Bill Matthews

[Speech From The Throne, February 6th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate you on your appointment to the chair.

I want to ask a question of my colleague from Fundy—Royal. Is he suggesting that the government should totally neglect and forget about the $42 billion deficit that the former administration left this country with before the Liberals came to power in 1993?

Does the hon. member not realize that student debts and problems with student loans is a result of the mismanagement and overspending of the former administration led by former Prime Minister Mulroney?

Is the member for Fundy—Royal advocating that we should return to blind spending, to increased student debt and to not dealing prudently with the finances of this country? I would like to hear the hon. member's response to those questions.

[Immigration And Refugee Protection Act, May 9th, 2000]

What is the hon. member talking about? Potential criminals?

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 6th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I take great pleasure in rising today to participate in the debate on Bill C-9, the Nisga'a treaty.

I could not help but reflect on the mood of the House and how it changed from the very partisan thrust of question period to just a few minutes ago when we took a few moments to remember the terrible tragedy which happened at the École Polytechnique 10 years ago. I think that says something about us as Canadians and as parliamentarians, how our moods change, how we understand, how we can be tolerant and of course how we remember.

That brings me to today's debate. The first and most important thing to say is that we acknowledge and appreciate the overwhelming support for the Nisga'a treaty from members of three of the four opposition parties represented in the House of Commons.

We have heard criticism often repeated by the official opposition. Now we see hundreds of amendments aimed at dismantling, undermining and changing this agreement, which has been entered into honourably by different parties. We have to be very clear that Reform amendments seek to tear up the Nisga'a final agreement. In this effort Reform members stand alone. They are isolated. They are wrong.

Support from political parties as diverse in their views as the Bloc Quebecois, the New Democratic Party and the Progressive Conservative Party vindicates our view that the Nisga'a treaty is truly a non-partisan issue. What the Nisga'a treaty demonstrates is the government's commitment to aboriginal peoples in this country.

Just this past weekend there was an agreement signed in my riding of Burin—St. George's among the Miawpukek First Nation, the Federation of Newfoundland Indians and Human Resources Development Canada for some $12.3 million, which will enable those people to address the needs of youth and equal access for people with disabilities, as well as the child care initiative that has been built into the Conne River agreement. That demonstrates very clearly this government's commitment to the aboriginal peoples of this great country.

The Nisga'a treaty, as with other modern treaties, should rise above the ordinary back and forth and thrust of partisan debate. The amendments which have been proposed by the Reform Party relate more to its make believe treaty than to the bill before the House and to what the treaty would give effect. In many cases, as we shall see during the course of the debate, the amendments do not relate to the actual document that has been negotiated among the parties. Additionally, they do not relate to the specific provisions of the final agreement which have been restated in Bill C-9.

The first treaty, the real treaty that was negotiated, has been ratified by the Nisga'a and Her Majesty in right of British Columbia. It is this treaty that has been tabled before parliament, which will be ratified with the passage of Bill C-9. It is the treaty referred to by the government and the three opposition parties other than the official opposition.

The official opposition is trying to impress its make believe treaty upon members of the House. The official opposition, the Liberal Party of British Columbia and a minority of editorialists seem determined to misrepresent the real treaty's elements. Among the many myths the official opposition seems bent on perpetrating are that the treaty undermines the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that it creates uncertainty. Of course, that could not be further from the truth.

Let me start by debunking the first myth. Since 1982 the Nisga'a have agreed that their treaty would be subject to the charter. Accordingly, the treaty clearly states that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to the Nisga'a government in respect of all matters within its authority.

Still the Reform Party attempts to tinker with the wording of this bill which reflects the final agreement. Its Motion No. 25 would delete the reference to the charter of rights and freedoms from the preamble of Bill C-9. It is not its objective to make constructive amendments, but rather to tear them down and raise contradictions between the bill before the House and the Nisga'a final agreement.

What we are seeing here once again, and what I have observed in the House of Commons since I have been here, is more of the same old Reform Party that Canadians have come to know. The same old divisive nature and the same old obstructionist tactics and manoeuvres are being used by this official opposition known as the Reform Party. Canadians are finally starting to see what really is behind the motives of the Reform Party. Polling results across the country are starting to show that.

The end result of its tactics, if accepted, would be a bill of contradictions, surprises, misstatements and errors. Rather than building upon certainty and understanding, lawyers would have a field day trying to comprehend how the Reform bill would actually accord with the final agreement. I ask once again, does the Reform Party want a final agreement with the Nisga'a nation or not? Is there something it does not want to be final? I think all members of the House, after being engaged in this debate for a period of time, know the answer to these questions. The answer is no.

Being the kind of people we are in Canada, being parliamentarians in the House of Commons representing Canadians, I wonder what the true motives of the official opposition are.

We are a country of tolerance. We are a country of goodwill. We want to rectify injustices in the country. One of the reasons we were sent to parliament was to deal with these issues. What better opportunity to rectify some of the injustices of the past, to correct some of the wrongs of the past, to show compassion and to lend support where it is so badly needed than the Nisga'a treaty, Bill C-9?

There is overwhelming support across Canada to ratify this agreement. Why is the official opposition being obstructionist in its tactics? That party will try to keep us in the House for the next 48 or 72 hours, with amendment after amendment, trying to obstruct and delay the implementation and approval of an agreement which will benefit many people in this country.

I would ask members of the Reform Party—and I see there are a couple present—if any of them see the inherent contradictions in some of the amendments they have proposed. There are some startling contradictions in the amendments.

The best way to learn about the Nisga'a treaty is to understand it. In addition, numerous summaries and academic articles are available which support the treaty. The Reform Party's arguments and amendments ignore hours of very valuable testimony setting out how this final agreement operates, the meaning of the final agreement and its constitutional status. As the House carries on with its deliberations it will be necessary for all members to consider whether members of the official opposition are describing the actual Nisga'a treaty or their own make believe treaty.

The Nisga'a have bargained with the federal and provincial governments peacefully and in good faith. They have every right to expect that the treaty will be upheld and the agreement will come to fruition. All Canadians can be proud that the Nisga'a final agreement is a fair, affordable and honourable settlement which puts to rest historic frustrations that have divided British Columbians for more than 100 years. I say that the amendments proposed by the Reform Party, in motion after motion before us today, undermine that very objective. The consequence is to separate Canadians, to deny what the Nisga'a have honourably negotiated and to weaken the treaty process in British Columbia.

The Nisga'a treaty should be celebrated as a national achievement, proof that people working in good faith can resolve their differences without confrontation or litigation. The Nisga'a have waited long enough. This agreement has been studied and debated extensively and it must be ratified. Then and only then can we go forward into the next millennium ready to face the challenges of the future.

[Privilege, June 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans I want to make a brief comment on what I consider to be a very serious problem which has plagued the work of the fisheries and oceans committee since I came here two years ago.

Every report gets leaked to some extent, but I think what differentiates this circumstance is that before the committee did not know who was leaking the reports and everyone was guessing it was everyone else. In this case I think what makes it different is that this time we know who gave the information to the news media. I think that makes it quite different.

This kind of thing undermines the work of the committee. It weakens the committee and in my view breaches the privilege of members of parliament.

[Foreign Affairs, June 3rd, 1999]

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?

[Foreign Affairs, June 3rd, 1999]

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?

[Supply, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yes, indeed, the industry has indicated that to me, and my colleague has alluded to the four or five measures that the Canadian shipbuilding association, the marine workers union and the CAW want. I want to go on record again as saying, yes, that certainly would level the playing field.

I cannot emphasize enough that no one in the shipbuilding industry, whether it be the people who own, manage and operate the yards, or the unions, is asking for direct subsidies from the government. They are not asking for subsidies.

[Supply, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I meant to make that reference in my remarks. There is a very important role for provincial governments to play in revitalizing and regenerating the shipbuilding industry. They cannot be let off the hook, but it is the federal government and the industry minister which must take the lead role. We must have a new national shipbuilding policy.

When I was a member of a provincial government in Newfoundland and Labrador we entered into a trawler replacement program with Fishery Products International Limited. We built offshore supply vessels on spec at the Marystown shipyard. As a provincial government we were very proactive in the shipbuilding industry in creating employment in one shipyard in Marystown on the Burin peninsula.

There are possibilities for provincial governments to get involved. Only last week the auditor general said in his report that we do not have enough patrol vessels to enforce our fishery's policies and regulations. There is a place for provincial governments to play a role, but the major role and the most important government is the government of which the hon. member is a member.

[Supply, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, if I did make any incorrect statement to the House about the minister and his meetings with representatives of the shipbuilding industry, I would certainly withdraw it. The information I had was that he refused to meet with representatives from the Atlantic provinces. Maybe I did not get the information correctly, and I apologize for that if I did not.

I am not interested in playing petty politics. This issue is too important to be taken up with what I said was correct or incorrect. It is too important for the parliamentary secretary to rise in his place and talk about a government with which the voters of Canada dealt six or seven years ago when they voted out the Conservatives and elected the Liberals. That is not what it is about.

The Liberals have been in power now for six years. In 1993 they became the Government of Canada. It is time for the parliamentary secretary, the minister and others over there to recognize they are now the government of the country. Canadian taxpayers and people involved in the shipbuilding industry in Canada expect them to make decisions for the benefit of the shipbuilding industry.

It is no good going back to Mulroney, Diefenbaker, Trudeau, Laurier, Pearson and others. People in Canada want the parliamentary secretary, the minister and the government to make decisions which will improve the shipbuilding industry in Canada today.

[Supply, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to second the motion put forward by my colleague from Saint John.

As the member for Fundy—Royal said, we have been trying to raise the issue of the shipbuilding industry in the House of Commons over the last number of months because there is a crisis in that industry. As we speak a campaign is being organized by the marine workers union and by the CAW across the country to try to have some impact on the federal government, in particular the industry minister, and to impress upon him the need for a new shipbuilding policy.

The shipbuilding industry and the ship repair industry are presently dying a slow death in Canada. If the government does not implement some new fiscal measures, we will see the situation worsen.

In 1990 there were some 12,000 people employed in the shipbuilding industry in Canada. In 1996-97 those numbers had dropped to approximately 5,000. In 1998 it was down to 4,000 as my colleague from Saint John mentioned in her address. That is a significant drop. The shipbuilding industry provides very good jobs and well paying jobs for the people employed in it.

Shipyards and ship repair centres are located across the country in some of the areas hardest hit economically. We could talk about Atlantic Canada, Quebec and British Columbia. We need all the economic stimulation we can get in these areas.

This is why we have brought forward this motion. We are trying to get the support of our colleagues in the House of Commons. This matter goes beyond our own constituencies. I have a shipyard in my constituency of Burin—St. George's located at Marystown. It is a great economic stimulator for the Burin peninsula and for the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador.

However the motion goes beyond our own parochial needs. It talks about the need for a national shipbuilding policy. Shipbuilding is a very important industry. It does wonders for us economically by creating employment. All we are asking is for the industry minister to attach some priority to the issue.

However he refuses to meet with the major players in the industry. He refuses to meet with the unions that are spearheading this campaign. Why does the industry minister have such a closed mind on this issue when just last week he hastily arranged a summit of the NHL franchises in Canada?

As pro sport and pro hockey as I am, and my background speaks volumes about that, how can the industry minister so hastily arrange a hockey summit to talk with the owners of NHL franchises in this country that are struggling because of our situation compared with that of the U.S.? We are paying our players in U.S. dollars. We are a small market.

Yet he refuses to deal with the major shipbuilding crisis. One of the main problems is the competition from the U.S. which builds new ships and repairs them and sends them to Canada, but we are not allowed to return the favour and send ships to the U.S.

Why does the industry minister not treat shipbuilding in the same way he is treating hockey? The shipbuilding industry is certainly as important to the country as our NHL franchises. They are important as well. That is my point.

My colleague from Saint John has highlighted very well some of the fiscal measures we would like to see the government implement. No one is asking for direct subsidies. The industry minister, time after time when he has risen on the issue in the House, keeps talking about subsidies. No one is asking for subsidies.

We are asking for fiscal measures which will level the playing field for the shipbuilding industry in the country, level the playing field with the U.S., with the European countries and with the Asian market so that we at least have a fighting chance to bid on work and obtain work.

I want to move an amendment, seconded by my colleague from Chicoutimi, before I conclude my remarks this morning:

That the motion be amended by adding after the word “develop” the word “immediately”.

My colleague from Saint John alluded to a number of fiscal measures which we would like to see the government implement such as a loan guarantee program and tax credits. Changes have to be made to taxation laws for vessel leasing, and trade and tariff policies need to be reviewed. May I be so bold as to suggest that they need to be revised to provide a level playing field for the Canadian shipbuilding industry.

We are trying to raise the profile of this important issue in parliament. There are still 4,000 to 5,000 jobs in the industry in Canada today. There is potential to double or triple that number and provide good paying jobs in all regions of the country where shipbuilding is present.

By putting forth the motion we are asking members of the House of Commons to join with us and vote to support a motion which we consider most important for the shipbuilding industry, for employment and for economic stimulation.