Rahim Jaffer

[The Environment, December 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this week the federal fisheries minister threatened to get tough on municipalities that are pumping raw sewage into their harbours. These cities include Victoria, a city that happens to be in the environment minister's riding. The environment minister disagrees with the fisheries minister and has said openly that this is not an environmental concern at all.

Which minister is playing politics with the environment?

[Endangered Species, December 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this week the environment minister stated that his government could pay millions of dollars in compensation as part of its plan for protecting endangered species. So far he has been extremely evasive about specifying the formula for compensation based on fair market value and lost investment revenue. The minister has only stated that he is determined to protect vulnerable habitat, whether it is on federal, provincial or privately owned land.

Landowners are watching the minister closely to see if he is just as committed to protecting their fundamental freedoms to enjoy private property as he is to protecting endangered species.

I have heard from hundreds of landowners who believe that they, not big government bureaucracies, are the ones who can best protect endangered species. Canadians will be watching closely to see if the minister will rise to the challenge of committing the task of protecting endangered species to the people who are best prepared to do it, private property owners.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 6th, 1999]

moved:

Motion No. 184

That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:

“20.1 (1) On the expiration of seven years after the coming into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be referred to such committee of both Houses of Parliament as may be designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.

(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act and, shall within one year after the review is undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 6th, 1999]

moved:

Motion No. 174

That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:

“20.1 (1) On the expiration of three years after the coming into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be referred to such committee of the House of Commons, of the Senate, or of both Houses of Parliament as may be designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.

(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act and shall, within two years after the review is undertaken, submit a report to Parliament.”

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 6th, 1999]

moved:

Motion No. 42

That Bill C-9, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 37 on page 2 the following:

“2.1 For greater certainty, it is declared that this Act is enacted without prejudice to the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada, and may, accordingly be amended, repealed, or altered by the Parliament of Canada; but no such Act may take or permit the taking of, or otherwise affect title to or enjoyment of, aboriginal land, in any manner which would not have been lawful had this section not been enacted; this section is inseparable from this Act.”

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 6th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, on the surface, the Nisga'a treaty may appear to many Canadians to be an issue that only affects a relatively remote and isolated region of northwest British Columbia.

However, I believe that Canadians are beginning to see that this treaty will have implications for the entire country that will extend beyond northwestern B.C. and well into the next century.

There has been much attention attributed to this treaty, although the official opposition believes that there still has not been enough debate on the issue. Today I intend to focus on a few key aspects of the Nisga'a treaty, and specifically I want to focus on the following questions.

What is the Liberal vision for Canada? What vision are the Liberals offering all Canadians, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal? Where will this vision take us? Will this Liberal vision actually lead to the building of a stronger, more united Canada or will it lead to the fragmenting and polarization of individuals and groups? How does the treaty and others that will flow from it fit within a Canadian cultural reality that is becoming only increasingly diverse rather than singular?

Let us briefly consider some of the key components of the treaty. First, it establishes a Nisga'a government in northwest B.C. with title to 2,000 square kilometres of land plus management rights over another 10,000 square kilometres. It provides that government with $190 million in cash and gives it paramount power in 14 areas, along with shared jurisdiction in another 16.

It requires the Nisga'a to pay income tax in 12 years time but grants them preferential access to the local fishery and exempts them from paying certain other taxes and licence fees in perpetuity.

What is perhaps most alarming is that the Nisga'a treaty is a template. It is a model for more than 50 treaties to come in B.C. There is no way to know precisely how much these treaties will cost but a 1999 study by R.M. Richardson and Associates estimates that the total cost could be as high as $40 billion.

There is little doubt that the creation of more than 50 entrenched ethnic government enclaves in B.C. will usher in a period of tremendous uncertainty in economic development. The cost of settling these claims within the parameters set by the Nisga'a agreement will be staggering.

The Public Accounts of Canada estimated the total known costs of land claims in Canada to be about $200 billion. In addition the public accounts document included the statement: “The government is aware of an additional 2,000 potential land claims currently being researched by first nations. A reliable estimate of these potential land claims cannot be made at this time”.

Incredibly the Liberals are pursuing this and other treaty making without giving Canadians, especially British Columbians, a fair voice. They have done this without asking what is affordable to the people of Canada. This is hard to believe because it is the Nisga'a and other bands currently negotiating other treaties who will have to live together not only with the people of B.C. but with the rest of Canadian taxpayers as well.

I will now return to a central concern I have with the vision of Canada being offered by the Liberals. Their policy course would be more appropriately referred to as one that is desperately lacking vision.

Fundamentally the Nisga'a debate is about nothing less than the kind of country we want to create for our children and our grandchildren. It is about whether we want to live in a Canada in which the quality of one's citizenship is determined not just by one's race, or whether we want to live in a country where all Canadians have equal rights under the law. It is about whether we are prepared to stand aside and watch the government sow the seeds of perpetual ethnic conflict and division within Canada or whether we are prepared to say no to the failed and bankrupt policies of the past.

Future generations of Canadians, those not yet born and those who are not of voting age, as well as future immigrants to Canada will be asked to assume a huge liability, both fiscal and social, that was never theirs.

It is no exaggeration to state that the Liberal aboriginal policy has completely failed. For one, it does not serve grassroots natives on reserves. Also, the costs of the Liberal solution supported by the Tories, the Bloc and the NDP are completely unaffordable to the people of Canada.

The Nisga'a treaty perpetuates all of the problems inherent in today's reserve system and entrenches them in a modern treaty. The failed policies of the past centred on the collective ownership of land are continued under the Nisga'a treaty.

We on this side are echoing the concerns of millions of other Canadians who fear these treaties will leave enormous political and economic power concentrated in the hands of the band leadership rather than dispersing it among grassroots Nisga'a by guaranteeing private property rights.

The treaty also grandfathers many special rights for ethnic Nisga'a including a priority commercial fishing allocation on the Nass River and other entitlement programs available to status Indians but unavailable to other Canadians.

While individual Nisga'a will pay income tax after 12 years, the Nisga'a government will be exempt from a range of taxes and fees, including the GST. At the same time, the federal government will be obligated to financially subsidize the Nisga'a government in perpetuity.

The treaty establishes the shocking precedent of denying voting rights on the basis of race. Non-Nisga'a living on Nisga'a lands will have no right to vote in Nisga'a elections even though they will be subject to all Nisga'a laws and regulations.

It is hard to believe that any government in the late 20th century would sign a treaty so grounded in race and special privilege. It is hardly a wonder that British Columbians have been denied the right to vote on this treaty in a referendum.

The impact of Nisga'a does not end at the British Columbia border. Discussions relating to the reinterpretation of treaty 8 in my province of Alberta have already begun. The Nisga'a agreement will be an important precedent for bands seeking to enhance the agreements they made a century ago and which in light of Nisga'a are now modest in comparison.

Although Reform is the only party opposing this treaty in parliament, the debate crosses party lines.

The proponents of the race based approach are the federal Liberals, the Tories and the NDP. They have found it impossible to resist the pressure and inertia generated by the land claims industry in Canada. Even in the face of conflict and division that these policies have so obviously created, they simply do not break with the failed policies of the past.

I am surprised and disappointed at the Bloc Quebecois' support for this agreement. I also find it strange that the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to allowing the people of British Columbia to hold a referendum on an agreement that is as important historically and constitutionally as this one.

Their position perplexes me. How can they support a referendum on the sovereignty of Quebec, but be opposed to a referendum on an agreement that will set precedents for other agreements in Canada and even in Quebec, and even jeopardize their own sovereignist agenda?

The opponents of this race based approach recognize that we simply have no choice but to chart a new course. Both Reformers and provincial Liberals in B.C. oppose the Nisga'a treaty. In 1982 former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau stated:

We do not think that there are different categories of Canadians. We believe that all Canadians should be equal and it would be desirable to attempt to define rights in a way which does not distinguish between ethnic groups.

We agree with this fundamental principle and believe that if we are to ensure future ethnic peace in Canada, parliament must say no to the Nisga'a treaty.

[An Act For The Recognition And Protection Of Human Rights And Fundamental Freedoms, December 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to join my hon. colleague for Yorkton—Melville who has led the way in the House on the issue of property rights.

It is exciting to be part of a debate in the House that gets right to the heart of important philosophical questions about the scope of government and the importance of individual freedom. I applaud my colleague for his integrity and his perseverance in the campaign to awaken Canadians to the frightening realization that property ownership is not a right in this country but a so-called privilege that the government grants and can take away at its whim.

What is so special about property rights? Nobel laureate Frederick Hayek wrote “Private property is the most important guarantee of freedom”. More than any other social or political institution, the institution of private property is the primary mechanism by which we separate those activities and those choices which properly belong to government and those activities and choices which should be left within the jurisdiction and control of private citizens.

We will never limit the size and scope of government without clearly defined private property rights. Even the NDP wants to limit the size and scope of government. Nobody wants to live in a country in which the government has no limits on its power to intrude into our lives. The solution to intrusive government should be simple, but Canadians have no legal right to own property. The institution of private property does not exist in Canada.

In case any member of the House is unaware of the lack of constitutional protection for private property, I will provide some statements to my colleagues of various expert opinions on property rights in Canada:

The arbitrary taking of private property by the government without compensation would not seem to be justified. However, the law clearly gives the government the right to pass legislation that takes private property without providing compensation, if the law so states. In Canada there is no constitutional guarantee for compensation and the power of the government in this area is unlimited.

This was written by Gerald Lafreniere, Law and Government Division, Research Branch, Library of Parliament.

Here is another quote:

Several things are clear. The Charter has never before and still does not protect economic liberty or property rights. A deliberate choice was made to exclude them from the document...Those who assert that the Charter guarantees Canadians freedom to deal with their own property as they wish are flying in the face of unvarnished truth that the Charter does not even contain a freedom from State confiscation of Canadians' property.

This statement was made by Justice F. C. Muldoon in the judgment in Archibald v the Canadian Wheat Board case of April 11, 1997.

Here is another quote:

The product is a s. 7 in which liberty must be interpreted as not including property, as not including freedom of contract, and, in short, as not including economic liberty.

This was written by Professor Hogg. I think it speaks to the essential connection between economic liberty and property.

I could go on. There are many more legal scholars who repeat the same fact that Canadians lack the constitutional protection against the violation of their right to own property.

I will give some examples of property rights violations or potential violations in the country. I want to give the House a taste of the scope of the problem.

In 1996, farmer Andy McMechan was shackled, strip searched and imprisoned for five months for selling his grain, his property, without the approval of the Canadian Wheat Board. He was allowed to go home for Christmas only after surrendering his tractor to Canada Customs.

After January 1, 2001, 555,000 short-barrelled handguns will forcibly be confiscated as a result of an arbitrary government prohibition of these firearms. Law-abiding gun owners have been told to turn in an estimated $280 million worth of property for destruction or disposal and will not be compensated.

I will also share a personal example on the issue of private property, which I have spoken about before in the House. My family came here as refugees, as millions of other Canadians who have been in similar circumstances. When we had to leave the country of Uganda our property was completely confiscated. My parents lost everything they had worked for.

Granted, when we come to this country there is a respect of law and order and that gives people a great sense of hope and belief in the country. Why not strengthen that element of property rights, as being proposed in this bill by my colleague for Yorkton—Melville? It would put the hearts and minds of people, who have been through the terrible experience, as was my family, of losing everything due to the lack of concern for property, at rest.

I have another example of an organization that has worked hard to promote the idea of property rights, which was given the runaround by the Department of Revenue's charities division with a complete runaround. I bring up the case because it relates directly to property rights and to the Canadian Property Rights Research Institute.

The National Post nominated the charities division of Revenue Canada as the slowest moving department in Ottawa. I wish to also nominate the bureaucrat in charge of the department, Mr. Neil Barclay, for the dubious honour of being the laziest civil servant in the federal government today.

In processing the application for charitable registration by the Canadian Property Rights Research Institute, Mr. Barclay received over 20 phone calls and letters from opposition and government parliamentarians alike. After two and a half years of broken promises and delays, CanPRRI has been denied its application.

While Mr. Barclay was busy approving the applications of various other groups, the Canadian Property Rights Research Institute has been ignored and mistreated by a bureaucrat with an ideological bone to pick.

I hope the revenue minister will address this problem in the charities division and will insist on a departmental review of this application for charitable status. We know how important property rights are in the country and we need to continue to promote institutions that are willing to fight for them.

I have spoken today about a number of cases. My colleague for Yorkton—Melville spoke about the importance of property rights. We have a chance to make a decision today and work toward strengthening private property rights in the charter of rights and freedoms. I also call on my constituents and indeed all Canadians, who believe in the freedom of limited government, to demand that the government protect their fundamental rights to keep the products of their labour.

Property rights might seem abstract but the simple act of locking one's door at night is an exercise of private property.

Did you know, Mr. Speaker, that the campaign to end slavery in the United States was based on the principle of self-ownership, an idea that was advanced centuries earlier by philosopher John Locke. John Locke believed that the right to self-ownership is a foundation of the right to material property. I stress this point to assure my colleagues that the private property debate is not just about land and wealthy landowners; it is a debate that affects us all.

Unfortunately, many Canadians take property rights for granted and do not understand that real individual rights begin with the right to own and to control private property.

The members of the House can do something that would strengthen the institution of private property and guarantee that Canada remains a free and prosperous nation. They can work together to demand that the charter of rights and freedoms no longer excludes the protection for the fundamental right to own, use and enjoy private property.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 2nd, 1999]

moved:

Motion No. 23

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

[Canadian Tourism Commission Act, December 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague for his most passionate speech about his hometown of Chemainus. I can tell by the twinkle in your eye, Mr. Speaker, that you will be booking your next vacation to Chemainus. I know that warms the heart of my hon. colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan.

My colleague spoke quite eloquently about his hometown and all the hard work that has been done to create this thriving tourism hot spot.

As I said to my hon. colleague yesterday who made a similar speech on this topic, when it comes to the level of jurisdiction, I believe there is a role for all three levels of government, the municipal, provincial and federal government, in promoting tourism. Obviously tourism falls into provincial jurisdiction.

Does my hon. colleague think we could respect a balance between the provinces and the federal government in the role of promoting tourism in light of these changes?

[Canadian Tourism Commission Act, November 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed specifically to the area of jurisdiction. Maybe my hon. colleague has a particular comment to make on whether the province should be playing a larger role specifically in the area of tourism. Obviously there needs to be a combined effort. Our colleagues from the Bloc mentioned earlier this idea of having a stronger role for the provinces.

Where does my hon. colleague feel that debate should go in trying to strengthen tourism as well at the provincial level? What jurisdiction should that play?