House of Commons Hansard #242 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was culture.

Topics

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in the closing moments of the debate on Bill C-55, an act respecting advertising services supplied by foreign periodical publishers.

I want to acknowledge the tremendous work that has been done by the hon. member for Dartmouth. She has been one of the few voices in the House of Commons that has actually spoken out and described this legislation for what it is.

The legislation is a sellout. I think it is fair to say that today is a retreat. We are surrendering to the American forces on this issue. I tried to think of an appropriate way for members of parliament particularly at this time to accept a Liberal negotiating position. What could that be?

We would simply walk around for the next little while looking like prisoners because we have surrendered to the Americans. We have surrendered to American pressure. If we want to demonstrate the appropriate way to be in the House of Commons whenever we talk about something to do with the United States, we would strike the appropriate pose.

The appropriate way to speak on any issue dealing with the United States would be on our knees. This is the Liberal negotiating position. We are on our knees doing a variety of things. At the moment I am just going to speak about this.

We have seen this surrender to the United States on a whole set of issues. We started off a little while back with pharmaceuticals. We caved in to the American pharmaceutical lobby. Bill C-91 gave 20 year patent protection.

I remember Bill S-9. For some reason the Government of Canada decided that Canadians who contributed to American charities or to American university fundraising campaigns should get a Canadian tax deduction. One has to admit that it is pretty crazy when tax deductions are given to Canadians who contribute to American universities and colleges.

I will just resume the pose to go to the softwood lumber issue. Once again a lot of us, particularly those of us in British Columbia, could stand this way. We would be handcuffed because we are essentially prisoners of war to the United States. We had a free trade deal with the United States, or so we were told. Then it came to dealing with softwood lumber and the government caved in again to the softwood lumber lobby. Now we have to accept quotas on our softwood lumber.

More recently we looked at the Pacific salmon treaty. We got down on our hands and knees again, went down to Washington and again caved in to American pressure. We gave away our coho stocks. At this rate we are going to wear out the knees of our pants.

Then we got into the plutonium shipments. The Americans wanted to ship plutonium to Canada in order to dispose of it. We agreed and caved in again to the United States.

Next it was the willingness of the Canadian government to allow American warships with nuclear weaponry to enter Canadian waters. This was despite the fact that British Columbians had almost universally passed legislation saying that British Columbia and British Columbian territorial waters were a nuclear-free zone. The Government of Canada said it was going to ignore that. It was on the Americans' side, not on the British Columbians' side.

Time and time again we have seen the government cave in. The appropriate way to deal with American related issues is on our knees. There is no point standing up. We might as well be on our knees, wearing out the knees of our pants, going down to Washington and saying that this is the appropriate position for the Canadian negotiators.

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

An hon. member

On bended knee.

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC

On bended knee or worse.

The next item would be water. Once again we have seen the government of Canada cave in to American pressure in terms of access to fresh water. The House passed a unanimous motion to call for an immediate moratorium on freshwater exports. Did that happen? No. We ran down to the United States and said “Let us set up a committee to study ways and means of exporting water from Canada to the United States”. This is embarrassing.

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There comes a time when grandstanding and this kind of behaviour should perhaps be ruled on. Mr. Speaker, the point of order is—

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

I accept the fact that the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier is making a very considered point of order. As the chair occupant I gave that some consideration. But I also thought that in light of recent happenings with the New Democratic Party, God knows they could spend some time on their knees.

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

NDP

Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your intervention, but consider what we are doing here today. Consider, as we are surrendering to the United States, as we are surrendering to the Americans, what we are actually debating in the House of Commons. In a letter we are agreeing—

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

Excuse me. I think the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier was quite correct and there is a point beyond which we need to respect the dignity of the House. I would ask the hon. member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys to resume his normal dignified manner in the House and if not, we will just go on to the next speaker.

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

NDP

Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC

Mr. Speaker, why did I get down on my knees in this subservient position during this debate on Bill C-55? Why did I clasp my hands behind my neck in a symbol of submission? It is because that is what we are doing.

Time and time and time again we cave in to the American interests. Just once we would rejoice in this House to stand up for Canadian interests, just one time. Whether it is on the softwood lumber deal, whether it is on the salmon deal on the west coast, let us just one time stand up for Canadian interests and Canadian sovereignty and stop caving in and dropping to our knees the minute an American walks into the room.

Listen to this. This is astonishing. When the government votes on this legislation, we are agreeing to the following definition of Canadian content in publications: “If it is created for the Canadian market and does not appear in any other edition or one or more periodicals published outside of Canada”.

It means if a resident of Waco, Texas writes a story about crime in the streets of Dallas and it is published in Maclean's magazine, that is Canadian content. If we look at the writings of Jesse Helms about the situation in Cuba and it is not printed anywhere else except in a Canadian publication, that becomes Canadian content.

To the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who in their right mind dreamt this up? Who in their right mind could stand in this place and say “I believe that a Texan writing about Texas is Canadian content”. That is what we are being asked to approve in the House this afternoon.

It is disgraceful. Anybody in our country who is interested in Canadian culture when they watch how people vote today will find out who really supports developing Canadian culture.

To conclude, I think I have demonstrated clearly what I think should be the appropriate posture for every Canadian, and particularly every parliamentarian, when we get into the discussion of Canada-American relations. We should assume the Liberal negotiating position, either on our knees or with our hands in the air as a symbol of complete submission. It is unfortunate, but unfortunately that is the case.

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Reform

Mike Scott Reform Skeena, BC

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is quite right. The Liberals have been absolutely atrocious in their dealings with the Americans.

Coming from the northwest coast of British Columbia, I know all too well how much the people in my communities who fish are going to suffer as a result of the Pacific salmon deal. The member is quite right. We caved in to the Americans on Pacific salmon. The Liberals caved in. The minister wraps himself in the flag and tries to paint himself as the conservation fisheries minister, but in reality what we have done is sold out to the Americans.

I would like to know sometime in my life what the Canadian government got in return somewhere else in Canada. I am sure there is some backroom bargaining going on.

I would also like to remind the member that I come from British Columbia which has an NDP administration. He was demonstrating postures so I have one for him. With an NDP administration, we in B.C. have the posture of having no money left because the NDP unfortunately cannot run a province.

Does my colleague have any comments to make about that since he was demonstrating the NDP's position with respect to the Liberal negotiating positions?

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

NDP

Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC

Mr. Speaker, my friend almost threw me with that question because as he was asking it he had one of his hands in his pocket. I was wondering what that was supposed to symbolize, but I will leave that for debate on another day.

Let us be honest about what has happened in British Columbia. When the federal government in its wisdom decided to seriously cut back funding for health care and education, there were very few provinces that decided that they were not going to see actual cutbacks in those two fields in their jurisdictions so they backfilled. They kept their commitments to education and health care and they backfilled so that education and health care would not take the hits that they have in most other provinces across the country.

That was a priority. The Government of British Columbia decided it was crucial as we enter the 21st century in a knowledge based economy that education remain a priority and be accessible to British Columbians. That is another reason tuition fees have been frozen for four years in a row, in order to keep tuition fees low enough so that public education at the post-secondary level is available.

Two very important things are education and health care. I would suspect if my friend had a chance to get to his feet after this question he would admit that he too would value that priority by the Government of British Columbia to keep health care and education as number one and number two priorities in terms of funding.

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

Is the House ready for the question?

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

An hon. member

Question.

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

All those opposed will please say nay.

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

In my opinion the nays have it. And more than five members having risen :

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

The vote is deferred to the end of Government Orders today.

The House resumed from June 4 consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-49, an act providing for the ratification and the bringing into effect of the Framework Agreement on First Nations Land Management.

First Nations Land Management ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Reform

Mike Scott Reform Skeena, BC

Mr. Speaker, I will continue my remarks from last Friday when we first began debating the Senate amendments.

It is now useful to remind the House of some of the history of the legislation before us. Back in the fall of last year the government introduced Bill C-49. At the time it was introduced there was a great deal of discussion among the various parties to see if we could get all party consent to speed the bill through the House of Commons. Apparently the bill had been before the House before and had not succeeded. Apparently many people were lobbying various members of parliament trying to get speedy passage of the bill.

After we reviewed it we found that there were some flaws. We started pointing them out to the government. A lot of the credit for identifying these flaws goes to grassroots people living on reserves, particularly in British Columbia, and municipalities in British Columbia that expressed some concern about the lack of a consultation process with regard to the use of land.

Concerns were also expressed about other areas of the bill such as expropriation. We received a great deal of mail, e-mails, faxes and so on, from people in the Musqueam reserve who had an experience relevant to the legislation which certainly made them very fearful and concerned about what could happen if Bill C-49 were passed without amendment.

We began discussions with the government talking about the amendments we were looking for. We had some indication back in November and December that we were to get amendments but we never got them. Consequently, in February and March when Bill C-49 came back into the House, members of the official opposition voiced strong opposition. We made it very clear to the government that we would not support the bill until amendments were made. In fact, we were to mount as stiff an opposition as we possibly could.

Various members opposite in the government benches made public comments about Bill C-49 at that time. I would like to read into the record some of those comments. A news story in the Vancouver Sun of March 4, 1999, indicated:

First nations legislation faces possible changes: Amendment in the Senate is pursued for a bill that gives land management powers to 14 Indian bands.

B.C. Liberal MPs said Wednesday the Senate will study and possibly amend legislation that would give bands such as the Musqueam and the Squamish expropriation powers on reserve land.

The seven member B.C. caucus has been inundated by letters, telephone calls and faxes expressing concern about the bill, which is expected to easily pass third and final reading in the House of Commons early next week before going to the Senate.

The bill, called the First Nations Land Management Act, transfers land management powers from Ottawa to 14 Canadian bands—including five in B.C.

The powers include the right to expropriate any interest in its lands such as leases if the band council deems it necessary for “community works or other first nations purposes”.

The bill has gained notoriety because it has been linked to the $490 million Nisga'a treaty and to the Musqueam band's imposition of 7,000% rent increases on leaseholders living on reserve land.

Some Musqueam leaseholders say the band plans to expropriate their leases in order to build condominiums, but the band says it has no motives other than to enforce the Federal Court of Appeal's ruling sanctioning huge hikes.

Indian Affairs Minister Jane Stewart has said that bands wouldn't be allowed under Bill C-49 to expropriate interests on Musqueam land except for community purposes such as hospitals or sewer projects.

The bill also provoked concern among some mayors near the reserves who don't feel the legislation requires sufficient consultation between bands and municipalities prior to property development.

And native women's groups are upset because the bill doesn't provide adequate protection for women who often lose access to the marital home after divorce.

The controversy over the legislation has prompted government MPs to hold out hope that the Senate could send amendments back to the Commons, forcing the Indian affairs minister to reconsider her legislation.

Referring to a statement by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, the article stated:

The very many communications and comments and criticisms...from native women's groups, both native and non-native leaseholders, and also municipal and similar organizations, can all be studied by the Senate committee and taken into account in offering possible changes to the bill as it now stands.

The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra pointed out that B.C. MPs and senators met with Indian affairs minister and got her support for the Senate committee on aboriginal affairs studying the bill. He continued:

I welcome Parliament's taking note of community opinions in this way, and thank the minister of Indian affairs for her co-operation.

According to the article the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam was asked by the minister to begin meetings with B.C. mayors and with chiefs of the five bands. It referred to the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam and indicated as follows:

The meetings are taking place “so we can hear everybody's side and see what are the weak points, what are the strong points, what needs adjusting and a few other things”.

It continued:

Liberal Senator Ray Perrault said the public feels a sense of powerlessness over issues like Bill C-49, the Musqueam matter, and Nisga'a. The emotion expressed in the letters he has received is as powerful as any he's seen in his long political career in the B.C. legislature and the Senate.

“They believe they don't have sufficient input; they feel the democratic process is subverted”, Perrault said.

Referring to a statement of the minister, the article continued:

—she will naturally have to consider any amendments that may come back from the Senate, but she doesn't believe Bill C-49 has flaws.

“I feel very comfortable with the bill”, she said.

I ask all members of the House, and anyone who happens to be watching, how the minister could be so far on one side of the issue. She is not accepting advice from Liberal senators who have spent their entire careers in politics. She is not accepting advice from members like the member for Vancouver Quadra who is recognized as somewhat of a legal and constitutional expert. She is telling her critics, including the critics from within her own party, that there is nothing wrong with the bill. She does not feel that it needs any changes and is intent on seeing it passed just the way it is. Is that the way the House of Commons should be doing business?

Another article from the Windsor Star of March 11 indicated that a local Liberal member of parliament, the member from Essex Kent, found himself in an unusual position of voting with Tory, independent and 42 Reform members against a controversial government bill that gave 14 Indian bands greater power over land management issues. Because dissent within the Liberal ranks was frowned upon and discouraged by the Prime Minister, the decision of the member from Essex Kent was both unusual and gutsy.

Bill C-49 has already drawn legitimate criticism on two fronts. First, it would pass more control of reserve lands to band councils, allowing them to expropriate interests on their land such as non-native leaseholders if expropriation is deemed to be in the community's interest. The bill does not specifically define those interests, leading to concern that land could be used for commercial development or even casinos.

On one B.C. reserve non-natives already have been saddled with a 7,000% increase in their rent, leading to suspicion that the band is trying to lower real estate prices so it can keep future compensation payments down.

A second concern outlined in the article was that native women were concerned that the bill did not guarantee women equal rights to property when a marriage breaks down. Bands can create their own rules and there is no requirement for any appeal process.

Some might see the member from Essex Kent as attempting to score political points in his riding where the government and the Caldwell first nation have negotiated a tentative agreement that would give the band $23.5 million to establish a 4,500 acre reserve on what is now prime farm land. However, the Caldwell deal raised many legitimate questions about the government's approach to land claims and the continued promotion of the unsuccessful reserve system. I submit that Bill C-49 feeds into that.

In opposing Bill C-49 the member from Essex Kent accused Indian Affairs Minister Jane Stewart and her department of intentionally trying to avoid public consultation on—

First Nations Land Management ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

I know that the hon. member for Skeena inadvertently used the name of the sitting member and meant to refer to the ministry.