House of Commons Hansard #38 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was agreed.

Topics

Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in such a way?

Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

An hon. member

No.

Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Reform

Mike Scott Reform Skeena, BC

Madam Speaker, since the member in her intervention repeatedly referred to me and things I have said not only today but earlier on—actually I have been involved in this issue for five and a half years—I feel it appropriate that I respond.

I must point out to the House and to anybody who might be watching out there that the member did exactly what I predicted she would do. She slags anybody who disagrees not on the basis of the issue or not on the basis of the substance of the treaty but on the basis that we somehow have dark motives, that we are somehow people of lower moral character because we do not agree with the government's policy direction. That is the first thing I predicted would happen.

She admitted in her intervention that the agreement is flawed but did not talk at all about what the flaws are in the agreement. She totally discounted the expert advice we received from constitutional legal experts, such as Mel Smith, Professor Stephen Scott, Professor Tom Flanagan and a host of others. She glossed right over that and said that irrespective of what these people have told us as parliamentarians that she is right, that somehow she has elevated herself to be a constitutional expert and an expert on the charter of rights because she says so and that is just the way it is.

I will ask the member a legitimate question. If she is so sure that this is not an extra-constitutional document, that this document does not violate the constitution, which is the subject of two separate legal challenges in British Columbia, that the charter of rights and freedoms applies and that the charter of rights of the Nisga'a people will not be diminished under this agreement, why would she and her party not support the one amendment we wanted last week above all other amendments, the amendment to guarantee that the Constitution of Canada and the charter of rights and freedoms would apply and that the self-government provisions in chapter 11 would not be constitutionally entrenched? Why did she not support the one amendment that would have guaranteed a higher likelihood of the charter applying and a lower likelihood of this being seen as a back door amending of the constitution?

Why was she and her party not prepared to support that one amendment? Of all the other defects and flaws in the treaty, that was the one we wanted. We are not happy with many of the other defects, but that was one that we felt was important to have so that if there are any problems in the future, and we know there will be problems, they can be fixed. Why was she not prepared to do that?

Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

NDP

Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC

Madam Speaker, I will agree with the member for Skeena on one thing: I am not a constitutional expert, just as he is not a constitutional expert. I, like other members, rely on all of the opinions that come before us, from the committee as well as information we receive.

I would be very surprised if there was any legal issue in Canada where we could find a whole bunch of lawyers all agreeing on the same thing. Of course there were other opinions, but we have to look at the overall body of evidence. Surely that is what we do as parliamentarians. We look at the history of our country and come to a rational, reasonable conclusion as to whether or not something is right in terms of the constitution. A vast majority of the members in the House, in fact four of the political parties present, came to that conclusion because it was logical and reasonable.

The Reform Party can of course find someone who will disagree with that, but the overwhelming evidence and opinion in the country is that the Nisga'a agreement is perfectly within the Canadian constitution.

I do not think I ever said that the agreement was flawed. I said it was not perfect. Is anything perfect? Is anything in the House perfect? I do not think so, but it is a pretty good document. When we go through it and think of what it took to get to that point, it is as near to perfect as anything can get when there is that kind of process. It is not a flawed document. I wish the member would not misrepresent what I said.

In terms of the amendments that came forward, we went through that charade for many hours? There has been a lot of debate in the House. It is clear that we make up our own minds about what we think is right or whether or not something is constitutional. I can inform the member that the members of the NDP believe very strongly and firmly that the agreement is within the constitution. We therefore did not see the need for any further amendments. It is abundantly clear as it stands now. I wish the member could understand that.

Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

Sue Barnes Liberal London West, ON

Madam Speaker, because of all the shenanigans that have gone on in the House over the last number of days, it is likely that as chair of the committee I will not get an opportunity to speak.

I will take this opportunity, having listened to the comments from the member opposite, to say how much I agree with them in most parts. I also thank not only the member's party and her personally for her work on this file, but members from the Bloc, members from the Conservative Party, members from our own party and all the people who worked very patiently and hard. I also second the fact that because negotiations took place over many, many years, a historical context surrounds this agreement that will long outlive noise and confusion.

I am very happy to be part of a real process that will change history in the country. I thank the hon. member for giving voice to some of the sentiments that many of us hold.

Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

NDP

Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her kind comments. We do not always agree with the Liberal members but I think on this issue we see eye to eye. The member chaired the committee in some very difficult hearings. I was only present at some of them, but in other hearings it was very difficult to keep a sense of order and balance with the opposition that came forward. The member did an excellent job in chairing those meetings.

In the committee meetings I attended, I thought the discussions, questions and debates were of an excellent nature. It was the best of what we can expect in terms of parliamentarians doing their work. They listened to the criticisms. There were criticisms as there is on everything. The thoughtful responses and the questions that were provided were very important. Unfortunately, I do not think that was true of the Reform Party which played a very different kind of game. It was executing a political agenda. Fortunately, at the end of the day, it did not managed to get that through and this agreement will be approved and the work of the committee and the members in the House will see that is done. That is a good thing.

Points Of OrderGovernment Orders

December 13th, 1999 / 5:25 p.m.

Reform

John Williams Reform St. Albert, AB

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to the appropriation bill that will be considered later this day in the House. I will first refer you to subclause 3(2) of the act which states that “the provision of each item in schedules 1 and 2 are deemed to have been enacted by parliament on April 1, 1999”.

However on page 3 of the bill at subclause 6(2) it states:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, amounts appropriated by this Act and set out in terms of Schedule 2 may be paid and applied at any time on or before March 31, 2001, so long as every payment is charged first against the relevant amount appropriated under any Act that is earliest in time until that amount is exhausted, next against the relevant amount appropriated under any other Act, including this Act, that is next in time until that amount is exhausted and so on, and the balance of amounts so appropriated by this Act that have not been charged, subject to the adjustments referred to in section 37 of the Financial Administration Act, lapse at the end of the fiscal year following the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000.

Madam Speaker, as you can see, subclause 6(2)—

Points Of OrderGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

I have to advise the hon. member that maybe it would be more opportune for him to bring this point of order later on today when the question is before the House. At this point I do not think it is a good time to do it.

Points Of OrderGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Reform

John Williams Reform St. Albert, AB

Madam Speaker, there are many times when it is not appropriate to bring a point of order from the Chair's point of view, but it is a point of order that has to be raised. It may require some research, at which time the Speaker may require some additional time prior to the ruling. The voting will be later on tonight and once the bells start to ring there will be no opportunity to rise on a point of order and give the Speaker time to research. Therefore, I think it is appropriate that you hear it and hear it now.

Points Of OrderGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

I will listen to the hon. member but I will ask him to be very brief.

Points Of OrderGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Reform

John Williams Reform St. Albert, AB

I appreciate your ruling, Madam Speaker. I will continue. As we can see, subclause 6(2) specifically allows the funds appropriated by the bill to be spent up to and including March 31, 2001, even though the bill is deemed effective April 1, 1999. Clearly we are being asked to appropriate funds for a period of two years.

Citation 933 of Beauchesne's states:

The purpose of the estimates is to present to Parliament the budgetary and non-budgetary expenditure proposals of the Government for the next fiscal year.

You ruled last year, Madam Speaker, on a similar point of order at page 16065 of Hansard where you stated:

The multi-year appropriation authority covered in schedule 2 of the bill is based on legislation approved by parliament in 1998 by which Parks Canada Agency is granted the authority to carry over to the end of the 2000-01 fiscal year the unexpended balance of the money for the fiscal year 1999-2000.

The difference with this bill—

Points Of OrderGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Liberal

David Anderson Liberal Victoria, BC

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The practice of the Reform Party is to filibuster the Nisga'a treaty as it has been doing consistently throughout these debates. It is nevertheless the time of the hon. member of the Conservative Party for South Shore.

The hon. member has been told to be brief. He was told that he was out of order, but he is still persevering. Why is he allowed to take the time—

Points Of OrderGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

The hon. member is making an argument and he is sticking strictly to the point. I think we will have to give him two or three minutes.

Points Of OrderGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Reform

John Williams Reform St. Albert, AB

I appreciate that ruling as well. As I said, the difference with this bill is that clause 6 makes no reference to a carryover but instead provides for a two year window to spend from April 1, 1999 to March 31, 2001. This is against our financial procedures as explained in Beauchesne's citation 933.

The Public Accounts of Canada must refer back to the authorities voted by parliament if the public accounts are to make any sense to parliamentarians and the appropriation which they voted to the crown. If parliament approves two years together then how can parliamentarians properly examine spending for one fiscal year?

I am trying to be brief but I have to get the complex argument on the record. The President of the Treasury Board said in the House on April 24, 1996, at page 1903 of Debates :

—an example of our proposal to amend the Financial Administration Act to allow us to use multi-year appropriation. If approved, we could use this authority with the three agencies where flexibility is warranted.

However, in Your Honour's ruling of June 8, 1999, you said that the notions of fiscal year and annual appropriation are the cornerstones of our parliamentary financial process. The government wants to change our practice and exceed its authority by seeking multi-year appropriation.

In addition, the title does not reflect what is in the bill. The title reads “an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 2000”. Yet the bill contains the specific authority to spend funds up to and including March 31, 2001, with no reference whatsoever that it pertains to funds to be carried over from the year ending March 31, 2000. Beauchesne's citation 626 states:

Although there is no specific set of rules or guidelines governing the content of a bill, there should be a theme of relevancy among the contents of a bill. They must be relevant to and subject to the umbrella, which is raised by the terminology of the long title of the bill.

I am almost finished.

Points Of OrderGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Liberal

David Iftody Liberal Provencher, MB

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Over three and a half or four minutes ago and into this long dissertation you asked the gentleman to be brief and courteous to the rest of us in the House with his comments.

If the rules of the House suggest that he has to make this comment, would you please use the discretion of the Chair and ask him to conclude or cut him off?

Points Of OrderGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

I am sure the hon. member will be finishing his remarks very shortly.

Points Of OrderGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Reform

John Williams Reform St. Albert, AB

Madam Speaker, I appreciate your ruling. To sum up, since citation 626 claimed that the title is an essential part of the bill, this bill is flawed and should be ruled out of order because it includes appropriation for more than one fiscal year. Yet the long title would lead us to believe that it is only for one fiscal year.

I would therefore ask, that you rule the appropriation bill out of order because it clearly contradicts the practices and procedures of the House as contained in our standing orders and in Beauchesne's.

Points Of OrderGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

The Chair will take the matter under advisement and come back with a ruling at an opportune time.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-9, an Act to give effect to the Nisga'a Final Agreement, be read the third time and passed.

Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Liberal

Ted McWhinney Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Vancouver East gave us an interesting and valuable historical record.

Would she include in that the agreement between the Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Mulroney, and the Premier of British Columbia, Mr. Vander Zalm, in 1990 that the issue of minority rights was not an appropriate subject for referendum and the guarantee that they gave?

Would she agree that the constitutional principle of good faith, which is judicially enforceable, would require present administrations to honour their undertaking?

Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

NDP

Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC

Mr. Speaker, because I know there are other members who want to speak I will answer very briefly. Those comments are very good and obviously concur that minority rights should not be subject to a referendum. I will just leave it at that because I know there are other members who wish to speak.

Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Bloc

Pierre De Savoye Bloc Portneuf, QC

Madam Speaker, I have a very brief question to ask and, since the NDP member is very familiar with this issue, I am sure she will be able to give me an answer.

We know that the treaty which is about to be ratified has gone through a long negotiation process carried out even before a referendum was held. Can the hon. member answer the following? How did the Nisga'a people, for whom I am very happy to see that this treaty is about to come true, manage to be better treated that the people of Quebec?

Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

NDP

Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC

Madam Speaker, I think that is a subject for another day. What is before us today is the Nisga'a treaty and the process that was conducted there. I think the member has other opportunities to raise the other matters, so I will leave my reply at that because I know the other parties also want to speak to this issue.

Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Gerald Keddy Progressive Conservative South Shore, NS

Madam Speaker, it has been a long day. Many of us have waited in the House to speak to this very important piece of legislation. I am certainly proud on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party to speak to Bill C-9.

With respect to the intervention by the hon. member who spoke previously, which I am sure was an enlightened and intelligent intervention, I would like to comment that the only time I ever heard a sound like that it came out of the south end of a dog that was headed north.

It is time that we debated this issue. It is past time that we debated this issue. We have stood in the House on numerous occasions and talked about the substance of the Nisga'a bill. We have talked about the legislation. We have talked about how it affects taxation, how it affects the charter of rights and freedoms, and how it affects the constitution of Canada.

I listened to the hon. member for Skeena speak about the constitution of Canada. I heard him state in this place that this changes the constitution of Canada. That is exactly what was said, and I have heard it from other members of parliament.

For the members of parliament who have read the legislation, I ask them to turn to page 17 where it references the constitution of Canada. It states in section 8 that this agreement does not alter the constitution of Canada. That is fairly straightforward, clear and pertinent to this discussion.

In subsection 8(a) it goes on to explain it further. This is the type of debate that should be raised. Members should read the statements and the sections of the agreement with which hon. members have a problem. They should be put before the country so that Canadians will hear what we are all listening to and make a reasoned and rational decision. I have no fear whatsoever about depending upon the good, common sense of Canadians when they hear all the points in this issue.

I will read some of the points in the legislation that have been singled out and have been, I think, misinterpreted by members of parliament. I will also describe why I believe they have been misinterpreted. Subsection 8(a) says:

This Agreement does not alter the Constitution of Canada, including: a. the distribution of powers between Canada and British Columbia; b. the identity of the Nisga'a Nation as an aboriginal people of Canada within the meaning of the Constitution Act, 1982; and c. sections 25 and 35 of the

Constitution Act, 1982.

It says further:

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to Nisga'a Government in respect of all matters within its authority, bearing in mind the free and democratic nature of Nisga'a Government as set out in this Agreement.

That is the same way that the charter of rights and freedoms applies to all democratic societies and governments in the country. There is nothing new there. There is no hidden design. I said in debate before that the earth will not open up and swallow British Columbia, not for a moment.

There have been other discussions on the bill. It is very important that we take those discussions a step further, that we look at them in the cold, clear light of day and debate them.

I have no problem with debating the bill. I will debate the bill until Easter without any problem whatsoever but I want to debate the bill. I do not want to debate some fictional caricature of this piece of legislation that on a good day is misleading and on a bad day totally affects the hard work starting in 1887 of the Nisga'a people, the province of British Columbia, the Nisga'a chiefs and successive governments of Canada. Negotiations were entered into in good faith.

The legislation deals with all those issues. Like any series of negotiations there is some give and take. The Nisga'a did not get the agreement they started out asking for, and perhaps on the government side it did not get the agreement either. However in negotiations we ended up with an agreement that is workable. The key ingredient for me is that we ended with an agreement that has some flexibility. This is not entrenched in the proverbial constitutional concrete that we keep hearing about. This agreement is protected by the constitution. It is not a part of the constitution of Canada.

I do not know how many times that has to be said in this place before someone will actually listen to the argument. It is easy to say no. It is easy to say I do not believe that, but if we look at the facts, study the legislation, talk to the legal experts, listen to the informed and often very good debate that occurred in the House on the treaty, we will come to understand that there are significant issues within the treaty that I believe are a template for other treaties.

There are parts of this treaty that I would hope will become a template for further treaties in the country. There are parts of this treaty that we should have as a template.

There is the fact that the Constitution of Canada prevails. The charter of rights and freedoms prevails. The interests of women and children are protected. The Nisga'a will own their land, and let me be very clear about this, fee simple.

There is no such thing as fee simple common. I do not know what that is. That term has been made up. That is one of the myths about this legislation that has been thrown out in debate. Hon. members use it and never have to back it up. They can sit down after they are finished in debate and say, “I have said it and I don't have to back it up. I don't have to go anywhere and defend what I am saying”. I have defended what I have said on this bill on numerous occasions and I am very happy to defend it one more time.

The issue of jurisdiction is extremely important. It is important for parliamentarians to protect the jurisdiction of the crown. It is important for parliamentarians to protect the jurisdiction of the province of British Columbia. Because we have entered into a treaty process with first nations in this country, it is important to protect future jurisdictions that will look at this treaty. It is not a template but we can look at many parts of this treaty with satisfaction and a great deal of pride and say we have done our duty as parliamentarians. We have protected the interests of Canadians.

We have put aside a historic wrong against the Nisga'a people. It started in 1887 when the Nisga'a chiefs paddled their canoes to the B.C. legislature. Hon. members should picture this in their minds. The chiefs dragged the canoes up on the beach, walked to the legislature, knocked on the door and were refused entry. It is unbelievable.

We have continued under the auspices of the Indian Act and other pieces of legislation to, I believe, inhibit opportunities for first nations.

An hon. member referred to Bill C-49. What a novel thought in Bill C-49 that first nations would be in charge, in control of and responsible for the land on their reserves. Several cases have arisen out of some of the legislation in Bill C-49, but here is the principle that land that we own or any first nation owns is their land to do with what they want to, as long as they obey the laws of Canada and the territory or province they are in, that they recognize stewardship and that they look after the environment.

None of us have a spotless record in this place, no group, no party, no individual. We can only work with the facts in front of us. We can only deal with one point at a time. It is great to shove all these points together and somehow throw them out, as if they were broadcasting grain to see which ones will grow and which ones will take root. They nourish those and divide them, spreading fear and innuendo and causing Canadians to ask if there is something wrong with this. Have we passed a piece of legislation in the House of Commons that does not protect the interests of ordinary Canadians? Absolutely not. We have not. That has not been done.

There is the issue of jurisdiction. There is the very important issue of overlap between the Gitksan and the Nisga'a, and the possible overlap with the Gitanyow.

I sat in Smithers and listened to the debate. The record was quoted earlier today. Any Canadian who would like to look at that debate should get a copy of the record and read it. They should read the questions that were asked about possible conflict and if there could be violence. Everything was done that could be done to get one first nation to take a stand against another, one Canadian against another Canadian, one community against another community, sowing the seeds of discontent.

As a private landowner and as a farmer I have been in numerous land disputes. Some of them were not very pretty. In some of those disputes harsh words were said, but at the end of the day there was never any intent on anyone's part not to somehow negotiate a fair and equitable settlement for everyone.

Canadians respect the rule of law. The Nisga'a people respect the rule of law. The province of British Columbia respects the rule of law. At the end of the day the issues of division that still lay undecided in this treaty will be settled because there is a process to settle them. It is not a complicated process and it is clearly laid out in the agreement. On every issue the Nisga'a final agreement prevails. Even if that part of the legislation is not carried over to the government's legislation, it still goes back to the Nisga'a final agreement and the Nisga'a final agreement prevails.

For those of us who have debated it, studied it and worked on it literally for months and months, there is nothing shocking here. There is nothing untoward. Hon. members talk about 14 areas where the Nisga'a will have more jurisdiction than the province of British Columbia or the Government of Canada. I would suggest that members read those issues, read those 14 areas. There is absolutely nothing shocking in the agreement. There is nothing there that takes away rights from ordinary Canadians. There is nothing there that allows for taxation without representation. That is patently untrue.

The taxation agreement with Canada and the province of British Columbia will allow the Nisga'a government to tax Nisga'a citizens. It absolutely does not allow the Nisga'a government to tax non-Nisga'a citizens. It is pretty simple. It even goes so far as to state that in the event that the Nisga'a sell a piece of their property to a non-Nisga'a, because Nisga'a property will be owned fee simple and the band or a member has every right to sell a piece of Nisga'a land, that is their land, they own it, then we go back to the agreement and the jurisdiction will rest for taxation in the hands of the province of British Columbia, not with the Nisga'a government. There is no way we can have taxation without representation. It goes on and on and on.

Most of us were here the other night and we voted. Certainly we showed up for the final vote. Reform members have made a big ruckus of party solidarity on this. I counted the votes on Motion No. 471. I was in the House. Thirty-nine members of the Reform Party voted. I believe if we check the record there are more Reform members than that. I know some of them were tired and I understand that. It is not inconceivable that members of parliament missed that last vote because it was tough. There is no question about it. Thirty-nine members voted. I do not think it is all love and apple pie in the Reform caucus either. I think there are some serious problems there.

We have dealt with jurisdiction. We have dealt with a number of issues. Let us talk for a moment about the fishery. Let us look at the fishery agreement which allows the Nisga'a government 27% of the TAC on the Nass River and 16% of the total TAC, that is offshore TAC.

I have heard this called a race based fishery. I would have to agree with that if the Nisga'a had 100% of the fishery on the Nass River. As long as they do not have 100%—and they do not, they have 27%—it cannot be a race based fishery. Other people will benefit from the stewardship programs introduced by the Nisga'a.

As I have said in the House before, having 27% of the total salmon catch on the Nass River is the same as having 27% of nothing, unless the stock is nurtured and allowed to reproduce and the government does not allow them to be caught on the high seas and they actually get to return to the rivers and spawn. If the resource is looked after, if the salmon population were to double, 27% is very significant. However, the remaining 73% for everyone else would also double.

It is a very fair agreement. It was worked out over time and with great difficulty. If we used this agreement as a template and applied it to every river in B.C., it would still keep the native fishery at 27%. It might be divided between five or six bands. It might be more. It might be 40%. This is why we have negotiations.

This is not a race based fishery. We as members of parliament are not encouraging some type of apartheid system. It is completely and unequivocally irresponsible and patently wrong and misleading to state that.

What is nonsense about this treaty is the number of people I have talked to who are adamantly against it yet they have not read it. They do not understand it and have not listened to one single word of debate. There is always give and take in negotiations. There is always give and take in debate. A good point can always be made. However, it is a lot easier to take cheap shots, to make an outlandish statement and say this treaty is apartheid. That is repugnant to the majority of Canadians. After listening to a member of parliament who should be respected by all Canadians use that word, how many Canadians would feel their skin crawl or their hair stand up on the back of their neck? I would suggest every single one.

This treaty deals with all of the pertinent issues which affect first nations in Canada. It is a tribute to the Nisga'a chiefs and their predecessors who worked long and hard on this treaty. I think it is a tribute to the Parliament of Canada. Many members of parliament were against this treaty and I do not have a problem with that. I have a problem with the fact that it was not debated. I have a problem with closure. I would have continued debating it until Easter without a problem and if we had to go longer than that, we would do so.

When we answer questions one at a time, and after reading the treaty, a lot of substance is removed from that argument. A lot of substance leaves the argument that people are mad and they can drive wedges into society and they can take a wrecking ball to public policy platforms.

On behalf of the Conservative Party, I am happy to support the treaty. Our party will continue to support the treaty. I expect that in 10 years we will look back and say that this was a great treaty.