Darrel Stinson

[Petitions, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my second petition was signed by 244 persons from my riding of Okanagan—Shuswap.

The petitioners ask parliament to change Canada's immigration laws to quickly separate genuine refugees from those trying to take advantage of our system.

[Petitions, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present three petitions. The first petition is signed by persons mostly from the Vernon and Armstrong areas of my riding of Okanagan—Shuswap.

The petitioners ask parliament to reject the Nisga'a treaty because it may divide Canadians forever.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 13th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's speech. I have one question for the hon. member with regard to the treaty and land. What does the member say to the Gitanyow with regard to their land claims being lost over this treaty? What does he say to those people now that we have taken their land away from them?

[Criminal Code, December 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have more of a comment to make than a question. When lawyers talk about that what they live for is rewriting the criminal code, I want the member to know that they scare the living daylights out of ordinary citizens. I say that in all honesty.

I cannot see why those under 18 would not be charged the same. A life is a life. When one is old enough to drive one is old enough to take responsibilities. An impaired driver who drives a vehicle is actually handling a weapon. It is the choice that one makes when one decides to drive impaired.

[Aboriginal Affairs, December 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in 14 different instances self-government rights in the Nisga'a treaty provide “In the event of an inconsistency or conflict between the Nisga'a law and federal or provincial laws, the Nisga'a law will prevail”.

How can the government award the Nisga'a or anybody else the right to make laws which are superior, not just to provincial laws, but also superior to the laws of Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that intervention in regard to having a quorum in the House. After all, the government is supposed to listen, even though we know better. It has not happened in the House before. I do not expect it to happen now.

The previous speaker spoke basically on the Indian Act. I want to remind everybody who may be listening that the Indian Act, as we know it, has been strictly enforced by the Liberal government and by the previous Conservative government. The problem lies directly at their feet and at nobody else's. In regard to the Nisga'a agreement, nowhere in the agreement do I see that this will rectify the wrongs that have been done under the Indian Act.

I heard the previous government speaker talk about his travel to Vancouver and other parts of British Columbia. I live in British Columbia. I worked out of the New Aiyansh area in the Nass. I talked to a number of people there. I also had the opportunity and pleasure of having lunch with the Nisga'a chief and council and have met with them a number of times. We have politely agreed to disagree on this issue.

There are a number of concerns. I would also like everybody out there to understand that the hon. member for Skeena also has to represent many people in his riding. There is great concern in regard to the native populace, the Gitksan and the Gitanyow, about this so-called agreement. Their concern is that they are not being heard. They have claimed that parts of their land are being taken away. I can see nothing but ongoing confusion and ongoing law cases. As a matter of fact, I have come to the conclusion that the only certainty of livelihood in regard to the Nisga'a agreement will be the livelihood of a good living for the lawyers. I have absolutely no doubt that it will be an ongoing situation.

We also heard that this was the most studied and most heard piece of legislation in B.C. history. Let me give members an example of how the B.C. government worked with this. Very quietly it said is was going to hold consultations. There was absolutely no advertisement and no agenda. Nothing was put forward to the people of British Columbia so they would know who to get hold of or where to go for the hearings. When I found out about this I took the opportunity to advertise it in the local media in our constituency. They had no idea that this would be taking place. Through that advertisement, they were able to turn out for the hearings. Even the Government of British Columbia said the Salmon Arm turnout was the biggest it had in regard to the Nisga'a agreement.

Following up on that, we did a number of questionnaires and polls in the constituency of Okanagan—Shuswap on the Nisga'a agreement. Here are some of the results. I will read the questions so the people can understand.

Question one: “Do you believe the public has had an adequate opportunity to provide input into the Nisga'a treaty?”; 1,010 no, 106 yes and do not know 15.

Question two: “Do you believe that the people of British Columbia should have the right to vote on the principles of the Nisga'a treaty in a provincial referendum?”; 1,142 yes, they should have that right; only 92 voted no.

Question three: “How do you want your federal member of parliament to vote on this treaty in the House of Commons?”; 1,134 to vote against it; 91 in support; 8 to support if changes are made; 5 do not know.

That is a rough idea of what it is like in British Columbia in regard to the Nisga'a treaty and the ongoing debate. The people of British Columbia are very concerned with the lack of consultation with them and the unconstitutional move of not being allowed to vote on the Nisga'a treaty.

Before I go further in this debate, I want to go on record as saying that if this attitude of the government keeps up and if it thinks it has trouble now with the separatist talk and separatist movement in Quebec, it had better be well aware of the feelings in British Columbia right now, which are along those same lines. This is what I hear in British Columbia and it really concerns me. They are forcing the people of British Columbia to sit back and say that Ottawa really does not care what happens beyond those mountains, let alone west of Winnipeg. The people of British Columbia have a legitimate reason to have these concerns. They feel that if they cannot get legislation from the government that is beneficial for British Columbia, then why do they need this part of Canada to represent them. I have to question that myself.

I have a number of letters from my constituents with regard to the Nisga'a agreement. These are from people who were not allowed to be heard in the travelling dog and pony show of the Liberal standing committee on this matter. The Liberals said they debated, but they chose who would be heard.

I and I think everybody should have great concern over who was chosen. When the Liberals refused to listen to an ex-premier of British Columbia who sat in on the negotiations of the Nisga'a agreement when he was premier, when the Government of Canada refuses to allow that gentleman to sit in on these hearings and have a say, I think everyone in Canada should be concerned, not just us on this side.

We have heard from other members about how good the Nisga'a agreement will be. I have had the opportunity to speak to many Nisga'a who are not in favour of the agreement, particularly the women. They have grave concerns. I do not understand the NDP in the House not meeting with these people and listening to their concerns. They have real concerns about what could happen to them if the treaty goes through this way, if these land claims are to be furthered this way. They have grave concerns about what is going on here. I really wish they had the opportunity and time to talk to some of these people.

I have also talked to members of the aboriginal community who have actually been threatened if they showed up at these hearings. If they say anything, threats are made against them and their children. I have not heard that mentioned in the House.

When people ask me if I have concerns with regard to the Nisga'a agreement, I tell them that I have many and my constituents have many.

I have a letter from Mr. Hal Finlay. He says that the white paper that was presented by Prime Minister Trudeau and the then minister of Indian affairs, now the Prime Minister, in the early 1960s was on the right track. We have gone off that track. He has grave concerns about where we are going here with regard to the Nisga'a treaty.

In conclusion, I just want to stress to the House that the path the government is following on this is alienating the people of British Columbia. It should remember that and remember that I said it here.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting in the House listening to the debate at the report stage of Bill C-9. Most of what the previous member who spoke said pertains to the Indian Act. I do not think there is anybody in the House—

[Petitions, December 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the fourth petition I wish to table today is from more than 1,000 people from the riding of Okanagan—Shuswap.

They are concerned about the environmental effects of the Canadian Coast Guard authorizing the sale of gasoline through a gas station floating in the narrows of the Shuswap Lake. They ask parliament to ban floating gas stations on Shuswap Lake.

[Petitions, December 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition I am pleased to table today is signed by 278 people from the riding of Okanagan—Shuswap.

They ask parliament to change Canada's immigration laws to quickly separate genuine refugees from those trying to take advantage of our system.

[Petitions, December 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by 249 persons from the riding of Okanagan—Shuswap.

They ask for tax relief of 25% over the next three years, leading the way to job creation, economic growth and the reduction of poverty.