John O'Reilly

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, a very wise ruling and one that recognizes the dilatory motions of the Reform Party to try to scuttle this agreement.

I went to British Columbia, as I said. We had some bad weather. We could not land in the airports where we were supposed to land. We had to travel by bus, but what that did was prove that one bad weather day in British Columbia is better than five good days in Ottawa. I love going to British Columbia. I am more than happy to relay to the House what actually happened, not what the Reform Party is talking about.

Let me quote from some of the people that appeared before the committee. Let me quote Mr. Bill Young, whose wife Norma and himself, and their company have registered fee simple to 160 acres of land in the beautiful Nass Valley. His take on the agreement is, and I quote:

Two, the access to our property is guaranteed by the laws of British Columbia and the provincial highways authority.

Well, does that put out an argument.

Third, concern regarding taxation is defined in the “Taxation” chapter, paragraph 1, page 217, which says our taxes will be levied and paid to the provincial government of British Columbia.

The fact that this third party negotiation and some kind of a nation that is going to appear out of the blue is just a bunch of hokey.

Let me quote from the presentation to the House of Commons committee by the mayor, Jack Talstra of the city of tariffs, right in the beautiful Nass Valley, the start of this area. He says:

We as local governments want treaty settlements to be certain and final, meaning that the final outcome of treaty negotiations will be a completion of the process of addressing outstanding first nations claims, and that in relation to the question of the aboriginal right and title, the treaties will bring finality and certainty to the greatest extent possible, recognizing that self-government for aboriginals is a dynamic, evolving form of government, as it is for local governments.

That, along with other presentations we heard, only strengthened our resolve that what this treaty does is take us out of the Indian Act and into a treaty process where fee simple rights are going to be granted and people are treated equally. I do not think there is anything wrong with being treated equally, but let me go to Professor Foster Griezic who made a presentation in beautiful Prince George. He said and I quote:

Nisga'a opponents favour assimilation, appear to reject the reality of history and prefer providing as little as possible for the Nisga'a and other first nations.

These are not my words. These are the words of the people who have appeared before us. The people who are against it, the Reform Party, in particular, question Nisga'a ownership of land, forgetting that when this occurred in 1887 a Nisga'a elder asked, and he is quoted:

Who gave the land to the Queen. This has always been and always will be Nisga'a land.

One Chief named David MacKay asked how the government could say “We will give you so much land” when the land is already ours. The Nisga'a own the land. We are not giving them back something. We are recognizing their rights as human beings to have fee simple property and to act as a local government. Coming out of municipal government where you deal with the rights of individuals and people who, God help them, are able to actually own their own land, I do not see anything wrong with that. Would this not be terrible to actually let people own their own land and be able to build a house on a piece of property and own the land that is underneath it?

As a former real estate agent, I find it passing strange that the Reform Party would be against that. Is it against fee simple? Is it against people being treated equally? Is it against everything? It voted against everything to do with native Canadians in the House and now it is going to tell us it is going to make everybody equal and everything will be wonderful.

Let me talk to the presentation given in Terrace, B.C. by another band who said: “Our traditional territories cover approximately 13,000 square miles of the northwest portion of British Columbia, including the areas of Terrace and Prince Rupert. This nation compromises approximately 10,000 members. They think in here that we are neighbours with the Nisga'a and we have a common border between the Skeena and the Nass watershed”.

They stood in 1966 with the Nisga'a to enter into a very historical and traditional ceremony. They stand with them. That is contrary to what we have been hearing here.

Once again they talk about the Nisga'a treaty bringing many benefits to northern B.C. It will enable the Nisga'a to work with other jurisdictions to improve the quality of life for all northern British Columbians. Their direct assistance with education, health, economic and general community development issues will be positive.

We know that negotiations between third parties have taken place for a period of years. An agreement has been reached, the Nisga'a have ratified it and British Columbia has ratified it. Now it is the responsibility of Canada to accept and finalize the agreement reached in good faith between the parties.

If we go to the comments of Chief Phil Fontaine, he said:

If there is a disagreement among natives, if there is a disagreement among aboriginals, let the chief of the Six Nations go and negotiate with the people that are involved.

Not the Canadian government, not the Reform party, definitely, and certainly, to a process that they themselves can best work out through their treaty negotiation that has carried on for thousands of years. They have a way of life that may be a little different than what the Reform Party wants, but they have a way of life that was established long before we as white people came to Canada.

Do not take my word for it, go to the B.C. Federation of Labour, a membership made up of more than 40 affiliated unions representing over 700 locals. It speaks on behalf of 450,000 working people in British Columbia. The federation is the single largest organization representing workers' interests in the province.

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

Mr. Speaker, my riding name was changed a couple of years ago. It was known as Victoria—Haliburton and has now changed to its official title to Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, recognizing the second largest riding in southern Ontario containing some 10,000 square kilometres. Together with the riding of Hastings, it makes up one-third of the land in southern Ontario. We do not cheer for the Toronto Maple Leafs.

I want to thank the previous member for mentioning the fact that the committee travelled to British Columbia and had all party representation. It had some fine input from other members in other parties, in particular, the member for South Shore, even though he was verbally attacked by the members of the Reform Party who showed up to disrupt the meetings and cause dissension. There was a member of the Reform Party standing in the parking lot in Victoria with a bullhorn telling people to disrupt the meetings and do whatever they could to make the Liberals look bad. What they did was make themselves look bad. They showed their true faces. A lot of times they are frustrated with the facts. The fact is that we travelled to British Columbia. I have been there about 13 times now. It is a great province. My son even celebrated his first birthday there, despite all the heckling of the Luddites. The fact is that the people of British Columbia that I talked to, and I talked to people who oppose, do we take the Fraser Institute versus the dilatory—

[Committees Of The House, December 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, there are nine members listed, with all parties being represented. The dates are December 5 to December 11, 1999.

[Committees Of The House, December 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Discussions have taken place among all parties and I believe you will find consent for the following travel motion:

That, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, be authorized to travel to western Canada (Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta), from December 5, to December 11, 1999, in relation to its study on the effectiveness of long term safety nets and other national initiatives to provide the stability and environment necessary for stable growth in the agricultural industry and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.

[Supply, November 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am always interested in the member's comments. He is articulate and carries himself well. He did so out at the meeting. I do not think he asked a question.

I was asked to go as part of the committee. I was also asked to stay home because of a vote that was to take place in the House. I said at that time, and I will say it again, that given the chance to go to Ottawa or British Columbia, no matter how bad the weather is, one bad weather day in British Columbia is better than five good weather days in Ottawa. I was very anxious to go to British Columbia. I went there with no preconceived notion other than from the evidence that I had heard from the Nisga'a and the treaty process in Ottawa.

I felt we did not have to spend $500, as the member said, but $500,000 brought on by the Reform Party. I was glad to go. I love British Columbia. I will go back any time. I would go next weekend if I could get away and the Reform Party would pay for it, which it said it would. I went with an open mind. I heard all the evidence. I heard many things.

I wonder if the Reform Party would vote against the hate laws that it just voted against, knowing what it knows now. Would it vote in favour of the Nunavik Act, knowing what it knows now? Would it not look at a treaty negotiated in good faith by the Nisga'a and debated for the longest debate in the history of the B.C. legislature and think that sends a signal that the treaty is a good thing, that the treaty grants fee simple?

The member talks about the vast regions of B.C. and that someone from Ontario would not know about them. We are talking about 2,000 square acres. My area is 10,000 square acres. I think I have a decent sized riding to be able to speak on rural Canada. I could go on. I would like to ask more questions and receive some, but time does not permit.

[Supply, November 22nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I know that was not a point of order, it was a point of debate.

The fact of the matter is I said that it was Reform Party supporters who came out. One lady who came to me said she was a Reform Party supporter. She was asked by a member of the Reform Party to come out and demonstrate and disrupt the meetings as much as she could.

When I gave over my time to the member for Prince George so that he was able to speak, he thanked me and said I was a gentleman. He did not think he would have enough time to express the views of his constituents. I did not go out there with anything evil on my mind or any hidden agenda. I went out there to hear evidence.

Let me quote the evidence I heard from the B.C. Federation of Labour. It said that provincial leader Gordon Campbell was against a referendum last summer when he said the people of the lower mainland should not be determining the future of the people of the Nass Valley. Suddenly he is now in favour of a referendum because he is a Liberal-Reformer. There is a whole pile of people who are just a bit to the right of Attilla the Hun and nobody playing left wing. If one is a hockey player it would be a great place to be a left winger. Vander Zalm and he are in a leadership race for votes. It would appear as though they swim out of a very shallow gene pool when they are vying for votes on the right wing.

The B.C. Federation of Labour also said that it was especially important for the labour movement to discuss the Nisga'a agreement everywhere it could since David Black who publishes 60 community newspapers in B.C. had given instructions to his editors to publish only editorials opposing the settlement. Is that freedom of the press?

Then we have the other Black. If one is a Reformer I guess two Blacks make a right. The press is skewered, narrow and biased. I challenged the press. I said I would be more than happy to withdraw my comment that members of the press did not report the news in B.C. They try to create the news in B.C. They try to create it when 13 newspapers in my riding publish both sides of the story. Generally the B.C. press is a very sick organization, promoting only bad news concerning the native population.

In 1994 the governor general asked the press to give good news a chance. I challenge the press in B.C. to send me one item which shows something good being said about natives and native agreements, that they are not buying into scare tactics and fearmongering.

One organization on the Reform list, which was agreed to by both parties, brought in by that party was the Fraser Institute or the C.D. Howe Institute in British Columbia. As a rookie in 1994 I went to the Chateau Laurier to hear the Fraser Institute tell us that the present Minister of Finance would destroy the country, that we would never get out of the $42 billion debt we were in. Everything was doom and gloom and would never work. Obviously two back to back balanced budgets have proven that statement wrong.

In my favour, I did not jump into the canal on the way back. To say that we did not hear evidence to the contrary is just not honest. We heard from Alpha Omega Capital Management which was hired by the member for Delta—South Richmond. There was someone who owned a calculator and asked them to skew the numbers so they would look bad. We listened to this group and asked questions. We received answers that had nothing to do with the truth. If someone is buying the guy who owns the calculator, then there will not be much of a debate.

What evidence did we hear from the B.C. Treaty Commission? The B.C. Treaty Commission conducted hearings all over the place. The one question I asked at every meeting was for it to tell us what it would do to improve the treaty process.

It is a treaty process. It is not the old Indian Lands Act where we take a bunch of people, set them on a reserve somewhere, send a cheque every month and tell them they cannot do anything. One can see that by going to the Sheshatsui reserve in Labrador which has the highest suicide rate in Canada. People have been taken and put 90 miles from nowhere. They are sent a cheque every month and told not to bother us. They have no hope. They have no future. They have no history. They have no caribou to hunt. They have no fish to fish. They have no industry to lean on.

What is it that they want to do with these people? Do they want to go back to that? Is that what they are doing? The treaty process is one that gives people fee simple, the right to own the land they build their houses on. Is there something terribly wrong with that? As a real estate agent for 30 years I say that it would be really nice for them to have fee simple as a basic right. Why would that not be a basic right in the Nisga'a agreement? Why would that not be something the Reform Party would adhere to?

What did we hear out there? We heard all kinds of evidence for and against. We had demonstrations by the Reform leader, Mr. Vander Zalm screaming, yelling, calling us names, insulting us, trying to do everything to make us feel as unparliamentary as possible. That was my 13th trip to British Columbia, by the way. I have skied there. I have been at Whistler. I have travelled extensively throughout British Columbia and it is the first time I have met people who were hostile.

I have always found the people of British Columbia to be caring, to be people who used reason and logic. They were basically a very friendly people with a very beautiful province. There I was faced with all this hostility. One of the people yelled out the name of the member for South Shore and said “Keddy, you are next. South Shore, you are next”, as if they were going to get him next because he smiled at somebody in the audience. That is how sad it was. That is what we were dealing with out there.

To hear the evidence, to conclude from it, and to be told that I am less than a Canadian for even thinking that I could go out there and make an honest decision is beyond my scope of reason. I say shame on them for whipping up the crowd, for trying to skewer things so that we would not hear evidence, trying to manipulate the witness list and then trying to throw it back on us.

I know I am out of time but I could go on for a long time. No, I do not have notes. I speak from the heart.

[Supply, November 22nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured and privileged to stand here today having come back from the aboriginal hearings in British Columbia.

We travelled extensively throughout British Columbia, to Terrace, Smithers, Prince George, Victoria and Vancouver in inclement weather and in awfully poor landing conditions on a small aircraft which we renamed. We will not go into that because First Air is a very nice airline but hon. members can figure out what we renamed it. We celebrated when we were actually able to land in Terrace. As beautiful as it is, it is very hard to get into at this time of year.

I want to talk about what happened there. The Reform Party went out to try to whip up a crowd of protesters to show us that this treaty process was terrible and that they want to go back to the Indian Act.

I talked to some people on the streets of Prince George. They had no idea what was going on, other than that finally we were giving back the land to the natives which we had away from them. They asked who had decided the Queen owned it. It was native land. It always has been and it always will be.

It is different to go out there and be spat on and to hear someone say to one of my colleagues from Nunavut “Go back to your reserve”. It is sad, sad, sad that the Reform Party would stoop that low.

Then some guy at a radio station in Vancouver was giving out the room numbers of the members so people could call their rooms and threaten them. My first call of the morning which I thought was a wake-up call was a lunatic saying that if I showed up at the meetings I would be dead meat. Was it not great for members of the Parliament of Canada to be told to go back to the reserve, to be told one would be dead meat and to be spat upon? I found these kind of tactics to be absolutely disgusting. There was even a lower one than that, but I will not talk about it because I do not think the Reform Party wants to hear about it. There was a lower one and I will keep that in my back pocket for another time.

[East Timor, October 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, can the Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific update the House on the present state of affairs in the troubled area of East Timor?

[Child Care, October 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in light of the recent announcement by the Prime Minister that parental leave will be extended from six months to one full year, can the Minister of Human Resources Development tell this House what effect this decision will have on working Canadians?

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could answer that question.

When the document entitled “Gathering Strength—Canada's Aboriginal Action Plan” was released in January 1998, it contained a commitment to develop an aboriginal human resources development strategy.

Could the Secretary of State for Children and Youth inform the House if the government is acting on that commitment?