Debates of Nov. 28th, 1995

Manpower Training

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question also is for the Prime Minister. The very day that the Prime Minister claims to recognize Quebec's distinct society status, he refuses to follow up on the Quebec consensus to the effect that the federal government must transfer to the province the powers and resources related to manpower training. There is quite a contradiction between these meaningless statements and the facts.

Will the Prime Minister admit that his proposal to give the money allocated for training directly to the unemployed and bypass the Quebec government and its manpower development commission, which includes officials representing management, the unions, the government and various other institutions, prevents Quebec from implementing a true manpower and employment policy, as requested by everyone?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member could not have been listening very well to the words of the Prime Minister.

He said that we would be transferring responsibility of many of the training programs. They show the reflection of the very extensive discussions we have had across Canada which I wish the Reform Party would acknowledge and receive. At the same time, we would want to do that in full consenting agreement with the provinces. We want to work with the provinces because we share one fundamental objective which is to help people get back to work and be employed.

I hope that when the hon. member's leader becomes the next leader in the Government of Quebec he is prepared to live up to his commitment which is to get away from any of these other discussions and focus on the question of jobs. If he is prepared to focus on jobs so are we and we think we can work together.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, given that the government says it will keep the money, that it will, in fact, not transfer any responsibility, and that it will continue to control the content, standards and results, how can it call its initiative a decentralization? There is a contradiction here between the statements and the facts.

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, the member is so full of misinformation and contradiction. It really is quite remarkable and amazing how one person can be so wrong so many times.

The reality is that we said we want to find additional resources to help people get back to work. The whole point of putting this in the context of a major fundamental restructuring of the entire employment insurance program is to find the resources to help people get to work and to work with the provinces, communities and businesses to make that happen.

The problem is that the hon. member is not interested in getting people back to work. She is simply interested in dealing with a bunch of abstract constitutional issues. More important, she simply wants separation. She does not want employment for people in Quebec.

The Constitution

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I insist upon an answer to the questions I asked earlier in question period.

The Prime Minister knows that the provinces of Canada already have a say in constitutional change through the amending formula. The people of Canada do not have a say. The Prime Minister has promised repeatedly over the past three years to give the people a say through referenda on constitutional change. Why is he backing down on his promise to have national referenda on constitutional change?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is not very complicated. A vote will be held in the House of Commons as quickly as possible. We will then return to our work on jobs and growth. It will be easy. We will vote and then we will return to the real problems of Canada.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister wanted to have a real agenda on jobs and growth he should have presented one instead of presenting the bill on constitutional change.

The people of Quebec voted against separation. The Government of Quebec is ignoring those results and continuing to pursue separation. Why is the Prime Minister in bed with the separatists promising them a veto on constitutional change instead of the people of Quebec?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want Canadians to suffer further discussions, committee hearings, commissions and referenda on every little comma in the Constitution. They do not want to hear about it.

I understand that the Reform Party is confused. Reformers want to talk about it because their own agenda for the politics of Canada has gone down the tube. Let them boil in their own juices.

The vote on the Constitution will be held very soon. After that we will be addressing other very important problems. On Friday we will table a very important reform with respect to jobs and growth. I hope that the Reform Party, rather than asking questions, will vote for it so that Canadians can benefit from the program in the near future.

Fisheries

[Derek Wells, Liberal, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

Today the hon. member for Skeena stars in an advertisement on the government's proposed fishing licence fees. How does the minister respond to allegations that licence fees are being applied in a racist manner and that the Canada Oceans Act proposes the use of politically appointed boards to manage the fishery?

[Brian Tobin, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, it is true. Half-page ads at $7,700 per ad have been taken out to support the Reform Party policy on the fishery, pondering up visions of the federal government being engaged in a "racist based fishery".

I have in my hand a copy of a letter written to the hon. member for Skeena and to the leader of the Reform Party by Michael Belliveau, the executive secretary of the Maritime Fishermen's Union. It states:

Dear Sir,

Who gave you the god-given right' to poison attitudes towards First Nations peoples? Your press release,Tobin tax blatantly racist', is a disgrace and Orwellian to boot-

Do not send us any more such contorted garbage".

The Constitution

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister and everyone else will know that the western part of Canada is made up of two very distinct regions: the prairies of western Canada and the province of British Columbia, which is the third largest province in Canada. It is a province with a distinct history, a distinct geography and a distinct economy.

In determining the regional veto powers, why did the Prime Minister ignore the people of British Columbia?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we are giving people of British Columbia more power than they have now. Because they represent 47 per cent of the population of the west, we are giving them a lot of power when we talk about the number of people.

If the NDP government of British Columbia were not blocking people coming into British Columbia who want to move there because some might be on welfare, which is against the law of mobility in Canada, very soon B.C. would have more than 50 per cent of the population in the west. Then it would have its own veto.

Presence In Gallery

[The Speaker]

I draw the attention of members to the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Jacek Buchacz, Minister of Foreign Economic Relations of the Republic of Poland.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-107, an act respecting the establishment of the British Columbia Treaty Commission, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

British Columbia Treaty Commission Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I was speaking about the aspects of the rights of non-aboriginal peoples living in areas adjacent to areas where land claims are currently under negotiation.

There are some very grave concerns in my riding of Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca and other western communities about what happens when a municipality in the future puts forth a 10 or 15-year plan for the surrounding area and another group working independently within its midst is able to completely change the entire demographic of that area? This is but an example taking place all across the country. Nowhere among these treaty rights is it stated what the rights of non-aboriginal peoples are in areas adjacent to the treaty areas.

Furthermore, a lot of these negotiations are taking place behind closed doors and away from the eyes of the people who will be affected by the decisions made by both the provincial and federal levels of government.

It is grossly iniquitous that these decisions and negotiations take place behind closed doors, in private and in camera. They must be made full knowledge to the public. It is the aboriginals and non-aboriginals who will be affected by these treaty negotiations. Therefore that has to be built into these negotiations but it is not.

More than 50 per cent of aboriginal people live off reserve. How do these treaty negotiations affect those individuals living off reserve? Many aboriginal peoples living in urban areas suffer tragic levels of substance abuse, violence and sexual abuse. It is tragic to see the lives these individuals endure.

I ask those here in the House how these negotiations actually affect the lives of these people? How does it improve their lives to be able to dig themselves out of the sad situations they have found themselves in? How does this give them the ability to stand on their own two feet and take care of themselves? I have never heard an explanation to this question regardless of whom I asked who was involved in the treaty negotiations.

It is fundamental for any person, aboriginal or non-aboriginal, to take care of themselves that they have the skills to do this. One of the roles of government can be to provide these skills and opportunities to enable people to take care of themselves.

I wonder if these land claims will actually do that. I cannot see that happening. For many of the people the earning power they would require to earn money and fulfill the lifestyle they require simply cannot be done on many of the areas being claimed today.

We support good skills training for aboriginals and non-aboriginals alike. We support good social programs where accountability has been built into the system. We support social programs that address good counselling for the people who are suffering. We support the elimination of the Indian Act, a paternalistic and racist act.

Above all, if there is one principle that should override everything, it is equality for all people. If we do not have equality for all of us how can we have equality for any of us? It is fundamental that we approach these negotiations with that fundamental principle in mind. It is something that Canada and Canadians have stood for through their entire history and something that Canadians have died for to give us that right today. I hope we do not abrogate that responsibility to our past by engaging in activities that make sure some people are more equal than others.

We support the hereditary activity of aboriginal peoples: the hunting, fishing and trapping under the treaty negotiations taking place. It is a fundamental right of the aboriginal peoples. However, we do not support utilizing those hereditary rights to be manipulated in such a way that would enable resources to be destroyed.

We support self-government for aboriginal people but at a municipal level. At a municipal level it gives them, as it gives all of us, the ability and right to determine destinies as individuals and as groups.

We cannot have completely autonomous states. That would result in the balkanization of Canada. The worst case scenario is that we have hundreds of small, autonomous non-functional states. That is the ultimate possibility that exists in these treaty negotiations. It is important that we recognize this idea is fallacious and cannot occur.

Everyone in the House wants to ensure the tragic situation that many aboriginal people find themselves in is changed now. They cry for help. It is a cry of desperation that must be answered.

It does not work to treat individuals in a paternalistic fashion. They must be treated in the same fashion as we would treat anybody else, as equals. We must provide these people with the skills and ability to stand on their own two feet. By doing this they would develop pride within themselves, pride in their communities and pride between people.

If we can do this we would go a long way toward developing a more peaceful, tolerant society between aboriginals and non-aboriginals. Sadly the course that has been taken, rather than bringing people together is causing deep divisions and rifts between aborigi-

nals and non-aboriginals. This is sad because there is much that can be learned from all of our cultures. The aboriginal culture is a beautiful culture and we need to learn much from it.

It is time we moved ahead toward a new era of respect for others, respect for ourselves and equal treatment for all.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise on behalf of the constituents of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt to oppose Bill C-107, an act to establish the British Columbia Treaty Commission.

Bill C-107 is a fine piece of legislative engineering in theory. The is are dotted and the t s are crossed. It has been translated in both official languages. It has been printed and distributed in incomprehensible legalese. However, there are three important issues that call this legislation into question. First, 23 per cent of the Indian nations are not involved, which constitutes 31,682 individuals.

Second, the public at large, which constitutes the majority of British Columbians, 3 million people, is left out of the negotiations. There is no room for its input into the process, nor are there provisions for a grassroots referendum of all British Columbians to ratify any negotiations. These two issues must be addressed. They are vital to the continued well-being of the people and the economy of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt.

Third, no substantive amendments can be made to help correct the above mentioned deficiencies in this legislation.

Let us look at each one of these points. Twenty-three per cent of the B.C. Indian nations are not in the B.C. Treaty Commission process. These include the Okanagan Tribal Council, consisting of Indian bands from Osoyoos, Penticton, Upper and Lower Similkameen and Okanagan, and the Upper and Lower Nicola Indian bands and the Nicola Valley Tribal Council.

In other words, the Indians in my riding do not recognize the B.C. Treaty Commission as facilitators of land claims. The Indians within the Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt riding have been actively stepping outside the law to attempt to claim jurisdiction over land.

Currently they are threatening violence over the Green Mountain Road. They have been digging trenches along the road and are wearing camouflage fatigues in true Oka and Gustafsen Lake style. This form of confrontation is not new to the Indians in my riding. Over the past couple of years numerous incidents such as the Apex ski resort blockade have shown that formal civil negotiations outlined as the duties of the B.C. Treaty Commission are redundant and irrelevant to the Indians in my riding.

Currently they are in court fighting the B.C. government over ownership of Green Mountain Road. They say they will enforce a blockade of the road, win or lose. They claim they are willing to fight and die for this road. The rest of my constituents feel the same way the Indians do. In a survey conducted over the summer, 72 per cent of those responding were opposed to the continuation of the B.C. treaty process.

This fall I approached the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development a number of times to encourage him to come to Penticton to help resolve this situation. On October 23 I wrote the minister on humanitarian grounds to tell him that a dispute between the B.C. government and the Penticton Indians was escalating. A roadblock was being threatened. In the letter I asked him to go to Penticton on October 28, not as a negotiator, not as a mediator, but as a sign of good faith to the people of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt to try to get these people back to the negotiating table.

I did not receive a letter or a response from the Minister of Indian Affairs until today, November 28. He said that it would be inappropriate for him to become involved, despite the effect this dispute is having on the communities in my riding. He said he will leave it to the province to negotiate with the Penticton Indian bands.

This is pure nonsense. This is pure balderdash. The abdication of the constitutional responsibility by this government, which is responsible for Indians and land reserved to Indians, is totally unacceptable.

To make matters worse, today I also find out that the Minister of Indian Affairs this past weekend was in Kamloops, a three-hour drive from Penticton. The minister did not even have the courtesy to talk to the mayor of Penticton, to the Penticton Indian band, or to any of the provincial people in the area. This again is totally unacceptable.

I have a letter from the minister to the mayor of Penticton dated August 21, 1995. In the letter he makes it clear that this road is still federal property, not the property of the province or the Indian band. So why will the minister not get involved? The Minister of Indian Affairs is running out of excuses, and he always has them.

When there is a roadblock up, he says he will not come to Penticton when there is a roadblock up. When the roadblock is down, he says he will not come to Penticton when there is nothing to talk about because there are no roadblocks. When there is a court case going on, the Minister of Indian Affairs says he will not come to Penticton because there is a court case going on. But when there is no court case on the table, the minister still refuses to come to Penticton and talk to the people and get the negotiation back on the tracks.

The only thing I have not heard from this minister is that he cannot come to Penticton because he has to go to the parliamentary dining room for a sandwich. I do expect I will get that excuse as well.

The third problem with Bill C-107 is that the Reform Party would like to make a number of amendments on behalf of their constituents. I can bring to the table two deficiencies, which I have previously spoken about. One example that comes to mind would be an amendment to make the Union of British Columbia Municipalities a fourth negotiating power alongside the federal government, the B.C. government, and the B.C. summit. This would provide a forum for the interests and concerns of millions of British Columbians excluded from the current process.

With such a large proportion of B.C. territory up for grabs, the interests and concerns of the grassroots British Columbians must be heard and must be addressed.

Making an amendment of this nature is impossible. Bill C-107 is based on a 1992 agreement between the federal government, the B.C. government, and the B.C. Indians. This agreement is absolutely cast in stone and it contains absolutely no amending formula. All legislation that enacts the provisions of the agreement is therefore closed to amendments as well. No amendments are possible to the bill.

What has happened to our parliamentary democracy? As member of Parliament for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, one of my primary responsibilities is to review, debate, and if necessary amend legislation based on the wishes of my constituents. Our whole parliamentary process is set around these very important functions.

Bills go through three separate readings, a committee hearing, and a final report stage in the House of Commons to ensure that all members of the House and members of the public have had time to analyse legislation for faults.

There are a number of opportunities for members of Parliament to bring forth amendments based on the concerns of constituents and the Canadian public. The process is then repeated in the Senate. This process is not perfect. Governments can refuse amendments. This Liberal government is particularly noteworthy in this regard. Governments can also rush legislation through the House without adequate debate. In this regard, the Liberal government's track record is appalling and a disgrace to the parliamentary legacy of our forefathers.

Despite the lack of respect the Liberals have for our parliamentary democracy, this system can be made to work. However, with Bill C-107 there is no opportunity for members of the House to offer amendments to this piece of legislation. I must ask, why are we even bothering to debate this legislation? The concerns I have for this bill are falling on deaf ears. It is shocking that the Liberals have the gall to even present this bill in the House. It might as well have gone straight over to the Governor General for his approval.

Bill C-107 usurps the power of Parliament in a most undemocratic manner. Parliament has become just a rubber stamp for the whims of this Liberal government. The elected members of the House are powerless to do their jobs. Every piece of legislation must be open to amendment by elected representatives. This is the very essence of our democracy. The alternative is a Liberal dictatorship.

It is time for this government to restore some honour to the House by removing this bill from the Order Paper. The three treaty signators must go back to the negotiating table to make a new agreement, which will allow the interests of all British Columbians to be heard.

The people of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt have instructed me to oppose Bill C-107.

[The Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.