House of Commons Hansard #12 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was treaty.
David Iftody Liberal Provencher, MB
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know we want to keep the debate in line and civilized. I know the member, as a former member of parliament under the Tory government, does not want to get into an unhelpful debate. I ask him to continue a proper and civil debate for Canadians.
Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
Respectfully, in my opinion, the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast was not saying anything inappropriate.
John Reynolds Reform West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC
Mr. Speaker, neither would I say anything inappropriate. I am quoting from a Liberal document. If he wants to keep this debate at a certain level they should stop printing documents which do not contain the truth. That is what the Liberal Party should do.
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Just for clarification for my hon. colleague from British Columbia, my hon. colleague from Halifax West did not refer to him or the Reform Party as hotheads. He was referring to other people who resort to violence on the east coast.
John Reynolds Reform West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC
Mr. Speaker, the truth really hurts in this place when we start speaking the truth or reading some of their own documents back to them. I think I have been up for five minutes but time-wise I have only had about a minute and a half.
Let me talk about what the Liberals say in their document. They refer to myth No. 1, a third order of government. The member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, as reported in Hansard of June 3, 1999, said:
There are some frightening and constitutionally questionable aspects to this treaty...The Nisga'a creates a new level of government, the Nisga'a national government.
This is the Liberal myth document. Let us see if what they say is the reality. They indicated that the treaty recognized the right to self-government and returned stewardship over the land to the Nisga'a, that the Nisga'a government would not have any exclusive jurisdiction, and that concurrent jurisdiction in this case between Nisga'a laws and all existing federal and provincial laws was a common feature of Canadian communities. That is what the Liberals say in their document Dancing with the Dinosaurs .
Let me quote from a Liberal friend in British Columbia, a friend of mine too over the years, Rafe Mair. Rafe and I have had some disagreements on politics. He said publicly that he would vote Liberal in the next election, so he is a Liberal. This is what he says in this Liberal myth document:
At the end of it all, the Nisga'a deal does three things: it denies rights, i.e. voting, to resident non-natives; it creates a fishery—
John Reynolds Reform West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC
The hon. member says that is wrong but Rafe Mair says that is right and I say it is right also. He continues:
—it creates a fishery every bit as racist as if “a whites only” fishery were enacted; and it constitutionalizes a special, entrenched style of government to which, irretrievably, are granted powers hitherto reserved to the federal government or the provinces.
We will have 50 to 75 of these constitutionaled, unamendable, self-governing jurisdictions in B.C.
And you think the Nisga'a agreement is just a British Columbia problem? Dream on, fellow Canadians, dream on.
This man is well respected in that province. He served in the provincial legislature. He said he would vote Liberal in the next election. He totally disagrees with the Liberals on this matter.
Let us get off the issue of who is calling whom a hothead. We are debating an issue that is very important to all the people of British Columbia and Canadians.
David Iftody Liberal Provencher, MB
Stick to the facts.
John Reynolds Reform West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC
Mr. Speaker, I just gave him the facts on the myth versus his myth. They are wrong and they get very upset when they hear the truth. The majority of the people of British Columbia and the NDP Government of British Columbia, which our friends down here support federally, do not like the agreement.
They talk in this document about fair treatment of British Columbia. I was Speaker of the British Columbia legislature for nine years. It was the worst sham I have ever seen when this bill went through the British Columbia legislature. The Government of British Columbia did not let it get halfway through the legislature before it brought in closure. The government opposite just denied us the right to sit tonight to debate the bill until 10 p.m., but in the next few days it will bring in closure on it.
That is not debating legislation the proper way. We can go back to the pipeline debate a number of years ago that went on for days and weeks and months because it was a right of Canadians, no matter how small their group in the House, to debate a bill until it was fully debated and fully discussed, so the people of eastern Canada can understand what is the problem with the legislation in British Columbia.
I suggest to people out there, as my friend said earlier the hundreds of thousands that are watching, that they should look at the treaties we have had in eastern Canada for the last 100 years. Are natives in eastern Canada living any better because of the treaties they signed? I do not think they are.
David Iftody Liberal Provencher, MB
We have not fulfilled the treaty. That is what we are trying to do.
John Reynolds Reform West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC
The Liberals say that they have not fulfilled the treaty. What makes them change? The Liberals and the Tories have been in government for the last 100 years. They have had treaties with these people and not a darned thing has been done for them. Are the Liberals telling us now that they will change? No Canadians believe that. This is a phony document. It needs some changes.
We have to ensure native people get treated just like other Canadians get treated. Some people may not think it is all that good, the way the rest of Canadians get treated by governments because of our taxes and all other situations.
I will go back and quote what some well known Liberals have said.
Jim Peterson Liberal Willowdale, ON
Will the hon. member tell us what the Nisga'a people say about the Nisga'a treaty?
John Reynolds Reform West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman across the hall asks me to quote what the Nisga'a people say about the treaty. I will tell him something. I heard in the House today from the minister of Indian affairs that our member for Skeena had never talked to Nisga'a. That is absolutely untrue. He has met with them many times. He has asked to meet with them over the last while and they do not show up for the meetings.
Those are the facts and the member does not want to know them. He knows that area better than anybody sitting on that side of the House. He gets elected by a very big majority of people who live in that constituency. The people in his constituency do not want this treaty and that is why he is here debating it.
Let us look at what the Prime Minister said. He said:
—what we want, and the Indians are in agreement, is that they should become equal citizens of Canada.
The Prime Minister of Canada said that they wanted to become equal citizens of Canada. That is not in the bill. It creates a fishery that is racist. That has been quoted not only by the Reform Party but many other prominent people in western Canada. It is a racist treaty. It does not make everybody equal in Canada. Yet the Prime Minister said that we all should be equal in the country, and I believe that too. I have another quote from a well-known Liberal:
There is a long term intention on the part of the government, and this to be debated, I suppose, as part of our Indian policy, to arrive eventually at a situation where Indians will be treated like other Canadian citizens of the particular province in which they happen to be.
This was said by Pierre Trudeau in the House of Commons on November 5, 1968. If members read the legislation it does not match that paragraph. Yet this man was a great Canadian, well respected by his party and won a number of elections. The legislation does not allow that to happen. I have another quote from a well-known person across the hall:
For many Indian people, the road does exist, the only road that has existed since Confederation and before. The road of different status, a road which has led to a blind alley of deprivation and frustration. This road...cannot lead to full participation, to equality in practice as well as in theory...the government will offer another road that would gradually lead away from different status to full social, economic and political participation in Canadian life. This is the choice.
This was said by the present Prime Minister in June 1969. That was their position then. They have a different one now. They say we should vote for the bill, let it happen and we will all do fine. As I said earlier, this is the government that said it would ban the GST when it defeated the Tories who had really messed up the country, got elected and became the Government of Canada.
This is the same government that said it would get rid of free trade. It did nothing about that. This is a government which does not know how to keep a major promise. How could anybody in British Columbia believe the government when it says that we should trust it?
As I said, I would trust the Reform dinosaurs before the Liberal sharks on the other side. They act like sharks when it comes to legislation. They have acted like sharks when running the country. They are not doing what is good for Canada. They are trying to make the issue look like it is good for the native people. It is not good for native people. It is not good for Canadians. It certainly is not good for British Columbians.
Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to debate the Nisga'a final agreement. The people watching need to remember that once the agreement comes to this place it cannot be changed, not a jot or a tittle.
I find amazing, when dealing with this kind of agreement and other agreements that we develop internationally, that we in the House of Commons never get to see it. When it comes to us it comes as a done deal. It is not to be changed. It is not to be trifled with. We cannot propose an amendment. It is a done deal. It is very unfortunate that we are talking about the act to implement the Nisga'a agreement and not the actual terms of the agreement.
I would like to dwell for a few minutes on the manner of development of the Nisga'a agreement. The treaty negotiators portrayed a grassroots treaty development process in British Columbia. Both native and non-native members of my riding were on the treaty development process. They went through the process of how it could be developed, what kind of consultations should take place, and so on.
When the first draft of the Nisga'a agreement, which is basically unchanged today, came back members of my riding quit the treaty negotiating team. Not a single sentence resembled anything like what they had talked about in their meetings to develop the treaty. There was no resemblance in any way, shape or form to the topics or the depth of discussion they had. Even though they had travelled the province and had hundreds of hours of discussion, nothing resembling those discussions ended up in the final document.
It reminds me of something. In my own riding there is currently another treaty development process. It may be the next one coming in a rearview mirror near us. It deals with the Sto:lo nation. The Sto:lo nation in my riding consists of 17 or 18 bands. They have been negotiating under the same treaty development process.
Four or five years ago I contacted the minister's office to say that there was an ongoing treaty development process. I asked if he could send some maps to show what areas were involved. The answer was that I could not know what maps were involved in my riding as a member of parliament. I asked for some idea of the economic implications of what was being negotiated. No economic implications were allowed to be discussed until it was a done deal.
What about how much territory was involved or what was the claim? I was not allowed to know that. What about the rights of the Sto:lo and non-Sto:lo in my area? I asked what kind of parameters or guidelines there were. I was not allowed to know anything.
When the deal is completed it is dropped down upon us like an epiphany from heaven. When it comes on to our plate we have to approve it, every jot and tittle. We can express concern in the meantime, but we are not allowed to enter into the negotiations in the meantime. That is unfair.
Many areas are still to be negotiated with the Nisga'a people. All the side agreements will have to be negotiated. I wonder if any of them will end up like the agreement in my hometown of Chilliwack dealing with aboriginal fisheries.
This is the situation in my riding. There is, by the way, no commercial fishery on the Fraser River this year because there just are not enough fish. Coincidentally after four or five years of the aboriginal fisheries strategy there are no fish this year.
Regardless of where the blame should be pinned, this is how DFO must deal with it now. This is the negotiated settlement in the DFO arrangement. For the most part DFO has given no permission outside of food fisheries to the aboriginal people to fish for commercial purposes on the Fraser River. There are no agreements. There is no regulated commercial fishery.
However, because there are armed militia on the river, complete with balaclavas and working openly with the native people, there is an agreement now. DFO has been asked to sign an agreement that as long as a native is attending a net, no DFO officer will remove that net from the river. That is the agreement. We must remember that there is no regulated fishery right now. It is not a legal fishery. There is no permission to do it, but the DFO is not allowed to remove the net.
The DFO is drifting down the river at night with the lights off, hoping to bump into an illegal native net with no natives attending it so it can be withdrawn from the river. DFO is so afraid of the policies the government has put in place and the restrictions on its officers that we are reduced to the farce of having DFO officers agreeing that illegal activity is okay as long as the natives are right there. That is the situation in my riding. At any given time in my riding alone a dozen nets can be found illegally strung across the Fraser River.
A month ago one native person was caught with 100,000 cans of salmon. What will be his penalty? DFO says it is very concerned and quite worried. It was kind of like last summer when in that same stretch of river the same group of people dredged 100,000 tonnes of gravel out of the middle of a spawning bed without permission. All other dredging operations had been shut down, but it was okay because they did it the previous summer too. Their argument was that they could do it because they knew the river better than anybody else. They had been there for thousands of years so that when they dredge gravel it does not hurt the salmon.
Do government members not see what is happening? If they would come to my riding they would see thousands of sports fishermen with their gear in a box on the shore because they are not allowed to fish. There are so few damned fish left in that river that people cannot even fish with a rod and reel, and yet there are a dozen nets stretched across that river and we all know it because the floats are right there every single day. One hundred thousand fish for one guy.
What is the solution? To close their eyes to the problem and pretend it does not exist.
I have said this time and again about the Nisga'a agreement. I have a lot of respect for the current Nisga'a leadership and the way some of its people have conducted themselves. As the Leader of the Opposition said previously, they had no choice. They had to negotiate the best deal they could, given the parameters of the discussions. However, we have to develop a system for getting along in the country that is not for this year, not for this leadership, not for this government, and not for the current leadership of the Nisga'a people. It has to stand the test of time. It has to be something that when we look at it a hundred years from now it will have been a solution that was good for all people. We are not going to have some people move in there, strong arm their way into a position of unreasonable power or not treat the people right.
There are no guarantees in a system where people are divided up and where, like it is in my riding, there is a set of rules for one group of people and the rest can pound sand. In my riding there are literally thousands of people who sit on the shore in frustration. They cannot even catch one fish for supper, while illegal fishing takes place every single day under the watchful eyes of DFO officials who know this is going on and are not allowed to intervene because of the orders of the justice department of this government.
Nobody is denying that hundreds of native people absolutely have the right to a food fishery, but that has somehow been transformed into an abusive commercial fishery that is dredging that river dry. How can we possibly say it is a good thing over the long run? It is unsustainable. My worry, as we negotiate the 50 or more side agreements to come, is that if there is a conflict the federal government will fold its cards, will throw up its hands, and whatever happens happens. A country cannot be governed in the long run like that.
I can speak from experience. I brought this to the attention of Brian Tobin when he was the minister of fisheries. I met him outside the doors and told him what was happening in my riding. He named the people involved, including the chiefs. He knew the amount of fish going out of there. I told him that he had a fiduciary responsibility to fix the mess and he said that they were going to do nothing. That is what happened.
Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB
Mr. Speaker, I wish I could say that I am delighted to enter this debate, but I cannot because I am so concerned about what is happening to our country.
I want to tell the House why I became a member of the Reform Party. There were a number of reasons. One reason was the basic bedrock principle of all decent democracies in the world, the equality of all citizens. When I see what is happening here and the mishandling of this issue, not only by this government but by successive governments over the last 130 years, I am deeply concerned.
I am quoting directly from the Reform Party when I say that we believe in true equality for Canadian citizens, with equal rights and responsibilities for all. That is one of the things that attracted me to the Reform Party. When I first joined the Reform Party I realized that the Conservatives of the day and the Liberals before them had totally violated that basic principle in many different areas. I think it is absolutely shameful that the present government, the present leadership in our country, is totally unwilling to face this issue head on and do something right about it.
I need to take a few minutes to talk about process. People who have been watching on television have observed that in the last few minutes there have been several occasions when members of the Reform Party have tried to extend the debate for today. We have asked to continue the debate because we anticipate that the government, like the NDP government in B.C., wants to jam this bill through before too many people find out about it.
That is a violation, again, of a very basic principle of democracy. In a democracy the governed must accept the governance of the country. In other words, we have to have consensus among the people for the laws that are being passed.
There have been other occasions when a government has, within the rules of the House, which I say are dysfunctional, passed different laws and used the rules of the House, the ones that make it dysfunctional, to jam things through which it knows do not have the majority support of the people, and our democracy is crumbling. The best example I can think of is the GST. Former Prime Minister Mulroney not only jammed the thing through this House, he even evicted from his party several members who had the nerve to respect the wishes of their constituents and vote against it. He had the gall, in my opinion, to appoint extra senators to the other place whose only qualification for office was that they could stand on command and vote in favour of what has now become the most hated tax in the country.
The principle that we are missing is that the majority of Canadians who opposed that tax had it right.
I think it is arrogant in the extreme for a government to say “Here we are, a small group of people, and we know best”. We heard it from the NDP member from Kamloops earlier who said “I am not here to represent my constituents”. I am paraphrasing him of course. “I am here to make wise decisions on their behalf because they just don't understand”.
With respect to the Nisga'a agreement, we have found that particularly in the province of British Columbia where the people will be most profoundly affected by this agreement immediately, as well as across Canada where the effects will be felt later as they accumulates, the people do not support the agreement in large numbers. We are talking of a disagreement level which exceeds the number of people who were opposed to the GST. We are finding that support for this agreement is not there among the people.
Let us face it, there cannot be an agreement without two parties. There cannot be an agreement just because the leaders of the Nisga'a have agreed to it. Forty per cent of the Nisga'a people, when they voted on it, seriously questioned it. About 90% of the other side of the agreement, namely the other citizens of British Columbia, the non-natives, are saying “We do not agree with this treaty”.
Therefore it bears slowing down. It means that it is incumbent on the government not to shut down debate, as it did a few minutes ago when we asked if the debate could be extended tonight before it invokes closure and all of those silly things. Government members stood and said no. There were not enough Liberals in the House to stop it. They needed 15. That is shameful. We are dealing with an issue that has long term implications into the next millennium for the country.
There are not 15 Liberals in the House to stand to say they do not want the Reform Party or other members of parliament to debate this matter tonight. That is a shame. However, they have their allies. The Bloc members, the NDP and the Conservatives stood. They said “Let's not debate it. Let's just jam it down the minds of people. Lets forget about whether or not the people agree. It does not matter”.
I care profoundly about the country. I care profoundly about the equality of Canadians. For us to give approval by the actions of a whip telling his people how to vote and jamming the thing through, with all its implications, will have profound effects for many years to come. We will see our children and our grandchildren living with the consequences of this dastardly deed. This will go down in history as one of the dark points of the 36th parliament because of the fact that they will have put into the constitution rules that divide us based on race.
I would like to read another blue book policy which attracts me. The Reform Party's ultimate goal in aboriginal matters is that all aboriginal people be full and equal participants in Canadian citizenship, indistinguishable in law and treatment from other Canadians.
I believe that is a high goal based on a valid human principle. It is excessively superior to the lack of principles demonstrated in the Nisga'a agreement in which we have the country divided up based on bloodlines, based on race.
I also believe that we have been sitting on our butts far too long with respect to native affairs. I am saying this now collectively. I am blaming the governments of the last 130 years. There has been inaction and any action that has been taken has been wrong action.
The Indian Act is a bleak part of Canadian history. When the agreement says that we will move this group of native people out of the Indian Act, I have to say that I agree with that part of it, because the Indian Act has been used in order to keep native people in their place. That is very wrong.
I have only been in Canada for a scant 60 years. I was not here 132 years ago when some of this was done. I was not here 250 years ago when some of these fishing agreements were made. Yet I look back and say those who were here made an error.
As any person will say, it is the height of folly not to admit when one has made a mistake. It is a greater folly to say that what we have done in the last 130 years has not worked and if we do more of it now it will work. That does not make sense. We need to deal with this matter in a way which is rational, addresses the problem and does not continue to sweep under the rug the real issues. My closing statement is that the fundamental issue is the equality of all Canadians.
Don Boudria LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I just heard the member's speech. I wish I could compliment him on it but I cannot. I do not agree with much of what he said. I do not at all share the views I have just heard or a lot of what I have heard over the last couple of days.
The hon. member said one thing with which I agree, though. He said that we were living in a bleak part of Canadian history. In a way we are, but I think the bleakness in what we are hearing now comes from across the floor.
On the Yukon bills, one party in the House voted against them. On the Nunavut territory and on the Manitoba land claims, one party in the House voted against virtually all of the bills. All of these bills were for aboriginal people, and one party and only one party has the bleak distinction of having voted against all of them. That is the bleakness in which we are living.
Yes of course hon. members across the way will want to raise other topics to try and erase that bleakness, but I am afraid it is in indelible ink. It will stay for a long time. It will be bleak, but I do not believe ultimately that that bleakness will reflect on this parliament nor this institution. Rather, it will reflect on those who have perpetrated this on the people of Canada as a whole, on the House and I would say, on the people affected adversely by what we hear today in the claims of some hon. members.
In any case, there is the possibility for us to listen to the speeches of the hon. members. I am not saying that I will like them. As a matter of fact, I suspect I will disagree with most of them because they will probably be similar to what I have heard over the last couple of days and they have not been good.
The exercise probably will be bleak. Members want to be permitted to speak on this issue and they think that a hopelessly long time is required not to debate the bill, not to debate an amendment which said that we should not debate the bill, but to debate an amendment to the amendment as to whether or not we should debate the bill. They are trying to tell us this is serious debate on legislation to make the life of aboriginal Canadians better. I do not believe it.
However, I am willing at least to take a chance to see what they have to say. We will listen to the speeches of the hon. members if they want to make them. We will listen to those speeches later this evening if they are willing to extend the debate.
Randy White Reform Langley—Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like the House, the table and the Speaker to take note of what is about to be asked here. The fact is that this party has asked not once but twice today to extend the sitting hours into the evening. If the government House leader is going to insult us with a request after we have sent our people home, he has another think coming.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to engage in this alleged point of order that is not one. Just moments before I heard the hon. member for Elk Island speak. He unfortunately let the cat out of bag, but perhaps it was fortunate for all the House to know. He said that he wanted to do everything he could to debate this bill as long as possible so that it would not pass.
The objective is not constructive debate, it is to stall the process. That is out of the bag now. We now know the truth. We suspected it all along of course. Nevertheless, let us hear more of that proof from across the way.
Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. What the member is saying about my statement is not factually correct. I want to debate this with the Canadian people so we can get consensus among the governed on something of great importance.
Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
That certainly is a point of debate. Very often there are differing points of view on the same issue, depending upon the side of the House.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have just listened to what the hon. member said in his alleged point of order. To put it in terms that my children would understand, yeah right.
In any case we will now see whether or not the members want to debate. Pursuant to Standing Order 26, I move:
That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary time of adjournment for the purpose of considering Bill C-9.
Randy White Reform Langley—Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I would like you to check with the table officers to see whether the hon. government House leader can present that particular motion. I must say, not having had the courtesy to be informed of the content of the motion, and having presented the House with a request twice today and having been refused twice by the government, the Progressive Conservatives and the separatists, I find it totally irresponsible at this time of the night that the government plays this little dumb game with the House of Commons.
Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
The motion is in order.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. Will those members who object to the motion please rise in their place.
And more than 15 members having risen:
Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
Pursuant to Standing Order 26(2) the motion is deemed to have been withdrawn.
(Motion withdrawn)
Randy White Reform Langley—Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I believe there must be such a thing in the House of Commons as dignity in debate and a respect for all members of the House. It is a terrible thing what has happened here at this point in time. The government has come in to give itself a better image after we made a request twice today and the government refused to extend the hours. It has basically lied.