Debates of Dec. 2nd, 1999

Nisga'A Final Agreement Act

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-9, in the preamble, be amended by replacing line 15 on page 1 with the following:

“new and improved relationship among them;”

[Rahim Jaffer, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-9, in the preamble, be amended by deleting lines 18 to 20 on page 1.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-9, in the preamble, be amended by replacing line 19 on page 1 with the following:

“does not alter”

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-9, in the preamble, be amended by deleting lines 21 to 27 on page 1.

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 26

That Bill C-9, in the preamble, be amended by replacing lines 21 to 27 on page 1 with the following:

“Whereas the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to the Nisga'a Government in respect of all matters within its authority;”

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-9, in the preamble, be amended by deleting lines 28 to 30 on page 1.

[Maurice Vellacott, Reform, Wanuskewin, SK]

moved:

Motion No. 28

That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting Clause 1.

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

moved:

Motion No. 29

That Bill C-9, in Clause 1, be amended

(a) by replacing line 2 on page 2 with the following:

“Agreement Act”

(b) by deleting the word “Final“ wherever it occurs in the Bill.

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 30

That Bill C-9, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 2 on page 2 with the following:

“Final Agreement Implementation Act.”

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask that my hon. colleague, who has led this issue for the official opposition, be allowed to resume from the start because he was interrupted.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Agreed and so ordered.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, again I rise to speak to the report stage of Bill C-9. I want to inform all members of the House and members of the public who may be watching this at home that I was part of the standing committee that recently travelled to British Columbia for a five day dog and pony show at which time we heard from a selected group of witnesses that were concocted primarily by the Liberals. British Columbians were denied and shut out of the process. They were unable to appear and provide their deeply held views on the Nisga'a treaty. That has been the problem with this treaty right from 1991 when the secrecy agreement between the three parties was signed that led into the process that brings us to this debate today.

In response to that cynical, arrogant move on the part of the government and the other opposition parties in collusion with one another, the Reform Party held its own meeting in Vancouver last Friday to which we invited all members of the public and anybody who had been denied an opportunity to speak at the standing committee so they could speak to us. We had a court reporter there. We put on the record the comments, remarks and observations that were made. My colleagues over the next hours and days in debate on the Nisga'a treaty will endeavour to read as much of that into the record as possible.

I wanted to say that at the outset so there would be some context to the amendments proposed by the Reform Party in this group and in the groups to follow. The main reason the Reform Party has tabled these amendments is that we are looking for some change to the agreement. We are primarily looking to decouple the self-government provisions in the agreement from constitutional protection.

In other words, we are saying that we do not think this parliament should be so arrogant and so self assured that it would know for all time what is good for the Nisga'a people, that it would entrench a third order of government and provide it constitutional protection under section 35 so that it can never be changed and will be there for all time. For years we have said that is a major flaw in this agreement and that needs to be changed. We are saying not only for the benefit of a united Canada, a Canada that works together and stays together, but we are also saying for the benefit of Nisga'a people themselves that is not the right way to go.

Incidentally, we heard that from an untold number of British Columbians over the last few weeks. We heard it at the standing committee. Even the Liberal standing committee dog and pony show heard that from a number of witnesses. As my colleague from Fraser Valley pointed out, professor Stephen Scott from McGill University, a widely recognized expert on law and constitutional matters in this country has said the same thing, as has Gordon Gibson, as has Mel Smith, as has Tom Flanagan, and the list goes on and on. These are names that are recognizable by many Canadians as being relatively expert in their fields.

As my colleague pointed out and as is the thrust of one amendment we have asked the Speaker to consider, we say that the treaty must be appended to the legislation. That did not come from the Reform Party. That came from the witnesses. The whole point of having a standing committee, the whole point of inviting expert witnesses to appear, because certainly we in this place are not experts, is to consider the advice that they provide us and then to incorporate that advice into the legislation we are dealing with. Here we have a pre-eminent legal scholar, professor of law at McGill University, who tells us in no uncertain terms that not only is it a mistake for parliament not to append the treaty to the legislation but that no member in the House should vote for Bill C-9 until and unless that is done. My colleague so eloquently quoted the professor there is no need for me to do that again.

The bottom line of what we are saying is that from the Reform Party's point of view, while we disagree with the treaty in many aspects, the most serious and fundamental flaws include the fact that the self-government provisions receive constitutional protection. That is the subject of at least two lawsuits right now in British Columbia. It is the subject of most of the concern that is coming out of British Columbia. That should be removed from the agreement and an addition to the legislation should be included which would say that the self-government provisions as delineated in chapter 11 of the agreement would not constitute an aboriginal or treaty right within the meaning of section 35 of the Canadian constitution. It would be that simple. We are saying that the treaty should be appended to the legislation.

We were told by a pre-eminent legal professor in Ontario that was the right thing for parliament to do. Regardless of whether or not we support the treaty in principle, that is the only right way to proceed from a procedural point of view.

Third, the Reform Party wants the removal of the commercial right to harvest fish from constitutional protection. We know the government wants to leave it in there. We know the Nisga'a want to leave it in there. We do not agree with it. We think it is wrongheaded. We think in the end it will not be of benefit to Nisga'a people. It will be contentious. It will be divisive in British Columbia.

We are saying that at least the constitutional protection should be removed from that part of the treaty. We should not create in effect a constitutionally protected business in the country. Nobody else in Canada has the right to a constitutionally protected business and it should not be created in this treaty.

Fourth, it is irresponsible for the government to proceed with ratification. The Reform Party could never in any way endorse or support any move to allow the bill to proceed until and unless the government sits down with the Gitksan and the Gitanyow people in an honourable way and comes to an agreement that is satisfactory to them, an accommodation.

This issue is so serious to these people that when they testified in front of the standing committee they said that they considered this treaty an act of aggression, not only by the Nisga'a but by this government and by the Government of British Columbia. It is irresponsible. It is inconsiderate. It is a huge error in judgment on the part of government to proceed with ratification until an accommodation is reached.

When the Gitksan and Gitanyow leadership testified in front of the standing committee they gave us reasonable options. They did not say they wanted to have their land claim resolved first. They did not say that this treaty could not proceed. On the contrary, they said to go ahead and proceed with the treaty but to put some amendments in.

They gave us proposals for amendments that the government did not even consider when the legislation was debated at committee after the end of the testimony from all witnesses. The government did not ever consider them. I want the Gitksan and Gitanyow people who are watching at home, as I know they are, to know for the record that at committee the government did not even debate for one minute the amendments submitted by the Gitksan and Gitanyow chiefs when they were in Smithers.

We are saying that not only is that a mistake, not only is that a huge error, but it is reprehensible and we cannot proceed in parliament until that is addressed.

Those are the four major points that the Reform Party wants to advance in the course of debate over the next hours and days on the amendments that we submitted. I appreciate that we have submitted quite a number of amendments, but I suggest that if the government and the other opposition parties were willing to consider those four changes, the Reform Party would likely be a lot more accommodating to deal with than we will be if there is no hope or sign of any amendment or any change whatsoever. From the Nisga'a leadership point of view there should not be any undue alarm or concern with the four main points I have outlined today.

I see that my time is up. I appreciate the opportunity to lead off the debate and to advise the House of the main thrust and intention of the Reform Party's position on debate during report stage of Bill C-9.

I look forward to listening to other members of the House, particularly my colleagues, as they read into the record some of the testimony we heard in British Columbia, independent of what the standing committee did not hear because it denied witnesses and British Columbians the opportunity to come forward and be heard.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Today we are debating Bill C-9, the Nisga'a agreement, which will have huge implications on how Canada deals with native people in the future, and there is not one minister of the crown in the House.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The member for Wetaskiwin knows full well that we do not to refer to the absence or the presence of members in the House either collectively or individually. If the member wishes to call quorum he may do so, but the Speaker sees a quorum.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about two questions today with regard to the Nisga'a agreement. First, what is an opposition party and what are its responsibilities? Second, what is a democracy? What is a democracy all about when we are facing issues such as this one?

When a problem or a concern of any kind about government legislation hits the House of Commons, there is a responsibility and onus on members in opposition to bring it to the attention of the public without concern for name calling or putting people down for what they think they should be challenging.

My colleagues have a detailed knowledge of the agreement. They know what they are talking about. They live the implications of these matters all the time.

We raised in the House financial concerns about future commitments in perpetuity for our young people. There is a commitment of dollars by the government on one land claim, not on the 40, 50, 60 or 100 that will be coming down the road. This one land claim involves hundreds of millions of dollars in cash payout that in today's dollars will amount to approximately $32 million in perpetuity on which young people, their children and their children's children will be taxed. That is a concern to me. I have the right to come here and express concern about the commitment the government is making, and so do my colleagues.

We have lived with the problem of the Musqueam reserve in British Columbia. We have seen people who live on property being charged lease payments which went from $300 to $400 a year to $26,000 a year. That is a concern. The Nisga'a agreement has implications on other things we are doing in the country. We have concerns about overlapping land claims on behalf of other aboriginal groups that have expressed those concerns.

Let us go back to my question on what is an opposition party. Why is it that only my colleagues in the Reform Party ask these questions? I have heard racial innuendo, bigoted comments and that sort of thing from other parties which should not even be articulated. An opposition party is in the House to question where things or going, why overlapping land claims are not being listened to, or why there are future commitments of millions and millions of tax dollars Those were the questions we had.

Where are the other opposition parties in the House? Why are they not speaking out? What do Canadians want as an opposition in the country? Do they want members who are afraid to speak out because they might be slandered with some kind of comment, or members like my colleagues who will stand and say they have some concerns which they want addressed. This is what one would expect from an opposition party. I find it strange that the other three parties find absolutely nothing wrong with the agreement.

What is in a democracy? When my colleagues and I came to the House we thought we would change things faster than we have. We have been forcing change on the people on the other side. When members first come to the House of Commons they think there actually is a real democracy in the country. However when they look at the effects of a majority government they begin to question that point, as have my colleagues and I. It is a joke to say that a majority government is a democracy.

Let me say what happens in a majority government. When we raised the Nisga'a issue we did not buckle down to the people across the way. We said that we wanted to debate it. After four and a half hours of allowed debate by the only party opposed the Liberals called time allocation to cease debate. Is that what a democracy is, four and a half hours of debate on one of the most important pieces of legislation brought before in the House since 1993? That is shameful. What is wrong with discussing this issue? It is disgusting that it is not being discussed.

The British Columbia government, as unfavourable as that government is these days, allowed debate to go on and on so people could listen to it and understand it. For weeks and weeks that government talked about the Nisga'a agreement. It tried to get all the issues out. When it comes to big bold Ottawa, after four and a half hours of debate government members told us to get the issue out of here. That is not a democracy. That is not what this is about. They cannot just do what they want in the House of Commons because they have a majority.

After debate the bill went to committee where it was rammed through. Government members said that they did not want to travel anywhere and asked why on earth people in British Columbia would want to hear about it. This is the biggest issue in British Columbia for many years.

What did we have to do? We told members of the democratic government across the way that they were not going to travel on any committee, that we would debate every committee that wants to travel, and that we would hold it all up if they did not want to go to British Columbia. Then they said that they would go to British Columbia, but they were unhappy about it.

We said that we wanted them to go to communities affected immensely by the agreement. They did not want to go there. They did not want to go to Smithers. They do not like it there. Is that a democracy? They did not want to go to Kamloops because they are unhappy in Kamloops. They decided to go to Prince George. The people in Prince George are concerned too. We forced them to go to five places. This is democracy in this country.

They said they had to hear from witnesses who appear before the committee. They tabled a list of 62 or 64 names, all in favour of the Nisga'a agreement. My colleague from Skeena and I had to fight just to get people who were opposed to be heard. They were a small minority. When they got to Prince George members of this democratic government hauled in four or five witnesses who were not even from Prince George but were in favour of it. They say that is a democracy.

We put a vote to the House and asked at least to be given a referendum in British Columbia, one of the basic foundations of democratic principles. They voted it down and were supported by three other opposition parties.

What about the fact that this may happen in Ontario, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland or Saskatchewan? What will people say then? The precedence has been set in the House of Commons. We do not hold referendums here. They send people who are in favour of these things. It is not a democracy if the government acts like this. The attitude has to change.

It is time to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to hold a referendum in British Columbia. I will do that. Why not do that if this is a democracy? Give us what we are asking for.

A lot of my colleagues are from British Columbia. They represent the greatest part of that province, the third largest province in the country. Give them what they are asking for.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to allow a referendum to be held in British Columbia to deal with the Nisga'a agreement.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The member for Langley—Abbotsford has asked for the unanimous consent of the House to hold a referendum on the Nisga'a agreement. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When you ask for consent, Mr. Speaker, are members allowed to yell no from a standing position behind the curtain?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Yes. The established protocol is that the Speaker, upon recognizing a member, may recognize that member from any position, provided the member is in view, including the galleries.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, now we can see the results of democracy in this country. They come slithering through the doors when it comes time to talk about a referendum. It is not democracy. It just will not work.

We are the opposition. We sit here as the official opposition. Where is the democracy in the Liberal Party which has a majority government? There is no proper democracy. It does not work.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like the record to show that there is not one member in the House from British Columbia other than my colleagues in the Reform—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

As I mentioned earlier today, it is not appropriate to refer to the absence or presence of members specifically.

[John Finlay, Liberal, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to suggest to the hon. member opposite that I stood to say I was withholding unanimous consent. Unfortunately the member was not able to see me because I was blocked from his view by the clerk. He saw this gentleman. That is fine. I stood and said that I disagreed—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Thank you. Given the fact that we go from one side to the other, I did not see the member on the other side on his feet and I should have. When we resume debate we will hear the member for Oxford.