Debates of Oct. 29th, 1999

Committees Of The House

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, there is nothing I can say.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, I think the member for Elk Island has summed it up. There is nothing more he can say and it is such a shameful thing for the Reform Party to try to warp basic democracy and the grassroots especially. I agree there is nothing more he should say. No wonder he hangs his head in shame in this House of Commons.

I remember when the Leader of the Opposition went around here saying that we should consult people more often, that we should listen to the people more often and have more input from the so-called grassroots.

People should be aware that the motion before the House is to allow the finance committee to go around the country to hear from Canadians. The Reform Party is saying no. It is saying no to people in my riding who are suffering from the worst farm crisis since 1933 and 1935. It is saying no to those people having a say to the finance committee which is made up of all five parties in this House of Commons. People should note that.

It is one thing to pick a fight with the Government of Canada, but it is another thing to hold other people hostage because of an ideological point of view. That is what is happening here in the House of Commons today.

I want to know whether or not the member for Kamloops agrees with those statements.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Madam Speaker, not only do I agree with the statements, but I want to take it a little bit further.

People from all parts of Canada want to have input into how the next budget will look. There is a surplus between $15 billion and $20 billion. The people of Canada want to have a say in how that money is to be allocated. They want to go beyond what we say in the House. They want to have input. Students, farmers, small business representatives, women's groups and environmental groups all want to have a chance to say in their estimation how this surplus should be invested for future generations.

I have never spoken like this in the House. I have never felt like this. My friends in the Reform Party are saying to the people of Canada “We are going to do whatever we can so that you cannot tell the finance committee how to invest your tax dollars. We will not even allow a hearing to be held in Kamloops, Vancouver or Victoria”.

[An hon. member]

When is the last time a hearing was held in Kamloops?

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Madam Speaker, Reform members joke about it. They are laughing. This is not a laughing matter. I take offence when people laugh at me. I am saying that I want the people of Canada to be heard in this budget process. They should not be laughing at a member of parliament for advocating such a thing. I am ashamed of them all.

[John Duncan, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to split my time with the member for Dewdney—Alouette.

The Liberals have been revising history on the Nisga'a agreement since 1994. Now they are revising history in terms of what is going on with this committee travel business from as recently as yesterday and the day before.

The motion we are debating is on the finance committee travelling across the country. It is an all-party committee. Committee travel is not a one-way street. The government wants everything its own way. The official opposition has some needs and wants as well.

The official opposition obviously would like to travel, in particular to British Columbia. The Nisga'a agreement happens once. The budget happens every year. British Columbians have never had a say on the Nisga'a agreement. They have never had undiluted access to consultation on the Nisga'a agreement. Those are things we are asking for. We think they are pretty important.

There are major financial implications to the Nisga'a agreement. It is just as important in many respects. This week the public accounts revealed that there is a $200 billion liability put forward so far on aboriginal claims. The cost to the province of British Columbia, never mind on the federal side, is in the order of at least $10 billion. There are much higher estimates. If anything this is a conservative estimate. Everyone admits it is only a partial estimate.

When I spoke on the Nisga'a bill on Wednesday, the time had expired which determined whether I had time to speak for 20 minutes or 10 minutes. I asked the indulgence of the House to extend my time from 10 minutes to 20 minutes. The government once again denied me and the official opposition the ability to say the things we needed to say on that agreement.

There is a clause that not many people have recognized in the Nisga'a agreement which binds the parties, British Columbia, Canada and the Nisga'a, to all of the provisions of the agreement and requires consent of all three parties for any change. In other words, none of the parties to the agreement may challenge the agreement, which is a veto.

This hobbles what is currently the official opposition federally, and the official opposition provincially, the Liberals in British Columbia. There has been no opportunity for a referendum in the province on the Nisga'a. The public in British Columbia have basically been told to take a hike by the federal Liberals.

I have been talking about the Nisga'a deal since 1995. I did a complete analysis. The 1998 final agreement is a very comprehensive document as we all know. It is 252 pages long with an appendix of 462 pages. Despite all of that, more than 50 areas have yet to be negotiated.

I am a firm believer that the public has been manipulated. The facts have been manipulated. There has been misrepresentation that is not in the public interest by both senior levels of government.

The federal government is imposing a deal in British Columbia that it would not impose on itself. There is a track record and a history of federal negotiations completed in the Yukon and in the territories. Unlike the Nisga'a deal, self-government is not constitutionally entrenched in the northern agreements. The tax exemption for aboriginals enabled by section 87 of the Indian Act was deleted in the Yukon without new tax exemptions being created.

There is a memorandum of understanding on land claims in British Columbia. The province has been co-opted by the federal government. A federal responsibility is being off-loaded on the province to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. That is something that many people in British Columbia recognize and they want an opportunity to get at the federal government in terms of telling it how that is all happening.

The public was not consulted prior to the signing of the Nisga'a agreement in principle on February 16, 1996 in any meaningful way. After the initialling the forestry representative and member of the treaty negotiation advisory committee said this publicly:

I can't say we worked on this document, because we never saw it until February 15, just hours before it was initialled. Not one page, not one paragraph of this 150 page document was shared with TNAC, the government's Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee, or any of the local advisory committees, or any of the people with legal interests in the crown land that this agreement would give to the Nisga'a.

That is what the forestry representative said. If the very people who were paid to know the contents of the negotiations were kept in the dark, where was the average British Columbian?

It is not easy to be a critic of the federal native agenda. In 1996 for example I was threatened with court action for saying that it was a conflict of interest for a provincial land claims negotiator to be lobbying the provincial cabinet on behalf of the Squamish band regarding their Lion's Gate Bridge proposal. One can make an excellent living if one is willing to swallow the federal native agenda, and I am talking about lawyers, consultants, negotiators, contract services and the academic community.

Madam Speaker, at this time I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 46

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I declare the motion lost.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I wish to give notice, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that with respect to my motion regarding the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Finance on matters pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), at the next sitting of the House I shall move a motion that the debate not be further adjourned.

Nisga'A Final Agreement Act

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of either Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading of Bill C-9, an act to give effect to the Nisga'a final agreement. Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings of the said stage.

[Some hon. members]

Shame.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Committees Of The House

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The hon. member for Vancouver Island North on a point of order.

[John Duncan, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Madam Speaker, when I moved the motion I was in debate. I had not completed my time on debate. There have been no questions and comments. As well, when I was speaking I asked to split my time with the member for Dewdney—Alouette. None of that has occurred yet.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am sure that all members of the House will know that when what just occurred takes place, the time that the member had, whether for himself or to split with another person, does not change anything. Once the motion is disposed of that particular time slot is disposed of as well.

Then I believe we would recognize the next speaker and that would be an hon. member from this side of the House.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise further to this point of order. I think what is at issue here is whether or not a divided speech is in fact one speech or two separate ones.

It is a well established practice that these two speeches are two distinct speeches—

[An hon. member]

No, they are not.