House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 60% of the vote.
Petitions November 26th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I also have petitions from citizens of Cariboo—Chilcotin, namely from 70 Mile House and Williams Lake. They are calling upon the government to give Canadian taxpayers a break by instituting tax relief of at least 25% in federal taxes over the next three years starting with the next federal budget.
Petitions November 26th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present some petitions. The first two petitions are from citizens of Williams Lake and Quesnel, British Columbia. They call upon parliament to enact immediate changes to Canada's immigration laws governing refugees to allow for the deportation of obvious and blatant abusers of the system.
Canada Transportation Act November 26th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. At the rate at which you are going it is hard for me to understand, but my concern is for the translators who seem to be melting into the earpiece. I wonder if you would take them into consideration please.
Canadian Tourism Commission Act November 26th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I would like to pursue this a bit further, and I thank the hon. member for his thoughtful presentation on this subject.
There will be 26 board members in the new corporation, as there are with the Canadian tourism commission. Sixteen of the board members will be appointed by the minister. There is already a majority, but then the remaining representatives will be appointed with advice.
I would like to know how this could possibly be seen as anything other than complete domination by the federal government. Where is the arm's length relationship? The federal government appoints the majority, appoints the remainder on advice, and it has the ability to rescind those appointments. It is totally dominated by the federal government.
I am not speaking against the need for tourism operators to have all the support they can get. Goodness knows, there is no part of the country that does not seek to enhance itself through tourism. It has been a wonderful advantage for Canadians and for people outside the country to come and know where and who we are, as we are, and to appreciate Canada and Canadians.
However, it seems to me that what we have here is a step backward from the limited accountability that even the Canadian tourism commission has, where the board is appointed by the minister, acts like a corporation and has a curtain between it and openness with the public. I fail to see how the corporation will be able to do more than the Canadian tourism commission does and at the same time have the same accountability.
Canadian Tourism Commission Act November 26th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my compliments to the member on her speech. I have a concern that is perhaps a bit more general. Just recently on November 1 we saw the Department of Revenue Canada become an agency. While it is not entirely a crown corporation, it is certainly moving in that direction.
The number of crown corporations is growing. For example, Nav Canada took over the navigation services of Transport Canada. It is supposedly a non-profit entity right now. It is interesting the Museum of Nature is a crown corporation. These corporations are arm's length from the government but their arms are about an inch and a half long.
We have distorted the meaning of a corporation by setting up an agency of the government, dependent on the government for funding, with board members most often appointed by the government. The distinction between a crown corporation and a department or government agency is so small that it makes me wonder why we are going through these motions.
As we look at Bill C-5 it strikes me that we are going through much the same motions, as though we are singing the hit tune of the day. What will the consequences be for the government in establishing these corporations? More particularly what will be the consequences for these corporations and those they serve when in fact the government is still running the show under a different guise?
Could the member respond to my dilemma with setting up crown corporations which are so close to the government that arm's length is a meaningless term?
Civil International Space Station Agreement Implementation Act November 2nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your fairness and willingness to explain the rules to us and to enforce the rules fairly.
I am particularly interested in the member's comments about the space station bill. It is my understanding that the space station will have some beneficial aspects for agriculture, for example, in being able to survey large tracts of agricultural land. Will that surveillance also apply to other areas of the space station's abilities? I am thinking, for example, about how government allows the uneven enforcement of laws. Would the space station be able to pick up things like that?
Since being elected, I have heard a number of stories in my constituency relating to wildlife resources. I am thinking of a rider looking after his cattle who comes across 16 slain deer. Out of those deer, four hind quarters are removed. I wonder if a space station could see things like that.
I am aware that this year in my part of the country, central British Columbia, for the first time there are limited entry moose hunting permits because the moose population is so depleted. I have been told that the reason the moose population is so depleted is that there are actually reefers, refrigerated trucks that are parked, and people are loading these trucks with moose carcasses and hauling them out of the country.
One aboriginal guide came to me and showed me the map of his territory, his guide licence, his hunting licence and the list of customers he had. He said “There are so many moose being hauled out of the country that there is nothing left for my customers to admire and perhaps even to shoot and take home”.
I am aware that although the fish have been scarce this year on the Fraser River, in past years there have been truckloads of salmon hauled out and taken to Alberta while some have been taken down into the United States. I have actually contacted the authorities about these things and have been told that there was nothing they could do about it. They said that they were under orders from the government to not enforce those laws.
I am concerned about the uneven enforcement of the laws. I am not criticizing aboriginal people. They are just doing what they are able to do. It is the government that is allowing this to happen. I wonder if the space station technology could see this and convince the authorities to enforce the laws evenly and fairly?
Civil International Space Station Agreement Implementation Act November 2nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, it is always very interesting to read, learn and discover how people in our country are participating in the leading edge technology in this way. Without technology I suppose we might argue that perhaps we would not even be in caves and tents because even that is some technological advancement. However, at a time when we are looking at the enormous burden of taxation on our people, the costs and the prioritizing of the moneys that are raised is extremely important.
I would like to ask the hon. member about another aspect of this. He mentioned the peaceful programs. Humankind has had difficulties in reserving the technological advances for strictly peaceful purposes. We have seen space surrounding Earth explored for more than peaceful purposes. I would like to have the member's comments on the peaceful purposes of the project. Is there any danger of it going beyond that?
Aboriginal Affairs October 28th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance cannot diminish this liability in such a casual way. This $200 billion in specific aboriginal claims is only the beginning. The public accounts of Canada reveal that there are 2,000 additional claims still being researched by aboriginal groups and the number is growing.
Does the finance minister plan to establish any limits, or does he intend to sign a blank cheque on behalf of Canadian taxpayers?
Aboriginal Affairs October 28th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, in the public accounts of Canada tabled here, we find the total monetary value of specific aboriginal claims. That amount is $200 billion. That amount of money would make 200,000 millionaires. There is not enough money in all of Canada to pay out these claims. This amount is in excess of the entire annual income of the federal government.
When was the Minister of Finance going to tell Canadians that they owed this $200 billion?
Nisga'A Final Agreement Act October 27th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues of the House in this debate, and particularly the members of my party who are standing to oppose the treaty which is before the House for ratification.
It has been interesting to listen to opposition and government members talk about the treaty. I hear them say that they have been there, they have seen this. I remember one of the Bloc members even describing the colour of the Nass River and I wondered what insight he had obtained on this treaty from the colour of the river.
I have spent some time on a reserve. After my university, seminary work and ordination I was the minister, or the missionary to use the traditional term, at an Indian village on the west coast. During the orientation, before I took that posting, I was told that I may think I would go there with my university work behind me, with my study of sociology, anthropology and the course work on native Indians, particularly in British Columbia, and I may have lived next door to reserves as a boy on ranches for virtually all my life; however, I was told that I did not know anything about what I would be doing and would not know until I had been there for two or three years, and that I would then begin to know.
I had a position to fill on that reserve, a place in the community, but understanding the people and their traditions only began to come when there was some way of hearing their stories and experiencing the familiarity between people that comes with sharing at that deeper level.
People who have been close to native Indian people, who understand the hardship and the effects of their powerlessness, understand also that they live in a power structure and most of the people in that power structure have not had the opportunity to exercise that power. There is power, but most people do not have an opportunity to put their hands on it.
Something else I have heard in the debate is that under this treaty people can own property. That is true, they can. The difficulty is that individual property rights come with power and those property rights come as that power is given to them. However, there is no guarantee that there will be individual property rights. Without those property rights and power, native Indian people will never have the resources they need to insist upon their rights.
How important are property rights? I will tell a story or two from my own personal experience. The first story begins probably before I was born.
I remember a friend of my father's who was a resident on one of the reserves near our home. His mother had a piece of property. Traditionally she had owned it. She had tried unsuccessfully to get title to it. His mother died.
I will not use names because these people are still living and still do not have the power to protect themselves.
This man wanted to own his mother's property. I remember, as a friend of my father's, they would discuss how this might be accomplished. I lost track of this story, but interestingly enough this man was one of the first constituents to come to see me in my office after I was elected as a member of parliament. It was a great reunion. I had not seen him for a long time.
He said “I am here for a reason. Do you know that property of my mother's?” He showed me all the papers of all the applications, rejections and the difficulty he had in getting the money. Finally it all came together and he got title to that property.
After that he included it in the reserve lands. The reason he came to see me was to see if there was some way he could get control of his property again because now the band owned it and the band would not let him use his own property for which he had worked so many years to get title to.
In my mind this relates pointedly to the need for property rights for individuals. Band members should be able to own their property, use it as they wish, buy it, sell it, mortgage it and take full advantage of it for themselves. Unfortunately this piece of property is still beyond the grasp of my father's old friend, but he is still working at it.
I also want to talk about property rights in a way that currently affects many native people. Native people know the value of the vote. They know that without being able to vote they do not have any power at all.
A man came to my constituency office and said “When I left my village I lost my house. Somebody else began to live in it. Now I want to go back. I went back to vote, but I was told that I did not have a house, that I did not live there, so I could not vote. So I said that I would like to have my house back and they said that was not possible”.
This is a man who was caught in the catch-22 of not being able to vote unless he had his property, but he could not get his property so that he could vote. He is a very unhappy person. I see this man regularly.
I want to talk about another instance where property rights are important. A man on a reserve in my constituency has agricultural land. He liked to cut and sell the hay. He had an agreement with one of the local ranchers who needed that hay. For a long time this agreement worked. The hay was cut, it was hauled to the ranch, the money went to the man who cut the hay and did the work. One day the chief of the reserve said to the rancher “The hay is coming from reserve land. The money that you pay belongs to the band, not to the individual, so I will be taking the cheque”. The rancher checked it out and that is what he had to do.
Needless to say, the man who did the work, who put the sweat into the effort, did not get the money and he does not cut hay any more. He has lost a big part of his livelihood simply because he did not have the right to the property and the right to take payment for the work that he had done on land that he considered his own.
As a minister on the reserve on the west coast one of the things that I discovered was that, according to the west coast reserves, there are a whole variety of little reserves up and down the coast, usually at the mouths of rivers or at points of land, places where it is reasonably easy to beach a boat. These traditionally belong to individuals and to families. They are passed down through families. I would not want to suggest that they go from father to son because that is not always the way it is done in native Indian culture. However, to say that the Indian people have no concept of private property and no concept of the right to private property is not correct. I know of native Indian people who own land on reserves in their name and it is held within the reserve system in trust for them.
I cannot overemphasize the importance of the right to personally own land, the right to personal property, if we are going to empower native Indian people to take responsibility for themselves by having the power they need to defend themselves. They cannot defend themselves according to their rights under the constitution if they have no means of grasping those rights, of defending those rights and of prosecuting those who would jeopardize those rights.
This is a bad treaty. It is going to leave people in the old system rather than bringing them into the new Canada of the new millennium with the same rights, privileges and freedoms that all Canadians expect and enjoy.