Andrew Telegdi

[Speech From The Throne, March 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the minister on his speech. I certainly appreciate tying the economy in as we recognize economic growth is dependent on acceptable environmental practices.

I wonder if the minister would enlighten the House and expand on his department plans as they relate to the Arctic.

[Impaired Driving, March 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in December Statistics Canada reported the rate of people charged with impaired driving dropped in 1994 for the 11th consecutive year. More important, over the last decade there has been a steady drop in the number of alcohol related deaths.

Statistics Canada attributes the decrease mainly to a slow change in social norms brought about by government campaigns and the involvement of community groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

Many of the people involved with Mothers Against Drunk Driving are volunteers who have lost relatives and loved ones to the senseless carnage of drunk drivers. The efforts of these volunteers are most praiseworthy and laudable.

Impaired driving is the most frequently committed violent crime in this country. It has a far greater impact on society than any other crime.

We are still losing four Canadians a day because of impaired driving. These are preventable deaths.

We must continue the campaign until all Canadians know that impaired driving is not acceptable in Canada.

[Committee Of The Whole, February 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I guess it is politics as usual. I know when this 35th session of Parliament started we had promises of things being done differently from the Reform Party.

The opposition parties have referred to some appendices included in the red book. We hear the carping coming our way from the members of the third party. There were issues stated in the red book such as gun control which they very much wanted the government to oppose. We did not. We kept our promises.

They wanted us to reject the infrastructure program in the body of the red book. They wanted us to gut national health care. We had it in the red book. We kept those promises. They did not want us to keep our promise of reducing the deficit to 3 per cent of GDP in three years.

When they talk about some appendices of the red book, when they have done nothing but stand up and oppose what we have done in terms of keeping the commitments spelled out in the red book, it is a degree of hypocrisy in terms of the arguments. As far as personal attacks on the proposed junior officer, again I say to the Reform Party, shame.

[Reform Party, December 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, over the past two years it has become clear that the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois are flip sides of the same coin on the national unity issue.

The Reform Party is at it again. The leader of the Reform Party is now promoting American style impeachment rights. Canadians are getting sick and tired of the Reform Party's shameless self-promotion at the expense of Canada. The Gingrichs of the north are more interested in scoring cheap political points than in working together to solve the problems that face the country.

The Reform Party's idea of constitutional renewal and nation building is a wrecking ball. History will judge it as such when the party joins the ashes of the Social Credit movement from which it evolved.

The Reform Party should take a lesson from the over 150,000 Canadians who were at the Canada rally in Montreal on October 27 and get on side with nation building. Unless the Reform Party changes its tune it will be up Beaver Creek without a paddle.

[Constitutional Amendments Act, December 12th, 1995]

Madam Chair, it was less than two months ago, on October 30, when 50.6 per cent of Quebecers said no to separation and yes to Canada. The Canada votes would have been higher were it not for the fraudulent question, the fraudulent campaign and the questionable counting.

The leader of the Canada campaign was Daniel Johnson and the leader of the separatist campaign was originally Jacques Parizeau. The leader of the Bloc Quebecois displaced Mr. Parizeau as the leader of the separatists and proceeded to conduct a campaign of deceit and mistruths.

A week before the referendum the Canada side was 7 per cent behind in the polls, and the Prime Minister became highly active in the campaign. On October 24, to counter the winning campaign of the separatists, the Prime Minister promised at a rally in Verdun that changes would be made to recognize Quebec as a distinct society and to ensure that future constitutional change would require Quebec's approval. The Prime Minister's nationally televised address to the nation on October 25 helped mobilize Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

On October 27, more than 150,000 Canadians gathered in Montreal to express their love for Canada, a Canada that includes the province of Quebec. Among those at the rally, close to 600 were from my community. Had there been more buses available there would have been 2,000 people there. People from my community boarded buses at midnight on Thursday and did not get back home until midnight on Friday. They put their lives on hold for a day to go to Montreal to express their love for a Canada that includes Quebec.

The 150,000 Canadians at the Montreal rally supported the Prime Minister's promise for change. They will be the guardians of that promise.

On October 30, in spite of a fraudulent question, in spite of a fraudulent campaign, Canada won. The Prime Minister was instrumental in taking the pro-Canada side from a deficit of 7 per cent a week before the referendum to victory on referendum night.

The separatists blamed their loss on money and ethnics, ignoring the 40 per cent of French Quebec that voted yes to Canada and no to separation. The leader of the Bloc Quebecois and future premier of Quebec has stated that he is not in favour of constitutional change. He wants a Quebec that is separate from Canada.

The Prime Minister introduced a regional veto and distinct society clause through federal legislation, the only way he could keep his promise that there would be no constitutional change without Quebec's support. We approved the distinct society clause on Monday and will approve regional vetoes tomorrow.

The Prime Minister has delivered on his promises. On Monday evening the House of Commons approved the distinct society clause. The Bloc Quebecois voted against it saying that it gave nothing to Quebec. The Reform Party voted against it saying it gave too much to Quebec. The leader of the Bloc Quebecois and the separatists have been historically consistent in opposing distinct society for Quebec as they worked for the failure of Meech Lake and the Charlottetown accord.

The leader of the Reform Party and his followers have also opposed accommodating Quebec in Canada. While the Bloc Quebecois is trying to pull Quebec out of Canada, Reformers are trying to push Quebec out. The Reform Party aided and abetted the separatists before the referendum and is doing the same now.

Reformers would be revisionist historians who would deny the Quebec Act of 1774 where the British Parliament recognized the French language, civil code and the distinct culture of Quebec. The reality is that the formation of Canada was a miracle based on the coming together of two of Europe's leading peoples, the French and the English, with the accommodation of the First Nations. Without this coming together we would likely be part of the United States.

Our willingness to embrace a bilingual society is welcoming to new Canadians. We have evolved as a compassionate, humane and understanding country. Together we have built a country that the United Nations has judged on a number of occasions as the best country in the world in which to live. Canada is the country of choice of millions of would-be immigrants.

When we examine the demographics of Canada, 22.8 per cent of Canadians are of French origin; 20.8 per cent are of British origin; 1.7 per cent aboriginal and the remaining 54.7 per cent have roots in other countries, with half of those having multiple origins.

Canada represents a beacon of hope in a troubled world. We have built a country that has its make-up from the rest of the world. Canada is an example of civility and compassion, caring and sharing, tolerance and understanding.

Canada welcomed my family after the Hungarian revolution in 1957. We were refugees and Canada offered us refuge. My wife is a sixth generation Canadian whose roots go back to Ireland. My daughter is nine years old and all three of us are fiercely proud Canadians.

When my family first arrived in Canada we lived for the first five years in Vancouver, B.C. I am acutely aware that B.C. looks on itself as a distinct region of Canada. The fact that the regional veto was extended to B.C. shows the flexibility of the government's approach.

In the past 39 years I have had the opportunity to travel this country from coast to coast. I have watched the sunrise on Signal Hill St. John's, Newfoundland and have seen the sunset in Tofino on Vancouver Island. I have viewed the majesty of the Rockies and the vastness of the prairies, the wilds of northern Ontario and the beauty of the Great Lakes. For me the Gatineau hills, the St. Lawrence seaway, Isle d'Orleans, old Montreal, the Quebec winter festival give meaning to la belle province. I have enjoyed the quaintness of Prince Edward Island, the beauty of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. I have much more to see and I am awestruck at the beauty of my country.

Early this past October, a delegation from Waterloo, Quebec, visited Waterloo, Ontario, for a twinning ceremony. Bernard Provencher, mayor of Waterloo, Quebec, informed the people at the twinning ceremony: "If by some magical way we could have all Quebecers experience the hospitality that we have experienced these last few days and do it in reverse and have Canadians outside Quebec visit Quebec then we would not even have this referendum on what we already own".

The two mayors a couple of weeks later exchanged their flags in the Prime Minister's office and stated that they would fly the flags at their respective city halls in the hope that Canada would remain united. The two Waterloos are an example of how communities from across the country need to foster exchanges to promote goodwill and understanding among Canadians. Canada is a miracle we cannot take for granted. We must nurture it, build it and strengthen it.

The distinct society recognition for Quebec which was passed by the House on Monday and the regional veto clause which will be passed tomorrow are federal laws, not constitutional amendments. Constitutional review must take place in 1997. It will be then that the federal government will review the Constitution with the provinces.

Historically, constitutional change has been a point of division among Canadians. It was for this reason that the fathers of Confederation could not agree on a constitutional amending

formula when Canada was founded in 1867. Constitutional amendments tend to bring out regional grievances that test our mettle as a nation. It is easy for opposition members to criticize, as they can attack everything and be responsible for nothing.

In putting forward the distinct society resolution and the regional veto we did not expect the separatists across the aisle to support it. They want to separate. They want to tear up Canada. Their leader, the Quebec premier in waiting, has already made it abundantly clear that no constitutional amendments will be acceptable to his government.

The neo-separatist Reform Party does not want to support the government's initiative. The Reformers lust after official opposition status. They dream of forming a government in a Canada without Quebec. The Reformers helped the Bloc Quebecois before the referendum and they are helping them now.

We believe the majority of Quebecers and the majority of Canadians will support the government's initiatives. Distinct society and the regional veto are issues that have to be dealt with quickly so the government can focus its attention on the economy and getting people back to work.

Last week the media reported on a CROP poll conducted in Quebec. When Quebecers were asked directly whether the government should focus its attention on the economy or the Constitution, 86 per cent said the economy and only 10 per cent the Constitution. Four per cent had no response. Clearly, Canadians from Quebec and Canadians from the rest of Canada have a lot in common.

In July 1982 Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau succeeded in giving Canadians their Constitution. He was assisted in his efforts by the present Prime Minister who was then the justice minister. They were both attacked for their accomplishments by the separatists who would tear Canada apart. Mr. Trudeau and the current Prime Minister are distinguished Quebecers who, during the quiet revolution, helped transform Quebec from a society dominated by Duplessis and the church into a modern society, but the separatists questioned their Quebec roots.

The situation reminded me of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, our first French Canadian Prime Minister, who during the election of 1911 set out the frustrations that beset him as he tried to follow the middle path in politics: "I am branded in Quebec as a traitor of the French, and in Ontario as a traitor of the English. In Quebec I am branded as a jingo, and in Ontario as a separatist. In Quebec I am attacked as an imperialist, and Ontario as an anti-imperialist. I am neither. I am a Canadian".

Canada is an example to the world. It is made up of peoples from around the world who have together built a country which is the best in the world.

Vive le Québec. Vive le Canada. Vive le Canada uni.

[Banks, December 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the big banks would like to sell insurance directly to their customers.

Many Canadians are worried about concentrating economic power in the hands of a few large banks, putting the safety of the financial system at risk.

In changing the Bank Act, the government should be careful not to reduce competition. Consumers would suffer from reduced choice in the financial industry. Banks selling insurance would have an unfair advantage over insurance companies. Insurance companies are not entitled to have the same government guarantees the banks have, including Canada deposit insurance. Banks will also have an unfair advantage if they are allowed to use confidential client information to help sell insurance.

Any changes to the Bank Act must be fair to the insurance companies and must protect the consumer. Banks should stick to their mandate and start lending money to small businesses, the engine of the country's economy.

Rather than letting the banks expand into insurance, we should tax their record profits and force them to lend more money to small businesses.

[Supply, December 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I referred to the decisions he made when he was a cabinet minister in the government of the Social Credit Party. Clearly, he is a perfect case in point as to how a reasonable person of the Social Credit Party can be transformed into a Reformer who does not make sense.

[Supply, December 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the whole treaty process is about making sure we give people a hand up and not a hand out. We want to end the dependence which has taken place over too many years while the treaties have not been solved. The native community has not had the opportunity to make a contribution and be self-sufficient.

There have been many questions regarding the legal basis for settling comprehensive land claims and what their status is. I can say that the 1973 Supreme Court ruling in the Calder case acknowledged existence of aboriginal title in Canadian law. More recently in the Sparrow case the Supreme Court has recognized constitutionality protecting the aboriginal rights to fish for food.

Since 1973, as a result of a number of court rulings the Government of Canada has as a matter of policy negotiated settlements with aboriginal groups that assert aboriginal title and where there is some evidence of continuing title. The Constitution Act, 1982 affirms and recognizes existing aboriginal treaty rights.

We want to end uncertainty associated with unsettled land claims. By addressing it we produce certainty. The production of that certainty would result in jobs and investment and a healthier B.C. economy.

Various studies have indicated that $1 billion in investment are forgone in the resource industries. Thousands of jobs could be made available if the treaty process were to be successfully conclude.

In terms of whether the people are representing their stakeholders, I would say that yes they are. Beyond that I would like to draw attention to the 31 members who are part of the treaty negotiations advisory committee. They virtually cover the whole section of the economic activity in British Columbia: the B.C. Shellfish Growers Association, the B.C. Fishing Resorts Association, sports fishing institutions, the Steelhead Society of B.C., the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the Community Fishing Industry Council, Fisheries Council of B.C., the United Fishermen, northern fishing representatives, the Interior Forest Industry Coalition. There is representation from the unions, the Industrial Woodworkers of America, a fine union I was a member of at one point. There is the B.C. Real Estate Association, the B.C. Federation of Agriculture and the list goes on and on.

It would seem to me that at some point we have to have some trust in the process. We have to end this injustice which has existed, and a costly injustice I might say. All studies have shown that economically British Columbia is suffering from the uncertainty. We want to establish some certainty on this question and give justice to the native people which I believe is long overdue.

[Supply, December 7th, 1995]

My apologies, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to support the comments made by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on the importance of treaty negotiations. As members of this House are aware, only a small minority of First Nations in the province of B.C. have ever signed treaties with the crown.

On lower Vancouver Island several First Nations signed treaties with Governor Douglas in the middle of the 19th century. By the end of the century the Peace River district was included in Treaty No. 8 signed by the Government of Canada.

In the past two decades the Nisga'a Tribal Council has been actively negotiating with the federal and provincial governments. When these negotiations are completed and an agreement is signed, it will be the first treaty with B.C.'s First Nations signed in this century.

We are approaching the threshold of the next century. British Columbians want to approach the 21st century secure in the knowledge that the unfinished business of the 19th century has been completed.

The land claims of British Columbia's First Nations must be resolved because resolving these issues creates an environment of certainty. Certainty means economic growth and job creation. Settling land and resource issues creates an environment for investment and increased local economic activity.

Over the past few years we have made a great deal of progress toward resolving this unfinished business. In 1990 the federal and provincial governments and the leaders of the B.C. First Nations agreed to establish a task force that would map out a negotiation process that would accommodate the many First Nations in B.C. that wanted to negotiate settlements.

The task force reported on June 28, 1991 with 19 recommendations. All of them were accepted by the First Nations summit, Canada and British Columbia. One of the key recommendations was to establish the British Columbia Treaty Commission or BCTC as an arm's length keeper of the process. I would remind the House that the current leader of the B.C. Reform Party was one of the key architects of this process. I congratulate him on his vision and wisdom.

The agreement committed the principles to establish the BCTC through the passage of federal and provincial statutes and the resolution of the summit. As my colleagues know, Bill C-107 was passed by the House last week and has now been put before in the other place.

The commissioners began their valuable work on December 15, 1993 and have made considerable progress. Forty-seven First Nations groups are involved in the BCTC process to date. They represent over 70 per cent of the First Nations of the province, with more likely to become involved in the near future.

The BCTC consists of five commissioners, two nominated by the First Nations summit, one by the provincial government and one by the Government of Canada. The chief commissioner is duly selected and appointed by all three of the principals.

The First Nations summit includes all First Nations in B.C. that have agreed to participate in the BCTC six-stage treaty negotiation process. The summit provides a forum for First Nations involved in the treaty process to meet and discuss treaty negotiations. It worked closely with the federal and provincial governments in the development of the treaty negotiation process and in the establishment of the BCTC.

As one of the principles of the process it continues to provide direction along with the governments of Canada and British Columbia. The B.C. summit chiefs believe that negotiation rather than confrontation and litigation is the best way to solve outstanding issues. It is unfortunate that the Reform Party does not think the same.

I would like to tell the House a bit about the men and women who have offered to serve Canada, B.C. and the summit as the BCTC commissioners. Carole Corcoran was elected by the First Nations summit as one of the first treaty commissioners. She also sat on the royal commission on Canada's future in 1990-91 and serves on the board of governors at the University of Northern British Columbia. Unfortunately Ms. Corcoran has recently resigned.

On October 4, the First Nations summit chiefs selected Miles Richardson of Haida Gwaii to succeed Ms. Corcoran as the second First Nation treaty commissioner. Mr. Richardson was a member of the B.C. claims task force which reported to the governments of Canada, B.C. and First Nations on how the parties could begin negotiations to build a new partnership. From 1991 to 1993 Mr. Richardson was part of the First Nations summit task group, an executive body reporting to the First Nations in B.C. on treaty negotiations.

The First Nations summit has also elected as one of its commissioners Wilf Adam of the Lake Babine Indian Band. Mr. Adam is a

former chief councillor of the band. He is chairman of the Burns Lake Native Development Corporation and is co-founder of the Burns Lake Law Centre.

British Columbia has appointed Barbara Fisher, formerly general counsel and Vancouver director of the Office of the Ombudsman. She currently practices part time as counsel to the B.C Information and Privacy Commission.

Since last April the Government of Canada's representative to the commission has been Peter Lusztig. Dr. Lusztig has been a professor of finance at the University of British Columbia and also brings considerable breadth of experience from the community. He has sat on the B.C. Royal Commission on Automobile Insurance and the B.C. Commission of Inquiry on the Tree Fruit Industry. In 1991 he also chaired the Asia Pacific Initiative Advisory Committee struck by the federal and provincial governments.

Since last May the chief commissioner has been Mr. Alec Robertson, QC. The legal community is familiar with his past work as president of the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association, chairman of the Law Foundation of B.C. and as a member of the Gender Equality Task Force of the Canadian Bar Association. Mr. Robertson spoke eloquently on Bill C-107 before the standing committee.

The House will recognize that the BCTC consists of five distinguished British Columbians. They are doing excellent work to ensure that the comprehensive claims process moves along in a timely and orderly manner.

The commission oversees the six-stage treaty negotiation process which includes: one, statement of intent; two, preparation for negotiations; three; negotiation of a framework agreement; four, negotiation of an agreement in principle; five, negotiation to finalize a treaty; and six, implementation of the treaty.

The commission assesses the readiness of the parties to negotiate. This involves making sure that the First Nations have the resources they require to make their case. It also includes ensuring that the federal and provincial governments have established regional advisory committees so that the interests of the local residents who are not aboriginal can be heard.

These regional advisory committees are part of an extensive and responsible effort to keep the public and all affected third parties informed of the developments in the negotiations as well as to ensure the advice of all sectors of B.C. society is considered. Other efforts include newsletters, public information meetings, a 1-800 number, numerous speaking engagements, information brochures and other publications, and participation in trade shows. The Sechelt negotiations are televised.

The commission allocates loan funding to enable First Nations to participate in the process. It works with all parties to ensure that they get on with the job in a timely manner. If required and if agreed to by all parties, the commission will assist the parties to obtain dispute resolution services if the negotiations seem to be reaching an impasse.

Finally, the commission helps ensure that the process remains open and accountable. It prepares and maintains a public record on the status of negotiations, and it reports to this House on that status. Its annual reports are tabled in this House. In summary, the B.C. Treaty Commission facilitates treaty negotiations; it is not a party to the negotiations.

I am sure that members on both sides of this House would agree that settlement of land claims in British Columbia is long overdue. British Columbia is home to 17 per cent of Canada's aboriginal population, yet treaties have been signed with only a small minority of First Nations there. The question of land issues surrounding undefined aboriginal rights must be brought to a successful conclusion.

The federal government is committed to settling land claims in a fair and equitable manner for aboriginal people as well as third parties and the general public. I urge the House to vote down this regressive and spiteful motion.

[Supply, December 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I was hoping there would be some Reform members in the House to witness-