Debates of Nov. 22nd, 1999

Supply

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think it is quite clear that the government of the day would probably write the question. It seems to want to write all the referendum questions that are being posed in the country.

I think the question can be very clear. It can be “Do you support the Nisga'a agreement?” If the government feels that the people of British Columbia do not know enough about it, perhaps it should look at itself. It is the one that denied British Columbians from being involved in the process.

When an agreement of this nature was being negotiated, the governments of the day, both governments—because I hold the Government of British Columbia equally responsible—should have understood from the very beginning that if they wanted it accepted by the people of British Columbia they had to include the people of British Columbia in the negotiations so that there would be an acceptance level there. They failed to do that. If they had done their job properly, the acceptance of the negotiations would probably be there.

It was because of the exclusion of the public in the debate and in the negotiations and of having those negotiations behind closed doors that the uncertainty is there whether they like it or not. The Government of British Columbia and the federal government have to share the responsibility for that situation.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to take part in two of the five days of consultation in British Columbia last week. I noted a lot of individuals and groups, including native groups, supported the agreement.

Some aboriginal nations were concerned about issues of overlap. These concerns will no doubt have to be taken into consideration.

What distresses me a lot in the position of the Reform Party is what my colleague, the member for Saint-Jean, tried to get this House to understand. They seem to want, for totally inappropriate reasons, to involve all British Columbians in a referendum the federal government would organize, whereas the provincial government, which represents all of the people of the province, has said and considered that this was not appropriate.

I therefore ask my colleague from the Reform Party why the federal government should meddle in the affairs of British Columbia, impose a referendum and impose a question, when the B.C. government itself does not want to organize such a public consultation?

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thought I had made it clear that the Government of British Columbia has to assume some of the responsibility. It has denied the people of B.C. a vote.

It is not the federal government that would be imposing a referendum. It is the people of British Columbia who are asking for it to be held. They have asked it of the provincial government which has turned its back on the people of the province. The people of the province ask whomever.

If the province of British Columbia will change its mind and allow a referendum, then so be it. However, if the provincial government still refuses, then the people of British Columbia are asking the federal government to step in and hold a referendum.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Haliburton—Victoria—Brock.

One of the things I find most interesting about the debate is that no one seems prepared to deal with the issues. All we hear is people demanding a referendum.

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

That's the most important thing.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Well, that may be the issue to the members opposite, but why can we not hear from just one member in this place what they object to.

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Because you cut the debate short.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

We did not cut the debate. Quite the contrary. I will give some examples.

There have been over 500 public meetings. Someone said that this was behind closed doors and in secret. There have been over 500 public meetings on this issue alone. There have been in excess of 120 hours of debate in the provincial legislature in Victoria.

[Cliff Breitkreuz, Reform, Yellowhead, AB]

Closure there, too.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

I understand the role of opposition. I spent five years in opposition in the province of Ontario and I can say what the role is not. It is not to create gridlock in spite of a clear democratic decision that has been taken through more consultation than any other issue I can think of since I was elected to this place.

There have been 500 meetings and 120 hours of debate. There has been debate in this place. This is at least the second of third time I have had an opportunity to talk about this issue.

They take the approach that because they are not getting their own way they will stamp their feet and throw a temper tantrum. I heard the House leader for the opposition, who was trying to pretend he was being calm, cool and rational about this, say that perhaps committees will not travel. Who does he think he is?

Should the Canadian people be told that because one party in this place out of five does not agree with the democratically arrived at solution that they can no longer talk to committees and that the finance committee cannot travel? If we want to talk about lack of democracy, that kind of attempted sabotage to the system that the Canadian people have a right to enjoy is totally undemocratic.

What bothered me in the beginning, aside from the tactics, is that I have not heard anyone talking about the issues. Someone over here said that this was about a new form of government and then someone else said that it was not. I think it is. It is called self-government for our native communities.

I think the real question here to anybody who opposes this—and I have no problem with people taking opposing positions—is for them to just tell us why. We want them to tell us what it is that bothers them so that maybe we can debate it. It is a very simple question. Either one is for self-government or opposed to self-government. Yes, it is a new form of government, perhaps a form of government that is so long overdue in the country that it epitomizes why we have all the problems we do have on our reserves.

I recall a debate, and my hon. friend from Nunavut will remember it well, where instead of creating the new territory of Nunavut, the solution was just to give everybody up there a million bucks or something. I think that is what they said.

Mr. Vander Zalm, reborn as the leader of the provincial Reform Party in British Columbia, a man who had to resign in disgrace, is now being the champion. His solution to the Nisga'a treaty is to tear it up and give them all $250,000. Is that not just incredible?

The paternalistic attitude. They do not say to the Nisga'a people “We understand that for 100 years you have tried to negotiate with Victoria. You have tried to negotiate with Ottawa. We understand the problem out in the community that is false. We are going to deal with the facts”. I have not heard the facts debated.

Do they object to the Nisga'a receiving title to the 2,000 hectares of land? Is that the problem? Say so if it is. I think Canadians would like to see somebody with the courage to stand up. It might be something different than courage but I will not go there. They would like to see them stand up and argue that the Nisga'a people are not entitled to that land.

I go back to the newest Reform champion, Mr. Vander Zalm, who has criticized the agreement for perpetuating the old reserve system with no private ownership of land. They want to have a referendum but people in the community like Bill Vander Zalm and others are perpetuating untruths.

Of course there is private ownership of land. The Nisga'a people will be able to register the ownership of their family homes and lots in the British Columbia land system. There it is exactly, fee simple.

Why would people come out and say that there is no private ownership of land? Of the rest of the land that will belong to the entire Nisga'a community, they will be able to divide and sell land for commercial and other purposes. Is that not amazing? What a right in Canada. They can actually sell their land. They can actually have it registered in their name, that it belongs to their families, that they can give it to their children. The Nisga'a treaty gives these people an opportunity to perpetuate the history of their nation. It is one of our first nations.

Is that what the opposition objects to? Is it that it would like not to recognize the first nations? I do not know. I have some quotes that members might be surprised to hear.

I am surprised at this one because I consider this individual to be a fairly moderate and very intelligent member of the opposition party, the MP for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. He said the following in Hansard on June 3, 1999, not very long ago: “We have created an institutionalized welfare state for aboriginal people by giving them things”.

What does he mean by that? Giving them their rights? Giving them the rights that their people have fought for and negotiated and saying that we are actually going to give them an opportunity through this treaty for economic growth? They can have certain rights over hunting, forestry, fishing, ecotourism and opportunities to grow their community and create jobs for their kids. Is this giving them things? That is such a condescending remark for a member of parliament to make about something as important as that.

This quote is from the member for Athabasca and was in the news in 1995: “The Europeans came to this country 300 years ago and opened it up and settled it and because we didn't kill the Indians and have Indian wars, that doesn't mean we didn't conquer these people. If they weren't in fact conquered, then why did the aboriginal people allow themselves to be herded into little reserves”. Goodness gracious, it makes my blood boil. It makes my hair stand up on the back of my neck to hear a Canadian parliamentarian stand up in this place and talk about not killing the Indians but conquering them.

Surely to God history has taught us the wrongs. The way we have treated our aboriginal communities is not something we should be proud of as Canadians. It is not something about which any of us should stand here and say that we did the right thing. We have an opportunity here to right some wrongs.

One of the most important signals this treaty sends is that within the next 10 years, everybody involved in the Nisga'a community will become a taxpayer. The tax exempt status will be gone. That is outstanding in my view. Canadians right across the land need to know that because it is a first. Why not stand here and celebrate it?

I would have a great deal more respect for any members of the opposition who would stand up and tell us the truth about why it is they oppose this instead of pontificating on an absolutely phoney issue such as a referendum.

This is a good deal for all Canadians and it is a good deal for the Nisga'a people.

[Cliff Breitkreuz, Reform, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member who just spoke talked about opposition from a provincial party to this treaty. He should know that the B.C. Liberals oppose this treaty. I would like to ask the member, why does he suppose that might be?

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would question the definition of Liberal in British Columbia. Having said that, I have a lot of friends, people I have known over the years in that party. In fact my former executive assistant when I was on the city of Mississauga council is now an executive assistant to the leader. I am a bit in touch with that party. Frankly I do not agree with its position.

We do not get up every day, contrary to what the opposition might try to paint, and say, “I am a Liberal and I am going to do this by rote”. We have to have some people who think and disagree. We have it in our own caucus, contrary to the opinions of members opposite.

I guess Mr. Campbell is the leader of the opposition and has to fight the Government of British Columbia any way he can. If the only reason for opposing is to oppose, then I do not think that is effective opposition. Tell us what the problems are with this treaty instead of hiding behind the falsehood of a referendum.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member said, “I am a Liberal and I don't do things by rote”. Who on the other side of the House voted against this treaty when some 90% of the people in British Columbia are opposed?

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is the difference. I gave some of the quotes. Unless the Reformers are prepared to stand up and denounce Bill Vander Zalm as being inaccurate or not portraying the truth in this matter, when we look at some of the things that he says, he is not putting it in a truthful way. He pretends that it is a $487 million payout plus 2,000 square kilometres of land when the truth is that it is half and half. It is $487 million including the 2,000 square kilometres of land. Something can be twisted around.

I say to Mr. Vander Zalm, I say it to the members of the Reform Party here, and more important, I say it to Canadians, look at the truth of this agreement. It is absolutely unprecedented. It is fair. It gives the Nisga'a people a chance to build on their heritage and to create something for their families in the future.

We are not hearing the facts put out by these—

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member did not hear my question. He said that the Liberals do not vote by rote.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am afraid that is debate. The hon. member for Mississauga West may wish to conclude.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would conclude by saying that there is a difference between voting with all of the facts on the table and voting while trying to skewer the reality of what is in the treaty. Just be honest, tell the people the truth and in my view they will support this.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I watched the opposition leader, the member for Calgary Southwest as he gave his speech on this issue. He said that the provincial Liberals are against this deal. Then he rhymed off the names of all the federal Liberals. He said that the people of B.C. will be watching how these federal Liberals vote tomorrow night. That is what he said.

What was going on there? Was the member for Calgary Southwest really worried about the justice of this treaty, the propriety of this treaty, or was he trying to gain seats for the Reform Party in the next federal election? It is just Reform politics. It is not an honest debate whatsoever.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I could not agree more. Clearly the Reform members have a hidden agenda. Instead of putting the issues out on the table and telling us what they believe in and what they stand for, they filibuster. There is a lot of hot air. There is nothing of substance in their debate. I say tragically so, because they have an obligation as members of an opposition party to put the issues on the table and to have a debate of substance. It is unfortunate that they have not got a clue how to do that.

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Victoria—Haliburton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured and privileged to stand here today having come back from the aboriginal hearings in British Columbia.

We travelled extensively throughout British Columbia, to Terrace, Smithers, Prince George, Victoria and Vancouver in inclement weather and in awfully poor landing conditions on a small aircraft which we renamed. We will not go into that because First Air is a very nice airline but hon. members can figure out what we renamed it. We celebrated when we were actually able to land in Terrace. As beautiful as it is, it is very hard to get into at this time of year.

I want to talk about what happened there. The Reform Party went out to try to whip up a crowd of protesters to show us that this treaty process was terrible and that they want to go back to the Indian Act.

I talked to some people on the streets of Prince George. They had no idea what was going on, other than that finally we were giving back the land to the natives which we had away from them. They asked who had decided the Queen owned it. It was native land. It always has been and it always will be.

It is different to go out there and be spat on and to hear someone say to one of my colleagues from Nunavut “Go back to your reserve”. It is sad, sad, sad that the Reform Party would stoop that low.

Then some guy at a radio station in Vancouver was giving out the room numbers of the members so people could call their rooms and threaten them. My first call of the morning which I thought was a wake-up call was a lunatic saying that if I showed up at the meetings I would be dead meat. Was it not great for members of the Parliament of Canada to be told to go back to the reserve, to be told one would be dead meat and to be spat upon? I found these kind of tactics to be absolutely disgusting. There was even a lower one than that, but I will not talk about it because I do not think the Reform Party wants to hear about it. There was a lower one and I will keep that in my back pocket for another time.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is the hon. member accusing a member of the Reform Party of making these phone calls? That member should be named.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I would like to tell the member for Souris—Moose Mountain at this point that maybe the hon. member will just wait for questions and comments and at that time he can ask the question.

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Victoria—Haliburton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know that was not a point of order, it was a point of debate.

The fact of the matter is I said that it was Reform Party supporters who came out. One lady who came to me said she was a Reform Party supporter. She was asked by a member of the Reform Party to come out and demonstrate and disrupt the meetings as much as she could.

When I gave over my time to the member for Prince George so that he was able to speak, he thanked me and said I was a gentleman. He did not think he would have enough time to express the views of his constituents. I did not go out there with anything evil on my mind or any hidden agenda. I went out there to hear evidence.

Let me quote the evidence I heard from the B.C. Federation of Labour. It said that provincial leader Gordon Campbell was against a referendum last summer when he said the people of the lower mainland should not be determining the future of the people of the Nass Valley. Suddenly he is now in favour of a referendum because he is a Liberal-Reformer. There is a whole pile of people who are just a bit to the right of Attilla the Hun and nobody playing left wing. If one is a hockey player it would be a great place to be a left winger. Vander Zalm and he are in a leadership race for votes. It would appear as though they swim out of a very shallow gene pool when they are vying for votes on the right wing.

The B.C. Federation of Labour also said that it was especially important for the labour movement to discuss the Nisga'a agreement everywhere it could since David Black who publishes 60 community newspapers in B.C. had given instructions to his editors to publish only editorials opposing the settlement. Is that freedom of the press?

Then we have the other Black. If one is a Reformer I guess two Blacks make a right. The press is skewered, narrow and biased. I challenged the press. I said I would be more than happy to withdraw my comment that members of the press did not report the news in B.C. They try to create the news in B.C. They try to create it when 13 newspapers in my riding publish both sides of the story. Generally the B.C. press is a very sick organization, promoting only bad news concerning the native population.

In 1994 the governor general asked the press to give good news a chance. I challenge the press in B.C. to send me one item which shows something good being said about natives and native agreements, that they are not buying into scare tactics and fearmongering.

One organization on the Reform list, which was agreed to by both parties, brought in by that party was the Fraser Institute or the C.D. Howe Institute in British Columbia. As a rookie in 1994 I went to the Chateau Laurier to hear the Fraser Institute tell us that the present Minister of Finance would destroy the country, that we would never get out of the $42 billion debt we were in. Everything was doom and gloom and would never work. Obviously two back to back balanced budgets have proven that statement wrong.

In my favour, I did not jump into the canal on the way back. To say that we did not hear evidence to the contrary is just not honest. We heard from Alpha Omega Capital Management which was hired by the member for Delta—South Richmond. There was someone who owned a calculator and asked them to skew the numbers so they would look bad. We listened to this group and asked questions. We received answers that had nothing to do with the truth. If someone is buying the guy who owns the calculator, then there will not be much of a debate.

What evidence did we hear from the B.C. Treaty Commission? The B.C. Treaty Commission conducted hearings all over the place. The one question I asked at every meeting was for it to tell us what it would do to improve the treaty process.

It is a treaty process. It is not the old Indian Lands Act where we take a bunch of people, set them on a reserve somewhere, send a cheque every month and tell them they cannot do anything. One can see that by going to the Sheshatsui reserve in Labrador which has the highest suicide rate in Canada. People have been taken and put 90 miles from nowhere. They are sent a cheque every month and told not to bother us. They have no hope. They have no future. They have no history. They have no caribou to hunt. They have no fish to fish. They have no industry to lean on.

What is it that they want to do with these people? Do they want to go back to that? Is that what they are doing? The treaty process is one that gives people fee simple, the right to own the land they build their houses on. Is there something terribly wrong with that? As a real estate agent for 30 years I say that it would be really nice for them to have fee simple as a basic right. Why would that not be a basic right in the Nisga'a agreement? Why would that not be something the Reform Party would adhere to?

What did we hear out there? We heard all kinds of evidence for and against. We had demonstrations by the Reform leader, Mr. Vander Zalm screaming, yelling, calling us names, insulting us, trying to do everything to make us feel as unparliamentary as possible. That was my 13th trip to British Columbia, by the way. I have skied there. I have been at Whistler. I have travelled extensively throughout British Columbia and it is the first time I have met people who were hostile.

I have always found the people of British Columbia to be caring, to be people who used reason and logic. They were basically a very friendly people with a very beautiful province. There I was faced with all this hostility. One of the people yelled out the name of the member for South Shore and said “Keddy, you are next. South Shore, you are next”, as if they were going to get him next because he smiled at somebody in the audience. That is how sad it was. That is what we were dealing with out there.

To hear the evidence, to conclude from it, and to be told that I am less than a Canadian for even thinking that I could go out there and make an honest decision is beyond my scope of reason. I say shame on them for whipping up the crowd, for trying to skewer things so that we would not hear evidence, trying to manipulate the witness list and then trying to throw it back on us.

I know I am out of time but I could go on for a long time. No, I do not have notes. I speak from the heart.

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

Madam Speaker, when the hon. member opposite talks about what is sad, I think it is sad when an hon. member of the House would get up to make all those types of accusations as he just did in his remarks and not have absolutely any evidence to back them up.

He made statements such as that he was appalled the Reform Party would stoop so low to these kinds of tactics. He went on at one point to brag about the five minutes he gave up to my hon. colleague, the member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley, during the hearing in Prince George so that my colleague could address a certain witness who was appearing before the committee at a bit more length. He is quite right. My hon. colleague did thank him for that.

What I find appalling is that he obviously stooped to those types of tactics just so he could come into this place, stand before the television cameras and brag about how he gave up five minutes of his time.

I was present as well at the hearing held in Prince George because part of the beautiful city of Prince George is in my riding as well as in the riding of the member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley. I had the good fortune, or the misfortune I guess is more closer to the truth, to attend that particular hearing. I have a distinctly different view of what transpired and I will go into that in some length when I have the opportunity to speak and set the record straight during my remarks later today.

The hon. member was quoted in the very first hearing held on the Monday of last week in the city of Terrace as saying “We are only in B.C. because of a tactic by the Reform Party to hijack parliament. This little dance and song is costing $500 directly by the Reform Party”.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask you and ask the viewing public at home—

[The Deputy Speaker]

You had better stick with me.