Debates of Nov. 28th, 1995

British Columbia Treaty Commission Act

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my hon. colleague's comments. He said the whole business of the Indian question and what to do about land claims, self-government and these types of issues will be resolved only through negotiation.

That is true. That is something we can all agree on. But if that is true, why have so many of the Indian bands in British Columbia either backed away from this process or not participated to begin with?

One of the reasons we are opposed to this treaty process is that the only examples we can see are the ones history has taught us. Treaties enshrine special rights. They enshrine racism because certain rights are attributed to one group of Canadians based solely on their race.

The Reform Party believes the ultimate goal of any negotiations, as the hon. member said and I agree, is we must get to the point at which we can negotiate an end to these issues and put them to rest. The end goal must be the equality of all Canadian citizens, not further inequality, not enshrining inequality in agreements.

Another point is the finality. We believe on this side of the House these must be final agreements. They must bring about extinguishment of special rights and they must be final.

Once again when we look at history and at what happened with the settlements in the northern territories, we do not see that finality. Rather, there are clauses in those agreements whereby any future negotiations that bring about benefits south of 60 could also accrue to those bands that have already completed negotiations in the territories. We do not have finality. Canadians do not know what the final bill will be.

One of the reasons the Charlottetown accord was defeated was the ambiguity of the Indian questions. In other words, what did native self-government really mean? How would it come about?

I heard my hon. colleague putting forward the Reform perspective that what we need is a very clear definition of whether self-government will be based on a municipal model or some third level of government. These are the types of questions Canadians want answered.

Where is the involvement of the third party during these negotiations, private landowners? There are a whole bunch of questions not answered and not adequately addressed by this treaty negotiation process presently underway and which this bill would enshrine.

In a constituent survey in my spring householder I asked a number of questions on native land claims because I wanted feedback from the citizens of Prince George-Peace River. The first question was: Does government have an obligation to negotiate modern day treaties with natives?

This is exactly what we are talking about today with this bill. It is interesting that although the returns were low, the sample size was low, of the more than 500 people who returned the questionnaire two to one voted no. They said we are not obligated to negotiate treaties.

For that reason and the others I outlined I will be joining with my Reform colleagues in opposition to this bill.

[Jon Gerrard, Liberal, Portage—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, let me rise to reply to the questions raised by the hon. member.

It is fundamental that we have a process of negotiation. It is also important that we have a framework so that there are not 200 separate processes going on simultaneously in British Columbia. We need a framework in which we can negotiate with British Columbia First Nations in order to move this process forward as rapidly as possible.

More than 70 per cent of the First Nations in British Columbia are involved in the process. Therefore, the concern that huge numbers will be left out will likely be mitigated. We will see what happens as we proceed further.

On the question of finality, in the end the process on which we are embarked will have an outcome which gives much greater certainty than we have at the moment. As a result of this process, we will be able to give important consideration to the situation in British Columbia for a stable and good future for both First Nations people and non-First Nations people and that will be a building block on which all British Columbians will benefit in the long run.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I seem to be the only one who would like to participate in this debate with the hon. member.

I take exception to the point the member made that he believes this process will bring greater stability and certainty for British Columbia. That is certainly not what I have seen. I am not opposed to negotiations if they lead to the type of agreements that all of us and the vast majority of Canadians can ultimately support. My great concern and the concerns expressed to me all of the time from my constituents is that these processes are not doing that. They are driving a further wedge between the Indian people and Canadians at large.

A great concern of mine is that we are not bringing about finality or extinguishment of special rights. We are just further enshrining them.

Sometimes I question and am questioned as to whether we are really addressing the concerns of the average Indian in this country who in many cases is living in poverty on reserves. Or, are we really addressing the concerns of the Indian leadership which in many cases is vastly different from the primary concerns of the individual Indian?

It is estimated that combined provincial and federal spending is between $7 billion and $9 billion a year on Indian programs. When I travel to the reserves in my constituency, which, I am assured by colleagues in the House, are not that much unlike other constituencies, I see very few examples of where that money is being spent on the reserves.

I really question whether this process is the best way to address the concerns of the average native in this country.

[Jon Gerrard, Liberal, Portage—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have two quick comments in reply.

First, if the member is trying to suggest that we should go back and start all over again, I think we have made a lot of progress. We have a process which has been agreed to by the federal government, the provincial government and more than 70 per cent of the First Nations in British Columbia. It is a reasonable basis for proceeding and I believe we should proceed.

Second, when I spoke I deliberately talked about economic development, the information highway and the changing things that are coming. These are also very important in making sure that individuals and communities have the benefit of the changing times in order to move forward and progress to a better 21st century.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak on Bill C-107, an act respecting the B.C. Treaty Commission.

The aboriginal people tragically form some of the lowest socioeconomic groups within Canada, a first world nation. Indeed the incidence of violence, sexual abuse, crime, infant mortality, suicide, substance abuse and unemployment are among the highest of any sector within our country. It is not something our country should be proud of, and indeed we are not. That is why we are here today, to try to develop some sensible solutions to address these tragic problems within our midst.

I have seen with tragic frequency these individuals shot, stabbed, dying and sometimes dead from other people's hands and tragically too often from their own. It is a situation that needs to be addressed. It needed to be addressed yesterday but now we have an opportunity to do something about it today.

The cultural and social genocide which is taking place among the aboriginal people has been taking place for decades and continues to this day. In part this is due to successive governments that have continued in a paternalistic fashion toward the aboriginal people. They have had unequal treatment for the aboriginal people. Because this treatment is unequal, it is by its very nature racist in that we are treating the aboriginal people in a different way. We do not treat any other segment of our society that way.

The mindset has been to pour successive amounts of money into the department of Indian affairs for the aboriginal people. We continue to pour money down a black hole. If we look at the results of where this money has gone and wonder whether it has really gone to help the aboriginal people, if we go to the aboriginal people on and off reserve we will see that sadly it has not.

By pouring money down this black sinkhole, successive governments have created an institutionalized welfare state. If we continue to give money to people without them working for it, we erode the very soul within the individual. This does not matter if the person is an aboriginal or a non-aboriginal. It is a basic human characteristic. We cannot keep giving money to people and expect them to have pride and self-respect. It is incredibly destructive to the soul of a human being. It would happen to anybody, aboriginal or non-aboriginal, who is subjected to this.

It is often said that the aboriginal communities have lost their pride and self-respect. Part of the responsibility lies in the fact that we have created this institutionalized welfare state, that we have continued to support people in this manner. It has done them a great disservice. Therefore we see the sad destruction of a beautiful culture and beautiful people. A person cannot get pride and self-respect by having someone give it to him. That person must earn it himself.

Essential to this is having the ability to earn the funds to support yourself and your family and people. If you can do this, then from that you will develop the pride and self-respect in yourself and therefore the community around you. That is absolutely fundamentally important in my opinion.

I spoke with an individual who is responsible for the B.C. treaty process in my area. This man was in charge of it. After listening to him for one hour on what they were going to do, I asked a very simple question: Will the negotiation of these treaties help the aboriginal on or off reserve who is part of that lowest socioeconomic group I spoke about earlier? He answered that he did not know.

It is not good enough to pursue a course of trying to help people who are suffering from those tragic things I mentioned earlier when it is not known that it is going to help anybody. Why are we pursuing this course?

Perhaps we are doing this to assuage a guilt complex we have from what has gone on historically. If that is the case, I think we should end it. It is not respectful to the aboriginal people and it is not respectful to us. We have to look forward to a new day, a new era, a new age when aboriginal and non-aboriginal people can have respect for themselves and each other, when we can all live under circumstances that we do not need to be embarrassed about.

I have many concerns about the B.C. treaty negotiation process. First is the cost. It is going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars to establish these treaties. Where is the money coming from? All levels of government do not have the funds to pay for this. It is a simple question for which I would like a simple answer. Where is the accountability coming from? These moneys are going to be given to groups of people with no accountability whatsoever. Accountability must be built into the system.

One of the complaints I have is not politically correct to speak of. I have spoken to a number of aboriginal people who have come to my office complaining that large sums of money given to bands by the federal government have disappeared. The money has disappeared into the hands of band elders and band leaders. Nobody speaks for those aboriginal people who are not in that leadership. They need that money and they need it to work for them effectively and positively for the future. In too many cases that is not occurring.

Second, there are a lot of questions surrounding the issue of giving the resource management to the aboriginal people. What

happens to the rights of the non-aboriginal people who also have interests in these areas? They talk about crown lands and the fact that these areas are going to be given over to aboriginal people. The fact remains there are a lot of non-aboriginal people who lease these areas from the federal government. What is going to happen to them?

Also, look at the mismanagement which has taken place in some areas where aboriginal people have managed the resources. Look at the Stoney Creek reserve where large tracts of land were given out for timber rights and huge tracts of land were decimated.

Look at the aboriginal fishing strategy on the west coast. The AFS has proven to be an unmitigated disaster. An individual's racial grouping cannot be used as a licence to trash and destroy a resource. Unfortunately part of the responsibility of the decimation in the west coast fishery lies at the feet of the aboriginal people. There is no question that non-aboriginals have been poaching too. However, a significant number of people within the aboriginal community have been using the AFS to destroy a precious resource.

Who speaks for the aboriginal people who are law abiding, who respect the resource and who are interested in preserving that resource for future generations? Absolutely nobody speaks about them. A number of aboriginal people have approached me and said: "These aboriginal people are using the AFS for their own gain at the expense of us who are trying to manage and use the resource in a sustainable fashion". This has to be said. Where are the environmental safeguards that are going to take place when whole resources are being taken over and given to a group of people?

Third, what are the rights of the non-aboriginal people who live near lands that are being given to the aboriginal people? I have significant concerns in my own area. Many municipalities have mentioned that they have their own municipal plans that deal with the future of their area. There are a number of areas that-

[The Speaker]

My dear colleague, you will have the floor right after question period when we resume debate. You still have plenty of time remaining.

It being 2 p.m. we are going to proceed to Statements by Members.

Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, November has been proclaimed awareness month for cardiopulmonary resuscitation, better known as CPR.

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in Canada and the leading cause of death among older women. More than 60,000 Canadians die every year from heart attacks and strokes.

The basic skills of CPR can be learned in as little as four hours, yet fewer than 3 per cent of all Canadians can perform it. Therefore Health Canada and the Heart and Stroke Foundation, together with the Red Cross Society, St. John Ambulance, the Canadian Ski Patrol, the Royal Lifesaving Society of Canada, and the Advanced Coronary Treatment Foundation encourage all Canadians to take the time to learn CPR.

On behalf of the members of the House, I would like to support the initiatives of CPR awareness month and urge all Canadians to familiarize themselves with CPR. We should all know that a few hours of training could save the life of someone we love.

Cowboys

[Cliff Breitkreuz, Reform, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the great riding of Yellowhead is home to Canada's royal family of rodeo, the Hay family from Mayerthorpe.

This family has a long and distinguished career in professional rodeo. Fred, the dad of the family, busted broncs until 1983, and his son Rod is a four-time Canadian finals rodeo champion. Now his brother Denny is continuing the Hay family winning tradition by capturing the first ever CFR saddle bronc title in Edmonton recently. It was a lifelong dream for Denny to win the national title. He began busting broncs when he was just eight years old. Now Denny and his brother Rod are off to compete in the national finals rodeo in Las Vegas, the only pair of brothers from Canada ever to compete in this world class event.

I am sure all members will join me in wishing Denny and Rod lots of luck when they take on the world's best. Good luck, Denny and Rod.

Renewal Of Canadian Federalism

[Richard Bélisle, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in view of the proposals made yesterday by the Prime Minister, Quebecers can now see for themselves that the federal government has no intention of responding to the legitimate aspirations of the people of Quebec.

It has become obvious that Ottawa never intended to renew federalism, as the proposals which have been put on the table amply show. Quebecers will never accept to have the wool pulled over their eyes in such a manner, and they will reject these empty proposals outright.

Quebecers who voted no at the last referendum, but who wanted real changes, will be even more disappointed and will feel betrayed once again by a prime minister who could not care less about their aspirations. As for those who voted yes, these proposals only confirm what they already knew. Ottawa's proposals will never meet Quebec's expectations, Quebecers bar none know it full well.

National Unity

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP federal caucus calls on the Liberal government to realize that it cannot save Canada if it is busy undermining its foundations at the same time.

Recognizing Quebec's distinct society when the socioeconomic and institutional realities that make Canada distinct from the U.S. are being harmonized or rationalized out of existence is a tragic irony. Talking about vetoes and sovereignty is a cruel joke when we have abandoned real control of our lives to the global marketplace and the money speculators, not to mention that the veto proposal completely misunderstands western Canada and should have recognized B.C. as a region. Finally devolution of training as a facade for federal offloading and the privatization of labour market strategies is further cause for cynicism.

The Prime Minister should give Canadians something to believe in other than the bottom line mentality and they will be in a better frame of mind to deal with what Quebec and the rest of Canada need to do to keep Canada united.

Child Poverty

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, last week's Campaign 2000 report of a drop in the number of poor children in Canada is good news, but there remain nearly 1.4 million children who do not have the adequate food, shelter, clothing, and social environment their peers enjoy.

Poverty is a serious threat to the growth, development, and social well-being of children and therefore merits the continuing attention of all levels of government. Therefore I have introduced a private member's motion to encourage the government to create a special Canada children's future fund. This is to ensure that the elimination of child poverty remains at the forefront of our national agenda even during tough economic times.

I look forward to the full support of the House. All children deserve a secure and stable tomorrow, for they hold in their hands the future of our nation.

Human Rights

[Tony Ianno, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at the recent Commonwealth conference the Prime Minister reacted to the execution of Ogoni playwright Ken Saro-Wiwa by calling on the assembled heads of government to speak out with one voice in the face of flagrant violations of democratic principles and basic tenets of justice.

Following up actions with words, the Prime Minister pushed for an unprecedented suspension of Nigeria from the Commonwealth in the face of its flagrant violation of human rights and yet another example of the utter contempt held by General Abacha's regime for world opinion.

In light of this, I urge my colleagues in the Government of Canada to take this condemnation one step further by sending a stern message to the Government of Nigeria by cancelling all of its oil imports and imposing economic sanctions.

In light of these events, the citizens of the world must also send a message to multinational companies such as Royal Dutch Shell that they are responsible for more than simply maintaining the bottom line of their balance sheets. These companies must adopt environmental standards for their operations, especially in societies where opposition to their operations is repressed.

Atlantic Canada

[Ron MacDonald, Liberal, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, on November 17 a group of maritimers met in Truro to discuss the concept of economic and political union of the maritime or Atlantic provinces.

Business people, academics, labour leaders, and even a few politicians agreed that union is an old idea, going back to 1807, whose time has finally come. We must join together to eliminate wasteful duplication and provide lean government with cohesive policies for all Atlantic Canadians. We must join together to create new economic opportunities for our region and renew a sense of pride in our people. We must join together so that our voice is truly heard at the national level and our concerns are understood and respected.

The Truro meeting is only a beginning. An Atlantic union must be driven by the people of Atlantic Canada, not the politicians. The Prime Minister has shown that Confederation is not static. Changes can and must be made to improve the operation of our institutions and the quality of life for our people.

Opinion polls over the last number of years show that the people of Atlantic Canada consistently support union. They are ahead of the politicians on this issue now, as they have been in the past. We would serve them poorly if we did not make every effort-

Renewal Of Canadian Federalism

[Maurice Bernier, Bloc, Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in 1982, as a result of the unilateral patriation of the Constitution, Quebec lost its veto, a right it had as one of the founding nations of Canada. Since them, every Quebec government had demanded that the federal government rectify the situation.

What is the Prime Minister offering us today? Crumbs. A mere bill, which could be struck down by the next government, creating a regional veto right which completely dilutes Quebec's claims. And there is more. It will be possible to amend the Constitution through a national referendum and sidestep Quebec's National Assembly. This is a far cry from the pre-1982 situation when the National Assembly had a constitutional veto right.

Come on now. Does the Prime Minister really believe that Quebecers will be satisfied with mere symbols which bring about no change whatsoever?

Nafta

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Americans subsidize their dairy farmers to the tune of $3.6 billion, yet they are challenging our high tariffs on dairy and other supply managed products. They have asked for a NAFTA panel to rule in their favour.

If the Americans win, our supply managed farmers will face open competition overnight and Canadian dairy and poultry producers may be devastated. Two billion dollars' worth of dairy quotas will become worthless, thousands of farmers could be forced out of business, and many rural communities would be severely affected.

I ask the Minister of International Trade to be proactive rather than reactive and initiate a negotiated settlement, point out the sky high American subsidies and offer to reduce some of our tariffs in return for subsidy reduction in the United States.

I ask the government to negotiate, because too much is at stake to play at winner take all. It is entirely possible that the NAFTA panel may say "Canada, you lose".

Pornography

[Georgette Sheridan, Liberal, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to your attention the deep concerns of

many of my constituents, especially in the districts of Cudworth, Wakaw, and Humboldt, regarding pornography.

I have received many little white ribbons in recognition of WRAP week, "White Ribbons Against Pornography". The letter I received from Lana Reding explains it best. Lana wrote: "We feel that not enough is being done to protect families against abuse and pornography, especially our children, who are our future. In our church, St. Michael's Parish, we pinned white ribbons on our parishioners and they returned them the following week. Also our town of Cudworth declared that October 22 to 29 be recognized as WRAP week. There is far too much pornography on TV, in magazines, and books, exposing our children to sex, violence, and crimes. They need to be protected from much of this. We hope you will pass these ribbons along to our Prime Minister and express our concern regarding WRAP week".

It is only when people like Lana Reding get involved in the process that meaningful change can occur. I commend my constituents for their efforts.

National Unity

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's announcement yesterday on change in the federal system honours the referendum commitments and also provides a lead up to the mandatory constitutional conference of 1997.

The initiative on distinct society reflects already existing law of the Constitution; that on regional veto commits the federal government but creates no additional constitutional barriers for provincial governments; that on manpower training signals the new co-operative federalism, with its emphasis on functional power sharing and flexible decision making on common social problems.

Renewal Of Canadian Federalism

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Saint-Denis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, as he had promised during the recent referendum campaign in Quebec, the Prime Minister of Canada outlined the first elements of the strategy to renew Canadian federalism.

Through this proposal, we are tackling head-on the notions of distinct society, regional veto and job training. It shows that this government responds to the legitimate demands expressed by all Canadians.

Yesterday, Quebecers found out that, more than ever before, they can count on the Prime Minister of Canada and his government to address the issues they care about.

Yesterday, all Canadians learned that when their Prime Minister promises something, he delivers.

Yesterday Quebecers received yet another confirmation that the Prime Minister of Canada is listening to their concerns and that they can count on the government to address the issues that are important to Quebec.

Quebecers once again see proof that when their Prime Minister promises something, he delivers.

[The Speaker]

I would remind you, colleagues, to please use the titles of members rather than their names.

The Late Odette Pinard

[Michel Daviault, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today, we mourn the senseless death of Odette Pinard, an officer in the Montreal Urban Community police department.

A mother of three young children, Mrs. Pinard had worked as a police officer for nearly 10 years. She could have looked forward to a successful career in the Montreal Urban Community police department.

I would like to offer our sincere condolences to her family, her friends and all her colleagues in Montreal. Her death reminds us of both the fragility of life and the difficult work done every day by police officers, particularly those in our major centres.

When we ask the police to help us and protect our communities, our homes and our lives, we are in fact asking policemen and women to do a job, sometimes at the cost of their lives. Odette Pinard's death reminds us of their courage and dedication, for which we are all grateful.

Fisheries

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is a simple message, and even the fisheries minister's blowhard rhetoric and double talk cannot stifle it. Fishermen across Atlantic Canada are protesting the government's broken promise of "no tax increases".

From St. John's to Saint John, from Glace Bay to Yarmouth, the cry "Axe the fish tax" is being heard. And since that cry is falling on deaf ears, Reform, along with local citizens, have unveiled a billboard in Yarmouth protesting this unfair tax, one of many billboards in Atlantic Canada that will remind thousands and thousands of passers-by that the so-called fee is in fact a tax. This

tax will rob Yarmouth of $3 million, southwest Nova Scotia of $18 million, and rob Atlantic Canada of $50 million.

There is no excuse for broken promises. There is no excuse for a new tax. There is no excuse the government can offer fishermen whose pockets are being picked.

Leave the money at home. Mr. Minister, axe the Tobin tax.

Renewal Of Canadian Federalism

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, by announcing the details of his three main initiatives for change yesterday, the Prime Minister of Canada kept his referendum promises.

Yesterday, the Government of Canada tabled a motion to ensure that the Quebec's distinct society be recognized in the Canadian federation. Legislation establishing a regional right of veto will be introduced to give Canadians from all four major regions of the country the assurance that no constitutional change will be made without their consent. The Government of Canada will withdraw from manpower training; the provinces will then be quite free to develop their own policies and programs in that area.

These first three initiatives clearly show that we are committed to helping build a Canada that better meets to the needs and aspirations of its people and is more sensitive to them.

[Robert Bertrand, Liberal, Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of Canada's press conference was barely over when positive feedback started pouring from Quebec.

Reacting to our Prime Minister's proposals, the leader of the Quebec Liberal Party said: "First of all, we have to salute the Prime Minister of Canada's willingness to act. It is a first step in a process that should start now".

This initial reaction of the Leader of the Official Opposition in Quebec tends to prove that our government has correctly heard and understood the desire for change expressed by the people in the referendum.

Let us hope that, as the official opposition in the National Assembly, the Quebec Liberal Party will be able to convince the PQ government to set aside its separatist obsession and help renew the Canadian federation, as requested by the people of Quebec.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister hastily announced measures with which he intends to meet his referendum commitments. In fact, he is trying to fool the public, but Quebecers will not be fooled by these cunningly worded resolutions on the distinct identity of Quebec, any more than they will be by the sham veto he proposes.

My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Considering that the cabinet committee on constitutional change only recently started its work and that the timeframe for unemployment insurance reform has again been changed as a result of his statement yesterday, will he acknowledge that his improvised announcement is intended to counter increasingly overt criticism of his leadership and his failure to deliver the goods?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we acted quickly. I had a text when I spoke to Canadians on the Tuesday and Wednesday of the last week before the referendum. What I did today was keep the promises I made to the Canadian people and especially to the people of Quebec, that is take steps to recognize Quebec as a distinct society and ensure that in future, there will be no changes in the Constitution without the consent of Quebecers.

During the past four weeks the committee has had time to review everything I mentioned at the time, and that is what I delivered.

As for unemployment insurance reform, it will come. The bill will be tabled Friday, and the Leader of the Opposition will have all the details. However, as we have said on many occasions in this House, we decided that we would respect jurisdictions and that there was no longer any need for the federal government to be directly involved in manpower training programs. We intend to make the money available to clients who are our responsibility so they can receive these services from their provincial government.