Darrel Stinson

[Petitions, December 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure today to table four petitions.

The first petition contains 134 signatures of people mostly from the Vernon and Armstrong areas of my riding. They are asking parliament to reject the Nisga'a treaty because it may divide Canadians forever.

[Civil International Space Station Agreement Implementation Act, November 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-4. I want everybody to understand that we support the broad thrust of the bill. However, we have some concerns and I have some particular concerns with regard to the bill.

One is the priorizing of spending. We are looking at approximately $1 billion. Another concern is that we do not know what the actual cost will be to the Canadian taxpayer.

For that kind of money I think we should have at least had some consultation with regard to the spending of it with perhaps some of the poorer people, the working poor of Canada. Instead the government said that it would be done, what it would spend, and that it would be coming out of the pockets of taxpayers, for we all know the government does not have money of its own.

One of my concerns with respect to Bill C-4 is the lack of consultation. Speaking of consultation kind of brings up another sore point with me. The other day debate was closed on Bill C-9, an area in which we are looking at reshaping Canada to a large extent.

Where was the consultation on that? It was about the same as it was for Bill C-4. Actually we are getting more on Bill C-4, at least on debate. On Bill C-9, the Nisga'a agreement, we had only four hours and 12 minutes before closure was brought in on debate. At least on Bill C-4 we seem to be able to talk all day because we all seem to be in agreement on it. The dictatorial might and hand of the government has allowed us to carry on this debate.

Let us look at what it did on Bill C-9 in reference to Bill C-4 and consultation. The government signed the agreement in Bill C-4 on January 29, 1998. Yet at no time did it come before parliament until now. I have to wonder how much consultation was done there with regard to Bill C-4.

Certainly on Bill C-9, the Nisga'a claims, we have had far less. We are saying now that we actually forced the government from this side to grant committee hearings in the great province of British Columbia, the province that will be directly impacted by the Nisga'a agreement.

Although we got agreement from the government on consultation through committee hearings, it put a bit of a codicil at the bottom with regard to who would speak there and what their concerns would be. If they are not rubber stamped by the government they cannot come forward as witnesses with regard to Bill C-9 and the concerns in British Columbia over the Nisga'a agreement.

The government is saying to the Canadian public that it will send out a committee for some hearings. It will pick and choose which cities it will go to for the hearings and exactly who will be heard from. If this is consultation, I have real concerns about where we are going.

I raise this matter because one person who should have been looked at very closely with regard to the committee hearings and what is happening in the province of British Columbia, everybody in the House must agree, would have to be an ex-premier of that province, one who sat in government for years and was the premier of British Columbia. His name is Bill Vander Zalm. Yet the committee has absolutely stamped not a good witness upon Mr. Vander Zalm and he will not be able to go before committee. I think a great atrocity has been done there.

It is the same for Bill C-4. When we look at Bill C-4 and what property rights are protected in it, we have no answer. In the same way we do not have an answer in the Nisga'a agreement with regard to property rights. One of the big concerns in the Nisga'a agreement was for private property rights given to the individual Nisga'a people, particularly with regard to any spousal disagreement or break up of marriage. In most cases it is usually the woman who takes the hardest blow. In the Nisga'a agreement there is no protection there. I have to wonder why there were no property rights put into that agreement. It creates grave concern.

It is the same in Bill C-4. We looked at intellectual property rights. We do not see where they are protected in Bill C-4 either.

It started out that we would have five hours of open debate in the House, 20 minute speeches. Then all of a sudden we were cut down to 10 minute speeches with no questions and comments. The Nisga'a agreement was cut to even less than that, which is something that will have far greater impact upon the country than a space station.

I listened to some government members who said that these were the rules. When we were elected to the House of Commons we were originally sent here to help make and shape the rules so that they would apply equally to everyone. Unfortunately members on the other side of the House still do not have this through their heads yet. They have rules for some that differ greatly from rules for others.

For example, most people in Canada fall under property rights and that aspect of marriage. There are some rights for both spouses in case of marriage break up. In the Nisga'a agreement that is not the case. There is no protection. There is one right for one part of society and another right for another part of society. I do not understand why the government which says that it has a caring, sharing nature has not looked very closely at this matter, allowed the debate to continue, and at least had a broad discussion with the people of British Columbia.

Not only the people of British Columbia should have concerns about the Nisga'a agreement. It should be all Canadians. It will be all of them. It will be everyone. It will be the people of Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Quebec. They will pick up the tab for this. It will not just be the people of British Columbia.

The government likes to say that it will pick up the tab. The government has no money. It only has the money that it can rip off working people. That is the only money it has. The government knows that and I think the working people of Canada are starting to realize that is the case. All they have to do is look at their paycheques to see how much in taxes are being ripped off by this caring, sharing government in Ottawa. There is absolutely no doubt about that.

Let us have a look at the Nisga'a agreement. Let us just see how caring and sharing the government is. How concerned is it really? This agreement is being put in place basically in the northwest part of British Columbia, but where is the government to hold some of the hearings? It will hold some of them in Victoria and Vancouver, British Columbia. I have news for Liberal members. That is a long way from Nisga'a country. It is a long way from a lot of the concern.

We asked if the government would not hold some hearings in another part of British Columbia, in the Okanagan Valley where we will feel an impact from the agreement. The answer was no. The government absolutely refused to do that. I would like to see the committee at least spend more than four days in the great province of British Columbia. I do not know if the government thinks that it is only the size of Prince Edward Island or if it the size of a smaller area. I do not think it fully understands that the size of British Columbia, as the third largest province in Canada, is extensive.

For something that will forever impact the people of Canada for generations, the government will only allow three or four days. I have concerns about that. It goes to show us in the west that we have the right attitude. Once they get to Ottawa representatives from other parts of the country have absolutely no idea where British Columbia is. They have no idea of what are the problems in British Columbia. They have no idea about what the impact will be upon the people of British Columbia.

As a matter of fact I will pre-warn my staff that perhaps we should get a bunch of maps and draw British Columbia on them in a different colour so that government members will at least know where it is. I have news for them. It is just over on the other side of the Rocky Mountains. They should know it well. They have ripped the people off there for their money for years and years. They should at least get to know the province and get to know that it is a large area.

For those who say that they can accomplish what they are trying to accomplish in three or four days I think they should give, and we like to talk about space stations, the empty space between their ears a shake.

[Civil International Space Station Agreement Implementation Act, November 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I particularly appreciate what the member said in regard to his concerns for the working poor who have to pay taxes, the poor people of the country, over top of the space station.

This was signed on January 29, 1998 by Canada and a number of other countries with no consultation in the House. It was not brought before the people. Now we can look at the consultation that is supposed to be going on in British Columbia with regard to the Nisga'a agreement.

With regard to consultation by the Liberal government, which it likes to say that it has out there, is the hon. member aware that there will be four meetings in British Columbia, none in the Okanagan and only witnesses that the government approves with its okay stamp to appear with regard to the agreement?

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, November 1st, 1999]

Well, he didn't go out to the meeting about it, did he?

[Agriculture, October 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it was a very simple question. Will you put trade barriers at the top of your priority in Seattle in order for our farmers and all of our trade people in Canada to benefit? The answer is either yes or no. It is simple.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, October 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today to Bill C-9 and to the amendment to hold it up for six months, which I think is an extremely good idea. One of the reasons I say this is that most of us from B.C. know that the issue of the Nisga'a treaty will come before the courts. A number of court cases are already pending.

We are here today in the House trying to debate a bill that our democratically elected government has put time allocation on. We do not have enough time to speak on it and to bring all the issues forward to properly inform the people of Canada with regard to what is going on here.

The treaty was jammed through in British Columbia without the consent of the people of British Columbia. It was not brought to the people of British Columbia. The hon. members of the NDP should remember that the instigator, the premier of the province at that time, has now resigned in disgrace over this issue and a number of other issues.

I have a a lot of difficulty with this because of four reasons. First, since B.C. fulfilled all of its obligations to our Indians before it entered confederation, Ottawa alone should bear all the costs of the Nisga'a treaty, including reimbursing the province for fair market value of the additional land and natural resources involved. This is very critical. The treaty will not cost just the people in British Columbia, it will cost everyone in Canada. When British Columbia entered into confederation, the federal government at that time said that it would take over Indian affairs. This is just one of the arguments.

Second, all the people in British Columbia, not just the Nisga'a people, should have the right to vote on this. I shall clarify that. Not all of the Nisga'a people voted on this. Some were not allowed to vote on it.

Third, due to the sweeping changes the treaty proposes, it should be subject to periodic review, perhaps every five or ten years, rather than being entrenched as it stands now in Canada's constitution. I say that because we have lived for a number of years under basically two governments in the country, the Liberals and the Conservatives. We have seen what they have done to the country. We have seen what they have done with regard to the Indian Act. They still believe that this is a workable document. They have gone on for years and years holding up our native people, holding up the reserves and holding up the process of the Indian Act as a great workable document for the people of the country.

However, we know it is a failure. We have heard time after time from speakers from all parties in the House about just how detrimental it has been to our Indian population in Canada. That is one of the reasons why, before we sign off on all these agreements, that we should have reviews every five to ten years.

My fourth and final point is that the B.C. legislature and parliament are legally required to pass, amend or defeat this and other modern day treaties yet to come because it is our responsibility to ensure the legislation is as good as we can make it rather than merely rubber-stamping it, which is exactly what we are doing here. We are just rubber-stamping the document.

The government is not open. It has already said that it will not accept amendments. I have no doubt that it will bring in closure when it goes committee. It will try to ram this through. It has said in the paper that it will try to get this through before Christmas. They stand over there and say that this is not so, but it has been stated in the papers.

If that is not rubber-stamping, if that is not forcing an issue, if that is not showing total disregard for the people of British Columbia, I do not know what is. It is not only total disregard for the people of British Columbia but, in my humble opinion, also for the Nisga'a people.

I had the honour and privilege of visiting the Nisga'a country and meeting with the chiefs. I had lunch with them and talked with them. We decided to disagree very politely in regard to a number of these issues.

After having travelled through the Nisga'a country and visiting New Aiyansh, I visited the bordering reserves and met with many of their chiefs. They had great concerns about the treaty because it infringed on their traditional territory. Here we have other bands saying that the agreement infringes on their territory and the government just sits over there and goes ahead with it anyway.

When the agreement hits the court, the government will say “We didn't know that. Nobody told us that or put that out”. Well, we have and I want the government to remember that.

I also want hon. members on the other side to realize that British Columbia is a part of Canada. When it comes to an issue of this importance, where we are basically reshaping and redefining how Canada will look on maps and how the laws will apply in different parts of Canada, I would really think that a government that says it is so concerned about the well-being of Canada, of its people and of the native population in the country would at least have the common decency to sit in the House. However, government members do not. They just leave. Hardly any of them stay around with regard to this.

We can go back years and years, long before your time, Mr. Speaker, to when British Columbia first came into confederation. In my home province it has been proven by order in council that British Columbia has fulfilled its obligations with respect to its Indians.

I have strong objections to the Nisga'a treaty and to the remaining hundreds of treaties which B.C. Indians still have to come forward with. The government says that this will not be a template of what is to happen but it will be. The ex-premier of British Columbia has also stated very strongly that it will be. It is strange that the government says that this will not become a template to what will go on in our province because it is a template. There is absolutely no doubt about it.

I understand the NDP with regard to the issue of private property rights. Private property rights are nowhere to be found in the agreement. I understand that from the NDP members, with their socialistic attitude regarding private property rights, and that governments should own everything and that they should be the government that will tell us what we can do.

I also do not have any trouble understanding it coming from the Conservatives down on the other side of us because the red Tories are almost exactly the same thing as what we have sitting here as the NDP.

I did have a little trouble though trying to understand where the Liberals are coming from on this. They profess time after time that everybody in the country should have the opportunity to own something, to have security of that ownership and to be able to better themselves in regard to that ownership. However, here they are ready to rubber-stamp this without giving that right to the natives themselves. It is almost like they want to keep that entrenchment upon the reserves so that they cannot better themselves. I have great difficulty with that after listening to how they profess they care and what they say to the public outside.

I sincerely hope that the government will at least open this up to proper debate and allow us to speak on this instead of keeping us to 10 minutes and shutting off debate with no questions and answers in the House. This is supposed to be the most democratic House in Canada. I would think the rest of the world would have to shake its head at that.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, October 26th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I heard a lot today, especially from the other side, about consultations in the province.

I want everybody to know that we got in touch with Victoria in regard to these so-called consultations. Not one piece of advertising went out to the people. As a matter of fact I took it upon myself to put out advertisement. Until that point in time nobody even knew this was going on. This is how open and democratic the NDP is in the province of British Columbia. It is, as the hon. member said, almost like this government.

In regard to these consultations and polls that were taken in and around the province of British Columbia, did the hon. member have any direct input into them?

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, October 26th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague about the agreement and property rights.

Nowhere in the agreement does it give Nisga'a people individual property rights. It is one of the fundamental aspects if a marriage breaks up, or there is desertion or anything like that. Without property rights being entrenched in the agreement, would that not put a severe handicap on the spouse who has been deserted?

[Petitions, October 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is also from the people of Okanagan—Shuswap asking for the rejection of Bill C-309. This is cited as equal treatment for persons cohabiting in a relationship similar to a conjugal relationship.

The petition states that the strength of any society is largely dependent upon a solid family unit headed by a father and a mother living in a heterosexual relationship.

The rejection of Bill C-309 will help protect the definition of marriage in Canada.

[Petitions, October 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to table today.

It is my pleasure to table the first petition from people of Okanagan—Shuswap asking for sweeping changes to the justice system to provide stiffer penalties for dangerous sex offenders, pedophiles and other violent offenders.

They also request measures so that violent criminals serve their full sentences and that authorities be given more power to get information they need for a conviction, including blood and saliva samples, the elimination of defence on the grounds of insanity, drunkenness or drug impairment, and that the death penalty be reinstated for first degree murder where there is no doubt of guilt.