Lost his last election, in 2006, with 33% of the vote.
Nisga'A Final Agreement Act December 13th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, first, in my remarks I was responding to the government's position that the Reform Party was propagating myths, and I did not ascribe my remarks to any individual in particular. I was ascribing my remarks to a government policy and position that I felt was going over the line in terms of how it was trying to represent an issue to Canadians which was not correct.
Nisga'A Final Agreement Act December 13th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I have respect for the hon. member who just rose. However, I would like to point out that the member from Kamloops, who is not here right now, not a week ago in public, in a widely circulated media interview, said exactly that. I would ask the hon. member in all fairness to look up what the hon. member from Kamloops said. I am not making it up.
And it was not just once. It has been over and over again. Members on this side of the House have said this about Reformers in the House. That is a matter of public record. I am sorry if it offends people, but it is the truth. That is what happened and it happened with the member from Kamloops not 10 days ago in an interview. They should be ashamed of themselves. We should be able to engage in honest, intellectual debate without getting into that kind of mudslinging and name calling.
I will conclude my remarks by saying that at the end of the day in discussing this treaty the people we ought to be considering the very most is the Nisga'a people themselves. They are going to have to live with this for all time because it will be set in constitutional concrete.
I say that individual Nisga'a people, and I think there are more of them who are coming to understand it, are going to recognize that this is not a good deal for them. It is not a good deal for their families.
It is going to be a good deal for people who are involved in Nisga'a central government for sure. It is going to be a good deal for lawyers as my colleague points out. It is going to be a good deal for all those hangers on in the Indian industry in this country who have been sucking millions upon millions of dollars out of the taxpayers' wallets and out of the aboriginal communities for decades now. It will be a good deal for them.
It will be a good deal for the courts. The Marshall decision was based on a treaty that was half a dozen pages in length. Imagine the amount of litigation that will come out of this kind of an agreement.
The minister even said in his remarks a few minutes ago in the House that people have access to the courts. What kind of answer is that for a minister of the crown to be giving? It is almost as if the Liberals are inviting and expecting legal challenges. They want to see it happen. Maybe all their friends in the legal profession are rubbing their hands together waiting for this to get passed so they can all make a buck on it.
This will not be a good deal for Nisga'a people. That will become evident very quickly. It will not be a good deal for other aboriginal people in Canada because the precedent has been set in terms of the government's provisions in this treaty, in terms of collective ownership of land and collective control over finances. At the end of the day it is supposed to be the Nisga'a people who benefit from this.
Let the record show that the Reform Party was the only party that stood in the House and said that not only is this deal unprincipled, not only is it unconstitutional, but it is wrong for the country and for all Canadians. Let it be said and never forgotten that the Reform Party was the only party that stood in this parliament and said that this agreement is bad for Nisga'a people. History will prove us right.
We know the Liberals have the majority. We know that they can ram this through. That is the way our dysfunctional parliamentary system is operating in Canada these days. We know that the Liberals can get away with it. We have mounted the best opposition that we could. We have done everything within the powers that are granted the official opposition to highlight the defects in this deal and to bring it to the attention of Canadians.
Let the history books show that we did our jobs while other members of this place sat in their seats. They would not hold the government accountable. They were in collusion. They were intellectually dishonest. At the end of the day they failed not only to serve Canadians, but they failed to serve the best interests of the Nisga'a people.
Nisga'A Final Agreement Act December 13th, 1999
Many Nisga'a people have told us that the ratification process was not fair. This charge was made by people such as Frank Barton. He made these charges when he came before the federal standing committee when it was in British Columbia and there has been no response from any of the parties involved.
The minister talked about what he and the government characterize as the myths in the treaty. The minister stood in the House of Commons and, with a straight face, said that when the federal committee held hearings several weeks ago in British Columbia and Ottawa, there was “general consensus” that the Constitution of Canada would not be altered as a result of this agreement.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The minister knows that and he sits there with a smirk on his face because he thinks it is funny when the likes of Professor Stephen Scott from McGill University, a recognized legal expert; Professor Tom Flanagan from the University of Alberta; Mel Smith, former constitutional adviser to the Government of British Columbia for several decades; Gordon Gibson, the former leader of the Liberal Party of British Columbia; Professor Ehor Boyanowsky from Simon Fraser University; and Liberal leader Gordon Campbell of the current Liberal opposition in British Columbia, all appeared before that committee and said exactly the opposite.
How can government members and this minister sit there with smirks on their faces and say that there is general consensus that this agreement does not change the Constitution of Canada? That is a load of bunk and the minister knows it.
How does it change the constitution? There are at least 14 areas in the agreement where the Nisga'a central government will receive legislative authority that goes beyond the reach of parliament and beyond the legislature of British Columbia and that will be constitutionally protected under section 35 of the Canadian constitution. It will be considered an aboriginal or treaty right. It is right in the Nisga'a treaty itself that this treaty exhaustively sets out section 35 rights. Chapter 11 in this agreement, which deals with self-government, will obviously be considered an aboriginal treaty right and it will be constitutionally protected. It will be entrenched in constitutional concrete, never to be changed.
When I look around the House at the opposition parties that have a solemn duty to uphold the Constitution of Canada and I see what they have done in collusion with one another to override the constitution and to go against the wishes of Canadians, because Canadians said no to this very idea in 1992 in the Charlottetown accord, I am appalled. I am sickened by what members of the House have done or are attempting to do. That is not a myth. Those are the plain facts.
If the government wants to entrench aboriginal self-government as a constitutionally protected right with legislative authority that goes beyond the reach of parliament and the provincial legislatures, it can do it but it has to use the amending formula. It needs seven provinces with 50% of the population to do it. It tried to do that in 1992 with the Charlottetown accord, the same political parties that are here now with the same faces and the same failed ideas, and the Canadian people and British Columbians said “no'. British Columbians had the highest no of all the provinces. Aboriginal Canadians also said no.
What part of no does the government and the other political parties not understand. Why are they colluding with one another to try and get this constitutional amendment through the back door? Frankly, I find that sickening.
In 1950, the Supreme Court of Canada said, in the Lord Elgin Hotel case, if the minister cares to refer to it, “The Constitution of Canada does not belong to the legislatures. It does not belong to the politicians. It does not belong to governments. It belongs to the people of Canada and the people of Canada are the only ones who can consent to these kinds of constitutional changes”. There is an amending formula to determine whether that consent is given or not.
But no, the government and other parties are trying to do an end run around that. They are trying to do an end run around the amending formula and around the constitutional process to entrench aboriginal self-government as a constitutionally protected right with legislative authority that for all time will go beyond the reach of parliament and the reach of the provincial legislatures. That is exactly what René Lévesque was talking about when he spoke about sovereignty association. What this will do is create a semi-sovereign state within the boundaries of Canada.
As a precedent, because the government is pressing ahead with other treaties, not just in British Columbia but in other parts of Canada, what Canadians can expect over time is a large number of semi-sovereign states within the boundaries of Canada where people will live by different rules, different regulations and a different status based on ethnicity. Frankly, I find that idea repugnant.
The idea of legislated segregation has been tried around the world. The minister, instead of sitting there flapping his gums, should get out his history books and read what happened in the United States and in South with legislated segregation. The government can say that this is legislated segregation driven with good intentions. I do not doubt that it is, but legislated segregation driven with good intentions is not acceptable. It is always wrong. That is what the government and the other political parties in the House are in agreement on.
In the history of Canada, from before Canada was a country and before Confederation, in dealing with aboriginal people, there is a history of legislated segregation. Look where it has left native people in the country. We do not have to go any further than the closest reserve. Most reserves are not very desirable places to live. Unemployment is at 70%, 80% or 90%, depending on which reserve we are talking about. There are social pathologies that are unheard of in other Canadian communities. There are people living in squalor, in what amounts to third world conditions, as we have heard so many times in the House.
Why does the government not get the message? Legislated segregation does not work. The people it affects the most are the people this kind of policy is supposed to help. If I were an aboriginal Canadian I would ask the federal government to stop helping me because all the help it has given so far has not been very good. I would ask the government to leave me alone, but it will not.
The Liberals talk about the application of the charter of rights and protecting the rights of Nisga'a women and other aboriginal women in Canada. The minister sits in the House and pontificates. I do not know why he has not bothered to listen to people like Mizie Baker, a Squamish woman who came before our committee because she was not allowed to appear before the minister's committee to testify, or Wendy Lundberg who came before our committee because she was denied the opportunity to go before the minister's committee. He did not want to hear from her. The Liberals did not want to hear from these people. They do not like to hear from anyone who disagrees with them.
It is not unlike some of the more dictatorial regimes we have seen around the world in recent history. They insulate themselves from any kind of opposition or negative feedback from Canadians. People such as Mizie Baker and Wendy Lundberg, as well as a number of other aboriginal women, have told us of their concern and their lack of rights as aboriginal women, as Canadians, not only through this legislation but also through Bill C-49.
Wendy Lundberg wrote a letter to a Liberal member from British Columbia expressing her concern over the fact that her rights as an aboriginal woman were not protected. The response she received from the Liberal member of parliament was that they were working on that. Her letter was written in relation to Bill C-49 and in relation to the Nisga'a final agreement.
How will the charter of rights and freedoms apply? There is wording in chapter 2 of the agreement, the general provisions, which says that the charter of rights and freedoms applies, bearing in mind the free and democratic nature of the Nisga'a government. What do they mean? They sound like innocuous words.
We are not constitutional or legal experts so we took the time to consult with the likes of Professor Tom Flanagan, Professor Steven Scott, Mel Smith and others. We took the time to ask them what it meant in their view. In their view the addition really means that the Nisga'a central government will have a free rein in denying charter rights, bearing in mind the free and democratic nature of the Nisga'a central government.
I do not mean to imply the Nisga'a leadership that negotiated this agreement has ulterior motives. I do not know and I am not trying to make that allegation, but this sets the groundwork for individual charter rights to be overridden in the future.
Under section 35 of the constitution the Nisga'a final agreement will be considered an aboriginal or treaty right. Under section 25 of the constitution in applying the charter of rights and freedoms, aboriginal and treaty rights take precedence over individual rights as expressed in the charter. That is not a myth. Any Canadian can read the charter of rights and freedoms and section 25 of the Canadian constitution. I do not think the minister has read it but I urge him to do so. From the way he talks in the House, I do not think he has read the agreement or is familiar with it.
There is no question that the individual rights of Nisga'a people are seriously diminished as a result of this agreement. There is no doubt about that whatsoever.
Not only Nisga'a people but more and more aboriginal people in British Columbia are coming to understand that. They are concerned about it. They are asking how they can deal with a government that will come along in the future, for example, and ban trade unions like the Kamloops band recently attempted to do in British Columbia.
What happens if a future Nisga'a central government or some other aboriginal government that is working within the same kind of self-government framework as in this document happens to say that trade unions are culturally incompatible with Nisga'a tradition? They have legislative supremacy in the area of culture. In the self-government provisions they have the absolute right to regulate and ban businesses, professions and trades on Nisga'a land. That is not a myth. It is right in the agreement.
If a Nisga'a central government takes that position, what would be the recourse of the people who have attempted to organize the trade unions? They could go to court if they have the money but likely they will not have it to do that. However, if they go to court and say that their charter rights have been violated as a result of the law that has been passed by the Nisga'a central government, the Supreme Court of Canada will have to look at the section 35 rights.
The court will have to apply those rights as they relate to section 25 of the constitution. It will have to look at the wording bearing in mind the free and democratic nature of the Nisga'a government. It will have to look at the provisions that say that the Nisga'a central government has the absolute right to regulate and ban businesses, professions and trades on Nisga'a lands. With all those taken together it is easy to see that the court will have a difficult time upholding the charter of rights of Nisga'a individuals under those circumstances. That is just one set of circumstances.
The Nisga'a will have legislative authority to determine Nisga'a citizenship. That legislative authority goes beyond parliament and provincial legislatures. In other words it is up to the Nisga'a central government to determine who is a citizen and who is not.
What happens if one is a Nisga'a living in the Nass Valley in one of the four Nisga'a communities who happens to disagree vociferously with the Nisga'a central government on an issue or on a range of issues? One becomes what is known as a dissident. This has happened in other aboriginal communities in Canada. We have had letters from people on reserves in the prairies and so on where leadership has determined that in some cases the easiest way to deal with dissidents was to excommunicate them or attempt to pull their band membership.
Right now under the Indian Act and under the current system, which I do not mean in any way to defend, at the very least there is the ultimate protection of the Parliament of Canada for those people if the Parliament of Canada chooses to invoke it. However, under the Nisga'a final agreement that is lost forever.
If in the future the Nisga'a central government determines that people are not citizens for whatever reason, they are no longer entitled to be considered Nisga'a or to receive or partake in the benefits of this treaty. In fact they become exiles in their own lands. Aboriginal people in British Columbia have told me of their concerns about being exiles in their own lands. That is an absolute fact.
In terms of principle, individual rights versus collective rights is at the core of this treaty. Fundamentally that is what is the most wrong with it. The province of British Columbia and the Government of Canada, but primarily the Government of Canada, see aboriginal people as collectives. They do not see them as individuals.
They do not realize or choose not to realize that the 400,000-odd aboriginal Canadians who live on reserves in Canada today are all individuals. They do not think the same way. They do not want the same things. They are like everyone else. They have many different aspirations, hopes, dreams and goals.
How will they be able to reach those aspirations, dreams and goals when collectivities with centralized decision making will have enormous control over assets, land and wealth? Very little of it will flow to individuals. Most of it will flow to collective ownership. How will these people tap into that as individuals and get ahead?
I talked about legislative segregation a few minutes ago. Collectivities have been tried all over the world. In east bloc countries it was known as communism or state socialism. It has been a demonstrated failure everywhere it has been tried.
What makes these people so arrogant as to believe that they somehow have a new formula for recreating a failed idea and making it work? Who will suffer the most? It will be the very people that the agreement ostensibly sets out to help.
Why cannot the government think outside the box? Why can it not stop for a few minutes? Why cannot the minister and the department stop and re-evaluate where they are going with aboriginal policy, where they have gone, where they would like to go, and do it in a manner that is intellectually honest? With this agreement and with the policy coming from the government we have seen a tremendous amount of intellectual dishonesty.
We have seen a government that routinely tries to downplay and conceal the extent of accountability problems on reserves, which exist because the government has set forth policies that allow them to happen and create the environment for them to happen.
Why cannot the Government of Canada just once look at aboriginal people as individuals, not as collectives? Why cannot the government resolve these claims which we all agree need to be resolved with a generosity of spirit, a fairness of mind, and bearing in mind the horrible position in which aboriginal people have been placed as a result of legislated segregation in the country? The real crime perpetrated against aboriginals in Canada is legislated segregation.
Why cannot the government look at individuals and come up with a policy that says in resolving these outstanding claims and in trying to set things right it will try to the greatest extent possible to compensate individuals with land, cash and other assets? At the end of the process aboriginal people who freely choose of their own accord to stay together in communities will be provided with a municipal style government not unlike that of the city of Toronto, the city of Brantford or the city of Kamloops, British Columbia. What is wrong with that?
Why does the federal government and the province of British Columbia insist on having a form of government which can only be called a semi-sovereign state with legislative authority that goes far beyond that of any municipality in the country? Why cannot they see aboriginal people as individuals? Why cannot they go in that direction?
I do not think most Canadians would object in any way to a true municipal style of aboriginal self-government for aboriginal people. It would give aboriginal people who choose to stay in aboriginal communities the tools they need to run their communities as much as it gives the people who freely choose to live in the city of Ottawa as a group of citizens the tools they need to have a city that functions, that provides transportation corridors and transportation services, snow removal, and all other things we expect from a city.
At the same time it would also provide them with the absolute protection of the Canadian constitution, most particularly the charter of rights and freedoms. It would also break from the notion of centralizing collective ownership and decision making in the hands of a few people.
I am puzzled, frustrated and completely unable to understand why the Government of Canada cannot see that. Why can it not pause and go through an intellectual debate that is honest and willing to look at history, even recent history, and look at the failure in that recent history and learn from it rather than repeat it over and over again? I am appalled that the Government of Canada wants to continue to march down this road; damn the torpedoes, not a care about what British Columbians think or what other aboriginal people think.
The rudest comments are made about those who disagree with it. Their character and motives are trashed. They are called bigots, anti-Indian, racists. I could go on and on. That is what the other parties in the House either imply or sometimes directly say when they talk about anybody who expresses opposition to the principles contained in the agreement.
Nisga'A Final Agreement Act December 13th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the process which led to this agreement.
In 1991 the federal government, the province of British Columbia and the Nisga'a leadership signed an agreement to negotiate a land claim settlement behind closed doors, out of the public eye. I was not even aware that this agreement had been signed. Most British Columbians were not aware that the Government of British Columbia and the federal government were intent on doing this.
I was elected as member of parliament for Skeena, which encompasses the Nisga'a traditional lands, as it does the Gitksan, the Gitanyow, the Tahltan, the Tsimpsean, the Haisla, the Haida and the Taku River Tlingit. I became aware in 1994 that this agreement had been signed and that there were negotiations taking place behind closed doors. I became rather concerned, because any time government wants to negotiate agreements behind closed doors which have the potential to impact the area that I represent, I feel that I have a duty, an obligation and a right to know what is being discussed. I believe the people in the area that I represent have the same right. They have the right to know what is going on.
I wrote to the minister of the day asking to be included in some form in order to keep abreast and be aware of what was being discussed behind closed doors so I could report back to my constituents.
I received a very curt response telling me that there was a secrecy agreement that the parties were bound to, and that I was not privy to the information, as an elected representative of Skeena encompassing the Nisga'a traditional lands, nor was I about to be given any information with respect to the negotiations.
I felt it was my duty at that point to inform my constituents of what was going on. We held a series of townhall meetings throughout Skeena and then throughout British Columbia during the course of 1994 and 1995 trying to make British Columbians aware of the precedent setting set of negotiations taking place. We recognize, as do most thinking people, that this was a precedent setting set of negotiations. It was the first land claim treaty to be negotiated in British Columbia in modern times. It obviously will set the floor and not the ceiling for other land claim agreements in British Columbia, and across Canada for that matter.
The minister and the Government of British Columbia try to tell us that this is not a template, although Premier Clark, in his more lucid moments, did admit that it was indeed a template.
I ask anybody watching the debate on television how anybody could possibly believe that a native negotiator somewhere in British Columbia negotiating a treaty would not look at what the Nisga'a have received and say that they have at least an extremely strong morale argument, if not a legal argument, to say “we are entitled to the same thing”. How can the Government of Canada deny that?
I and many of my colleagues in the Reform Party from British Columbia attempted, to the best of our abilities, to shed some light on what was taking place. The government steadfastly refused to provide any information, not only to me but to any members of the public.
In 1996, with a great deal of fanfare, the government released jointly with the Nisga'a leadership what is known as the AIP or agreement in principle. From that, we started to get a much clearer picture of what was intended in terms of a final agreement because the framework for the final agreement was before us.
It was at that point that the provincial government put together a parliamentary committee, the committee for aboriginal affairs for British Columbia, and went around the province in what I call a dog and pony show, ostensibly to hear the views of concerned citizens in British Columbia and to take into account what the concerns or views might be in relation to the AIP so that the final agreement could reflect those.
I attended some of those hearings held by the committee. I can tell the House what happened. There was a long list of people who were put in place by the government, who were set up ahead of time, and who showed up and lauded the treaty's benefits and all of its supposedly wonderful clauses and so on. Anybody who showed up and expressed concern or opposition to any of the elements of the agreement in principle were routinely dismissed and often dismissed with the most degrading kind of attacks on their character and their motives because they disagreed with the direction in which the government policy was going.
It is shameful that British Columbians and Canadians cannot go to a meeting and express their views and opposition to the principles incorporated in the AIP without being treated in that manner. That is the way the government and the Government of British Columbia treated citizens not only in my constituency but right across the province. I was there for it. It is a matter of record because it is in the British Columbia proceedings. All the meetings that committee held were recorded and it is a matter of public record. I invite anybody who has any questions whatsoever to access it through the Internet because it is all there.
In August 1998, the federal government, the provincial government and the Nisga'a leadership unveiled the final agreement. We were very anxious to see it. We looked through it and noted right away that as a result of the committee's work in British Columbia and all the public concern, criticism and so on of various components of the Nisga'a treaty, not one major change was made from the AIP to the final agreement. It was essentially the same. It was just the framework fleshed out with the same principles, the same policy, the same direction.
The rank and file Nisga'a people, who this agreement will affect the most, were given a few weeks to consider this agreement before they had to vote on it in the ratification process. They were given a few weeks to consider a final agreement that is 250-some pages long and 450 pages of appendices. They were supposed to evaluate a new Nisga'a constitution, a taxation agreement and other related documents. They were supposed to review all of this and make a decision within a few weeks as to whether or not this was the right thing for them and their families to go.
Nisga'A Final Agreement Act December 13th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the minister speak about the myths and shameful actions of other members of the House. I cannot think of anything more shameful than to deliberately set out to misrepresent to Canadians and British Columbians what this treaty represents.
From being involved in this entire matter for five and a half years, I can say that the Government of Canada, this minister and previous ministers from that side of the House have deliberately set out to misrepresent and mislead Canadians on what the content of the Nisga'a agreement is and what it represents for the future, not only for Nisga'a people but for other aboriginal people in British Columbia and across Canada.
I want to start by talking about the process. I have spoken about it before in the House, but it bears repeating. In 1991 the Government of Canada—
Nisga'A Final Agreement Act December 13th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would seek the unanimous consent of the House, since we have the minister here speaking at third reading on the Nisga'a treaty, to have a 10 minute question and answer period with the minister.
Nisga'A Final Agreement Act December 6th, 1999
moved:
Motion No. 381
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Section 13 comes into force on January 11, 2007 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Nisga'A Final Agreement Act December 6th, 1999
moved:
Motion No. 369
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 9, 10 and 13 come into force on January 6, 2007 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Nisga'A Final Agreement Act December 6th, 1999
moved:
Motion No. 356
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 4, 9 and 14 come into force on January 10, 2008 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”
Nisga'A Final Agreement Act December 6th, 1999
moved:
Motion No. 344
That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“27. Sections 2, 4, 14 and 20 come into force on September 8, 2009 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”