Jim Gouk

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

Madam Speaker, I am particularly interested seeing as how the last speaker is my neighbouring colleague in the Okanagan. I go into the south part and he goes into a major part of it.

I have a copy of a briefing note from the provincial ministry of agriculture to the minister of agriculture, Corky Evans, who is now running for the leadership of the NDP government out there. It states clearly that the Nisga'a treaty sets up a precedent that will affect every rancher in the province of British Columbia who lives within 10 kilometres of a reserve. In the Okanagan alone that could affect 1,000 ranchers.

I would like to hear my colleague who represents a good part of that area and those 1,000 ranchers comment on that.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member wants to have public debate and public claims on this, yet the public has not been included. If all of the public were included we would have a much better agreement.

It is interesting that he mentions the Delgamuukw case. I keep forgetting whether it is his party or the NDP party, they are so intermingled these days. When the Delgamuukw case began in British Columbia, it was won by the provincial government. However, by the time the decision came down in came the NDP provincial government which encouraged the people to appeal. It then fired all the lawyers who had won the case and conceded a number of points they had won. The court finally had to hire back those lawyers as friends of the court in order to have somebody speak on behalf of British Columbians.

Yes, Delgamuukw is a big problem, but one of the governments that was an author to the damn report is the reason for it.

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

Madam Speaker, it is important for us to understand that we are here to represent people.

I had a two hour live televised debate with a provincial minister from the NDP government. During that debate I offered to pay for a scientific poll of his riding if he would agree to a vote according to the results. He refused, but I did the poll anyway.

In his riding and in the neighbouring riding of another NDP member, the poll turned out that the majority of people opposed it. What is more interesting is that we did a breakdown inside the poll, as polls often do, and identified which of the people who were contacted were NDP supporters. Seventy per cent of the people who identified themselves as supporters of the provincial NDP said that they wanted a referendum and a voice on this. That government did not listen and we now have this government not listening.

I have documents from the previous federal minister of Indian affairs and the provincial minister of Indian affairs. They have both told the people that they hoped they would recognize their tenure, but that if they did not they hoped they would be offered compensation. That is a typical example of what is happening to British Columbians on this issue. It is also happening to ranchers.

We got another briefing note by the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food for the minister stating that 1,000 farms in the Okanagan alone would be affected by the Nisga'a agreement, yet these governments are all prepared to walk through it. I do not know if it is because of guilt from the past, but they refuse to listen to reason. The irony is that not only is the agreement bad for non-aboriginals in British Columbia, it is not even good for the Nisga'a.

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

Madam Speaker, I conclude by pointing out that we are debating a piece of legislation that has incredible impact on British Columbia, a document that is thicker than the Ottawa phone book, and yet the government will not even consider a single change to it. If this government wants to make even a pretence of being democratic, it will agree to hold hearings in British Columbia, listen to the concerns of British Columbians and make sure the final agreement is fair to all.

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

Madam Speaker, should there be settlement with the Nisga'a and other aboriginal people? Absolutely.

There are undeniable historical grievances and they have to be settled and settled fairly. The question is in what manner should they be settled? A number of steps need to be taken.

There needs to be a deadline for claims to be submitted. This is necessary for two reasons. We cannot reach settlement if new claims are continually popping up. Also, we cannot reach fair and final settlements if the aboriginal communities themselves have overlapping claims.

The Nisga'a represent only one of more than 50 aboriginal groups in British Columbia and a third of those are not currently involved in negotiations. There is absolutely no way to reach realistic settlements when we do not even know what some of the groups might be willing to settle for.

With the Nisga'a treaty not yet complete, the Gitanyow band are now claiming that much of the Nisga'a treaty land is their traditional land and they are preparing a court battle over the title. Guess who is going to pick up the legal bill for both sides?

The total potential settlement package has to be affordable. It is no good coming up with a package if the total cumulative effect of that package and all the others to follow absolutely destroys or bankrupts an economy of an entire province. It has to take into consideration the cost of financial settlements, the cost of land settlements and the future cost of lost revenues primarily through lost natural resource revenues. Here we have the first of what I believe is a huge deception on the impact of the proposed treaty.

Provincial promotional material designed to sell the treaty to the public implied the cost was $312 million. That was extremely inaccurate and I believe deliberately misleading. That figure is only the actual cash component of the direct financial compensation to be paid. It did not include such considerations as the value of the land to be transferred or lost provincial forestry revenue.

The provincial government attempted to pacify British Columbians by claiming that most of the costs would be borne by Canadian taxpayers, not B.C. taxpayers. Last time I heard B.C. was still in confederation and we are Canadian taxpayers, and it is damned expensive at that.

The public must be consulted on the process and on any potential settlement. Settlements cannot be made piecemeal. Before one treaty is signed the public should know the bottom line and that means the total cost and impact of all settlements. There has been very little consultation with the public at large and virtually no indication that what has been heard has impacted on the outcome.

An agreement in principle was reached in 1996. From that time until now, despite a considerable amount of concern raised by the public, not one single word of the agreement has changed as a result of the public meetings that were held.

As I mentioned earlier the Nisga'a are one of over 50 aboriginal groups in B.C. The proposed settlement will be the floor and not the ceiling for all future settlements.

Given the cost of the Nisga'a treaty, I want to look at two components of the treaty: the financial costs and control of B.C.'s forest resources.

An actual financial analysis of the treaty has now been completed and it places the cost at approximately $1.3 billion. The total Nisga'a population represents 3.74% of B.C.'s aboriginal population. Of those, only one-third live on Nisga'a land and receive any kind of benefit from this treaty.

This treaty becomes a template for all future settlements. The final cost of all settlements would exceed $35 billion. If we think that is far fetched, then we should ask ourselves what aboriginal group is going to settle for less than the provincial and federal governments are willingly giving to the Nisga'a?

Under forestry, using the same proportional arguments as the financial concerns, this treaty would ultimately give an aboriginal population representing less than 5% of the B.C. population harvesting rights for almost 20% of the provincial annual allowable cut.

We simply cannot afford either one of these situations.

Treaties when signed have to lead to equality and finality. The settlement must be available to individual aboriginal people. To do otherwise extends an already existing feudal type system that will ultimately fail, just as it is failing now.

At this time the federal government alone spends $9,000 for every aboriginal man, woman and child on a reserve in this country. Despite this, many aboriginal people on those reserves live in a state of abject poverty. The reason is that much of the money is used up by the bureaucracy and what is left is passed on to certain band leaders. In some cases not so much as one single dollar makes its way to those truly in need. Under this agreement individual rights and access to benefits are still non-existent.

Under the Nisga'a agreement a central government will own all of the land and control all of the money and resources provided for by this agreement. For an individual to voice criticism is to risk exclusion from the benefits of those government owned and controlled holdings. It is a top down mechanism and it is fatally flawed. It totally ignores the principles of public scrutiny and equality of citizens. The Nisga'a agreement empowers government instead of people and that is a certain formula for failure.

Many people will remember studying the old English feudal system of medieval times where the lord owned all the land and everything that grew on it. The peasants were allowed to live on the land, to put up their dwellings and to raise crops, all of which belonged to the lord. They had no ownership or rights of any kind other than what he allowed. It was a very oppressive, undemocratic system full of flaws and resentment that came to a deserving end centuries ago. So why is this House considering going into the 21st century proposing the same kind of system for Canada's aboriginal people?

We have already seen examples of this. The Stoney band situated west of Calgary has a total of 3,300 people living on three different reserves. Many of those people live in absolute squalor, some in the basements of condemned homes. This is despite the fact that the Stoney band has an annual income of $50 million. That money goes first to the three band leaders who collectively draw half a million dollars in salary plus unlimited expense accounts while many of their people live in despair. Is this a system that is going to solve aboriginal problems? I do not think so.

Some might argue that these leaders are elected and can be thrown out of office if they do not do a good job. Well, I am an elected member of parliament. If someone does not like what I do, they can speak out against me. They can stand for election and try to beat me in the next election. If they do, fine. If they do not, life goes on. But what if I owned the house of that person who complained and tried to beat me out? What if I owned their bank account? What if I controlled all of their principal activities on the land? They could still run against me and if they win, that is fine. But if they lose, they have a problem.

That is the inherent problem with the current reserve system. Much of the government funds that the band leaders receive and will continue to receive even under this agreement are based on the reserve population. It is in the interest of the band leaders to keep the reserve population up and discourage band members from leaving.

Non-Nisga'a people living on land handed over to them will not have a vote on decisions affecting them. They say they will have a vote on the school board. They will not have a vote on anything that deals with their taxation. They will not have any property rights. They will not be able to vote for the Nisga'a government itself. They will not be allowed to run for government office. Never mind the school board. I have heard the flippant answers that come from the other side. They will not be allowed to run for government. They will not be allowed to vote for local government, the kind of government that deals with their taxation on any property that they happen to reside upon. But they will be subject to those taxes the government decides to impose on them and that is taxation without representation.

Promotional material in support of the Nisga'a agreement states that the Nisga'a will be subject to all provincial and federal taxes. That is not true. While the Nisga'a agreement does terminate some special treatment for members after eight to twelve years, it also leaves in place many exemptions such as property tax, taxes on capital and many others. Nisga'a corporations are tax exempt, as is their forestry. The Nisga'a along with all other status aboriginals however, will continue to get such benefits as free post-secondary education and be user fee exempt on various medical services. These benefits are race based and the ultimate goal of settlement must be the full equality of all Canadians.

I have more, Madam Speaker. I am not even going to get to my fifth point because of the little time left. It is unfortunate, when we are trying to get as many speakers on as possible, that this government has already said that it is going to cut off this debate.

And using the word debate is a sham. This is not a debate. The government does not intend to change one piece of legislation, not one clause, no matter what evidence comes forward. It is going to put something through, an agreement that with its appendix is thicker than the Ottawa phone book.

[Members Of Parliament Superannuation Act, October 25th, 1999]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-261, an act to discontinue the retiring allowances payable to members of parliament under the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and to include members of parliament in the Public Service Superannuation Act and to discontinue members' tax free allowances for expenses and include the amount in members' sessional allowances.

Mr. Speaker, although the timing is accidental, it is probably a good time to reintroduce my private member's bill dealing with pensions. The bill has two simple parts.

The first part is to implement the Blais commission recommendation to discontinue the tax free allowance, grossing it and taxing it as regular salary. Members of parliament will be taxed like all other Canadians and will feel the impact of any tax changes.

The second part is to eliminate the MP pension plan in its entirety and to enrol all MPs into the superannuation program so they too will be affected by whatever changes in legislation affect that. Members of parliament would have the same pension as all civil servants including their own staff. I believe that is a fair and equitable way to end the controversy on this once and for all.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Aboriginal Affairs, October 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the historian whose expert opinion Justice Binnie relied on in the Marshall ruling has publicly stated his testimony was twisted to fit the ruling. Justice Binnie interpreted Professor Stephen Patterson's testimony as evidence that the treaties granted a permanent native right to fish or hunt, but Patterson, the person Justice Binnie relied on, does not agree. The decision is flawed.

Given this evidence of a flawed decision, will the government join with the West Nova Fishermen's Coalition in petitioning the supreme court to stay and clarify the Marshall decision?

[Doukhobor Russians, October 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in 1899 many Doukhobor Russians immigrated to Canada to escape persecution due to their pacifist beliefs. A great many of those people have settled in what is now the riding of Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan.

Over the years the Doukhobor people have integrated into Canadian society, but while doing so have still retained their language, culture, religion and traditions. The Doukhobor community is a shining example of how a distinct group of people can preserve and celebrate their heritage by sharing it with other Canadians. Our riding and indeed all of Canada benefit from the wonderful example of family and work ethics provided by the Doukhobors. They amply demonstrate that there is more to be gained through unity than division.

This weekend many of them are gathered here in Ottawa at a conference celebrating their first hundred years in Canada. I am sure that all members of the House will join me in welcoming the Doukhobors and offering congratulations on the contribution they make to Canadian society.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, October 21st, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I have one comment and perhaps a question for the hon. member from Kamloops. I trust he is listening this time.

He gave a very graphic example and demonstration that we all feel toward his colleagues from time to time but he has had a chance to vent. His demonstration was well put. Hitting a child repeatedly on a day after day basis may create a tendency toward violence. I would hope that we in the House do not confuse child abuse with a swat on the backside at the appropriate time when other measures have not been effective or when a parent deems that to be effective. It would not be on a daily basis nor repeatedly hitting a child each time the child says something wrong, looks the wrong way or whatever. There is a time and a place for everything. We should not take that completely out of the hands of parents, especially when we tell them that we want to hold them responsible for the actions of their children.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, October 21st, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the words from the Bloc member from Portneuf. He is a member of the Bloc who I have a great deal of respect for, his separatist bent notwithstanding. The member has been to my riding at my invitation. I said, with my tongue very lightly in my cheek, that he should see what the best part of the country looks like before he gives it up.

I have a youth diversion program operating in my riding which has been very successful. The last time I spoke with the people running the program, they had run over 100 young people through the program and had only one incident of a repeat offence.

There is a lot of confusion about what the Reform Party really wants for young offenders. Our whole approach is divided into three categories. The first category is early intervention. I believe that is the kind of thing the hon. member supports. Early intervention would mean interceding early and perhaps preventing people from turning to crime or to some anti-social behaviour that might lead them to crime. It helps them to get the right type of assistance and aid.

The second category is the diversion program, which I talked about earlier. I am sure the hon. member supports that as well.

There is a third category that everyone likes to categorize the Reform with, the tougher hand. We believe that stiffer measures are appropriate for those young offenders who cannot be reached through early intervention, through diversion or through any other way, and who commit violent or anti-social offences over and over again. For the protection of society, and for the protection of other young people who are the number one victims of young offenders, we believe there must be stiffer measures for people who assault, rape, break into homes and beat elderly people.

Would the hon. member support the concept of this sort of tri-approach: early intervention; diversion to keep them out of court and give them a second chance; and, strict measures for those who will not benefit from the other two aspects and who continue to break society's rules? Does he agree that we do need to have some tough measures for the worst of the worst?