Lost his last election, in 2006, with 33% of the vote.
Aboriginal Affairs April 30th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development finally admitted yesterday, after persistent questioning, that there was no protection for aboriginal women, for Nisga'a women, in the Nisga'a treaty. He also admitted that the Nisga'a laws on land matters would take precedence over all other laws in Canada.
Why has the government lost the opportunity and abandoned the rights of Nisga'a women in the Nisga'a treaty?
Aboriginal Affairs April 29th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary to the minister of Indian affairs continues to try and persuade us that provincial laws will apply when it comes to the rights of Nisga'a women.
I want to read to him chapter 2, section 13(a) which states:
in the event of an inconsistency or conflict between this Agreement and the provisions of any federal or provincial law, this Agreement will prevail—
I ask the parliamentary secretary again, why has the government abandoned the rights of Nisga'a women when it negotiated this historic treaty?
Aboriginal Affairs April 29th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the hon. member read the entire treaty because he is not correct. The minister of British Columbia who was responsible for putting this agreement together, Dale Lovick, has said that this treaty is effectively silent when it comes to women's rights and women's issues. Why is this government effectively silent? Why has it not stood to defend the rights of Nisga'a women when it comes to matrimonial property?
Aboriginal Affairs April 29th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, when we asked the minister of Indian affairs in this House why there is no protection for Nisga'a women's rights in the Nisga'a treaty, the minister responded by saying that provincial laws will apply.
I would like to read to the House a quote from Dale Lovick, the NDP MLA, who stated in the April 15 debate in the legislature of British Columbia: “The Nisga'a treaty, to all intents and purposes, is silent on the issue of discrimination against women. It is effectively silent”.
Why did the government negotiate an agreement that is effectively silent on the rights of Nisga'a women?
Aboriginal Affairs April 28th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, perhaps if the minister would talk to the grassroots Nisga'a people instead of the chief, she would get the real story. Those people are concerned about their rights. Those Nisga'a women are concerned about their matrimonial rights. The minister by this agreement is slamming the door on the possibility of their ever having equal rights that all other Canadian women have.
I ask the minister again, why is she prepared to enter into an agreement that is going to rob these Nisga'a women of their rights that all other Canadian women enjoy?
Aboriginal Affairs April 28th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister admitted in the House that aboriginal women do not enjoy the same rights as all other Canadian women in this country. She admitted that in the event of a marriage breakdown, aboriginal women most often do not have access to the matrimonial home She admitted that the Nisga'a treaty does nothing to redress this. As a matter of fact it slams the door on Nisga'a women ever having these rights.
Why is the minister prepared to ratify this treaty when it slams the door on Nisga'a women having the right to matrimonial property as all other Canadian women enjoy?
Aboriginal Affairs April 27th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the minister of Indian affairs knows that aboriginal women do not enjoy the same rights as ordinary Canadian women across the country. She knows that in the event of a marital breakdown, most often it is the aboriginal woman who is out of the house and on the street, and often with the children.
Why is it that the minister and the government negotiated a treaty with the Nisga'a that does nothing to address this problem and makes it out of reach that this could ever be entrenched as rights for aboriginal women in the future?
Privilege April 26th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege with regard to the member for Provencher who on Thursday, April 22, 1999, deliberately divulged information from an in camera meeting of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The evidence is prima facie and is now a part of the record of the House, recorded at page 14225 of Hansard . The member made a reference to something I said at that standing committee meeting, and I quote:
—when in the standing committee he was arguing to have the budget tripled and to move quickly on the Nisga'a treaty.
He went on to say:
I reiterate that the member for Skeena asked for a tripling or a doubling of the budget of the standing committee on Indian affairs to bring in people and to hear witnesses on this particular issue.
The meeting he was quoting from was an in camera meeting of the Standing Committee of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, which was held on April 13, 1999. Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 851, reads:
When a committee chooses to meet in camera , all matters are confidential. Any departure from strict confidentiality should be by explicit committee decision which should deal with what matters should be published, in which form and by whom.
Without divulging the discussion of the in camera meeting, I will only say the committee did not make a decision to make the minutes public.
What is further disturbing, and I would add a further contempt, is the fact that the member has misrepresented the confidential information by also misquoting me.
Since I cannot divulge the confidential minutes of the committee, I can correct the record of Hansard which is public. The member should have accurately quoted me as saying that I urged the committee to increase the base funding being proposed by the Indian affairs committee at that time because the Nisga'a legislation was coming down and I wanted to ensure that we had adequate funds available for the committee to travel to British Columbia. I in no way asked that the committee move quickly on the Nisga'a treaty, as the parliamentary inaccurately stated.
On April 20, 1999 the matter of the government leaking a government response to a report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs was raised in the House. The next day the government House leader apologized for the leak and assured the House it would not happen again.
The very next day after he issued that apology, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development stood in the House and quoted from an in camera meeting. The apology from the government House leader has just been negated by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The House must take action and protect its authority and the authority of its committees. If you rule this to be a prima facie question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to move the following motion:
That the hon. member for Provencher, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, be charged with contempt and ordered to appear before the bar of the House to be admonished by the Chair for breaching the confidentiality of the in camera meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development held on April 13, 1999.
Aboriginal Affairs April 26th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the minister should get her facts right. Only 2,300 actually live in my constituency.
The minister knows that for this treaty to be successful she must have public confidence and she knows that the people of British Columbia are appalled at the ratification process. She knows that the Nisga'a people themselves are appalled and have said that this process is badly tainted.
How can she possibly proceed with legislation in the House when she knows that the people of British Columbia and the Nisga'a people have said that this process is so badly tainted?
Aboriginal Affairs April 26th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, last Thursday B.C. Liberals walked out of the legislature in protest over the cutoff of debate. Even Frank Barton, a Nisga'a band member says that grassroots Nisga'a people have not been heard from. Respected Nisga'a elder statesman Frank Calder has said that the process has been badly tainted.
Does the minister still intend to bring this legislation into this House when everybody we have heard from in British Columbia says that the process is so badly tainted?