by aboriginal nations or other larger groupings of
aboriginal people.
1340
It recognizes the need to work closely with aboriginal people,
institutions and organizations on initiatives that move in this
direction and to ensure that the perspectives of aboriginal
women are considered in these discussions.
Aboriginal people recognize the need for strong, accountable and
sustainable governments and institutions. This means ensuring
that aboriginal governments and institutions have the authority,
accountability mechanisms and legitimacy to retain the
confidence and support of their constituents and of other
governments and institutions, to govern effectively.
The Government of Canada will work closely with aboriginal
people, and provincial and territorial governments, where
appropriate, to turn this political ideal into a practical
reality.
Recognizing the inherent right of self-government: The
Government of Canada recognizes that aboriginal people maintained
self-sufficient governments with sustainable economies,
distinctive languages, powerful spirituality, and rich, diverse
cultures on this continent for thousands of years.
Consistent with recommendations of the Royal Commission on
Aboriginal Peoples, the federal government has recognized the
inherent right of self-government for aboriginal people as an
existing aboriginal right within section 35 of the Constitution
Act, 1982.
Today, approximately 80 tables to negotiate self-government
arrangements have been established bringing first nations and
Inuit communities together with the federal government,
provinces and territories.
Federal departments continue to devolve program responsibility
and resources to aboriginal organizations.
More than 80% of the programs funded by the Department of the
Indian Affairs and Northern Development are now being delivered
by first nations' organizations or governments.
In April 1996, the administration and funding of cultural
education centres was transferred to first nations' control, and
management of the aboriginal friendship centres program was
devolved to the National Association of Friendship Centres.
Responsibility for administering training supports has been
devolved through regional bilateral agreements.
In the north, the federal and territorial governments and
aboriginal organizations are involved in a number of forums
throughout the western Northwest Territories to discuss the ways
of addressing aboriginal self-government aspirations at the
territorial, regional and community levels.
Progress continues to be made on the establishment of the new
territory of Nunavut, in which the self-government aspirations of
Inuit of that region can be implemented through a new
territorial government. In the Yukon, six self-government
agreements have been signed and eight are being negotiated with
Yukon first nations, while discussions are underway with the
Yukon territorial government and Yukon first nations about the
devolution of remaining provincial-type powers to the territory.
Self-government processes for Metis and off-reserve aboriginal
groups exist in most provinces. In these processes, the federal
government is prepared to consider of the variety of approaches
to self-government, including self-government institutions,
devolution of programs and services, and public government.
All of these initiatives provide opportunities for significant
aboriginal input into program design and delivery, and should
ultimately lead to direct control of programming by aboriginal
governments and institutions.
New approaches to negotiations in the recent past have led to
agreements on processes being reached with the land-based Métis
Settlements General Council in Alberta and with the urban-based
Aboriginal Council of Winnipeg.
Building governance capacity: As the royal commission noted,
many aboriginal groups and nations require support in order to
assume the full range of responsibilities associated with
governance, including legislative, executive, judicial and
administrative functions.
The federal government acknowledges that the existing federal
policy and negotiation process, particularly in the area of
capacity building, can be improved. To address this, the
Government of Canada intends to include a focus on
capacity-building in the negotiating and implementing of
self-government.
1345
The government is also prepared to work with aboriginal people
to explore the possible establishment of governance resource
centres. These centres could help aboriginal people develop
models of governance, provide guidance on community consensus
building and approaches to resolving disputes, and serve as a
resource on best practices.
They could assist aboriginal people to identify the skills
required. They could also play a role in supporting capacity
development in the areas of administrative, financial and fiscal
management.
Aboriginal women and self-government: Capacity development also
means ensuring that aboriginal women are involved in the
consultations and decision-making surrounding self-government
initiatives.
The federal government recognizes that aboriginal women have
traditionally played a significant role in the history of
aboriginal people and will strengthen their participation in
self-government processes. This is particularly relevant for
women at the community level. Consistent with the approach
recommended by the royal commission, the federal government will
consider additional funding for this purpose.
Aboriginal justice: The Government of Canada will continue to
discuss future directions in the justice area with aboriginal
people.
We will work in partnership with aboriginal people to increase
their capacity to design, implement and manage community-based
justice programs that conform to the basic standards of justice
and are culturally relevant.
We will also work with aboriginal people to develop alternative
approaches to the mainstream justice system, as well as dispute
resolution bodies. Programs will require the inclusion of
aboriginal women at all stages.
Professional development in land, environment and resource
management: The Government of Canada, in partnership with first
nations, intends to develop and implement professional
development strategies in the following key areas:
Law-making: a primary vehicle for legislative and executive
capacity building to equip first nations with trained personnel.
Lands and environmental stewardship: initiatives will be
supported to provide accredited professional development
programs.
Land and resource management: initiatives will support
accelerated transfer to first nations of land management, land
registry and survey functions.
Community support: specific capacity development initiatives
will be directed at promoting the informed consent of
constituents in aboriginal communities in order to help
harmonize progress in governance with how community members
understand the changes taking place.
These initiatives will strengthen first nations capacity in key
areas of governance and economic development.
Beginning in 1701, the British crown entered into solemn
treaties which were designed to foster the peaceful coexistence
of aboriginal and non-aboriginal people. Over several centuries
and in different parts of the country, treaties were signed to
accommodate different needs and conditions.
The treaties between aboriginal people and the crown were key
vehicles for arranging the basis of the relationship between
them.
The importance of the treaties is confirmed by the recognition
of treaty rights, both historical and modern, and aboriginal
title in the Constitution Act, 1982.
The Nisga'a treaty contains all the key principles of the
federal government's action plan, and that is why I urge the
House to vote against the member for Skeena's motion.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
know that members on the government side have been actively
involved and I would like to take the opportunity to ask for some
clarification on certain points in the Nisga'a treaty.
Is it true that with the new Nisga'a treaty the Nisga'a people
would now be subject to all provincial and federal taxes? Is it
also true that they would become responsible for an increasing
portion of the cost of public services to develop their own
sources of revenue?
Is it also true that they would get a lesser contribution for
public services from federal and provincial governments? In
other words, will the changes being brought about actually lead
to less spending by the federal government and more sources of
taxation revenue for the federal government with the new Nisga'a
self-governance?
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his
question.
I want to say simply that this treaty is the first modern treaty
since the James Bay agreement in Quebec in 1975.
1350
I know that in the memorandum of understanding, changes were
made so that the Nisga'a first nation will have to pay
provincial tax after 7 years and federal tax after 11 years.
There will in fact, therefore, be revenues, something that is
definitely very important. This will put the first nations at
the same level as the other inhabitants of this country.
As to federal and provincial government revenues, since a huge
amount of money will be spent in this region, the revenues of
the two governments will increase. After some ten years, the
figure should be approximately 25% of the cost to the federal
government for the Nisga'a first nation.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, is it also true that the
Nisga'a government will not be able to tax non-Nisga'a residents
on Nisga'a lands? This is certainly one of the fears that we
have heard spread throughout B.C. by the people who are trying to
block the Nisga'a deal.
Further along those same lines, in the case of income tax will
the Nisga'a government and its corporations be treated the same
as any other municipality, to the hon. member's knowledge?
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his
question.
The people living on Nisga'a reserves will all be treated the
same way, whether they are aboriginal or non-aboriginal.
Corporations belonging to the reserve or to the people working
on the Nisga'a reserve will be subject to the same laws as the
others.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre asked
whether or not the Nisga'a law would be superseded by provincial
or federal law. I would just like to ask the hon. member what it
means when paragraph 32 says that in the event of an
inconsistency or conflict between this agreement and the
provisions of any Nisga'a law, this agreement prevails to the
extent of the inconsistency or conflict.
Paragraph 36 states that in the event of any inconsistency or
conflict between a Nisga'a law under paragraph 34 or 35 and a
federal or provincial law, the Nisga'a law prevails to the extent
of the inconsistency or conflict. Paragraph 40 again refers to
in the event of inconsistency.
I could go on. I understand it says 14 times that in the event
of inconsistency or conflict between Nisga'a law under paragraph
whatever and federal or provincial law, the Nisga'a law prevails
to the extent of the inconsistency. Could the hon. member tell
me what this means?
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry: Mr. Speaker, what the member for the Reform
Party has neglected to say is that certain laws will be under
the jurisdiction of the Nisga'a first nation and there will be
federal and provincial laws as well. If the member means laws
concerning the environment or crime, the laws of the Nisga'a
first nation must be equal or superior to provincial and federal
legislation.
There may be changes in some respects, but if the Nisga'a first
nation decides to have laws on the environment that are superior
to those already in existence at the provincial and federal
levels, there may be differences, but the differences will be to
the credit of the Nisga'a first nation.
[English]
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is my understanding that the Reform Party member who just
asked the question of my hon. colleague in fact read that section
wrong.
The Nisga'a laws under section 1, article 13, to which she
referred are only those laws falling within the broad three
categories of the agreement, involving 14 areas of jurisdiction
that speak to questions of language, culture and the
administration of assets.
1355
In light of the fact that we have agreed the laws of general
application and specific federal and provincial laws apply to the
Nisga'a treaty, does the hon. member see it as a conflict? Could
he give us some examples of how the 14 areas under Nisga'a law
would apply in the Nisga community and what benefits they would
bring to the Nisga'a people?
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development for his question.
Indeed, some of the laws created by the Nisga'a nation may be
far superior to provincial and to federal laws. There may be
laws on the conservation of wildlife, fisheries, forest
products.
This is an advantage and a plus for the Nisga'a. They want to
take their own destiny in hand through self-government. This is
very important. We on this side of the House believe in them.
[English]
The Speaker: It is almost 2 o'clock and I believe the
time for questions has elapsed. With the agreement of members we
will proceed to Statement by Members. It might give us a couple
of extra statements today.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
KINGSTON COMMUNITY CREDIT UNION
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I wish to congratulate
and recognize 42 years of community action and support by the
Kingston Community Credit Union.
This year the Kingston Community Credit Union was honoured with
the Ontario Credit Union Charitable Foundation award for
demonstrating continued exemplary achievement in promoting
charitable activities to improve the social well-being of the
community's citizens. The credit union's donations of money and
time contribute significantly to the work of organizations such
as the Kingston School of Art, Literacy Kingston and the
Alzheimer Society.
I extend special congratulations to CEO G. Blake Halladay who
was honoured with the Gary Gilliam award for social
responsibility for his work to promote the credit union as a
socially responsible investment alternative.
Credit unions offer an example of how financial institutions can
show their commitment to the communities they serve and foster
relationships of mutual financial and social investment. Bravo
to the Kingston Community Credit Union, an exemplary financial
institution.
* * *
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in two
cases in Nova Scotia the Minister of Human Resources Development
is violating the Canada Pension Plan Act by unilaterally defining
spouse for purposes of the act. The minister cites the M. v H.
decision as if it has given him the power to unilaterally
override every act that contains the word spouse.
The M. v H. decision is about private support payments upon the
breakdown of a relationship. The Canada Pension Plan Act relates
to spousal benefits which are linked to the public purse, an
entirely different situation.
The Canada Pension Plan Act says spousal benefits are limited to
opposite sex couples and the legal rulings at the supreme court
level in the Egan decision support the constitutional validity of
the act.
The minister is ignoring the law of Canada and the courts to
push public benefits to relationships outside marriage, all at
taxpayers expense. This is clearly wrong.
* * *
[Translation]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this being Environment Week, and following an initiative
launched last year by the Minister of the Environment to have
Canadians renew a personal commitment to protect their
environment, over 43 millennium eco-communities are currently
active in Canada.
The millennium eco-communities, which are groups of citizens
working at the local level, are showing us that, to get results
at the national level, initiatives must be taken at the local
level. Let us not forget that international success is based on
local commitments, and that planetary success cannot be achieved
without the determination of each and every one of us.
* * *
1400
[English]
CROATIA
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
had the pleasure of attending the annual celebration of the
independence day of the Republic of Croatia in my riding this
weekend. I was honoured to join the Croatian ambassador to
Canada and a member of the Croatian parliament.
The event was organized by the Canadian Croatian Congress and
its president, Ivan Curman. This group does excellent work
providing educational and cultural programs to youth, adults and
seniors.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Canadian Cancer Society is celebrating and supporting the
most important event for cancer survivors at the world level, the
celebration of hope, which will take place on June 6, 1999.
This very special event is a hymn to life for all those who have
experienced or are experiencing life with cancer.
It is a unique opportunity to stress the critical role played by
families and friends, and the efforts of healthcare
professionals and researchers, to improve the quality of life of
those affected by cancer.
About one Canadian in three will be diagnosed with cancer during
his or her life. However, as treatments and detection methods
improve, more than half of cancer victims make a full recovery
and are able to take part in normal professional, recreational
and family activities.
On this celebration of hope, tune in. The Canadian Cancer
Society will hold all sorts of activities to honour those who
are living with cancer.
* * *
[English]
SOCCER
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
let us picture a non-partisan, united event attended by
representatives of all parties in the House. Imagine a spirit of
camaraderie, team work and good will which many would say would
not be possible.
Last night provided such an occasion as members from all parties
put their heart and soul into facing the daunting task of
tackling a formidable foe. As it turns out, the foe was not
quite as formidable as we thought. Yes, an all party MP team
rose to the challenge of the parliamentary pages in a soccer game
and defeated them five to two.
The intergovernmental affairs minister showed us that he could
dodge more than opposition question as he deked through the pages
defence. The member for Fraser Valley lived up to his title as
he whipped the pages offence into submission. The member for
Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke made short work of the opposition
even though we would not let him use his hockey stick.
Yes, the pages fell victim to the old adage that says “old age
and treachery will always overcome youth and skill”.
The Speaker: In that case perhaps next time I will be the
referee.
* * *
RIGHT TO VOTE
Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is against the backdrop of Ontario's provincial election that I
deliberate about voter participation.
In the year of Confederation only 11% of Canada's population was
eligible to vote. It was not until 1921 that universal women's
suffrage was enacted. Today we can be proud that 68% of Canada's
population is eligible to vote. This means every Canadian over
the age of 18.
As Ontarians go to the polls I would like to emphasize the
importance of voting. Voting is the only instance where direct
democracy is at work: ordinary citizens making the choice who
will govern them.
I strongly urge every citizen in Ontario to get out today and
exercise their right to vote.
* * *
[Translation]
MANITOBA FLOODS
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the farmers
and other residents of the Brandon—Souris area of Manitoba are
suffering the effects of unprecedented flooding.
Over the month of May, they had 200 mm of rain, compared to the
normal 55 mm, and this fell on ground that was already
waterlogged. For the farmers of southwestern Manitoba, this is
just one more burden, on top of the difficulties the grain
producers are experiencing because of the delays in assistance
from the AIDA program.
Imagine the situation on a typical farm in this area: the
farmers are waiting on government assistance so that they can
settle what they owe for last year's seed, fertilizer and other
production costs before planting their crops this spring, and
now they are being hit with rain and flooding.
If they cannot plant by June 15, they will have missed their
chance for this year.
The Bloc Quebecois members have every sympathy for the people of
southwestern Manitoba. After our experience with the floods and
the ice storm, we are keenly aware of the strength of self-help
and solidarity, which Manitobans have already shown us.
* * *
[English]
KOSOVO
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we welcome the decision of the Yugoslav parliament to accept in
full the peace plan presented by Finnish President Ahtisaari and
Russian Special Envoy Chernomyrdin.
This peace plan is based on the G-8 principles reached yesterday
and is in full accord with the United Nations charter. We
welcome progress toward a peaceful resolution of the conflict in
Yugoslavia.
* * *
1405
JUSTICE
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
spent the last two weeks travelling from province to province
meeting with grassroots aboriginals all demanding accountability.
They say they are fearful of the courts, the governments and the
privileges they are granting native band leaders. In particular,
they are fearful of the Nisga'a treaty. They are concerned that
the Canadian judiciary is being instructed to sentence native
criminals differently than non-natives. With the Delgamuukw
decision creating uncertainty with land use rights for natives,
they will be before our courts for many years to come.
With all these decisions we are moving toward creating nations
within a nation, a collection of laws, rights and privileges
available only to status Indians.
The role of the government is to treat all Canadians equally,
not to grant special rights or exemptions to a select few. The
grassroots natives feel that the living standards of all will
improve when they are more fully integrated into Canadian
society, not excluded from it.
One law and one Canada. This should be our motto.
* * *
[Translation]
PARTI QUEBECOIS
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday we learned that Bernard Landry's committee is
trying to resurrect the same studies on Quebec sovereignty
Lucien Bouchard rejected out of hand during the last referendum
campaign.
Bernard Landry certainly learned nothing from the last Quebec
referendum. More studies paid for out of the public purse.
More of the same adventure that is so harmful to Quebec,
plunging it into a climate of political and economic insecurity,
because of the mixed messages sent to the rest of Canada and to
other countries.
More of the same waste of time and energy in an undertaking of
which we already know the outcome.
Twice now Quebecers have expressed their desire to stay in
Canada. How many studies does the Parti Quebecois need before
it gets get the message?
* * *
[English]
FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
conference on free trade this weekend has been an occasion for
much celebration by those who supported it 10 years ago.
Former Prime Minister Mulroney seems particularly pleased, and
why should he not be when he sees the way his former Liberal
critics have unabashedly and slavishly adopted and accelerated
his policies?
As for the NDP, we continue to believe that the free trade
agreement has been bad for Canada. Too many good jobs have gone
south. Social inequality has increased. Our social programs
have deteriorated. We are a less sovereign nation, and we are
still subject to U.S. bullying and U.S. orders as our economy
becomes even more integrated with America. The fate of Bill C-55
is the most recent example.
The FTA may have sown greater exports and profits for some, but
we have all reaped the whirlwind in terms of losing our soul, our
chance to deliver justice, our chance to do a different thing in
the northern half of North America.
Mr. Mulroney said last night that he wanted a big Canada, not a
small Canada. Mr. Mulroney is measuring the wrong things. In
the final analysis we will not be judged by our exports, our
ability to compete or our ability to ape American attitudes and
values. We will be judged on our willingness to co-operate and
look after each other.
* * *
[Translation]
TIANANMEN SQUARE
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, ten years ago
today, thousands of Chinese students took to the streets to
express their desire for democracy in China.
They gathered peacefully on Tiananmen Square to show that China
too was feeling the universal desire of humanity for liberty.
This demonstration was harshly repressed at the cost of several
lives and with the imprisonment, under very difficult
conditions, of many democratic Chinese.
While this repression delayed the inevitable democratization of
China, the demonstration bore witness to indomitable will to
democratize China.
The Tiananmen students must know that their action was not in
vain, because they have been heard and their desire for liberty
will be achieved sooner or later. Because of their courage and
their determination, the world will not forget Tiananmen as the
prelude to a new era, an era of liberty and justice.
* * *
BARREAU DU QUÉBEC
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
draw attention to the 150th anniversary of the Barreau du Québec
and the important role played by lawyers and jurists in our
parliamentary institutions in Quebec.
We will recall that the mandate of this organization is to
safeguard public interest and, in addition, to ensure that the
public has access to a credible and efficient justice system.
1410
[English]
Today the bar represents approximately 18,000 lawyers, of which
40% are women. It is with good reason that we place a great deal
of importance on our judicial system as it plays such a central
role in our thriving democracy.
It brings great pleasure to the Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada to bring greetings to the bar today in Quebec
City.
[Translation]
There are some very prestigious lawyers in Quebec. We wish the
best of luck to the Barreau in its continued concern for
recruiting members of quality to the benefit of our legal
institutions.
* * *
[English]
ONTARIO ELECTION
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, today is election
day in Ontario and Conservatives have reason to be proud.
Premier Mike Harris has reversed a decade of Liberal-NDP
mismanagement by building an economy with an economic growth that
is double that of the rest of Canada.
He has cut taxes. He has spent more on health care than any
other government in the history of Ontario. He has brought
change to education that drew the endorsement this week of
Liberal leader Dalton McGuinty. In short, Premier Harris has
delivered on the promises he made in 1995, a principle unknown
among Liberals both federally and provincially.
In my riding of Markham I have proudly campaigned for cabinet
minister, MPP and former town council colleague Dave Tsubouchi.
In the past months the Right Hon. Joe Clark has raised money for
the PC Ontario fund and campaigned for candidates Annamarie
Castrilli, Judy Burns and transport minister Tony Clement.
On behalf of the PC Party of Canada I wish Mike Harris and his
candidates all the best as they await the judgment of Ontario
voters.
* * *
TUITION
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very
concerned about the rise of college and university tuition fees
across Canada.
Tuition fees are one of the principal barriers to higher
education for low income students. Even though there are other
significant costs, those students and their families are
particularly sensitive to changes in tuition fees.
I commend the federal government for its efforts to deal with
this problem, including the millennium scholarships, the RESP
grants and special measures for low income students. However I
urge the government to work with the provinces to systematically
reduce tuition costs.
This is a national problem. We cannot afford to lose the talent
and energies of bright young Canadians simply because their
families cannot afford to help them go to school.
* * *
NISGA'A TREATY
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the Nisga'a treaty is a $490 million land claim
treaty that gives significant self-government powers and 2,000
square kilometres of land to 5,500 Nisga'a band members.
There are some frightening and constitutionally questionable
aspects to this treaty. Until now, governmental power in Canada
was divided among federal and provincial governments. The
Nisga'a creates a new level of government, the Nisga'a national
government.
The new government will have power to tax without representation
by virtue of its race based premise and to entrench inequality
for aboriginal women. The treaty will allow the Nisga'a to pass
laws over timber, water, fisheries and wildlife.
The NDP government in British Columbia rammed this treaty
through the legislature with closure. Now the federal government
is looking for a rubber stamp.
Today the Reform Party urges the government to refer this treaty
to the supreme court to determine, before we proceed down the
road of creating mini states in British Columbia, if the treaty
constitutes an amendment to our constitution and if individual
rights are usurped by this national government.
If the treaty is on solid ground, the federal government should
welcome this determination.
* * *
[Translation]
LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, by accusing
leaders from the Quebec City region of indifference for not
responding to the partisan and hasty invitation from Liberals
last week, the Secretary of State for Agriculture and Agri-Food
has revealed his lack of leadership.
The minister's statements show that he is more concerned with
his party's visibility than with the socioeconomic development
of the greater Quebec City area. The Bloc Quebecois, on the
other hand, is working towards maintaining constant contact with
the socioeconomic and community stakeholders in this area.
Freedom to participate sits much better.
Instead of citing the Bloc Quebecois's presence in Ottawa as the
reason for the breakdown in communications, the minister should
apologize and admit that the Bloc Quebecois has often been right
in its attacks on the Liberal government's mishandling of
issues.
But his government knows what this issues are: repairs
to the Quebec City bridge, raw milk cheese, cruise ship casinos,
and icebreaking fees are just some of them.
Where was the Liberal member for
Bellechasse—Etchemins—Montmagny—L'Islet when it came to
defending these issues—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Churchill River.
* * *
[English]
THE NEW MILLENNIUM
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Cree]
[English]
I rise today to give tribute to all the high school graduates
that are celebrating as the last graduating class of this
millennium.
We wish to encourage all young Canadians to seek a fulfilling
and challenging life such as the fulfilling and challenging times
this beautiful country has endured.
1415
The millennium marks a milestone for all our journeys. This is
a time to reflect on what we can do to make our communities and
our homes a better place to be.
Let us pray that our mother the earth can sustain the lives of
our children and our children to come, and to all our relations.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Cree]
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
KOSOVO
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today the Serbian parliament voted to accept the G-8
peace proposal for Kosovo. This is obviously encouraging news to
all members but there are still a number of conditions to be met
before this proposal can be implemented.
Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether this actually
constitutes a breakthrough and what is the next step in
implementing the G-8 proposal?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to thank the Leader of the Opposition for his very
pertinent question.
Yes, it is a breakthrough and I am very happy that a minute ago
the President of Finland made a statement that President
Milosevic has accepted the proposition we received yesterday.
That is subject to verification because now the NATO military
people and the military people of Yugoslavia will meet to bring
about the implementation of the agreement, and the eventual
stopping of the bombing and withdrawal of troops from Kosovo.
We have to go to the United Nations for a resolution to be
approved because the troops that will be going there will be
going through the authority of the United Nations. It is much
better than what we were obliged to do before with NATO.
This is not sure because sometimes there are developments that
could stop the process. I want to thank the Leader of the
Opposition and the leaders of the parties in the House of Commons
who have sustained NATO in this endeavour.
It looks as though within hours cleansing policies that we
fought against will be terminated. Hopefully very soon the
Kosovars will return safely to their homes and villages in Kosovo
and that freedom and prosperity will come eventually after such a
terrible period of their lives.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the defence minister demonstrated this week that his
level of access to the powerbrokers in NATO is embarrassingly
low. This is despite the fact that Canada is one of the few
nations actually participating in the NATO air campaign.
Canada of course cannot afford to be left out, like our defence
minister was last week, of key negotiations now with either our
NATO partners or with the Serbs.
What active measures is Canada taking to ensure that the G-8
proposal is enacted as quickly as possible?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I explained yesterday that it was a coincidence that the
United States minister of defence was in Europe. He met with
some ministers of defence of Europe who were having a meeting.
I want to point out that we are involved. In fact we have been
involved since the visit of our Minister of Foreign Affairs to
Russia and they started to talk about a way using the United
Nations. We were among the initiators of the meeting of the
ministers of foreign affairs of the G-8 that led to the eight
conditions.
I do think that both the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the
Minister of National Defence have acted very well on that and on
behalf of all members of parliament. We have shown a solidarity
that was reflected in the solidarity of NATO. Apparently the
policy has been accepted by Mr. Milosevic at this moment and was
voted for by the parliament in Belgrade. We hope now that
everything will proceed very swiftly.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the acceptance of the G-8 proposal will likely mean that
Canadian forces will be deployed on the ground in Kosovo in the
coming weeks.
We know the equipment that our troops have but it is unclear
exactly what their role will be in terms of its magnitude or its
duration.
Will the Prime Minister tell the House precisely what Canada's
military commitment will be to back up the G-8 plan? Will he
seek a mandate from this House in support of that commitment?
1420
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, tonight there is to be a NATO meeting of the council to
discuss the implementation of the agreement.
We have already committed 800 people who have been moving there.
Some are already there and the rest will go there. There is a
request that we send some more but at this moment we have to look
at what it is for and at what type of forces and equipment will
be needed. It will take some days before we know for sure.
We want to make our proportional contribution as in the past. As
it is going to be a peacekeeping operation we will inform the
House. There will be a briefing as usual on that. Happily there
are no ground troops going there to fight. I am very happy that
again Canadians will be involved in peacekeeping.
* * *
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, here is
why controversy is swirling around the Prime Minister. A Quebec
fundraiser is convicted of influence peddling for using grants to
get donations to the Liberal Party. Convicted criminals and
self-confessed embezzlers get millions in grants and the Prime
Minister's own representative is being investigated by the RCMP.
Now we find that the Prime Minister himself is closely connected
to friends with big government contracts, big land deals and big
campaign donations to the Liberal Party.
Why can the Prime Minister not see there is something sick in
Shawinigan?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have to tell the hon. member the news from Shawinigan.
There was a program yesterday on which they said that they were
very happy the people realized the member for Saint-Maurice was
working for his riding. What a very nice twist. I have never had
better campaigners for my election than the Reform Party.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
member for Saint-Maurice says that he is just doing his job. The
job of a member of parliament does not include getting grants for
people who may benefit the member's own personal holdings and
political campaigns—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Go directly to the question please.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, how on earth did the Prime
Minister who promised to take political ethics to a new height
allow himself to be compromised in such an obvious way?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a list of 25 members of the Reform Party who have
benefited from the same program. There is an old saying that
when you throw mud you lose ground, which is what is happening at
this moment to the Reform Party.
* * *
[Translation]
KOSOVO
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
we now know that the G-8 peace plan has been accepted and that
Yugoslavia has agreed to NATO's five conditions.
Does the Prime Minister not think it is time that NATO
immediately stopped the bombing, in order to avoid any new
civilian casualties in Yugoslavia and to encourage the
international community to put diplomacy first, as is now the
case?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
I said earlier, we hope that the bombing stops as soon as
possible.
There will be a meeting between NATO military leaders and
Yugoslavian military leaders to ensure that the bombing stops
and troop withdrawal begins. That is why care must be taken not
to move faster than necessary. We must be sure that things
proceed in an orderly fashion so that the Kosovars can speedily
and safely return to their homes.
I am very pleased with developments and, once again, I thank the
leader of the Bloc Quebecois, who supported NATO's position
throughout this entire painful but necessary period.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
order to play a particularly active role, should Canada not
initiate a proposal to the UN security council calling on the UN
and its security council to immediately approve the G-8 plan?
This would ensure that the troops that will establish peace in
Kosovo will be under the UN banner.
1425
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Foreign Affairs and our representative to the
United Nations have been working to try to find a solution for
several weeks.
As I said earlier, it is much better that we be there under the
United Nations banner than under the NATO banner. However,
because of the Russian and Chinese vetoes, a resolution was not
possible.
Talks are now under way. Canada is taking part and we are very
confident that none of the countries with a veto will use it.
Fortunately, we will be in Yugoslavia to protect the Kosovars
under the UN banner, which is—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the Right Hon. Prime
Minister. The hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, not
only does the peace agreement offer a true glimmer of hope, but
it also means that the Yugoslav parliament has accepted, with a
vote before its people, all of the conditions set by the G-8.
This is an extremely significant event.
However, the signatory of the peace agreement is still someone
who has been accused before the International Criminal Tribunal.
My question is for the Prime Minister. What will the Government
of Canada's attitude be toward this person, who has been accused
before the International Criminal Tribunal?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member has used the word accused. He is an accused
person. In our system, an accused person is innocent until
proven guilty.
He is the president of the country and the one with whom the
President of Finland and Russian special envoy Chernomyrdin have
been dealing.
We want to be sure he respects this commitment. Our experience
with President Milosevic has been that he very often does not
keep his word.
That is why we are still being cautious. Until such time as the
text has been clearly approved and the process of ending the
bombing and withdrawing the troops has definitively begun, we
will not be taking anything for granted.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
article 9 of the peace agreement just been approved calls for:
Is Canada contemplating any specific steps for participation in
the reconstruction of the region and of the Balkans?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Foreign Affairs has just informed me that there
will probably be a meeting of ministers of foreign affairs next
week on this, and Canada will be taking part.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, following on
that question, I would like to direct my question to the finance
minister.
Canadians are very much heartened by the news of significant
progress toward peace in Kosovo, toward that objective of
enabling the Kosovars to return safely to live in their own
homes.
The reality is that a great many homes have been destroyed, that
a great many villages have been burned. The reality is that
there are no crops in the fields.
My question for the finance minister is what provisions has he
made to assist the Kosovars in rebuilding their lives and
rebuilding their communities?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is a matter certainly upon which my colleague can
respond.
I can say that at the most recent meetings of the International
Monetary Fund and the World Bank with all of the finance
ministers, this whole question of reconstruction was looked at.
At present they are obviously not in a position to estimate the
total costs nor the amount of human suffering that will obviously
have to be dealt with, but I can tell the hon. member that the
international community is active on the file.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I think
we would all agree that it is absolutely critical we not lose
sight of the original objective of our intervention in the
Balkans, which was to ensure that the Kosovars are able to return
and live in their own homes in some peace and security and with
some degree of comfort.
1430
We cannot now, in any way, leave them without food or shelter.
We cannot abandon them to the massive reconstruction that will be
necessary and have them face that reconstruction on their own.
I want to ask the finance minister again, what provisions have
we made here in Canada to fulfil our share of that international
obligation?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said earlier, we are involved in the program that
will follow. There will be a meeting of the ministers of foreign
affairs to discuss it. As members know, our Minister for
International Cooperation has been in Macedonia on behalf of the
government. We have accepted refugees. We have been doing our
part in a very honourable way and all Canadians should be happy.
We intend to do our part according to Canada's size and wealth
to make sure that the Kosovars can return home in peace and in
security. Canadians will be there, as we have always been in
those circumstances.
* * *
STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, today the Prime
Minister passed the buck to his trustee Debbie Weinstein.
However, while Debbie Weinstein is allowed to speak to reporters,
the Liberal industry committee chair will not allow my motion to
summon Ms. Weinstein for questioning to be considered. The Prime
Minister claims he welcomes open debate but his Liberal pawns
suggest otherwise.
Will he therefore ask his trustee to appear before the industry
committee or will he let the chair fight his own battles?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not know why they are debating this. What I have
done is what every other member of parliament who becomes a
minister is obliged to do. He has to put his assets in the hands
of a trustee. It is up to the trustee to make all the decisions
and it is up to the ethics commissioner to pass judgment. He has
been informed of every operation. I do not know why they are
insisting. I have followed exactly all the requirements that
have been established for a person who holds the office of
minister.
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, ethics
counsellor Howard Wilson appeared last month before this
committee and he established that the conflict of interest code
falls under the industry committee's mandate. Debbie Weinstein
is appointed and governed by this code. Mr. Wilson also said it
is Ms. Weinstein's decision whether she should appear before the
industry committee.
Will the Prime Minister instruct his trustee to answer questions
from a legislative body based on her comments in the media?
The Speaker: It is not up to the Prime Minister or any
other minister to decide who is going to be a witness at these
committees. I find that question to be out of order.
* * *
GOVERNMENT GRANTS
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
on Tuesday the Prime Minister was bullying opposition members for
asking questions about conflicts of interest, but it turns out he
was just bluffing. Today he accuses opposition members of having
benefited from HRD grants going into their ridings when no one
has presented a shred of evidence of a personal financial benefit
on the part of a member of the opposition from a grant made in
their riding.
The Prime Minister denies ownership of the shares of the
numbered company in question that did business with Mr. Gauthier
and Mr. Duhaime, but the ethics commissioner said that the code
requires that a declaration be made stating that his company has
a 25% interest in the golf club. If he does have an interest,
how can there not be a conflict of interest?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on the contrary, I think that when a member of parliament
from the Reform Party is getting a grant or helping to get a
grant for his constituents, he is just doing his job. He is
making sure that his constituents benefit from the programs
available from government. Some have quite rightly said that
they do not agree with grants, but we are not to deprive under
our system our electors from receiving the money that is
available to them. I think that is exactly what I have done as
the member of parliament for Saint-Maurice. I keep saying the
same thing. I have followed all the rules for 36 years.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yes, the Prime Minister does keep saying the same thing by
evading the questions. The question is not whether or not a
program exists that supplies pork barrel grants to ridings.
The question is whether or not the Prime Minister had a personal
financial benefit in the arrangements surrounding the golf course
in Shawinigan. He denies ownership in those shares, but payment
was never made for those shares. Ownership was never transferred
for those shares. The Prime Minister continues to own those
shares and has benefited from the transactions that occurred.
1435
How does the Prime Minister continue to deny that he had a
direct personal financial stake—
The Speaker: The Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I sold my shares before I became Prime Minister. That
is it. That day I gave my assets, as any minister is obliged to
do, to a trustee to decide. That is the way I have acted. I
have always done that, all my life.
What I am surprised about is when there are all sorts of very
important problems being resolved, they are just trying to
destroy the reputation of somebody. I know that the people of
Canada do not buy it.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-54
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the
Minister of Industry defended Bill C-54, quoting professor
Jacques Frémont.
We sent the minister's responses to Mr. Frémont and here is his
answer to them “The distortion of my words is really
unacceptable. Unbelievable”.
How does the Minister of Industry explain his denaturing the
words of an eminent professor in order to justify the
constitutional blow that Bill C-54 represents?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, he
does not want to protect the privacy of Quebecers and of
Canadians.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. John Manley: Let us look at the comments by Action réseau
consommateur and Option consommateurs du Québec, which have
said, and I quote “We unreservedly support the principles
underlying this bill. We also want to mention the importance and
relevance of the federal government's intervention nationally
and internationally to ensure the protection of Canadians'
personal information”.
We will comply with the law in Quebec. Both levels of government
have a responsibility regarding the protection—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Mercier.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the option
they prefer is to withdraw.
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs told his Quebec
counterpart that Bill C-54 does not challenge the “principles of
Quebec civil law”. Yesterday, the minister did not dare rise in
the House to defend his position.
Today, is he going to tell us whether he has realized that his
position puts him in total contradiction with the Barreau du
Québec, the Chambre des notaires du Québec and the Conseil
interprofessionnel du Québec?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in his letter to the Government of Quebec, the Minister
of Industry clearly explained how his bill respects Canada's
Constitution.
I defy the Bloc—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Stéphane Dion: —to find a federation that has
established for itself good personal information protection
legislation without having the federal government involved in it.
* * *
[English]
GOVERNMENT GRANTS
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister never sold the Grand-Mère golf course
and he has known this since 1996.
Can he not see that any dealing which benefits his land and
involves public money and the use of his office is a clear
conflict of interest? Can he not see that?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday talked about a
contract given to a bidder, who offered to do a piece of work
under the rules as agreed to by the Canadian government and a
foreign government, selected by them and at $2.5 million less
than the others. The contract was for $6.5 million. The second
bidder was $9 million.
The Reform Party thinks that we should have given it to the
second one because the owner of the company, who has done
business with the government for a long time—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I wonder why that answer had absolutely nothing to do
with my question.
The fact of the matter is that the Prime Minister has a
financial interest in a piece of property and there have been
grants, loans and dealings affecting the value of this property
in which he and his office have been actively involved.
1440
Again I ask the Prime Minister, why can he not see that that is
a clear conflict of interest?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I sold the shares in November 1993. That is the end of
it.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc
Quebecois has obtained a copy of the agreement signed by
negotiators for the federal government and for British Columbia
with respect to the use of the base at Nanoose Bay by the U.S.
government. This agreement reflected British Columbia's
concerns.
My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
How is it that this agreement, signed by his government, was
tossed out by cabinet under pressure from the Americans?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois is not up to speed.
It was very clearly argued that the Government of Canada had a
responsibility to protect the interests of all Canadians where
Canadian defence was concerned, and that the premier of the
province of British Columbia was wrong in wanting to shut down
the Nanoose Bay base. Expropriation was the only option.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is odd
that the government signed an agreement a few days earlier that
said just the opposite.
How does the minister explain that his government has decided to
cave in to the U.S. government and that, to please the
Americans, it has first of all repudiated its signature on that
document and, second, that it has pushed the limits of arrogance
by going so far as to expropriate British Columbia's own land
from it? Who is the minister defending: the provinces or the
U.S. government?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois is not up to speed. All these
issues have been debated and discussed. I do not know where it
was when this was going on.
The agreement it thinks it has discovered was signed by
officials. It was not an agreement between governments.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Skeena.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, one of
Manitoba's oldest and most respected construction companies is
out $2 million and is on the verge of bankruptcy because of
fraudulent representations made by Chief Jerry Fontaine of the
Sagkeeng first nation.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is aware
of this. As a matter of fact she has been aware of it for over a
year. She promised to help. She promised to do something about
it and make sure that Wing Construction was not put in a position
of bankruptcy.
Is the fact that four of Mr. Fontaine's family members work
directly or indirectly for this minister a barrier to resolving
the issue?
The Speaker: I will permit the question because they work
directly with the minister.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when Chief
Jerry Fontaine was running for the leadership of the Liberal
Party of Manitoba, cabinet ministers across the way had no
trouble showing up for his fundraising events. They had no
trouble supporting him.
Why is this government not supporting a good, taxpaying citizen
who employs dozens of people in Manitoba? Does the government
not understand that it has a role and a responsibility here? Or
is it just going to throw Wing Construction to the wolves?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me clarify for the House
that there was a commercial partnership arranged between the
first nation and this particular construction company. That
partnership has dissolved.
There are outstanding issues. KPMG has been retained to look at
the work that has been done and to come up with a fair and
equitable settlement. I would encourage both parties to work
together in that regard.
* * *
[Translation]
MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs has just told us that the agreement
signed between the federal government and the Government of
British Columbia on Nanoose Bay was not valid because it was
only between public servants and not between governments.
Are we to understand that this same fate could await any
agreement that might be signed between the facilitator
representing the Minister of Human Resources Development and the
Government of Quebec relating to the millennium scholarships?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the
hon. member for Roberval is in a good mood today. He wants
to lighten up our debates a bit, which are often pretty heavy
going.
1445
I can assure members that the Government of Canada is working
very hard at this time to ensure that Quebec students can take
advantage of the millennium scholarships. Our government is
committed,, in this knowledge-based economy, to ensuring that our
students can acquire the maximum of skills and knowledge in
order to perform well within that economy.
That is what our government wants and I am very pleased to say
that we are close to a conclusion in this important matter.
* * *
[English]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are many media reports on the
possible breakthrough of the Pacific salmon dispute with the
United States.
Could the Minister of Foreign Affairs please advise the House on
any progress that is being made?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that indeed there
has been a successful negotiation toward an agreement on the
Pacific salmon dispute.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will be making a detailed
announcement on the west coast in a couple of hours. It
demonstrates that when two sides work together for a mutual
benefit, in this case the conservation of the fishing stock, they
can come up with a good deal.
I would like to personally thank Don McRae, the chief negotiator
working under the auspices of the Prime Minister, for the
excellent work he has done, and a personal thanks to Secretary of
State Albright for her personal commitment to make this agreement
a success.
* * *
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we finally gave them something to do over there.
Last year Richard Joyce, a federal prisoner, died of a drug
overdose. He had lethal levels of residual chemicals from heroin
in his blood and damage to his organs that were consistent with
long term drug abuse in a prison.
Since Richard Joyce was in prison for a long time, why was it
that there were so many drugs in that prison that could sustain
his addiction and even kill him?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the member just came to
realize that there are drugs in prison, but there are. It is a
simple matter.
A test done in 1995 showed that 39% of the people in federal
prisons used drugs. A test was done about a year ago and it
showed about 13% or about a 300% decrease in drug usage.
I can assure my hon. colleague that the problem is not solved.
We are still working on the drug and alcohol—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, he should get a life over there. I realized there were
drugs in this prison and rampant throughout the country a heck of
a lot sooner than those people did over there.
Let me give the member a quote from an assistant warden at
Correctional Service Canada. He said: “Richard Joyce was a
regular heroin user at Mission Institution and always tested the
quality of his drugs before he used them”.
Would the government tell me if this is some kind of bad joke,
or does it understand what zero tolerance in our prisons really
means?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said to my hon. colleague, there are
drugs in prison. I am well aware of the drug and alcohol
problems with our federal inmates. Seven out of ten people who
are in our federal institutions are in there because of alcohol
or drug abuse.
I have instructed my officials to evaluate our programs and to
have a program in place for our offenders when they are on
parole. After they are on parole there needs to be some type of a
program to help people who are addicted to alcohol, who are
alcoholics and who—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver East.
* * *
HOUSING
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, at
the opening of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities
tomorrow, the key issue that is going to be facing municipal
leaders is homelessness and the housing crisis in Canada.
It has been more than two months since the Prime Minister
appointed a minister of homelessness, but there has not been one
solitary homeless person who has been helped in Canada. There
has been no action, no plan, no dollars.
Where is the commitment of the Prime Minister and the Canadian
government at the FCM to provide housing assistance, and for the
federal government to become involved again in a housing program?
1450
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Labour will be present at the conference of the Federation of
Canadian Municipalities in Halifax. The minister has been
travelling across the country and will be travelling all summer
listening to Canadians so that we can have the right program.
In the meantime, I would like to remind the member that the
government put $300 million into the RRAP program which addresses
the homeless. We have also created units for the homeless. Maybe
she should speak to the Government of British Columbia which does
not participate in the RRAP program.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
first, I hope that the minister of homelessness shows up because
so far all she has done is cancel meetings.
Second, a RRAP program does not assist people who are homeless
or destitute on the street.
What we want to know is where are the dollars, where is the plan
and where are the proposals and strategies from the federal
government to get back into the housing program and work with the
provinces and municipalities?
I have to remind the minister that B.C. is only one of two
provinces still providing social housing, whereas his government
does not.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will repeat that
the minister is in attendance there and is definitely working.
We expect to receive a report from all the mayors of Canada so
that we can work together.
I have said many times in the House that homelessness is not
just a federal problem. It is a federal, provincial and
municipal problem and we have to work together. The minister
responsible for homelessness is talking to the mayors right now
to come up with the right program. The member should wait for
the report.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Mr. Speaker,
now that it has been confirmed that a deal has been struck
between Canada and the United States to divide the west coast
salmon, I would like to ask the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
or the Minister of Foreign Affairs if they can inform the House
if this deal will protect the future of coastal communities in
British Columbia, and whether or not priority will be given to
Canadian fishermen to access Pacific salmon?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, let me first correct one major word. The deal does
not divide the communities, it brings the communities together.
This has been a deal of mutual benefit on both sides of the
border to conserve the fish stock, to provide direct investment
to preserve the fish stock and to make sure that the communities
themselves have a system or a formula in place that will provide
stability over the next 10 years.
This is exactly what we have been working for, to give the
fishermen on the west coast, from both sides of the borders, a
sense that they have a future.
Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Mr.
Speaker, let me ask the minister: Will the new deal move fish to
Canada and protect and rebuild salmon stocks? Is there a
conservation fund in the agreement?
If there is a conservation fund in the agreement, will there be
conservation guidelines established as suggested by the auditor
general in his recent report? Could the minister also indicate
what those conservation guidelines might be?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will be giving
a very detailed briefing on the west coast in about an hour and a
half from now. I can indicate to the hon. member that it does
include a conservation fund and there will be proper guidelines
established. It is a very comprehensive composite agreement that
brings together all of the elements that have been on the table
for the last four or five years.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
times of need Canadians expect their government to be there for
them. When someone loses their job the last thing they need is a
thoughtless, faceless bureaucracy armed with confusing rules and
jargon. They need personal, sensitive and understandable
assistance.
Does the Minister of Human Resources Development share these
sentiments, and if so, what steps are being taken to ensure
quality service for all Canadians in need?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I had a town hall session
last month with officials from across Canada to discuss how we
could go further in terms of ensuring that Canadians get the very
best service possible in terms of our social programs, and that
people are treated with respect, compassion and caring when they
come to us for help.
We are now working on a number of fronts, including: trying to
do more to ensure our clients understand the rules and
regulations behind various programs so they know their rights;
trying to help individuals deal with hardship cases; trying to
ensure that if someone owes us money, their repayment—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia.
* * *
1455
THE RCMP
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is not a mistake that there is a problem in British Columbia
with organized crime, biker gangs and drugs. It is these
Liberals who cancelled the harbour police. It is these Liberals
who have created a situation where we are short 256 RCMP
officers.
In spite of the fact that there are 96 recruits presently in the
RCMP training detachment in Regina, not one is scheduled to come
to British Columbia. Why?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this happens to be an internal matter of
the RCMP. My hon. colleague is well aware that there is a
resource review underway. This will ensure that the resources
used by the RCMP are used adequately and that all the funding
possible that can be put toward organized crime is put toward
organized crime. I am sure my hon. colleague would want tax
dollars to be spent as wisely as possible.
* * *
[Translation]
RAIL TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in a few days from now, the Quebec Central train will
resume operations with the support of local socioeconomic
stakeholders and financial support from the Government of Quebec.
Despite the personal commitment of the Liberal member for
Beauce, who would have risked his seat, the federal government
continues to refuse to become financially involved in the
project.
How does the secretary of state for regional development explain
his refusal when the mandate of his department is in fact to
promote the economic development of regions, including Beauce
and L'Amiante?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Economic Development
Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I thank my colleague from Beauce, who has done a remarkable job
in this area and who, unlike the members of the Bloc Quebecois,
has consistently followed the matter.
Last week a meeting was held for all the community
stakeholders on the Quebec Central matter. The member for Beauce
was in attendance and reported to me.
I would also say to the Bloc Quebecois members that we have
never refused to get involved in this matter. In essence, what
we said at the start was that there were no firm railway
contracts and the involvement of the Canadian government was
much too great.
However, if the matter has been reworked, as it
seems to have been, we will look
at it seriously, because it is a matter of—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Center.
* * *
[English]
PRIME MINISTER
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister said that he sold his golf club
shares to a Mr. Jonas Prince in 1993. However, Mr. Prince
denies ownership of the shares and so does the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister's lawyer is arranging the sale of these shares
which may have increased in value after millions of public
dollars have been spent near the Grand-Mère Golf Club.
Canadians want to get to the bottom of this.
Will the Prime Minister table share transaction agreements and
relevant correspondence that prove categorically that he did not
own these shares at the time the transactions with Mr. Gauthier
were underway.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not have any shares. I sold them.
* * *
MAGAZINE INDUSTRY
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, ever since
the government decided to sacrifice Canada's magazine industry
to appease the Americans, we have been trying to get details on
the proposed subsidy the government has said it will use to
compensate those magazines most affected.
Can the Minister of Finance tell Canadians how much the subsidy
will cost? If he cannot, how can the government responsibly
enter into an agreement?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the discussions about
the adjustment package are ongoing. Once they are concluded and
a report is presented by the minister to cabinet, the members
opposite will be apprised of the contents of that package.
* * *
TRANSPORTATION
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
There are some European countries that are world leaders in the
integration of different modes of transportation, like railways to
air links. I would like to know what the Minister of Transport
is doing to encourage Canada's integration of our different modes
of transportation.
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a very delicate and serious
problem is the congestion we have at most of our major airports,
especially at Vancouver, Pearson and Dorval.
However, we instituted a study in May 1999 regarding Pearson
airport. Now we are examining the possibility of carrying out
such a study with the airport at Dorval. We hope that as far as
all three airports are concerned we will be making progress in
these areas.
1500
The Speaker: Order, please. I have notice of two
questions of privilege and then we will go to the Thursday
question. The first question of privilege I want to hear is from
the hon. member for Medicine Hat.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TAX EQUITY FOR CANADIAN FAMILIES WITH
DEPENDENT CHILDREN
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question of privilege arises from a newspaper article in the
Toronto Star today. In that newspaper article we find a
quote from the member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges who is the chair
of the finance committee's subcommittee on family income and the
tax system.
In that article the chair of the subcommittee comments on the
results of a report which is yet to be released to the finance
committee. I believe that is a direct violation of the rules. I
believe that my ability to do my job as a member of parliament
has been impeded by this.
I want to quote from the article. The member for
Vaudreuil—Soulanges said:
We have done that analysis and I think the general conclusion is
that the tax system does not discriminate between single- and
dual-income earner families because you have children—
If there is any appearance of discrimination in the tax system,
it is based on two principles (taxing individuals and
progressivity).
My point is simply that we have a process whereby the reports
from these subcommittees are to go to the committee that they are
attached to. In this case it has gone directly to the media
without people like me on the finance committee having had a
chance to see it ahead of time.
I believe my privilege has been violated.
The Speaker: I am not cutting the member off. He has a
serious point. However, the hon. member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges
is not here with us today. I do not think that the hon. member
for Medicine Hat said that this statement was ever made in the
House. Is that correct?
Mr. Monte Solberg: That is correct.
The Speaker: I want to wait until we hear what the member
for Vaudreuil—Soulanges has to say, if indeed he did say
anything in that respect.
The second question of privilege will not be brought up.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, this matter will come up
again when the member comes back into the House. Do you want to
hear submissions prior to that or will you give us ample notice
so that we can be here to provide further submissions to what my
hon. colleague just gave you?
The Speaker: I think what I will do as a first step
is wait to hear what the hon. member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges has
to say. If there is other pertinent information, I might be disposed
tolisten to it provided that indeed the hon. member did say what he
was alleged to have said. I am not going to take it any further.
It will be one step at a time. I will hear what the hon. member
has to say.
1505
I am addressing myself to the hon. member for Mississauga South.
If there is a necessity for more information, I will hear it
after I have heard from the hon. member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I have several questions for the government House leader today,
as he might guess.
Before I ask the questions I would like to take this opportune
time to congratulate the hon. government House leader on
completing his Bachelor of Arts degree in history from Waterloo
University.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Randy White: I know it takes a long time to finish
those degrees. I have been there myself.
I would like to ask the hon. member one skill testing question
on history. Is the hon. member aware if any Liberal government
ever formed three successive majority governments in Canada? He
might reflect on that historic question.
I would like to ask the government House leader if the House
will indeed be sitting past June 11. We hear that it is closing
early. We were anticipating going until about June 18 or 21. I
would like to ask him if it will continue.
I would like the hon. member to bring the House up to date with
regard to all legislation being brought forward to the House to
the end of this session.
The Speaker: Not wanting to take the fire out of the
government House leader, I believe there were successive Liberal
governments from 1935 to 1957 but I could be mistaken.
I want to congratulate the hon. member too. I think it is a
wonderful feat and a good example for all Canadians.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the opposition House
leader and all his colleagues for the applause as well.
Speaking of three successive Liberal
governments, this is bound to happen again soon because ours will
be re-elected the next time. There will be another Liberal
government re-elected a third time.
I will start with the business for the next week.
Tomorrow we will consider report stage and third reading of Bill
S-22 respecting air transit preclearance, followed by Bill S-23,
respecting carriage by air. I understand that these bills may
proceed rather rapidly. Then we will take up consideration of
the Senate amendments to Bill C-49, the land claims legislation.
Monday and Tuesday shall be allotted days. I would like to take
this opportunity to remind all colleagues that Tuesday is the
final day of the supply cycle which results in a day that is
longer than the ones with which most of us are familiar in terms
of votes and so on.
Starting Wednesday next week, I intend to commence measures to
wrap up some of the parliamentary agenda. Let me give the
following outline to colleagues.
Assuming that the bill has returned from the Senate, and I am
told that it likely will, we will proceed with the Senate
amendments to Bill C-55 as a priority. We will then consider
Bill C-54. If an agreement has been reached, we could then deal
with the impaired driving bill, but only provided there is an
agreement. I understand that some members have different views
as to what the bill should include and we can only deal with that
bill if we all agree on it.
The bill is unnumbered and will likely be tabled probably as
early as tomorrow. Hopefully we can arrive at a consensus on
that.
1510
We would then do the miscellaneous statute law amendments act,
otherwise known as MSLA. Hopefully we could do that at all
stages rather rapidly. This could take us to Friday of next
week.
For the week after, perhaps I should wait for the meeting of
House leaders to be held on Tuesday before describing any
business beyond that time.
Just to alert the Chair, of course the business I am describing
beyond next Wednesday is only tentative and there would be a
House leaders meeting on Tuesday. I will endeavour to keep
colleagues informed.
Possibly, depending on the events in Kosovo there have been
negotiations on particular procedures in that regard among House
leaders. Those may change depending on the events. I intend to
discuss those with House leaders as well. Perhaps on a question
next Thursday I could update the House in that regard as well.
This ends my report. I am sure we are all anxiously awaiting
the re-election of the third consecutive Liberal government under
the able leadership of the Prime Minister.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I would like to extend my congratulations to the
government House leader on his academic achievements. I disagree
only with him to the extent that he shows such obvious and
misguided enthusiasm for a third Liberal government.
Given the controversy that has erupted recently over the head
tax for refugees and immigrants, could the government House
leader say whether the government intends to bring in any
legislation at any time to remove the head tax for refugees?
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: A point of order.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: I am bringing this forward under the
Thursday question, Madam Speaker. Perhaps when I finish, the
member could make his point of order.
Will there also be legislation coming in with respect to water
exports? This is something else that was promised by the
government.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member for
Winnipeg—Transcona is on a point of order. We will finish with
this one and then get back to the hon. member. The hon.
government House leader.
Hon. Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, on the issue of water
exports, there could be a bill introduced before we rise. There
is still a fair chance that we will be able to complete that in
terms of having it ready for introduction.
On the other issue that was raised, that is to say the issue of
a head tax, of course there is no head tax in Canada. All
members will recognize that. If the member is referring to the
landing fee, there is no proposal to table such legislation
before we rise.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I rise on a point of order. As far as the procedure of the House
is concerned, so far as I am aware, the Thursday question is
asked by the official opposition. Last time I noticed that there
was another Thursday question asked. If that is the case, I
would also like to ask the government House leader that if Bill
C-49 does not finish, how long will it go on, and how long will
the MSLA take?
Hon. Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, we are producing Bill
C-49 tomorrow, the Senate amendments, and the miscellaneous
statute law amendments act Friday of next week. It is a little
unusual that the government could answer as to how long the
opposition will take to dispose of the stage of a bill, but
hopefully it will be as rapidly as possible.
1515
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, since we are going on with a long Thursday
question, I would ask the government House leader what happened
to the young offenders bill which has been touted by the
government. Millions of dollars have been spent on advertising
and it does not seem to be on the government agenda any more.
Hon. Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, it certainly is on the
agenda. Bill C-68, the youth justice bill, was debated on four
consecutive occasions in the House of Commons. The House and all
Canadians will be aware of the extensive filibuster made by some
hon. members opposite. I am ready to refer the issue to
committee by unanimous consent right now if members opposite are
agreeable.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I will recognize the
hon. member for Dewdney—Alouette on another point of order, but
I am afraid this is the last one I will allow since traditionally
it is the House leader of the official opposition who asks the
questions.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, my point of order
follows along that raised by my NDP colleague from Winnipeg. It
has to do with the head tax which he mentioned or, as the House
leader likes to refer to it, the landing fee. This was an issue
that was brought before committee yesterday. It was a compelling
point made by members of the committee and Liberal members
absented themselves from that vote. Is that going to inspire the
government to move on this very important issue?
Hon. Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, procedure before
committee is just that.
Mr. John Reynolds: Madam Speaker, the government House
leader has said that if there was unanimous consent we could send
the young offenders bill to committee. I would like to ask for
unanimous consent to send the bill to committee.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there agreement?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Randy White: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I hope you did not miss the point. We have a Thursday
question and now we have established a second question period. I
would like to ask you, Madam Speaker, to ask the table officers
how this is going to work. If we are going to extend question
period into a question period for the government House leader, we
want to be adequately prepared. My colleagues are ready to ask
questions. We would like a clarification and we would like the
government House leader to stay around a while because we have a
lot of questions to ask.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I must remind the
hon. member that I have already made the point that traditionally
it is his privilege to address the Thursday question. Today we
have made a few exceptions. I hope the hon. member understands
that this is not the usual procedure.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—NISGA'A TREATY
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am privileged to stand today to try
to bring some clarification to the Nisga'a final agreement which
the government has already endorsed. I am afraid that the
government will take the same route that the provincial NDP
government took to limit debate and move time allocation or
closure on this debate when it reaches the House in the fall.
1520
It distresses me that there seems to be an unwillingness on the
part of governments, both in British Columbia and here in Ottawa,
to look at this agreement with an open eye, to really look at the
document and try to answer some very serious questions that the
people of British Columbia have and that the people of Canada
should have.
The concern that we have in British Columbia is that the
precedent setting Nisga'a final agreement will have ramifications
across the country and Canadians should be aware of what those
ramifications might be.
Already in Alberta we have Treaty 8. There is talk about
re-opening that treaty. Treaties which have been agreed to and
have been in place for a good number of years may be changed
because of the final agreement that has been settled with the
Nisga'a people.
What is also a concern from British Columbians' point of view is
that the Nisga'a agreement will be a template for 60 other
treaties that are under negotiation. However, we should
understand that those 60 agreements which are being negotiated
now do not represent the total number of aboriginal communities
trying to reach agreement. There are a good number of aboriginal
communities. The first nation in my riding is not taking part in
the treaty negotiations because it does not believe that it is a
process which it wants to follow. We are not talking about 60
treaty agreements, we are talking about many more.
While this treaty has yet to be ratified by the House, which
would put it into the position of being considered under section
35 of the constitution, there are already four law suits pending.
People can say it is just the non-aboriginal people who are
concerned. No, it is not. The Gitanyow band from up north has a
court case against the Nisga'a and against this treaty because
the Nisga'a have seized up to 84% of its traditional territory in
the Nass Valley. Eighty-four per cent of the land that is
claimed by another first nation is being absorbed in this
agreement.
A leader of the Gitanyow has stated that they are concerned that
the Nisga'a were never required to prove the extent of their
title to resolve the overlaps in land claims. They feel it is a
violation of aboriginal law and federal policy.
According to one individual, it is not right to sacrifice the
land entitlement of one nation to obtain a treaty with another
nation.
It is not just non-aboriginals, it is aboriginals themselves who
have taken the Nisga'a to court to resolve some of the issues
that are not clear and to try to resolve some of the conflicts
which this agreement has already established.
We feel very strongly in the Reform Party that we must settle
some of the things which are not clear, the uncertainties,
through the courts on this agreement before the House ratifies
it. How can we ratify an agreement when there are four lawsuits
before the courts concerning its legality and the land it
entails? How can we possibly ratify this agreement with those
four cases before the courts?
One reason we brought this motion to the House today for debate
is because there are so many constitutional and legal issues that
must be clarified.
We have heard over the past number of months when we have raised
this issue in the House the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development claim that the Nisga'a government will be
subject to the charter of rights and freedoms.
I want to read directly from the Nisga'a final agreement, which
states that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies
to Nisga'a government in respect of all matters within its
authority, bearing in mind the free and democratic nature of
Nisga'a government as set out in this agreement.
1525
If this agreement is going to recognize the charter of rights,
why does it include “bearing in mind the free and democratic
nature of Nisga'a government as set out in this agreement”? Why
does it not just say that the charter of rights and freedoms
applies to Nisga'a government?
I would suggest that the reason is quite simple. It is that the
government is wanting to leave the ambiguity in the agreement so
that the courts understand clearly that they are expected to
treat the Nisga'a people differently and not to apply the charter
of rights as it would apply to any other Canadian. I can think
of no other reason than to force the courts to treat the Nisga'a
people differently under the charter of rights.
I had many experiences in my previous life of aboriginal
communities taking on responsibility for themselves. I was an
observer of 11 aboriginal communities in northern Alberta taking
on the responsibility under the Lesser Slave Lake Indian Regional
Council to provide education, welfare and social services to
their people and to co-operate to provide good regional
government for their people. However, it was never done with
constitutional protection. It was never done by forming another
level of government. They were very successful over a large
number of years in providing these services without the need to
form another level of government.
In British Columbia we have seen a number of cases where
aboriginal communities have achieved more authority in running
their programs and their communities, but they have not shown a
good degree of responsibility. I refer to the Musqueam Band and
the Semiahmoo Band. In both cases they were not fair in their
treatment of non-aboriginal individuals within their communities.
The Musqueam Band has raised rents extraordinarily, out of
reason. One individual got a bill for $73,000 for 18 months'
rent from the Musqueam Band. Although their rents skyrocketed,
the actual value of the land and their property plummeted. It
now has no value at all.
All of this is because of an attitude of an aboriginal people
who are being supported by provincial and federal governments
which allow them to completely disregard fairness and equity for
non-aboriginals.
It also happened in my own community where there were nine
non-aboriginal residents who lost their homes. They lost those
homes after 40 or 50 years with absolutely no compensation. They
were evicted. I would question if that would be allowed to
happen if it was a white Anglo-Saxon male making the decision.
There are too many questions left unanswered in this final
Nisga'a agreement. The uncertainty of the legal status of the
Nisga'a treaty and the Nisga'a government must be resolved in the
courts before the agreement is ratified here in the House. Nobody
can predict what the courts' reaction and decisions will be.
I would suggest to the House that when the Prime Minister helped
to introduce the charter of rights and freedoms many years ago he
never for a moment contemplated that pedophiles would have a
legal right to child pornography. I do not think we can leave
uncertainty and ambiguity in our agreement. We cannot ratify
this agreement. We must be more certain of what it means and
what its ramifications will be across the country.
I would like to think that parliamentarians and Canadian people
as a whole have a right to know what the legal ramifications will
be before parliament ratifies this agreement.
1530
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her interventions and
interest in this issue. I would like to point out a couple of
inaccuracies in her observations and her comments and then ask a
question.
First, she mentioned the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en and Gitanyow
first nations in terms of infringement. These problems were
anticipated many years ago and are included in paragraph 33 of
the agreement. I draw to her attention where it says that
nothing in this agreement will derogate from any of the existing
rights of other aboriginal people. The answer to her comments
and concerns is no.
Second, it is not a constitutional document in the sense that
the Manitoba act became part of the Constitution of Canada. She
is misreading section 35 which recognizes existing aboriginal
rights in Canada. It therefore follows that there is no need for
a constitutional amendment. If the parties want to change the
agreement, as it is discussed and contemplated in paragraphs 37
and 38, the Government of Canada can do so through an order in
council. It is absolutely not true and it is fuzzy thinking to
suggest to the House that there is a need for a constitutional
amendment.
In terms of the process of the legal case, Justice Campbell of
the B.C. supreme court, one of her own leading justices, has
properly stated that this treaty should be debated in the House
of Commons and parliament before any judicial activism is allowed
to proceed.
Again we point out the contradictions of the Reform Party. On
one the hand the member raised the question of child pornography
and it wanted to usurp the courts and have it done in parliament.
Now that has changed. It wants to utilize the courts and bypass
parliament.
If I could reasonably satisfy her by using the reasonable man or
woman test and convince some of her constituents in South Surrey
that it is not a document that necessitates a constitutional
amendment, and that the charter does apply as it specifically
says in the agreement, would she do the proper thing and
represent her constituents by standing in her place and
supporting the deal during debate in the fall when the document
comes to the House?
Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
across the way for some of his comments. He probably does not
know, because it is not customary for his side of the floor, that
on a regular basis I communicate with my constituents and ask
them what they feel about legislation. I have asked them about
the Nisga'a agreement and I will ask them again when it comes
before the House. I honour their suggestions and their
directions.
When we talk about it not being a constitutional amendment, that
is up for debate. Some people feel that it is not a direct
constitutional amendment that we are looking for but that it will
indirectly become part of the constitution and will not be able
to be changed by an order of council.
The hon. member is colouring the image when he suggests that the
government can change the agreement whenever it feels like it
with an order of council. That is not so. It will take the
agreement of all three parties for any changes to be made. As
with the Canada-Quebec accord and with immigration, it is often
impossible to get the agreement of two parties to change an
agreement when one party would lose a lot of its benefits because
of the change.
The hon. member says that the charter of rights will apply. Why
is that addendum added to the application of the charter of
rights if it does not mean anything? If it is there it means
something. If it does not mean anything then it should not be
there.
1535
I think the people of British Columbia and the people of Canada
are asking for clarity. They want to know exactly what it means.
It is quite different taking something to the supreme court or to
the courts for clarification prior to legislating than it is to
have courts making decisions because of the ambiguity and the
grey areas left in legislation by the government of the day.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Madam Speaker, so
far in the debate we have heard Reform members talk about some
important issues in a substantive way: the constitutionality of
the Nisga'a agreement, the four lawsuits being pressed to try to
stop the agreement from going ahead, and many other substantive
issues.
On the other hand, as I have listened to the debate I have heard
members of the governing party and of the New Democratic Party
pretty much spend their time attacking Reform and not answering
the questions put after they finished their debate. I am quite
shocked at the level of debate from these two parties in
particular.
The Liberals are pretty much focused on imputing the motives of
the Reform Party in terms of our stand on the agreement and on
the motion today. We have heard the Liberals present a lot of
emotional, feel good rhetoric but not much in terms of substance.
We have seen the New Democratic Party members seemingly bent on
protecting the undemocratic process of their provincial
colleagues in British Columbia, and I am concerned about that.
I am surprised and bewildered by what I have heard from the
Liberals and the New Democrats. The government thinks it can
deal with a problem of inequality by enshrining further
inequality. To me it seems unfathomable to try to deal with
inequality by enshrining in law another inequality. Yet that is
what the agreement will do in several ways if it goes ahead.
The potential inequality when it comes to the division of
property in the case of a divorce is one big problem with this
piece of legislation. It is troubling to think they believe we
can deal with inequalities by enshrining others. I am also
concerned about that.
I will refer to an aboriginal task force process and report in
which I was involved in my constituency over the past year or
year and a half. The aboriginal task force was established with
me as chair for the purpose of hearing from grassroots aboriginal
people the things that were most troubling them about the way
their governments were working.
From those people I obtained nine recommendations. There were
many more I could have put in the report, but I wanted it to be
something that would be read by the minister. To her credit she
met with the task force and heard what we had to say. These nine
recommendations were from the people who were saying that these
things caused the greatest problems in their everyday lives.
These were their recommendations to the Indian affairs minister
which they thought would help improve their lives.
I will go through these nine recommendations very quickly and
ask whether they are dealt with in the Nisga'a agreement, whether
the problems that were expressed and the recommendations for
solving them are dealt with in the Nisga'a agreement. In that
way we could evaluate how successful the agreement has been in
answering the concerns of grassroots aboriginal people.
I will start by explaining a little about the process very
quickly. It was a three stage process. The first stage was
private consultation where none of the information that was given
to me would be repeated. It was done in strictest confidence
unless there was agreement from the person who made the
statements.
The second stage was the questionnaire which was sent out to all
the reserves and the towns near reserves in the constituency.
1540
The third stage of the consultation process was public meetings
where some of the key issues in the earlier part of the process
were discussed in a public manner. About 70 aboriginal people
attended one of the public meetings in St. Paul. We had an
excellent discussion on some key issues.
I will go through the recommendations and comment very quickly
on whether the Nisga'a deal includes them. The first
recommendation is in the area of financial accountability. It
states that the government must enforce more comprehensive and
transparent financial reporting by band and settlement
administrators. This information must be freely available to all
members and the general public. That recommendation was getting
at the lack or gaps in financial accountability, the most
commonly expressed concern of the people involved in the process.
Does the Nisga'a agreement ensure that there will be
comprehensive and transparent financial reporting and that it
will be made available to the public? It does not. The first
recommendation has not been dealt with in the agreement.
The second recommendation of the aboriginal task force states
that to ensure sound financial management on reserves and
settlements the government must provide better financial
management support for aboriginal councillors and administrators.
The recommendation is saying that leadership needs some help in
doing a better job of managing. It is a complementary point to
the first one but focusing on what kind of help can be offered.
One person said:
Problems on reserves are the outgrowth of a system which at one
time prevented people from leaving reserves, and at one time
starved them.
This was stated by George Forsyth, the administrator of the
Onion Lake Band. He went on to say:
You can't go from a system where people were watched over every
minute to one where they are totally on their own, and expect
perfect accountability. The evolutionary process should have
gone from control to help. But there has been no preparation to
provide an infrastructure for accountability.
Does the Nisga'a agreement deal with this concern and with this
recommendation? It does not.
The third recommendation, again on fiscal accountability, states
that the government together with councillors and administrators
must ensure there is effective, regular and ongoing consultation
of band and settlement members. In other words get the people
most affected by the government, the people on the reserves,
involved on a regular basis so there is openness and transparency
about what is going on.
Does the Nisga'a agreement deal with this? It does not. We saw
some things that were actually quite shocking, including one
member of a band at one public meeting saying that the band on
that reserve had not called a meeting in seven years. That is a
problem. There is nothing in this agreement that will ensure
there will be ongoing and open consultation when it comes to
fiscal accountability.
Another member said that the solution may be to require band
meetings where people approve and forecast the budget. What an
idea. What a concept. A budget would actually be approved in
advance. It makes sense. There is nothing to ensure that in
this agreement that will be dealt with.
The fourth recommendation is on democratic accountability, a
huge concern on the part of the people the Lakeland aboriginal
task force heard from. The government must establish an arm's
length body or an ombudsman or agency to hear and act on the
confidential concerns of aboriginal Canadians.
The recommendation is getting at something that was heard from
participants quite often. When things just are not going right
members feel they have no one to go to. They cannot go to the
council because that is where the problem is coming from. There
should be an available independent ombudsman to give the people a
call or have them come in to deal with the problem.
The fifth area of accountability was in terms of having fair
elections. Again what in this agreement would ensure fair elections?
1545
In conclusion, clearly the concerns that were expressed by the
aboriginal task force members are not dealt with in the Nisga'a
agreement. That leads me to wonder whether things will be better
for the Nisga'a people and I believe they will not be.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I appreciate the concerns expressed by my colleague
opposite. However, I would submit to him that the actual place
where systems of accountability and election and propriety, shall
we say, should exist should be in the legislation, not in the
treaty.
I suggest that the initiative coming from the Reform Party on
the question before the House is premature. I think his
questions are more relevant to the legislation that will come
before us in six months, or perhaps to different legislation
entirely. I cite for example the Access to Information Act and
the Privacy Act. These are elements of legislation that should
address the kind of problems that he is mentioning.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has
expressed a couple of more concerns about the way things are
handled now. I think he would be the first to acknowledge that
there is no indication whatsoever that the Nisga'a agreement will
help deal with those concerns. Things will not be made better as
a result of the Nisga'a agreement.
I fully agree with the member. True, maybe I have strayed
slightly from the actual motion today, but I was dealing very
directly with the problems with the Nisga'a agreement. How at
the grassroots level, at an everyday life level will things be
better for aboriginal people as a result of this agreement? I do
not see any indication that this agreement will ensure that at
all.
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, on that point I would refer the member again to chapter
1, article 13, in terms of all the federal and provincial laws
that are not enumerated, those 14 areas enumerated in the
agreement, those laws will continue to apply to the aboriginal
people of the Nass Valley as they do today.
I would also like to point out to the member that he is wrong in
terms of the equality provisions. We have said this many times
in the House in answering questions from members across the way
that section 15 of the charter of rights and freedoms guarantees
those rights both to men and to women.
Also, in contemplating the drafting of the charter of rights and
freedoms women's groups were concerned it was not clear enough.
Section 28 says that the rights of women and men apply equally in
the charter. Still further, section 35(4) was put in by the
lobby group for the aboriginal women in 1981-82 at the amending
conference to provide those guarantees. There are those
guarantees and the member is wrong.
I think it is a good thing that the member has toured and has
visited some reserves as some of the other members of his caucus
have also done in the past couple of years. They must be
commended for that. However, I would ask him to come up to the
Nass Valley. If he would like, I would act as a conduit and an
instrument to bring him to meet the Nisga'a people. He could tour
the area and meet and speak with them, perhaps in more detail
than his colleague from Skeena would. Perhaps he could educate
the rest of his caucus on what he found. I trust the member's
concerns would be eased and he would be comforted by that. Would
he take the challenge and come up to visit the Nisga'a this
summer?
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Madam Speaker, I would really love to
do that. It is a great invitation and if I possibly can, I will
take the member up on that.
I must remind him though that I have about 30,000 aboriginal
people in my constituency. I have been on reserves. I know the
conditions. I have heard from these people through the
aboriginal task force process and every day of every week in my
office. They need help. Things are not going well on their
reserves. The leadership is not accountable. The money is not
getting to the people for whom it is intended. My first
responsibility is to those people and that is where I will focus.
In terms of the inequality issue, I have an interesting letter
from Jack Gosnell the president of the Nisga'a Tribal Council.
This letter was in response to the letter from the Reform Party
member for Okanagan—Shuswap.
1550
In the letter the question that was being answered was how will
you protect the property rights other Canadian women enjoy in the
event of marital breakdown? That is a concern I have. The answer
is very short. I will give just a short quote from Mr. Gosnell:
“The nature of the property interest to be held by Nisga'a
individuals in their residential property has not yet been
determined”. This was from Mr. Gosnell himself. How can the
member opposite say that he can ensure that equality rights will
be protected?
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to rise in my place today to respond to the
motion by the hon. member for Skeena. I will be sharing my time
with the member for Wentworth—Burlington.
I am pleased because I can use this opportunity to correct
misinformation put forward by the hon. member who clearly does
not understand what the Nisga'a final agreement is about.
I want to take this opportunity to remind him of the reasons
that Canada has signed this treaty with British Columbia and the
Nisga'a people. With the ratification of the Nisga'a treaty,
Canada will at last be able to turn the page on one of the less
admirable chapters in our country's history. We will finally
conclude the unfinished business of treaty making with the
Nisga'a people, a process that has dragged on since the time of
Queen Victoria.
I remind my hon. colleagues that treaties are not new to this
country. In fact, this year marks the 100th anniversary of
treaty 8. However, while treaties were negotiated with many
other first nations, most of the aboriginal peoples of British
Columbia did not sign treaties with the colonial governments.
With the exception of treaty 8 which extends into northeastern
B.C. and the 14 Douglas treaties on the southern tip of Vancouver
Island, the majority of first nations in the province have never
had their claims to their lands and resources addressed, nor have
they abandoned their belief in their right to determine their own
destiny.
From our earliest days as a nation, the Nisga'a people have
fought valiantly to have those rights recognized and withheld.
Six years after the province of British Columbia entered
Confederation, the Nisga'a chiefs began their quest for a
negotiated settlement of their land claim and sought a treaty
that acknowledged the Nisga'a people's right to self-government.
From 1887 when they first went to Victoria demanding recognition
of aboriginal title, to 1913 when the Nisga'a sent a petition to
the Privy Council in London to resolve the land question, to 1973
when the Supreme Court of Canada recognized the prior existence
of aboriginal rights to lands and resources, six generations of
Nisga'a people have patiently waited for their claim to be
addressed. As we stand at the threshold of a new millennium, we
must ensure that the seventh generation not only sees the hopes
and dreams of the elders fulfilled, we must be sure they reap the
benefits of rights so long denied.
It is only fitting as Canada closes the books on the 20th
century that we embark on a new relationship with the Nisga'a and
indeed all aboriginal people. A relationship built on trust,
mutual respect and reconciliation. A relationship that
acknowledges the mistakes and makes amends for past wrongs. A
relationship that recognizes that we will only move forward as a
nation when we all move forward together. That ultimately is
what the Nisga'a final agreement is all about. It is a crucial
step on the path to a better future.
With the ratification of this agreement a new chapter will be
written in Canada's history of which our children and our
grandchildren can be proud. We will enter a new era of
government to government relations that finally and forevermore
uphold the rights of the Nisga'a people to govern their own
affairs on their own lands.
1555
I want to make it clear that we are talking about a government
based on rights, not race as some might have us believe.
The landmark supreme court ruling of 1973, commonly referred to
as the Calder case, determined that aboriginal title existed as a
legal right. That historic legal decision led to the recognition
and affirmation of treaty rights, both historical and
contemporary, as well as aboriginal title under section 35 of the
Constitution Act, 1982.
Treaty rights and aboriginal title are part of the highest law
in the land. Those rights have been confirmed again and again by
the courts.
The most recent ruling, the Delgamuukw case, reinforces the
necessity of reconciling the relationship of aboriginal people
through negotiated arrangements. Delgamuukw understood the
doctrine of aboriginal rights stems from one simple fact: when
Europeans arrived in North America, aboriginal people were
already here living in communities on the land and participating
in distinctive cultures as they have for centuries. The
undeniable and irreversible reality is that aboriginal peoples'
prior presence gives them status and rights as the original
inhabitants of this country.
The government formally affirmed the inherent right of
aboriginal peoples to self-government as an existing aboriginal
right. The Nisga'a final agreement reflects the commitment to a
new treaty relationship and the negotiation of a fair and lasting
solution to the longstanding land claim of the Nisga'a people.
The key word here is fair. This negotiated agreement balances
the interests of all parties and provides significant economic
benefits to the Nisga'a and their neighbours. The final
agreement identifies how federal, provincial and Nisga'a laws
will coexist and complement each other. It establishes a
blueprint for peaceful and respectful relations that will govern
the lives of all people living within Nisga'a lands.
I can assure the House that more than ideals are at stake. The
rights of all citizens living within Nisga'a lands will be
protected and promoted. Everyone living there will continue to
enjoy the same rights and freedoms under the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms. Everyone will continue to be subject to the
Criminal Code of Canada. Federal and provincial laws that are in
force for all residents of British Columbia will also apply to
every resident living in the settlement area. Surely no one
could ask for an arrangement that is more fair and better
balanced than that.
It is equally essential to understand that the Nisga'a treaty
will be suitable for the Nisga'a nation people but not
necessarily for any other first nation. This is a one of a kind
treaty that reflects the unique needs and interests of the
Nisga'a. It reconciles modern Canadian realities with the
traditional aspirations of the Nisga'a people alone.
The Nisga'a final agreement, completed after years of
negotiations and extensive consultations, sets out clearly for
all to see the rights of the Nisga'a that are protected by
section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. In addition to
establishing a land based and financial settlement, it provides
the Nisga'a self-government powers over matters integral to their
culture, internal to their community and essential for the
operation of their government. It sets out their powers to
protect and promote the Nisga'a language and culture and to
safeguard heritage sites. It enables them to provide schools,
health care centres, roads, sewer systems and other
infrastructure on a standard comparable to communities elsewhere
in northwestern B.C.
The treaty will also contain provisions to regulate the Nisga'a
fishery, manage wildlife allocation, forestry and environmental
matters on Nisga'a land. The Nisga'a will use, develop and
manage these lands and resources to create wealth, wealth that
will stay in B.C. and be invested locally in goods and services.
1600
The Nisga'a treaty will be the first modern day treaty in
British Columbia. It is finally time to get on with the treaty
business in that province. Treaties have been negotiated with
first nations almost everywhere else in Canada from the time
Europeans first began to settle the country. Treaties are part
of our history, of how we became a country.
The days of discussion and negotiation are over. After more
than a century of waiting for justice the time has come to honour
the rights of the Nisga'a people. In doing so we will renew the
federation based on the full inclusion of Nisga'a people.
Therefore I urge the House to vote against the motion.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Madam Speaker, the
hon. member opposite used the word all in a number of comments
she made. There was one instance that particularly peaked my
curiosity. If I remember correctly she said something to the
effect that everyone living on Nisga'a land would be protected by
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Could the hon. member define the word all or the word everyone
in this instance? Does the right of everyone under the charter
of rights and freedoms include the right to vote for a Nisga'a
council of people who are not Nisga'a but are resident on Nisga'a
lands?
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Madam Speaker, I have to use
my own land claims agreement as an example. We have concluded
our land claims agreement. As a Nunavut beneficiary I can vote
on issues that deal with Nunavut land claims, but people who are
not part of the Nunavut land claims are not able to vote. The
land claims agreement is for specific Nunavut beneficiaries.
When we deal with Canadian law, with municipalities and with the
territorial government, everyone can vote. It depends on area.
As an aboriginal in title I can vote for certain things that deal
with me as an aboriginal in the Nunavut land claims agreement.
Mr. Werner Schmidt: Madam Speaker, my question was not
about voting on any thing. The question was specific. May a
resident of Nisga'a lands who is not a Nisga'a vote for a council
member to govern the land?
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Madam Speaker, because I am
dealing with my own land claims as my example I think they would
have the same rules in voting for their band council as we do for
our municipal councils.
When people talk about not having rights in dealing with
aboriginal issues, they sometimes give us credit that we have
different rights beyond Canadian law. I remind the hon. member
that we are still Canadians and we are still bound by Canadian
laws. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to
every Canadian.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for Nunavut for raising one point with
which most Canadians have a very easy time agreeing. The Nisga'a
final agreement is turning a page on a chapter of our history
that most Canadians would rather put well in our past.
As we get closer to the reality of aboriginal self-government,
right wing extremist groups all across western Canada are
escalating their campaign to try to put any semblance of
self-government to bed.
1605
Is the hon. member for Nunavut aware that the anti-Indian
movement in British Columbia called B.C. FIRE was actually put
together by a Reform Party member's staffer, a person who worked
on the Hill for the Reform Party, on a salary from the party or
from the government, really? He quit his job here to go to
British Columbia to set up what they call B.C. FIRE, which is the
anti-Indian movement in British Columbia, working full time to
squash any deals like the Nisga'a deal. Was the hon. member
aware of that fact?
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Madam Speaker, no, I was not
aware of that, but it saddens me to hear about such incidents. We
tend to forget what role aboriginal people played in our history
when Europeans first came to the country.
Because we live in a very difficult environment in my area, I
can honestly say that if it was not for the help of the people
there it would have been more devastating for people moving to
this new country.
As tempting as it is to say when the shoe is on the other foot,
we tend to forget other things but we remember when the shoe is
on this foot.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I must say it is an honour to follow the member for
Nunavut, because I think her remarks are very appropriate to the
debate today. I hope some of my remarks will complement what she
has said.
Let me begin first by pointing out that the motion before the
House is in my view very premature, because what it does is raise
questions about the Nisga'a treaty when in fact what this
parliament is all about is legislation.
The normal process is for a government to enter into a treaty,
either a treaty with an aboriginal people or a treaty with a
foreign state, and for parliament to examine the text of that
treaty and ratify it in legislation.
We really cannot address the concerns being raised by the Reform
Party members until this House actually has the legislation
before it. Then I am certainly prepared to look at some of the
concerns that have been raised.
I should preface my remarks also by saying that I am not one who
believes that radicalism, as mentioned by the member from the New
Democratic Party, is what is motivating my colleagues in the
Reform Party. I have had quite a bit of experience on the
aboriginal affairs committee and I can assure the House that
members on both sides of the committee room, those on the
government side and those on the opposition side, share a genuine
concern for the welfare of aboriginals across the country.
My problem with the motion today, though, is not simply that it
is premature on the Nisga'a issue. It is that I think genuinely
the members of the Reform Party, in their search for solutions to
the problems that they see that are very evident in some of the
aboriginal communities in their ridings, are addressing the wrong
portion of the problem.
I am one who, I have to admit, two years ago approached the
question of aboriginal self-government with a lot of trepidation;
but I have come to the conclusion, particularly after my time on
the aboriginal affairs committee in which we saw hundreds of
witnesses, that aboriginal self-government is a very meaningful
way to go, shall we say.
I think we have heard many times today about what the courts say
about treaty rights and that kind of thing. I am not one who
really believes that it should be the courts that determine what
is the spirit of this country. I prefer to approach the
constitution and the charter of rights for the special provision
for aboriginals to try to fathom the reasoning of my predecessors
in according these special rights to the aboriginal peoples.
I have come to the conclusion, and it was not very hard I have
to say, that indeed this country is composed of three great
founding peoples. Certainly we have heard many times from the
Bloc Quebecois that one of those founding peoples were those who
spoke French and indeed settled New France.
Another of the founding peoples were certainly the English who
came in mainly via the 13 colonies and later settled the interior
of Canada.
1610
The other founding people were the aboriginals. I do not think
any of us should ever forget that there would be no French
speaking Canadians nor English speaking Canadians were it not for
the fact that the aboriginals taught our ancestors how to live in
the wilderness.
It is that sense of those people who are still with us and are
such an important part of us. It was their connection with the
wilderness, to the physical spirit of Canada, that has earned
them a special place in our society that is reflected in the
constitution.
That special place as reflected in the constitution has to do
with territory. The reason the constitution talks about treaties
and the reason why we talk about a treaty with the Nisga'a is
that in order to express the cultural and historical connection
of the various aboriginal nations with the territory, with
Canada, with the wilderness, we have to describe it in terms of
where they live and where indeed they still live.
I remind the House that it is Canada's aboriginal people who
choose to live on the frontiers of our country, who choose to be
the custodians of our wilderness. Even though I am an urban
Canadian, regardless of whether I am French speaking or English
speaking or a naturalized Canadian, it is an important part of me
to know that there is someone who is looking after and feeling
the forest, if you will, feeling the lakes and feeling the
sunsets in a way I can never do.
I submit it is that incredible role of the aboriginal peoples,
regardless of whether they are in the Arctic, in western Canada,
in northern Canada or wherever, that is the great contribution
they have to us.
There are problems. I think there are terrible problems in the
interpretation of the constitution and the spirit of our
relationship with the aboriginal people in legislation that has
come since the charter of rights. I refer very specifically to
what was called Bill C-31, which was passed into law in 1985.
In order to address a problem with aboriginal women who lost
status when they left reserves, when they married off reserves,
has created I think a problem that should be the real focus of
the opposition in this kind of debate, and that is the problem of
defining aboriginals strictly by race and not by their connection
to the wilderness or their connection to their own culture or
their language.
When that law was passed, within five years between 1985 and
1991, I think 98,000 new aboriginals were created. Some of these
aboriginals were created in my own community. They were created
out of people who had no connection, no memory and no thought of
any connection to an actual band or piece of territory or
wilderness. They were no different from anyone else in my
community and yet because they got Indian status suddenly they
were awarded privileges: medical care, education and all kinds of
privileges that were not accorded to other Canadians.
Now we have some sort of archaic mechanism whereby the Indian
status is given to people, subject to an arcane questionnaire in
which they demonstrate that somewhere along the line, maybe four
or five generations back, they are related to an aboriginal.
I submit that is very wrong and it is also very costly. The
government has not done a study since 1991, but in 1991 it was
clear just in non-insured health benefits alone it was costing
$122 million to service these Canadians who were suddenly status
Indians with no connection to the wilderness or to their own
culture.
We now have a crisis at hand because what has occurred is that
the supreme court has ruled now that all aboriginals who have
status can now come back to the reserves or whatever band they
claim to have a connection with and vote in the elections. That
distorts everything.
We have a situation out there where we have the people who
choose to live on the reserves, who choose to live in the
wilderness, to be custodians of the game and to look after the
environment. They are responsible.
We now have a situation where people with no connection can come
back and have the same rights to shoot the game, take the fish
and vote in band elections. I suggest that this is a major
threat to aboriginal culture and identity. This is where the
debate ought to be: The idea, the principle of going out to the
land and finding a people like the Nisga'a and telling them that
they have stayed on their land, stayed in their forests, stayed
in their mountains and have looked after their mountains for
generations. The only way we can give them recognition for what
they have done, and ensure that they will continue to do it, is
to have a treaty. We certainly want to make sure that the treaty
protects the rights of all Canadians and protects the people
living in the community. It is ultimately the right way to go.
1615
We have to go back and look at the legislation that created the
so-called C-31ers, who in fact are drawing money away for no good
purpose. Many of the C-31ers are university educated and have
jobs. Some of them are actually working for the civil service
and yet their children can have free schooling and special
benefits. This draws away from our ability to help those
aboriginals who really deserve help because they are doing
something special for the country, those aboriginals who have
decided to stay in the wilderness.
I see I am out of time. I appreciate the opportunity to make
these remarks even though the motion itself does not approach the
real concerns.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I have to agree in regards to Bill C-31. It has created
quite a mess.
However, let us go on to the Nisga'a agreement. Part of what
the member said pertains to some of this. Six thousand Nisga'a
people were entitled to vote but only 2,376 were eligible to
vote. A lot of Nisga'a out there were not allowed to vote. This
has now created a problem where they are now taking their own
Nisga'a people to court over this.
I would like the hon. member, the whole House and everybody out
there who is listening, to understand that the B.C. Liberals are
also taking this to court. For anyone to say that it is only the
Reform Party that has a problem with this, I want everybody to
understand that the B.C. Liberals also have a problem with this.
Let us have a look at the neighbouring bands which have
said—and I am sure the hon. member for Nunavut will understand
this—that through this process they have now started court cases
stating that their land is being stolen from them by the Nisga'a.
These questions are all before the courts and still not answered
but the government is still willing to bring this bill before the
House.
What the member is telling me is that it is okay to take from
here to give to there without due process of law.
Mr. John Bryden: Madam Speaker, I am not sure exactly
what the question is.
Ultimately this parliament does decide, and that is actually one
of the reasons I also have faults with the motion as it stands,
because it makes an appeal to the supreme court, asking the
supreme court basically for permission to write the legislation,
when in fact we do know that if the legislation, when it does go
through, is in contravention of the constitution, it will very
soon be struck down.
However, in the end, whenever we try to establish something for
someone, we are going to have some people who will object. All I
can say is that the real fault here is not with the constitution,
and I do not think it is going to be with the principle of the
Nisga'a agreement or aboriginal self-government. The real fault
is with these other bits of legislation like Bill C-31. I think
it really needs to be revisited.
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Children and
Youth), Lib.): Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the
government and the minister for the work they have done on the
Nisga'a agreement. I also want to congratulate the people in the
Nisga'a territory who have spent their whole life determined to
complete this agreement. I think they deserve a great deal of
respect and gratitude.
1620
I just want to raise the issue of Bill C-31 in relationship to
the comments my hon. colleague made. It is a very complicated
process. We could have 13 categories of Indian people under
different pieces of statutes and legislation. The system was a
man made designed. It has its flaws in as much as there is the
problem of those people who may have status who perhaps do not
warrant it. However, we do not know that. I do not know that,
because I have processed many applications.
I was adopted when I was nine years old. I lost my status. My
grandfather signed treaty 11 as a chief. I lost my status
because I was adopted by a non-treaty family, non-status. It
took me a long time to get my status back.
There are many people out there. I want to know what the
opinion is of my colleague on those people out there who I know
are aboriginal, who have the background and whose parents were
perhaps out trapping, hunting or visiting the nets, who are not
registered. It is just a technical issue. They were
de-Indianized or de-aboriginalized because they were not there to
register. For that very simple fact, what happens to those
people?
Mr. John Bryden: Madam Speaker, Bill C-31 was expected to
restore Indian status to about 10,000. It has not given Indian
status to around 120,000 or 130,000.
I do not quarrel for a minute with the original intention of
Bill C-31, but unfortunately, like so many good things, it has
created a different kind of monster that, in my view, as an
outsider of the aboriginal community, is doing terrible damage to
the aboriginal community.
I also point out that in communities such as Winnipeg, where
there are so many urban aboriginals, we have people in poverty
and some of them being treated differently simply because of
their race. It is the wrong thing to do. We need to revisit it
and still maintain the original intention, but it still needs a
fix.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am
thrilled to hear some of the comments the hon. member opposite
made congratulating the Nisga'a people for the work they have
done.
I also want to pay special tribute to the hon. member who spoke
just a minute ago. I found myself very much in sympathy with
lifting the level of debate to issues that go beyond some of what
I would like to call the stuff of the treaty. I think the issue
is far deeper and far more significant than that. I recognize
that the hon. member has also recognized that and is coming to
grips with it.
I also need to make a point and put on the record my utter and
complete disassociation from what I believe the hon. member for
Winnipeg Centre suggested, that somehow I or my colleagues are
associated with B.C. FIRE. Let it be absolutely clear that we
are not associated or in any way connected with it.
He also referred to a particular gentleman who may have at one
time worked for an MP. It should also be known that he is not
working for an MP and that there is absolutely no way that I or
any of my colleagues, to the best of my knowledge, are in any way
associated with that particular organization. I really want to
underscore that because my heart goes out to the way in which the
aboriginal people in Canada have been treated.
The hon. member for Western Arctic spoke from her heart and I
really appreciate that. I have met a number of aboriginal people
and they have not had a treaty. The Nisga'a people have not had
a treaty. It is good that they do have a treaty. They have
negotiated for many years and they have negotiated well. In
fact, I think they have negotiated a little bit too well in some
areas, but that is another issue.
I want to lift this beyond the complicating factors: that the
boundaries are in dispute; that there are three bands that want
the same land; that the B.C. Legislature made a mockery of the
democratic process by cutting the debate; and, that there is
uncertainty about the constitutional implications. I do not want
to get into that too much because I do not think that is the
primary issue here.
I agree with the hon. secretary when he says that constitutional
amendments are probably not required. That may well be the case.
I think the issue is the implications of the provisions in the
constitution and the provisions in the treaty itself. That is
not clear right now. It is before the courts at the moment.
1625
I really want to focus on two issues: democracy and citizenship.
The first issue is about democracy and the business of
accountability. I am going to put democracy or democratic
accountability close together. It seems to me that there are
four characteristics of a democracy.
The first principle of a good democratic organization is that
there must be the substance of a genuine control of the
leadership by those who are governed. That means that there has
to be representation and the representation is selected by
election and not by heredity. This is a very interesting
concept.
I think it was way back in 1215 when the Magna Carta was passed
and where King John, I think it was, was denied his divine right
to be king. There has been nothing in our democratic process
since that time that would suggest that we have the right to be
somewhere simply because of a certain heredity in terms of the
way we want to govern ourselves. The whole democracy of our
country today rests on the fact of one person, one vote.
The other part of that is that we are equal. We are different.
Madam Speaker, you and I are different. I am different from any
other member of the House, but before the law of this land and
for the constitution that governs us in our noble institution
here, we are equal. I think that is desirable.
The second principle is that there must be a clear and accurate
information flow so that on matters of public importance we know
what is going on. Let us take, for example, the issue of the
conflict in Kosovo right now. We need accurate and complete
information in order to make good decisions about that.
The third principle is that there must be regular opportunities
to vote on who shall lead us. That does happen in the House and
that needs to happen. People will argue that those three
principles are indeed contained in the treaty, and I am not going
to argue that they are not. However, I will come to grips with
the fourth principle, which is that we must have the ability for
a free vote.
I would suggest that there is a particular difficulty in this
treaty because we are dealing with a very small government with
very large powers. The Nisga'a Council will have very large
powers but will have difficulty providing an honest free vote.
I want to quote an analysis that was done by Gordon Gibson. I
want to get into some detail here:
Small governments with large powers may acquire the ability to
control citizens rather than vice versa...Top down control is
easier in small situations. This is a worldwide phenomenon,
totally independent of culture.
The proposed Nisga'a government, a small one, would have very
large powers. What are they? Because most cash resources in the
economy will flow through the Nisga'a government by virtue of the
terms of the treaty, people will be uncommonly dependent upon and
beholden to that government. The dependence will not merely be
for municipal type services, but also for matters of intense and
immediate importance to the individuals concerned; matters such
as housing, social assistance and even employment.
The Nisga'a state will control so many things. Health and
education will presumably be available to all, but higher
education and extraordinary health measures will be rationed and
discretionary, as they always are. There will be strong and
obvious incentives for citizens of this government to go along
with those in power in order to get on with their lives.
The problem of democratic accountability is escalated because
the Nisga'a government will largely be using other people's money
through federal and provincial transfers flowing through the
Nisga'a state. Is this in any way an aspersion on the Nisga'a?
It is not. When local taxpayers pay the bills, they have a
powerful incentive to control their governments, and that applies
to all of us as well as it does to anyone else. When bills are
paid by outsiders instead, the locally governed have every
incentive to conspire with the local government to extract
maximum gain from external sources rather than prudently use the
available resources.
1630
Madam Speaker, you know as well as most people that people
manage their own money a little more carefully than they manage
money which belongs to others. Sometimes that is not the case,
but usually it is.
Tom Flanagan from the University of Calgary stated this very
well when he said: “Just as you shouldn't have taxation without
representation, nor are you likely to get good representation
without full taxation”. It works both ways. So much for
democratic accountability. I have just touched the surface on
the whole question of democracy.
I want to briefly discuss the issue of citizenship. Citizenship
under the Nisga'a treaty is determined on a hereditary basis, not
on the basis of residence. Voting is on that basis. Only
Nisga'a citizens may vote. It is a birth right which allows them
to vote under this treaty. That does not exist anywhere else in
Canada. In Canada it is determined upon where people reside.
That is a fundamental principle.
Now we have a situation where there are Nisga'a who reside on
Nisga'a land and Nisga'a who reside off Nisga'a land. Both of
these groups have the right to vote. However, those who reside
off the land can only vote for three councillors, yet there are
30. There is disproportionate representation for those who are
off the land and those who are on the land. In effect it creates
two classes of Nisga'a citizens.
That is not all it does. There are other rights and privileges
given on the basis of the constitution to the Nisga'a people that
are not given to other Canadians. We have three classes of
citizens. We have two classes of Nisga'a and then there is a
difference between all Nisga'a people and other Canadians. We
should be equal before the law. We should not create separate
citizenship questions.
This is just the beginning. I encourage the House to give very
serious debate to these issues. They are at the root of and are
the fundamental basis of what needs to happen in terms of giving
all people in Canada the right to vote, the right to be
represented equally and responsibly, and the right to be in
control of their own affairs.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Madam Speaker,
the hon. member began his remarks by trying to distance himself
from B.C. FIRE, the hate movement or the anti-Indian
movement in B.C.
In an interview on CBC television, journalist Carol Off was
interviewing Mel Smith, the author of Our Home or Native
Land?: What Government's Aboriginal Policy is Doing to
Canada. That is the book which has become the bible for the
B.C. anti-Indian movement and is often quoted by the Reform
Party. In fact, the Reform Party hired Mel Smith to head up its
Indian task force hearings.
Ms. Off said: “In fact, a lot of FIRE organizers have
Reform connections. Brian Richardson is running for the Reform
Party in the next federal election (the 1997 election). Greg
Hollingsworth was on the payroll of the Reform Party until he
left to start B.C. FIRE. Georgeanne Sanders, who was an activist
in the Okanagan and who was active in B.C. FIRE, is a member of
the Reform Party. So are Marcia Gilbert and Judy Kilgour both
prominent members in the anti-Indian movement in the Okanagan.
Preston Manning only announced Reform's Indian policy last month,
but yet it bears a striking resemblance to the policy of B.C.
FIRE”.
Carol Off is a credible journalist with the CBC. She found in
her own research example after example of direct links to the
hate movement, the people who are promoting hatred in British
Columbia. I am not saying it is the Reform Party that is
promoting hatred; I am saying it is intricately linked with the
people who are promoting hatred. We all know it is a lot easier
to promote hatred than it is to promote tolerance.
Mr. Werner Schmidt: Madam Speaker, I regret both the tone
of voice and the content of what the hon. member has just said.
There may indeed be people within the Reform Party who have
contacts. I did not say that in my opening remarks.
We have freedom in this country; freedom to speak and freedom to
associate. I was speaking very personally. I want it to be
abundantly clear that I am not in any way associated with the
FIRE movement.
I have no intentions of becoming associated with that movement. I
make it abundantly clear as well that we are not here as the
Reform Party, either as individuals or as a party, to in any way
stand in the way of an amicable settlement of the question of
land claims and the self-governance which aboriginal people in
Canada want. We want that as much as anyone else.
1635
We are very concerned that Canada be a united nation and that it
provide rights, privileges and equality for all of its citizens.
We are deeply concerned that if we should countenance the
development of issues and of decisions that might be made, which
in their implications and in their future adaptation, application
and interpretation may lead to the creation, as I pointed out, of
three or four different classes of Canadian citizens, that will
begin to create the kind of conflict that we have just witnessed
in central Asia.
This is the deep concern that I have. It does not help to point
fingers at individuals who may have been indiscreet in some of
their remarks. I appeal to the member for Winnipeg Centre and to
all members that we are here to try to build solid relationships
of co-operation where we can together build a strong nation, a
strong community where we can develop freedom from fear, where we
can help one another and indeed get to the point where we can
actually love one another. I extend that to my hon. colleague as
well.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I take it as a great privilege to be able to bring this issue to
the floor of the House of Commons as the Reform Party has.
This is an exceptionally important issue, I believe, to all
Canadians, in particular people in the province of British
Columbia. As this treaty ends up becoming a template over a
period of time it is going to undoubtedly have a tremendous
impact on future treaties and future negotiations and the future
reopening of existing treaties which are currently in place in
Canada.
I would like to take the House back to 1993 when I was elected
for the first time. When my colleagues and I arrived in Ottawa
we were all fired up, ready to take on the establishment and to
discuss important issues on behalf of our constituents. We were
in for something of a surprise. We were informed that there were
certain issues that we could not discuss or question. We were
told that it was politically incorrect.
The federal department that immediately raised questions for
myself and I am sure many of my colleagues was the Department of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development. We were aware of many
of the serious problems that our aboriginal brothers and sisters
were having both on and off reserve. Politically incorrect or
not, we were determined to create positive change. We were
determined to speak out on aboriginal issues and reserve issues,
the major issue being that of accountability.
I will reflect for a moment on comments made by my colleague who
preceded me. Unfortunately at that particular time there were
some in the House who chose to take those comments and our
direction of trying to make these changes in a positive way in a
very adversarial way. They chose to impugn motive to myself and
to my colleagues in the Reform Party. That was desperately
unfortunate. There were many issues that required and continue
to require open, honest and candid dialogue. It is that which
hopefully we have engaged in today, with some minor variations
that have occurred, and I should say on both sides of the issue.
We were asking when we came here, at the outset: Where are
taxpayer dollars going? We recognized that we were funnelling
some $9 billion every year into federal and provincial programs
of all descriptions, supposedly to support our aboriginal and
Metis people. Why then, we asked, do we still see such poverty
right across Canada, such appalling living conditions and so many
of our aboriginal people filling our prisons? As the solicitor
general critic for the Reform Party I am familiar with the fact
that 17% of all inmates in 1998 were aboriginal, up from 11% in
1991-92.
Why do we see such despair, such substance abuse, along with high
suicide rates on reserves? What is happening?
1640
The more questions we asked on these issues, the more phone
calls my office received from what I call grassroots aboriginals
who raised more and more questions about issues on their
reserves, issues in my former constituency of Kootenay East and
now in my current constituency of Kootenay—Columbia.
Finally, I agreed to hold a town hall meeting last November. I
invited the minister and others from the Department of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development. Of course I also invited the
five band chiefs and their councils who are in my constituency of
Kootenay—Columbia. None of them chose to attend. There were
aboriginal residents from all five bands in the constituency who
attended. They spoke with quiet dignity, asking for changes
toward a system that was more democratic and more accountable to
the membership.
As a politician, quite frankly, I feel I must apologize for all
of the preceding governments of the past 130 years for their
absolute failure to address outstanding aboriginal issues. The
results of their failures are obvious to anyone looking at the
state of affairs on the reserves anywhere in Canada today.
I will say, in all sincerity, that it is my commitment as a
member of parliament and it is my commitment as a Canadian
citizen to see the wrongs righted and things put on a proper
path. Unfortunately, what we are looking at today is the Nisga'a
agreement and that is not the way to do it. By any stretch, it
is not the way to do it.
I am proud of the record of my office and of the Reform Party
for being prepared to speak up for positive change for Canada's
aboriginal people, so let us talk about the Nisga'a agreement.
Representatives from the federal and B.C. governments have
negotiated a land claim treaty with the leaders of the Nisga'a
people. The agreement was initialled on October 4, 1998 and
ratified by the Nisga'a people early in November. It must now be
ratified by the federal and B.C. legislatures.
The citizens of British Columbia were not invited to participate
in the negotiation process and were not given an opportunity to
influence the terms of the Nisga'a treaty at any point, with one
small exception. The small exception was when resource based
industries and recreational users were brought in near the end of
the 20 year process. Tragically, even these non-aboriginal
citizens were thrown out when Glen Clark insisted on rushing the
conclusion.
When the terms were set, the B.C. government refused to allow a
provincial referendum on the deal. It will not allow the voices
of British Columbians to be heard. The Nisga'a had a referendum.
Non-Nisga'a opinion apparently does not count, as we have heard
in the House earlier.
According to a recent poll, 62% of British Columbians do not
feel they have been properly informed on this most important
issue to face B.C. since confederation. With more than 1,000
respondents, I can report that I did a poll in my own
constituency where fully 76% are opposed to their member of
parliament, myself, voting in favour of the Nisga'a agreement as
it is presently written. Rather than promoting the straight
facts about the Nisga'a treaty, the B.C. government initiated a
$6 million advertising campaign aimed at selling the deal.
Unfortunately, many of the speeches made today by Liberal
members and indeed by members of other parties, while very well
intended, have been short on fact and very long on emotion. I say
again, it is my objective and it is the objective of my party,
which is again a reflection of the member for Kelowna and his
comments, to see a full and just settlement of these issues.
The situation as it presently stands cannot go on, but the
Nisga'a agreement is not the way to do it. Here are a few facts
on what this treaty would give the Nisga'a people: over 2,000
square kilometres of land in northwestern British Columbia; the
authority to make laws in a large number of areas, in many cases
overriding provincial and federal laws; self-government
provisions far exceeding the powers of regular municipal
governments; rights to fisheries and other natural resources,
including minerals and wildlife, on an exclusive basis; the right
to manage wildlife over an area five times larger than the 2,000
square kilometre settlement, land almost double the size of the
province of Prince Edward Island.
Let us take a look at some information that is of particular
interest to people who are in municipal government.
Are self-government provisions in the Nisga'a treaty comparable
to municipal governments as claimed by treaty opponents?
1645
First let me make a couple of points on the topic of
self-government. I support the goal of aboriginal self-government
as I previously stated. I believe aboriginal communities should
have the ability to govern their own affairs just like any
municipal government.
The Sechelt nation has shown the way by successfully tying
together aboriginal interests in a municipal model. I
parenthesize for a second and ask are there some difficulties,
are there problems, are there some inconsistencies within the
agreement in principle for the Sechelt? Yes, but they can be
worked out. It is a totally different agreement to what we are
talking about with the Nisga'a agreement.
Under the Canadian constitution only the federal or provincial
governments have law making authority and this authority is not
transferable to a third order of government. As my colleagues
have pointed out, there are 14 areas in this agreement that give
the Nisga'a a special ability to interact on areas that will give
them a supremacy over federal and provincial law.
The parliamentary secretary says that is not true. This is
precisely the reason we are calling for a reference to the
supreme court in the same way that there was a reference on the
question of Quebec and its right to secede.
We are asking the government to do the right thing. Prior to
having this thing etched in stone and constitutionalized, refer
it to the supreme court so that we can establish the difference
of opinion, whether the parliamentary secretary is right or our
party is right. It is the only reasonable and responsible thing
to do.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, justice; the hon.
member for Markham, government contracts.
[English]
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Children and
Youth), Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have been listening to the
debates of the two hon. members opposite very carefully and I
think very judiciously. It is my opinion that we come from two
very different pedagogies politically speaking. We are not from
the same party. We obviously do not have the same broad
principles and we do not obviously believe in the same things.
I believe the Nisga'a agreement is something Canada should
embrace. These members should engender an attitude of generosity
toward those people, the Nisga'a themselves, who asked for more
than what they are getting. They are only getting 10% of the land
they asked for. That is only 10% of their traditional territory.
The Nisga'a have ceded much.
It has not just been an agreement that was struck overnight.
For over 20 years people like Joe Gosnell and many leaders,
elders and Nisga'a will not be here to celebrate the finalization
of this claim. They will not be here because it is not complete.
We have not reached that point because we have a parting of the
ways when it comes to what we believe about self-government, what
we believe about aboriginal rights in the constitution, the legal
and unique status of aboriginal people, their relationship with
the crown and the fiduciary aspect.
Obviously our view of democracy is very different from that of
the members opposite. I ask the member opposite, is there just
one kind of democracy? Is it a democracy that just comes from
western based civilization? Is it a democracy that is just
Eurocentric and ethnocentric? Is it all based on super secession
by law because we believe our way is better than theirs, because
we think we are the ones who are right, we have the supreme
attitude, the answer of what is good for those people?
1650
Maybe the traditional laws have something to say about that. I
lived in a community where we had traditional government. I saw
it in operation and I know it works.
Why are members afraid that the Nisga'a might succeed? They
might prove members wrong because the Nisga'a have leadership
that can do it. The Nisga'a can be fair, judicious, generous,
sharing and giving like they have been. Many millionaires were
created off their territory. Very few of them—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry but I
have to interrupt.
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the
parliamentary secretary that we do come at things from a
different perspective.
I recognize that democracy as I understand it is embraced in
Hong Kong, England, Australia and Austria. Democracy is a set of
values where individual rights have a special place by comparison
to collective rights. The kind of thing the parliamentary
secretary is talking about in terms of aboriginal issues has to
do with collective rights. It is an interface of these two
things.
I suggest that the Sechelt is not a perfect model by a long shot
but at least it is something that we can look at as a model to
have as a successful interface.
It is my objective to see that we end up with a permanent
solution rather than one that is going to be a constant open
wound.
I did a thorough survey in my constituency. I can tell the
parliamentary secretary that 71% of the people do not want me to
vote in favour of the agreement; 79% believe that they have not
been properly informed about the agreement; and 92% do not
believe it is fair to the rest of Canadians.
My real deep concern is that as the agreement was rammed through
the legislature in Victoria, it will undoubtedly be rammed
through this parliament. The agreement will be forced down the
throats of people who do not want it, do not accept it and will
not work with it. We do not have a solution.
This agreement is nothing more than something that the
bureaucrats, the political elite of the Nisga'a as well as the
political elite in this place have said is the way to solve it.
There is no solution as long as there is no broad popular
support. There is no broad popular support for this agreement in
British Columbia.
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the
Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, people have asked about
financial accountability. I would like to draw all members'
attention to the fact that the final agreement and the related
fiscal financing agreement specifically contain provisions to
ensure that the Nisga'a government is accountable. The Nisga'a
constitution builds in specific obligations on Nisga'a
governments in terms of accountability to the citizens for funds
received and expenditures made.
Under the fiscal financing agreement, the Nisga'a nation is
required to prepare and provide audited accounts and financial
statements to Canada and/or British Columbia. The financial
statements must meet generally accepted accounting standards.
These financial statements may be reviewed by the auditor
general. The parties will establish a tripartite financing
committee which will review the implementation of the fiscal
financing arrangements. The approach taken in this agreement
ensures first nations accountability for the funds they expend to
both their members and to the governments from whom some of their
funding is derived. Those are the facts.
I am very pleased to talk about the motion put forward by the
member for Skeena. I am not surprised by this motion. The hon.
member is simply sharing once again his party's well known and
oft-stated position with respect to aboriginal people in Canada.
The motion he puts forward shows a complete lack of understanding
of the Nisga'a treaty and the fundamental principles behind it.
Let us set the record straight.
With the ratification of the Nisga'a treaty, Canada will chart a
course for a stronger and a more just society; a Canada where the
Nisga'a people finally feel at home in their native land; a
Canada where aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians work
together for a brighter future for our whole country.
This is the Canadian way: working together to resolve our
differences peacefully. There are many merits to this treaty.
1655
I think perhaps all of us need to remember the very exceptional
people whose sheer determination ensures that we are talking
about these issues today. For some 10,000 years the Nisga'a have
lived in the Nass Valley in northwestern British Columbia, a land
of snow capped mountains, glacier fed lakes, ancient forests and
volcanic rocks. The Nisga'a call the Nass Valley the common bowl
from which their people draw life.
The timeless relationship between the Nisga'a and their land was
interrupted with the arrival of Captain George Vancouver in 1793.
At the time the Nisga'a numbered roughly 30,000, a population
made up of traders and entrepreneurs. Theirs was a sophisticated
society. These prosperous people lived in two storey homes in
established orderly communities. They governed themselves
according to a strict code of conduct passed down through
centuries.
Through the millennia the arrival of the Europeans put and end
to that lifestyle. What the early settlers left behind instead
was a legacy of paternalism, perhaps the legacy we see in the
members opposite. Over the past 200 years the Nisga'a have seen
their lands, the lands they once freely used, taken over for
purposes that were not theirs. They were prevented from publicly
practising their religious beliefs. Their children were sent to
distant residential schools. They lost their language and their
culture.
Yet even though their political, economic and social systems
were suppressed, deeply affecting their dignity, the Nisga'a
people never gave up their struggle to reclaim their rights and
their lands. Generation after generation, Nisga'a leader after
leader has soldiered on assuring the Nisga'a people that one day
justice would be served. Finally we have put that system in
order. We have put things right for the Nisga'a first nation.
With the ratification of this treaty, finally the Nisga'a will
have stewardship over their resources and their affairs. They
will have a right to self-government and a land base on which to
exercise it. All Canadians understand the necessity and value of
including self-government arrangements as part of treaties not
only with the Nisga'a but with the many other first nations
waiting for their opportunity.
That understanding of course begins with the recognition that
the term inherent right is accurate. The constitution is the
highest law of this land. It sets out what makes all of us
Canadians, what makes us different from citizens of other parts
of the world. Our constitution recognizes the multicultural
heritage of Canadians and protects the cultural rights of our
citizens. In particular, the constitution recognizes and
protects the rights of aboriginal people in Canada based on their
prior occupation of this land.
Aboriginal peoples lived on this continent long before explorers
from other continents first came to North America. For thousands
of years before this country was founded they enjoyed their own
form of government. Today we are learning from them. We are
bringing into our own society, into our own way of doing things,
things that the aboriginal peoples taught us, a better way of
dealing with justice issues, of dealing with children, of dealing
with the environment. We can learn from these people.
Their special role in Canada is that government believes that
aboriginal people have a right to govern themselves in a modern
context. Unequivocally this treaty is clearly about rights, not
race as some critics have contended.
The supreme court said in the 1973 Calder decision that
aboriginal title existed as a legal right in Canada. That
landmark decision led to the affirmation of aboriginal and treaty
rights which are now enshrined under section 35 of the
Constitution Act, 1982.
Our constitution and our courts affirm that aboriginal and
treaty rights exist.
They have made it clear that these rights have real meaning and
must be upheld.
1700
The courts have made it equally clear that these rights should
be negotiated, not litigated. In one of its most recent rulings
the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that aboriginal title
exists. It reinforced that we should negotiate settlements to
achieve the purpose of section 35. As Chief Justice Lamer
rightly noted “let us face it; we are all here to stay”.
Treaty making enables us to reconcile in the modern context the
pre-existent rights of aboriginal people with the establishment
of a crown sovereignty. It signals all our willingness as a
society to resolve major historical and cultural differences
through negotiation and compromise.
Treaty making is a process, as the hon. member for Western
Arctic has said. It is a give and take process, the results of
which are local solutions to local problems. It establishes a
shared understanding of how aboriginal and non-aboriginal people
can co-exist and realize our common goals.
It leads to a fair, affordable and honourable settlement that
accommodates the interests of all parties, ensuring stability and
promoting opportunity for all residents living on or near claimed
lands. At the most fundamental level a treaty provides a bridge
from which to build a new relationship between the first peoples
and those of us who followed.
This has been a long time in coming. This relationship is built
on trust, on recognition, on respect and on responsibility. It
is a relationship that demonstrates the mutual benefits of
sharing. The key components of the treaty demonstrate these clear
benefits.
The Nisga'a treaty is the first of its kind in Canada. It
covers a land claim and self-government in one single package. It
establishes a full and final settlement of all outstanding
Nisga'a claims. The treaty sets aside approximately 2,000 square
kilometres of the Nass River Valley as Nisga'a land and
establishes a Nisga'a central government with jurisdiction over
matters that are internal and inherent to their culture. The
Nisga'a will own the surface rights and the subsurface rights on
Nisga'a land and have a share of the Nass River salmon stocks as
well as Nass area wildlife harvests.
The treaty provides the Nisga'a with a financial transfer of
$190 million payable over 15 years. These funds will stimulate
the local economy and spur economic development. Jobs will be
created. The Nisga'a will be able to strengthen their community
infrastructure and services to the same standards as those
enjoyed by the rest of Canadians. They will break the cycle of
dependency created from 100 years of living under the Indian Act.
As the Nisga'a gain control over the management and development
of their land's resources, they will develop self sustaining and
self supporting communities. With a resource base on which to
build their economy, these proud and remarkably resilient people
will be able to break the cycle of dependency and escape from the
trap of poverty that has so affected their dignity. The Nisga'a
will once again know the satisfaction that comes with
self-reliance, something all of us have had a chance to
experience. They will once again be able to contribute fully to
their communities and to our country.
Perhaps most profound, after decades of attempting to negotiate
their way into Canada the Nisga'a will at last have the ability
to participate equally in society, to speak their language, to
teach their traditions, to govern themselves once again, and just
like other Canadians to pursue their hopes and dreams.
Non-aboriginal British Columbians will also see meaningful
benefits flow from this settlement. The negotiation of treaties
will bring certainty to the Nass Valley. Treaties will clarify
who can log, who can fish, who can mine and where. It certainly
means business can invest in the region with confidence and
unleash billions of dollars of untapped economic potential. It
means both aboriginal and non-aboriginal people can pursue
business opportunities unimpeded by disputes about rights to land
and resources.
1705
Both the Nisga'a and their neighbours will be direct
beneficiaries of treaty settlement moneys. This infusion of new
funds will provide a badly needed boost to the economies of the
communities within and surrounding the Nisga'a.
For the first time in the province an aboriginal group has
agreed to forgo the existing tax exemptions. The treaty will
gradually phase out exemptions from sales and income taxes. After
the transition period Nisga'a citizens will pay all the same
taxes other Canadians pay.
Over time the Nisga'a nation will contribute a portion of the
revenues it raises to offset transfers from other governments for
programs and services. It is expected that the combined impact
of taxes paid by Nisga'a citizens and revenues raised by Nisga'a
government will represent one-quarter of the annual budget
requirements of the Nisga'a nation just 15 years from now.
Non-aboriginal people can also rest assured that their rights
and freedoms will also be respected and upheld. The treaty
stipulates that the Criminal Code, the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms, as well as other federal and provincial laws of
general application, will continue to apply safeguarding the
constitutional rights of all Canadians.
The treaty specifies that Nisga'a governments will take into
account the rights and needs of all residents including other
Canadians who reside on Nisga'a lands. Non-aboriginal people
living there will be able to stand for election and vote for
Nisga'a public institutions like education and health boards.
The Nisga'a treaty's significance extends well beyond British
Columbia. It represents a small but important step along the
path to a better Canada, a better Canada for the Nisga'a, a
better Canada for aboriginal peoples and a better Canada for me
and for all my constituents.
The ratification of the Nisga'a treaty will serve as a marker in
our passage to the next millennium. It will act as a nexus, a
bridge connecting our past with our present and our collective
future. It will take care of unfinished business, establish a
new relationship and create a continuum of hope and possibility
for generations to come.
For all the right reasons we will finally do the right thing.
Members of the House should never let a motion like this get in
the way of that noble pursuit.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I listened
very carefully to the member's intervention. We certainly agree
that there has been a real failure of aboriginal policy in
Canada. That failure falls most heavily on the shoulders of the
Liberal Party and the successive Liberal governments that have
spent most of the time in government in this country since 1867.
When we look at the failure, the people over there should accept
their responsibility in being a big part of that failure.
The member talked about the cost of Nisga'a government and said
after 15 years the Nisga'a, through internal revenue raising,
would be able to pay for approximately 25% of the annual cost,
which is about $32 million a year, to govern a population of
approximately 2,000 people.
Does the hon. member have any idea what the cost per person for
that government will be? Does she think it is in line with the
rest of government in Canada?
What does the hon. member have to say to the 40% of the Nisga'a
people who do not support this agreement? What does she have to
say to the people who are watching from Skeena today, to the
Gitanyow, the Gitksan and the Tahltan, who are really upset over
the fact that the overlap situation was not addressed prior to
the federal government signing this agreement and indicating its
willingness to bring ratification legislation through in the
fall? What would she say to these aboriginal people who are
watching today from Skeena to whom the government also has a
fiduciary obligation?
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Speaker, if anyone has to answer
to the people of Skeena it is the member. It is the member who
has a constitutional challenge before the B.C. court. The member
is using the floor of the House to pursue a court challenge. It
is the member who has talked out of both sides of his mouth.
He asks what our policy is with regard to aboriginal people. I
ask the member opposite what is his policy with regard to
aboriginal people. Members of the Reform have never been clear.
They have never articulated anything but paternalism and some
might suggest some other isms that I will not be levelling at
this point, but I think we all know what they are.
1710
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): And the hon. member
will not be levelling them through the back door either.
Mr. Mike Scott: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I want to make it abundantly clear that the hon. member in her
intervention indicated to the House that I had a court challenge
in British Columbia. I am not part of any court challenge in
British Columbia to anything.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That is not a point
of order. That is a matter of debate.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for both the tone and the content of her
speech. She has actually done something to elevate the whole
standard of debate we have been hearing all day today. I thank
her for pointing out some amazing facts that we should keep in
mind.
These people have lived for 10,000 years in the Nass Valley with
their own traditional ways of governance and their own
traditional cultural values, et cetera. Those 10,000 years make
100 years of persecution and cultural genocide actually seem like
a fairly short period of time. Maybe that is why we see such
great stoicism and patience on their part.
I want to speak about the point the hon. member made, that it is
classic white arrogance and Eurocentricism for us to think that
the only way of governance is our own British parliamentary
system. I would like to share one story with the House.
I took part in the Charlottetown aboriginal hearings. I was
sitting with a group of aboriginal women, one of whom was saying
that in her culture and community women were not allowed to run
for chief. Everybody shook their heads and said that was
terrible. Then she said that the men were not allowed to vote.
Somehow these people over hundreds and thousands of years have
found a pretty interesting way to make sure that the chief is
accountable, et cetera. That is just one example.
As a point of clarification, I have a question for the hon.
member. She pointed out a number of clarifications about
taxation, et cetera, to try to put to bed some of the
fear-mongering and the misinformation being spread around British
Columbia and all of western Canada.
Is it true that in the case of income tax the Nisga'a government
and its corporations will be treated the same as a municipality?
Is it also true that the Nisga'a government will not be able to
tax non-Nisga'a residents on Nisga'a land? Finally, is it true
that the Nisga'a taxation power will not limit or displace
federal or provincial taxation powers? Could the hon. member
clarify some of those things for the House?
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Speaker, all but a few of us are
immigrants to this land. We are talking about a very fundamental
issue of rights to the people.
The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre has articulated very correct
positions about his support and belief that there is a better way
to do things than what has been done in the past. His respect
for human rights comes through loud and clear.
We have to learn from the people who came before us in this
land, the people who started this land on its way to being as
great as it is and ensured that we took the best. We must
respect them and ensure that they have the same rights as other
Canadians to pursue their dreams, to govern themselves, to
recognize their own religious experience and their own culture.
The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre is absolutely correct on his
taxation points as well.
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Blackstrap, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member spoke at some length about fiscal accountability. I
can think of one example in my home province of Saskatchewan, the
Saulteaux band, which last year spent more money on travel than
the entire provincial cabinet.
I would ask the hon. member a very simple question. What
guarantees are there in this deal that would make myself, my
colleagues and the rest of Canadians feel comfortable that those
same kinds of things will not happen in this deal?
1715
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Speaker, the question was what
will make the member opposite and his party comfortable with this
deal. Perhaps a whole attitude adjustment would be appropriate.
They come from a place of disrespect for the aboriginal peoples
and it is very clear that they will never be comfortable with
deals that ensure respect for culture, respect for people to
pursue their dreams.
If the hon. member had listened to my opening comments, they
were all about the systems that are in place on fiscal
accountability.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 5.15 p.m.,
pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions necessary to
dispose of the motion are deemed put and a recorded division
deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, June 8, 1999, at the
expiry of the time provided for government orders.
Hon. Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I ask that you seek the unanimous consent of the House to
see the clock as 5.30 and begin Private Members' Business.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food has requested unanimous consent of the
House to see the time as 5.30. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There is not consent
so the House will recess to the call of the Chair.
Mr. Allan Kerpan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I was not aware that the House would adjourn for the next
15 minutes until 5.30. Is there something happening today that I
am not aware of? I was of the understanding that I was to give a
speech for the last 15 minutes of the regular time allotted.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time provided
for debate expired at 5.15. By order made earlier today, debate
was suspended at 5.15. That is why debate terminated and that is
why the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food moved for unanimous
consent to see the clock as 5.30 so that we could begin debate on
Private Members' Business.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I think you may now check again
whether there is unanimous consent to proceed now to Private
Members' Business.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That seems like a
very good idea. We will start all over again.
Hon. Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, I rise again and suggest
that the Speaker ask for unanimous consent of the House, and we
might get it, that we see the clock as 5.30 and continue with
private members' hour.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food has requested the unanimous consent of
the House to see the time as 5.30 p.m. Is it the unanimous
consent of the House to see the clock as 5.30 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland):
It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
Order Paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[Translation]
CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun—Saint-Henri, Lib.) moved that Bill
C-405, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (ballot papers),
be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I thank House and committee members for
allowing debate of Bill C-405, an act to amend the Canada
Elections Act (ballot papers).
I introduced this bill in May 1998 in order to do something
about people with bad intentions. As many of us know, some
malicious individuals run candidates with similar or identical
names.
For instance, in 1988, in the riding of Verdun—Saint-Paul where I
was a candidate, one of the candidates on the ballot papers was
named Lavergne. He was a representative of the Green Party and
got a lot of votes.
1720
In 1993, the same party had a candidate whose name bore no
resemblance to any of the other candidates. The party received
very few votes.
In 1997, in the riding of Outremont, the name of one of the
candidates was similar to that of the member who was
representing the riding in the House at the time. Fortunately,
people trusted this member and re-elected him without too much
trouble.
Today, in the Ontario provincial election, there are two
candidates with similar names in the riding of Casselman. One
is named Jean-Marc Lalonde and the other Alain Lalonde. With
situations like this, one might well think that there are people
who want to reduce a candidate's majority, or eliminate him
altogether.
I believe it is unfair to someone who has worked like mad to run
for a political party to see certain people doing such things.
That is why I have introduced a private member's bill to
counteract the actions of malicious people, who may be found in
all of the ridings across Canada.
I will go still further and state that the photographs of
candidates ought to be on every ballot, and I will tell you why.
After I introduced my bill last May, I received a letter from
an organization that works with literacy, Carrefour d'éducation
pour l'alphabétisation, asking me to add a clause to the effect
that all candidates should have their photograph on the ballots.
I will explain why. As hon. members are aware, illiterate
people have trouble voting. I remember back to 1980 when I
helped a lady to do so, on behalf of an organization for the
mentally handicapped.
The organization was made up of about 18 mentally handicapped
persons. Over 19 years, we managed to get 150 mentally retarded
people out of the back rooms in which their families had hidden
them out of shame.
If hon. members could only realize how much help the simple
addition of a photo would be to the illiterate, who do not get
out and vote because they are embarrassed at not being able to
read.
When I was campaigning door to door in 1997, people would tell
me “Mr. Lavigne, I will not be voting. It is not that I do not
want to vote for you.
I would like to, and I could vote for you if there was a photo
of you. But I cannot read, and I do not know where to go”. I
told them they just had to pick the third name down and they
said “Yes, but what if I make a mistake and I pick the fourth
one?” If there were photos, all these people would have the
same right to vote as everyone else.
There are many services for the disabled in Quebec and in
Canada. A few months ago, with funding from the Government of
Canada, I formed an association with young lawyers to make the
disabled aware of their rights.
We even opened an office in Canada, to provide information to
the disabled about their rights. Like us, those who are
illiterate are entitled to vote. The Government of Canada must
give them an opportunity to do so.
1725
The purpose of my bill, of course, is to counter malicious
intents and acts to reduce a candidate's margin or eliminate him
altogether, but I think we should take it a step further and let
everyone benefit.
[English]
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to say a few words on this bill on behalf of my
party. I am sure the sponsor of the bill is well meaning but we
have to ask ourselves if this is the way we want to go in Canada.
The use of colourful symbols to identify the various political
parties on the ballot is quite common in many third world
countries. There are probably countries where the photo of a
candidate is next to his or her name on the ballot paper. In
countries where there is a high degree of illiteracy it would
make sense. It also makes sense in countries where there are a
multitude of local or tribal languages where even a literate
person could become confused.
Canada is not a third world country. We have a high literacy
rate and we only have two official languages. Therefore we do
not see the need for this amendment to the Canada Elections Act.
As well, I say to the hon. member that the wording of the
proposed amendment leaves a lot to subjective interpretation. Who
decides which names are similar enough to be confusing on the
ballot paper? Will there be a similarity test? He did not
indicate that. If they fail a similarity test, do not get their
picture on the ballot and lose the election by a small margin, is
that a valid reason to have the election declared null and void?
What would happen if they had a twin with each individual running
for a different party? Surely the picture would only add to the
confusion.
The other valid factor is sociological. Many studies have shown
that good looking people who are photogenic tend to be regarded
more positively by others than people who are not so good
looking. What if they are a bright, articulate, spirited, public
minded individual but very plain to look at, not really good
looking like the hon. member happens to be? What would happen in
that case? Publishing their picture in that case could be
detrimental to their electoral chances.
Another factor which has to be taken into consideration is
incumbency. An incumbent already enjoys a big advantage in an
election campaign. We are all very much aware of that. An
incumbent generally has a 20% to 25% advantage going into an
election campaign. Putting the incumbent's picture on the ballot
would only add to the incumbent's advantage. I do not know if
the hon. member would agree with that line of thought.
If one happens to be a rather plain looking challenger then the
picture would only add to the individual's disadvantage. It would
only add to his chances of not getting elected. At some point in
this debate I would like the hon. member to address some of the
little problems I have given him to think about.
1730
Simply put, I do not see any pressing need for this change. I
feel we could be opening a Pandora's box of potential new
problems if we approve the bill. Under the current circumstances
as presented by the hon. member we would not have any choice but
to vote against his bill. During the course of this debate the
hon. member may be answering some of the concerns I have made
known to him today, and hopefully we will see.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-405 respecting
amendments to the Canada Elections Act. I must admit there is
great uncertainty with the bill. The summary states that the
photograph of each candidate shall be printed on the ballot next
to the name of that candidate. That would suggest that each and
every one of us would have to send our pictures in and that the
ballot would have the pictures of all candidates.
However, clause 2 of the bill indicates that only where there is
similarity in the names of any two candidates would their
pictures be on the ballot. If we are unclear as to what the bill
says, imagine somebody trying to figure out at Elections Canada
whether or not all our pictures are required.
I too have problems with the suggestion that Canadian voters are
not smart enough to be able to identify the candidate of their
choice. As we all know, on today's election ballots the party
name is attached to the name. If there is a similarity in names
or if one person has the same name as somebody else, there is an
indication of what political party they represent. That
differentiates one candidate from another.
We are asking for people to take advantage of that situation. In
past elections we have had two John Turners running for a seat in
the same constituency. It was done for a reason. I believe he
represented the Rhino Party, which tends to take lightly the
election process. I am a little concerned that the pictures that
might be received to be put on ballots may not in all
circumstances be pictures of a person's face. What constitutes a
picture of the candidate? We are really asking for somebody to
take advantage of the situation and to turn it into a joke more
than a very serious process.
I do not see the reason for it. I fail to see where the
pictures are going to differentiate the individuals any more than
the party name differentiates them.
Another issue should be considered. Whether we like it or not,
if only two individuals have pictures on a ballot of from six to
thirteen people and the others do not have pictures, it draws
more attention to those two individuals. Our election process
has to be fair and equal to all candidates and not give one any
more of an advantage over another. In some cases where two
people may have their pictures on the ballot, that would
automatically draw the attention of the voter to those two
individuals and may exclude the others from consideration.
I do not think we want to go down that path. I think it is a
dangerous path to go on.
1735
It is a question of when there is not a real problem why we need
to change the process. Elections Canada works very hard in
making sure that the ballots are clear and the names are listed
alphabetically. That again can cause problems if people want to
take advantage of it. I know someone who put a name on the
ballot that basically said “none of the above and put a couple
of z's in front of it.” We have to be careful that we do not
encourage that kind of attitude in making the election process a
joke.
In the case of ballots there are already methods that Election
Canada uses to clarify such as, as I mentioned, alphabetical
order, names with clarify, using initials and using the party's
affiliation. If that in itself is not clear, a person can put
his or her occupation on the ballot as well.
There is plenty of opportunity to make sure there is clarity in
terms of who are the candidates. Putting picture on the ballot
would not help and may make the process unfair. I will be voting
against this private member's bill and encouraging my colleagues
to do the same.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
wish to begin by congratulating the hon. member for
Verdun—Saint-Henri on his initiative.
I believe he is totally justified in his concern to see our
fellow citizens participate fully in selecting those who will
govern them. I can therefore understand that he would want to
ensure that all those who vote are fully informed.
We believe, however, that there is a problem here. As it
stands, we believe the bill confers an unfair advantage on
certain categories of candidate.
As the hon. member pointed out in his opening remarks, if all
candidates had a photo I believe that the hon. member would
receive considerable support, if not unanimity. He would
without a doubt have the support of the Bloc Quebecois, because
in the ridings we represent we know there are people who cannot
read and write, for all manner of reasons related to their
particular circumstances, and we must respect that.
Let us take advantage of this excellent initiative by our
colleague to pay tribute to our fellow citizens who are involved
in this process of learning to read and write. They deserve all
our support, for this is not an easy undertaking, we know.
I would encourage the hon. member to consider introducing an
amendment, whereby all candidates could have their photo on the
ballot. This would, I believe, be of service to democracy and
all members of parliament would be grateful to him for this.
It is very important to make sure that our fellow citizens take
part in the democratic process. There are a number of countries
on this planet where, unfortunately, the right to elect those
who govern them is not recognized.
A lot of people in the world would like to be in our shoes in
order to be able to regularly, periodically, every four or five
years, focus their attention on public life, on public issues
and be part of the very important moment of choosing
representatives in this democratic institution here of the House
of Commons. Obviously, this is a principle we would be able to
apply to many institutions.
I believe the member is raising an important point. It is all to
his credit, and I thank him for it. I want to remind the House
that we are proud, because in Quebec—like me, he is a member from
Quebec, and so is his seatmate—we have an extremely deep-rooted
democratic tradition. You know that the National Assembly was
the first parliament in North America.
1740
Regardless of whether we voted yes or no in the last referendum,
we must all rejoice in the fact that over 90% of our fellow
citizens exercised their right to vote.
Those in elected office, like the member for Verdun—Saint-Henri,
myself and any parliamentarian, would all do well to ensure that
people turn out to vote in numbers. There is no doubt that what
the member is proposing, that is including the photo with the
name of the candidate on the ballot, is an enlightened measure
that provides people with the best information possible on the
people who are running in an election.
I therefore invite him to consider expanding the scope of the
bill. I am sure that I am speaking for my colleagues of the Bloc
Quebecois when I say that we will be happy to support such an
initiative.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
did not plan on speaking to the bill today but there is one thing
I would like to point out which I have not heard today in the
comments of other members.
I too have reservations with the whole idea of putting
photographs on the ballot. I would disagree with the hon. member
from the Bloc who just pointed out that members of his party
would probably not have much problem if all the candidates had
their photographs on the ballot. The point I want to raise is a
good argument for having neither. Neither should all the photos
be on the ballot. Nor should just two in the case of names that
are very similar.
For people who do not know what their candidates look like, if
they do not follow politics very much or did not really pay any
attention to the leaflets and literature that might have come to
their doors, there is a very real possibility they are the type
of people who do not really know a lot about politics and would
make their choices based on what the candidate looked like.
I think everybody here would agree that would be fundamentally
wrong. There are all kinds of biases that exist: racial bias or
racial prejudice or gender bias, people who do not want women in
politics. My name is one that could be used for a male or
female. Many people with the name Pat are from both genders.
There may be two people with the name Pat, one a man and one a
woman, and the choice would be made simply because someone might
not want women in politics and would vote for the male, never
mind what the virtues are.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Pat Martin: The members opposite are chuckling.
There are people who certainly feel that way. They are biased
toward having women in politics. They might vote that way. I am
just saying it is a possibility and it is one of the reservations
that should be raised here.
There are other things such as ethnic background. People who
are racially prejudiced would notice right off the bat, never
mind the merits and qualities of the person. One person might be
wearing a turban, for instance, and one not. They might have
similar names and the voter might be biased against a certain
type of person.
What about people with obvious physical disabilities? Somebody
like Stephen Hawking would not have much of a chance if he was
going strictly on physical appearance if the voter did not think
handicapped people could conduct themselves as well as somebody
else. We all know that having somebody like Stephen Hawking
would be a great asset to any political environment.
There are ways to tamper photographs to one's advantage. People
have done all kinds of research on reactions to people who are
physically beautiful. If one looks like a 30 year old Olympic
athlete and has the same name as a person who is paunchy, middle
aged and more my vintage, the 30 year old Olympic athlete would
have a clear advantage over me personally. I would find that
troublesome because I might think I would be the better
candidate.
For those reasons I would oppose this idea, even though I
understand that it was put forward with all the best of
intentions to make it a better system. Our party could not vote
for the bill as it currently stands because of the possibility of
biases based on physical appearance.
[Translation]
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to support the bill introduced by the hon.
member for Verdun—Saint-Henri.
This bill addresses a real problem in Canadian society. It is
known that our rate of illiteracy is extremely high and
unacceptable for an industrialized country, a country that
boasts of having one of the highest standards of living in the
world.
And yet, we have a real problem. There are people in Canada who
do not know how to read or have difficulty doing so.
1745
[English]
I want to assure the member for St. John's East, who is not in
the House at this moment, but who spoke to this bill—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I must remind the
hon. member that we do not comment on the presence or absence of
members in the House.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Madam Speaker, I did not mean to
cast any aspersions. The member for St. John's East, when he
spoke about photos being placed on ballots, said that this could
in fact put someone who is plain looking into difficulty. I want
to assure him that he is a very good looking person. That is the
first thing.
I want to assure the member from the NDP that he as well is a
very good looking person. In fact, I think that everyone sitting
in the House today, and not sitting in the House today, but who
has the right to sit in the House, is very good looking. The
member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve is also good looking.
However, the point was raised by the NDP member that this could
lead to discrimination on the basis of race, gender, or whether
people like the way an individual looks. He is right. There may
be some people who will decide on the basis of a photo not to
vote for a candidate because the candidate is a woman, a senior,
too young, black, a visible minority or an aboriginal.
Luckily, we have a system in which we have signage and
billboards. I can assure the member that it would have been
incredible if, of the 59% of the electorate which voted for me,
one person in my riding voted not knowing that I was a black
Canadian woman of African origin. It would have been very
difficult. I had billboards all over my riding. The person
would have had to have suffered from a visual disability and not
have had any friends or family with whom they communicated over
the length of the campaign not to know that I was, one, a woman,
and two, a black woman, a visible minority.
I would also hope that in Canada we have advanced sufficiently,
regardless of the level of our education, that the overwhelming
majority of Canadians would vote for the best candidate, for the
candidate that represents that party which embodies their values.
I think that is in fact what we have. We have an increasing
diversity within the House of Commons.
We have a higher number of women representatives in the 36th
Parliament than we have had in the past 130-odd years of our
confederation.
We have a higher level of representation in terms of age groups
representing the different ages. We have younger MPs, middle MPs
and our more senior and more mature MPs. I consider myself to be
in the middle in terms of maturity and age.
We have greater representation in terms of the members of
parliament who are of varying and diverse ethnocultural origins.
Only 20 years ago it would have been very difficult to find a
member of parliament in this House whose name was not Tremblay or
James or Brown. I perhaps should not have used the name
“Brown”. Let me try McKinney or Smith.
1750
This House is the actual proof of the openness of our Canadian
society, of the ability of Canadian electors to look beyond a
person's physical appearance to that person's experience, values
and the policies of that person and the party which that person
represents.
[Translation]
In my own riding, there is considerable socioeconomic diversity.
The percentage of residents living on welfare is rather
disturbing. A number of them are illiterate as well, and many
of them voted for me, despite or perhaps because of the fact—I do
not know which—that I am a woman, that I am middle aged and that
I am a member of a visible minority. These people perhaps
thought that because of my own diversity I would be able to
understand what they are going through.
I think an important point is being raised here in the House,
which is that the bill, as its stands, may cause some difficulty
because it requires pictures on ballots only when the names of
two or more candidates give rise to confusion. I believe that
ballots should include the pictures of all candidates, as the
member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve mentioned.
I can assure all members here in the House at the moment that
the member introducing this bill—which I support—intends, if he
manages to get it through second reading stage and referred to
committee, to make an amendment to ensure in fact that all
candidates' photos appear on the ballot.
Many associations and non-profit organizations are working on the
issue of literacy in Canada and, more specifically, in Quebec.
We have excellent organizations, which conclude the Regroupement
des associations de l'analphabétisme, Literacy Partners in
Quebec and others. I hope they will not be upset if I do not
name all of them.
I consulted a number of them on this point, and I can tell you
that everyone I consulted, working Monday to Friday and often on
weekends with people who are illiterate, support with one voice
the idea of having each candidate's photo on the ballot.
I will come back to the point raised by the hon. NDP member.
Should we fear having our picture on a ballot when we do not
fear having our picture on billboards, which are sometimes 10 by
11 feet or 15 by 10 feet high?
If we had lived in feudal times, when most people did not have
the right to vote, we might fear having our photo displayed. But
at this point, it would be more likely through ignorance that we
might fear our picture being printed could bring bad luck.
1755
I think all the parties in this House should support this bill.
If, as I hope, the bill is referred to committee, you may rest
assured that there will be an amendment to make sure that the
photos of all candidates appear on the ballot.
I thank all members of the House for their patience and their
understanding and I congratulate the hon. member for
Verdun—Saint-Henri.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Madam
Speaker, we were discussing the possibility of amending this
bill, whose motivation seems to be totally commendable and
justifiable to the extent that, as the hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce pointed out, it would be of service to
democracy that as much information as possible be provided on
candidates running for office.
There is no doubt that the motivation for this bill is very
appropriate and deserves to be supported. However, the wording
of the bill seems to pose a bit of a problem, since a photograph
of the candidates would only be affixed if two or more
candidates had an identical name.
This obviously creates a problem for the other candidates, who
would not have their photos on the ballot. In a way, this would
almost be placing these other candidates in what would no longer
be a level playing field, since some candidates could be
identified on the ballot by their facial features but not
others.
From the moment that, in an election campaign, there are posters
on telephone poles or balconies showing the facial features of
candidates—and we all know how important that is—to have one's
picture on telephone poles or balconies, to have the photographs
of just a few candidates on a ballot would be detrimental to
those whose picture would not appear.
It is our view that, in its present form, Bill C-405 is totally
unacceptable.
There will, I imagine, be the possibility of proposing an
amendment at either the committee or the report stage, or even
today, why not, by unanimous consent. I will make a motion to
that effect at the end of my speech. I will be seconded in this
by my colleague for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, whom I would invite to
return to his seat so that he may do so.
As I said earlier, the motivation for this bill is most
commendable, because the more information one has on candidates,
the more able one is to make an enlightened decision. This is,
of course, particularly true when the names of candidates are
confusing.
For example, let us take my first name. For many anglophones,
Stéphane looks like a girl's name because it ends in the same
way as Suzanne or Joanne.
I remember within a few days of my election getting mail from
all over Canada addressing me as Mrs. Stéphane Bergeron, and
those who were not completely sure added a letter to my name,
making me into Mrs. Stéphanie Bergeron, convinced that there had
been a mistake in my first name.
For many anglophones, my name is a woman's name. For the few
anglophones in my riding—and they are not very many—this can
indeed represent a problem. I imagine that this could be the
case for a large number of candidates running for office, who
have confusing names.
This idea of having candidates' pictures on the ballot is an
excellent one as well for those of our fellow citizens who are
unfortunately unable to read, or whose language is written with
another alphabet, and therefore are at a disadvantage compared
to other voters when it comes to making a choice on election
day.
1800
There is no doubt that this is an interesting bill. But in fact,
as I said, the provisions, as they appeared in the bill, are
totally unacceptable in our opinion.
Consequently, I would like to propose an amendment, and I invite
all my colleagues to support it. I move:
That all candidates be identified on the ballot by means of a
photo of approximately 3 cm by 1.8 cm taken within the year
preceding nomination day.
I must point out that this amendment, drafted carefully by my
colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, which I introduce with his
support, is entirely in keeping with clause 1 of the bill.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Unfortunately, at this stage
of the debate, the amendment I have before me is unacceptable in
its present form.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Madam Speaker, may I ask why, in all your
wisdom, you consider this amendment inadmissible in its present
form, since, if there is unanimous consent, it is certainly
acceptable procedurally?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I will take the amendment
under advisement and consider it carefully, and I will make a
decision before the end of this hour.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Madam Speaker, I do not want to prolong
the debate unduly, except to say that you have an opportunity to
consider the wording of the amendment as proposed. I think it is
not insulting to our colleague from Verdun—Saint-Henri to amend
this bill.
From the nodding we see before us, most of our colleagues in
this House do seem to agree with the idea that the photo of all
candidates should appear on the ballot, and not just the photo
of candidates whose names might be similar.
Accordingly, I respectfully submit to my colleague from
Verdun—Saint-Henri that, through a gesture of openness, his bill,
as amended by an opposition party, could rally all parties in
this House.
[English]
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the
Environment, Lib.): Madam Speaker, this just goes to show
that there is a complexity of problems.
In fact there are very many people in this chamber who have
names that are not gender specific.
1805
[Translation]
Like my colleague opposite, who receives many letters addressed
to “Mrs. Bergeron”, I have received many letters addressed to
“Mr. Torsney”. My name is not very common in Canada. My family
alone bears this name, because my parents immigrated to Canada.
[English]
I am pleased to speak to Bill C-405 which has been sponsored by
the member for Verdun—Saint-Henri. On a personal basis I
support everything that we can do to enhance people's
participation rate in the election process, to help people to
overcome physical difficulties and literacy difficulties. The
objective of this amendment is to improve access for persons
specifically with reading deficiencies.
The issue of accessibility is a fundamental principle to all of
us in our electoral system. The questions that are raised here
are quite important.
The Canada Elections Act has in fact been modified on many
occasions in the last number of years. Polling stations on
election day, the offices of the returning officers and the
advance polling stations have a mandate to be available on a
level access. While Elections Canada does not have it perfect,
it does have 97% of its locations with level access for electors
with disabilities.
In 1993 Bill C-114 extended the use of voting by special ballots
to all electors, allowing electors with physical impairments to
vote by mail. Elections Canada has taken steps to assist voters
who have difficulty understanding English or French. Material
about the electoral process was published in as many as 24
languages in the last general election. Returning officers are
encouraged to appoint multilingual elections officials to provide
information in several languages, particularly in urban areas and
polls where there are people of many ethnic origins.
Other measures and new technologies have been put in place for
the particular needs of hospitalized people, for voters with
visual and hearing impairments, mobile polls, ballots in Braille,
interpreters of sign language at polling stations, a special
phone line for voters with hearing impairment. Voters who have
reading deficiencies are included in the voters who have special
needs. We need to find a way to help them.
The addition of photographs has been proposed by the hon. member
for Verdun—Saint-Henri. This issue as well as that of placing
party logos on the ballot have been the subject of study over the
past few years.
In 1991 the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party
Financing recommended that logos or initials of the political
parties be printed on the ballots and that photographs of
candidates be displayed in the form of a poster at polling
stations. Who knows how that would have affected all of our
chances.
Following the 1993 general election the Chief Electoral Officer,
a fine individual, recommended in the annex to his statutory
report tabled in parliament in 1996 that the logos of registered
parties be printed in black on the left side of the ballot in
front of the candidates' names.
In the June 1998 report on the Canada Elections Act, the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs expressed a
number of reservations with this recommendation. Some members
doubted that using logos would increase the participation of
illiterate voters. Others echoed the Chief Electoral Officer's
concerns about the technical difficulties involved in getting the
logos or candidates' photographs on the ballot, including whether
or not the photos should be in black and white or in colour. The
committee of this House did not arrive at a consensus.
Many factors must be taken into consideration in assessing the
proposal before us. There is an absence of empirical studies.
Whether or not the voter rate for individuals who have reading
deficiencies is lower than the participation of Canadians in
general we do not know. Whether or not individuals with reading
deficiencies who do not vote would vote if pictures were on the
ballot is not clear.
It is difficult to evaluate, as many members of the House have
articulated, without further research on the influence of voter
selection of candidates as a result of having the pictures. Would
it have a distorting effect? Would we be here or not be here?
It is unclear. It may well be an unforeseen consequence that it
could affect people's voting habits whether it be based on some
kind of difficulty with people of various parties.
1810
I know some people imagine it impossible, but I had great big
mall posters. I had pictures in the paper. I had lots of
pictures on materials and still people told me that their
relative, friend or acquaintance had voted for me specifically
because I was a Liberal and because I was not a woman. Who
knows? I can assure everyone who is watching that I am female.
The candidates' photographs on the ballot may address the
situation of people who wish to cast their ballot for a
recognizable candidate regardless of the party affiliation.
However, it would not address the case of electors who intend to
vote primarily for a party.
There are a number of questions that have not been answered.
What would be the cost of the proposal? What would be its impact
on the electoral calendar? Are there technical dimensions
associated with its implementation?
Let us be clear. The printing of ballots can take place only
after the closing date for nominations, day 21. The opening of
advance polling stations starts 10 days after the closing of
nominations, days 10, 9 and 7. Therefore all the ballots need to
be produced and distributed even in remote areas of the country
within a period of 10 days. It would be a serious strain on the
already very short timeframe.
The production process would be further complicated by the
addition of photographs, besides the fact that the ballot may
need to be changed.
There would need to be established rules, as the hon. member
opposite has indicated, on the quality of the impression, the
format, the size and the placement of the pictures. Elections
Canada would need to be provided with the responsibility to make
sure that the rules are enforced, otherwise all of us could be in
jeopardy for fairness.
Elections Canada has not had a chance to answer these questions.
We already know that the 36 day period of the electoral campaign
leaves little room for additional steps in the process.
We do not have that many parameters in Bill C-405. We need to
look through these issues and we need to look at what the other
options are.
In the Northwest Territories for instance currently posters are
provided with photographs of candidates in all voter locations.
At first glance this could be the way to solve the problems of
the hon. member opposite.
No proposal should be excluded or adopted before the
organizations representing the people who have reading
deficiencies are consulted. They can best identify the
solutions. We need to have a bottom-up solution. More analysis
needs to be done.
On the issue of accessibility, all of us in the House support
that. On the issue of encouraging more people of varied
backgrounds to participate, hopefully all of us support that and
work every day to reduce those barriers, but further analysis is
needed.
I would remind all hon. members that the government House leader
will be introducing legislation to amend the Canada Elections Act
in the very near future. Perhaps this matter could be pursued at
that time by the hon. member opposite and by all members of the
House.
[Translation]
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
rise in support of my colleague's bill. I understand the
constraints and arguments put forward by members of the various
opposition parties, and even by members of our party, to the
effect that the photographs of all candidates should appear on
the ballots, and I agree that this is a very good point.
However, when it comes to the overall issue, we must first think
about people in our society who are at a disadvantage for one
reason or another. It is nice to say “We all support access”.
But when we then go on to say “There are many constraints”. I
realize this is not an easy thing to put in place. But at the
same time, this is precisely why we have House committees.
If, as it is my hope, this bill makes it through second reading,
it will be referred to a committee, and that committee may want
to send for Elections Canada officials to discuss the details.
For example, I see no reason why the official photographs
appearing on the posters of candidates could not be used on the
ballots. It would only make sense.
At present, Elections Canada spends $8.6 million on pamphlets
distributed to organizations for illiterate people. We do not
know whether all illiterate people are reached through these
organizations. I met some of them myself, and there is often an
issue of individual pride involved.
[English]
The pride of the person. How many people want to belong to
these organizations in the first place? And when they do, how do
the organizations reach them when they themselves, these people,
cannot read?
1815
Even if pamphlets are sent to these organizations by Elections
Canada, even if there are all kinds of systems used by Elections
Canada to try to reach illiterate people, certainly a number of
people are not reached. Witnesses have come to me personally at
meetings.
At one meeting attended by my colleague from
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine and myself, one lady told us how she
was afraid of taking the bus. She had avoided every public place
until she was 35 or 40 years of age. Her pride prevented her from
doing normal day to day routine things that we take for granted.
One day something clicked in her mind and she sought an
association. She went to school at a very late age. She even
tried to hide from her own children that she was illiterate.
People like that do not venture forward. If we can help them in
any way at all, if we can put that $8.6 million toward
photographs on the ballots, then surely it will be simple to
decide whether it should be a black and white or colour photo.
We have decided this for driver's licences. In Quebec we have
decided this for medicare cards.
I do not see anything wrong with deciding whether it should be a
colour or black and white photo, how much it would cost, what the
criteria for the use of photographs should be, whether it should
be a photograph that is one year old or more recent. We do it
for our passports. We do not use just any picture for our
passports. It has to be stamped and certified.
I do not think the cost would be outrageous. I do not think the
cost would be more than the nearly $9 million Elections Canada
spends today to advise people who are illiterate.
The bill my colleague has put forward is well worth sending to
committee. That is what he is asking. He is not saying that it
is a perfect bill or that there are not unanswered questions. Of
course there are as with all changes and unanswered questions,
but not unanswered questions that defy solutions. Of course they
do not defy solutions.
The member is asking for a majority vote in this House on the
motion for second reading so we can send the bill to a committee.
The committee can have hearings. The committee can hear from
Elections Canada and the organizations representing illiterate
and handicapped people.
It is well worth our support. I strongly support the bill my
colleague has brought forward. He can make amendments in
committee. He can propose amendments to the bill which is what
he intends to do.
I have discussed with my colleague what he would like to do. He
does not want to just accept piecemeal amendments at this stage.
He wants to listen to what the witnesses have to say during the
hearings. There may be one, two, three or four amendments to
bring forward which he would be prepared to consider because he
is completely open minded. He wants to safeguard the principle.
With that in mind, I would like to express my strong support for
the bill proposed by my colleague from Verdun—Saint-Henri.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I want to go back to the
motion moved by the hon. member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes.
Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to
move this amendment?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
1820
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and
the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on
the order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
JUSTICE
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, on March 12 I asked the Minister of Justice and
the Deputy Prime Minister about Canada's youth criminal justice
act that had just been introduced the day before. Obviously
there are a lot of concerns about the bill. The public had not
had much of a chance to look at it, but we had some concerns and
we were seeking answers at that time and were also anxious to see
the bill move forward.
Today it was disappointing when the government House leader
talked about adjourning the House earlier than what is on our
normal calendar because the government is really running out of
legislation and is talking about possibly getting out of here
next Friday. Yet when I got up and asked the government House
leader why we were not dealing with the Canada youth justice act
his comment was that it was being filibustered by the opposition.
It is quite interesting. I did go and look. I know we have had
some speakers on the bill. We have had some obvious input. My
colleague from Surrey North has great concerns on the bill and
has been up as well as many others. But we have spoken as the
opposition for four hours, 240 minutes on this bill since it was
introduced.
The bill was introduced by this government over five years ago.
It was something the Liberals wanted to do and it took them five
years to get the bill to the House. After three months we have
only had the bill before the House a very small amount of time.
We certainly want to see it get to committee. We want to see
many changes in it but the government seems to be dragging its
feet.
The Liberals do much talking and introduce a lot of PR jobs.
They spent about $5 million on advertising in this area so far.
Yet the book they put out says that the Government of Canada will
establish a five to six year implementation plan. The Liberals
have had five years to look at. Now they are talking about
taking five to six years to implement it.
The Liberals go to great lengths in their advertising to talk
about how they have committed $206 million over the first three
years for the Canada youth justice act.
The Young Offenders Act is supposed to be supported by 50:50
contributions from the federal government and the provinces. This
government is only paying about 30% on average for Canada's young
offenders. That is the problem. It is a lack of money. It is a
lack of really caring about what is going on in society today.
Today in my community in British Columbia on the lower mainland,
one person every day dies from a drug overdose, yet we have no
money from the government to solve that problem. I do not know
what the numbers are in Toronto and Montreal and other major
cities but they are very large. British Columbia is one of the
capitals for drugs and it is very serious.
Here is a government that talks about money but it is not
putting it where it is needed. It is not putting it there fast
enough.
The Liberals are great at talking about the Canada youth justice
act and how they are going to implement it and what they are
going to do for young children, but they do not get behind their
words with actions. They do not get behind their words with
money. They know how to spend money with PR firms to make it look
like they are doing a good job.
They are spending a couple of hundred million dollars to
register guns across Canada, really guns in the rural areas
because guns have been registered in Canada for a long time.
Hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent on that but there
is very little being spent on drugs. There is very little being
spent on young offenders.
We have a case today where a young man 18 years old is going to
spend about seven years in jail for viciously murdering a young
girl in Victoria. I do not think that is acceptable to most
Canadians. Had this bill been brought in a year or two ago as it
should have been, it would have had a major impact on that young
man. He would have been treated as a real adult and got real
adult sentencing and served a long time in prison for a very
vicious crime, which is what he should do.
We also are not spending any money on rehabilitation. The
government did not want to include 10 to 12 year olds in this
bill. All the provinces want to do that whether they are NDP
provinces, Conservative provinces or Liberal provinces. They want
to include those young people to rehabilitate them to make sure
they do not turn into criminals. This government will not do
that because it does not want to spend the money.
This country has a serious problem with crime, a serious problem
with young children. We have a government that likes public
relations but likes very little action and that is too bad for
our families and too bad for our children.
1825
I hope the government will take a chance over the summer
holidays to look at what it is doing and come back with a mandate
from the people to do what the people want to solve this problem
for young people.
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the
Environment, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the member's comments have
distracted me so much because of a number of things I would like
to say. Let us make sure that a crime never occurs and a victim
is never created. Let us include things like the national child
tax benefit. Let us invest in our young people and make sure
they have healthier tomorrows rather than end of pipe solutions.
In responding to the member opposite I would like to clarify the
rules that govern publication of names, because that was the
specific question that he raised.
Under Bill C-68, publication of names will continue to be
allowed in all cases where the youth is sentenced to an adult
penalty. Publication will be prohibited when a youth is
sentenced to a youth penalty unless the sentence is given for a
presumptive offence such as murder. In those cases the
presumption is that publication bans could not apply.
There are however two situations when the name of a young person
receiving a youth sentence for a presumptive offence would not be
publishable. The first occurs when the attorney general does not
seek an adult sentence. The second occurs when a judge considers
an application by the youth or the attorney general and
determines that publication should be prohibited based on the
importance of rehabilitating the youth and the public interest.
These rules will give judges the guidance and flexibility to
enable them to take into account the particular circumstances of
the young person.
It is important to note that publication will also continue to
be allowed when it is necessary to apprehend a youth who is
dangerous and wanted for a serious offence. The government
believes in an open justice system. However, we must remember
that youth are more vulnerable than adults. Their chances for
rehabilitation are greater.
Publication is banned in all cases where a youth sentence is
imposed for a non-presumptive offence. However, when a sentence
is so serious that the youth is sentenced as an adult then the
rules applying to adults must apply to youth, including the
publication of names.
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Madam Speaker, it gives me
no great pleasure to rise on this issue tonight during
adjournment debate because the Prime Minister continues to evade,
avoid and delay on the important question of why close to $9
million of government grants, loans and contracts end up in the
hands of a select few: a criminal, a fraud artist and the Prime
Minister's single biggest contributor in the last federal
election.
The Prime Minister had the arrogance to stand before the House
this afternoon and say that these shady Shawinigan shenanigans
will help his re-election efforts.
I do not think the people of Saint-Maurice are all that
impressed that the Prime Minister's office intervenes on behalf
of a convicted criminal, with Yvon Duhaime getting close to
$900,000 in grants and loans. I do not think they are impressed
that someone with a record of not paying his taxes, not paying
his creditors, should get his hands on their money.
Let us not forget the hotel owned by Mr. Duhaime, which he
bought from the holding company in which the Prime Minister has a
financial interest, was in serious financial difficulty prior to
the Prime Minister's largesse starting to roll in.
Montreal business consultant Yvon Plante, MBA, stated in a March
27, 1997 report that the Grand-Mère Inn had a long term debt of
$1.49 million, $350,000 above a manageable level; lacked $250,000
in working capital and required a $350,000 investment; had
compiled $330,204 in unpaid bills, an amount considered by Mr.
Plante to be three times an acceptable level for a company of its
size; had scheduled mortgage loan payments totalling on average
more than $210,000 annually between 1998 and 2002, payments which
Mr. Plante viewed as unthinkable given the firm's financial
situation at the time; had no well trained accountant; had no
budget; and had no standard bookkeeping system, resulting in
management not being able to obtain a monthly financial statement
of the company's revenues versus expenses.
Furthermore, a final report submitted by Mr. Plante to the
Government of Quebec on May 8, 1998, concluded that the
Grand-Mère Inn's accounting system and budget planning had shown
no improvement in one year.
If someone with a track record like Yvon Duhaime and the
Grand-Mère Inn asked for more money from a bank or from private
investors, they would be laughed off the street. Yet somehow the
Prime Minister defends this type of government spending as
working for his riding.
Is it working for criminals like Yvon Duhaime? Yes. Is it
working for admitted fraud artists like Pierre Thibault? Yes.
Is it working for Liberal Party financial donors like Claude
Gauthier? Absolutely.
Is it working for Saint-Maurice? Well, judging the high rates of
unemployment and poverty in that region of Quebec, this apparent
brand of “I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine” politics
does not seem to be too effective.
1830
Now the parliamentary secretary will no doubt stand up and say
that everything was above-board with respect to the $6.3 million
CIDA contracts.
If this is true, I challenge the government to prove it by
releasing all the documents related to the awarding of the
contract. Certainly Markham Electric, a company in my riding
which lost the CIDA bid to Mr. Gauthier's company, would
appreciate a substantive answer. Certainly the taxpayers would
appreciate an answer on whether it takes $43,000 in donations to
the Prime Minister's campaign and the Liberal Party of Canada to
obtain multimillion dollar contracts.
Nobody wants to unduly besmirch the Prime Minister's name, but
if everything was above-board, let him release all the documents
related to these funding decisions and let them call in the
auditor general to audit these deals.
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the
Environment, Lib.): Madam Speaker, if only there were not so
many members so willing to besmirch the Prime Minister's name.
Why do they not step outside the House and say all the things
that they are saying in here?
Let me set the record straight. This contract is between the
Government of Mali and a Canadian company. It was awarded
through an open competitive process. This process considers the
quality of the company's services to ensure the best possible
results for the people of Mali, which is one of the world's
poorest countries. The selection process gives top priority to
the cost of the bids to ensure the best possible use of our
taxpayers' money.
For some reason opposition members have chosen to disregard
these facts. I believe members should be outraged had the
contract been awarded to any other bidder since this would have
increased the cost to Canadian taxpayers by at least $2.5
million.
This debate cannot possibly be about patronage since the
selection committee was made up of two officials from the
Government of Mali, one independent Canadian expert specializing
in electrical projects and one CIDA official acting as an
observer. Responsibility for the choice of the contracting firm
rested with these representatives, not with the CIDA official who
was there to ensure the integrity and transparency of the
process.
It certainly did not rest with the minister responsible for
CIDA, who was informed of the selection after the final decision
was made. The lowest bid got the contract and the opposition has
not offered up a shred of evidence to support its ridiculous
allegations. It is more interested in slinging mud at a man who
has spent the last three and a half decades serving this country.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The motion to adjourn
the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6:32 p.m.)