Nelson Riis

[Petitions, February 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present three petitions.

The first petition is on behalf of a number of residents throughout western Canada. They are saying that if we want to actually save some money to the tune of at least $15 million a year, a good thing to do would be to abolish the Senate which would take care of that and I suspect make people across the country an awful lot happier.

[Canada Elections Act, February 11th, 2000]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-423, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act.

Mr. Speaker, you will appreciate that this bill is very timely in that we are now just beginning to look at serious revisions to the Canada Elections Act. This particular private member's bill proposes to lower the voting age from the present age of 18 to 16.

There are many reasons for this. At age 16 young people are able to obtain a driver's licence and drive vehicles. They are able to join the Armed Forces of Canada. They are able to get married and raise children. They can leave school on their own volition. A variety of things occur at age 16 but the one thing they are not permitted to do is to vote for the member of parliament of their choice.

I think the time has come to acknowledge that young people of 16 and 17 are much more informed these days than their counterparts many years ago. To be part of the modern age, let us acknowledge that the future belongs to our young people. This will be a chance to recognize that by lowering the voting age.

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

[Municipal Grants Act, February 11th, 2000]

They froze their grants right off. Imagine what that did to the leaders of the municipalities across the country. They were shocked. All of a sudden their plans went out the window. They had been dutifully planning, working hard on behalf of the residents of their cities, all for naught because the Conservative Government of Canada froze their grants overnight without telling them anything about it.

You know how wrong that was, Mr. Speaker. You know how wronged the people of Canada were at that point. You knew what a wrong and inappropriate decision that was to take, but the Conservatives took it nevertheless. It was a very dark day for our country and a very dark day for the House of Commons.

I know that my colleague from Winnipeg—Transcona remembers the day when that announcement was made. It was a very dark moment, but that is what we have to live with from time to time. My friend from Winnipeg—Transcona says that to this day he has not gotten over that shock. I know he means it because it was one of those dastardly deeds that takes place every now and again in the House of Commons.

Something had to be done. We could not allow the federal government to do whatever it wanted to anybody and at any time. Constitutionally it had the right, and it used it in a very brutal and inappropriate fashion.

I congratulate the people at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities for the excellent work they do on behalf of municipalities across the country. They have a thoughtful, very democratic, grassroots approach in terms of policy direction. They said “Something has to be done. We can't have this any longer”. Therefore, Bill C-10 started that long process and today it is at report stage and we are looking at some of the amendments put forward by my hon. colleagues.

It is a bill that we support as New Democrats. Anything that brings transparency, anything that brings a sense of reasonableness, of decency, of fairness, of equity has to be supported. This bill is a major step in accomplishing that.

Basically, the bill will change the term “grants”. Let us face it, today “grants” has become a four letter word. It has five letters, but basically it is a four letter word. It is a nasty word because of what the Minister of Human Resources Development has done. It is a very bad word because of the abuse, because of the political favouritism, because of the patronage, because of the pork-barrelling that the present government used when granting moneys to various organizations.

Government members said “We have to get away from the use of that term, so we will call it payments in lieu of taxes”, known as PILTs. That makes sense, payments in lieu of taxes.

I recognize the positive aspect of this legislation. If there is a federal piece of property in a municipality, the federal government is obligated to pay taxes to the municipality to reflect the property value. That is how municipalities raise their funds, through taxation, through property taxes. The government recognizes that federal properties must pay taxes; however, there is a wrinkle. There is always a little wrinkle. I applaud my friend from Kelowna for pointing this out.

There is a lot of discretion in the bill. This group of amendments speaks to how the minister can decide whether the government should make payments, whether it should pay penalties on late payments, whether it should hold off making payments and so on. There is a lot of discretion which is left to the minister.

If there is one thing we have learned in the last few days it is that when there is discretion left in the hands of ministers they sometimes seem to abuse it. I use the example of our friend, the Minister of Human Resources Development, whose constituency, by and large, does very well economically and gets tonnes of grants. As a matter of fact, I think we would look long and hard to find a single business or a single organization in her constituency that did not get a grant. She went up to people who were walking down the street and said “Excuse me, I am the Minister of Human Resources Development. Do you want a grant?” Why not? It is very serious. That was a clear abuse of that position.

We are trying to find a way to get around this in the legislation. I applaud my friend from Kelowna, who said that we must ensure there is a clause which requires the minister to explain why he or she is not doing what is asked by the legislation.

We support this group of amendments. They state that if the minister in his or her wisdom decides not to pay the taxes on federal property in a particular city, that minister has to explain why he or she is not doing that.

There are problems, and I will refer to two of them. My friend mentioned already the situation in Halifax with the Citadel and the discussion of who owns that piece of property, how much of it is federal and how much is municipal. There is also the issue of first nations properties within city limits. Is that federal property or is it first nations property? Where does that come in?

There are areas where it will take discussion and perhaps, in the end, even a court decision before the final outcome is determined.

This group of amendments would give the minister some flexibility. However, ministers who have flexibility cause Canadians to squirm. Therefore, we are saying “Yes, we will give the minister flexibility to deal with these special cases, but the minister must explain why he or she is not paying the taxes that the municipality is expecting”.

[Municipal Grants Act, February 11th, 2000]

At that time the Liberals indicated that they were concerned. Now they have demonstrated that they are probably worse.

I want to concentrate on the Conservative government under Brian Mulroney, and later Kim Campbell, because they started what this bill attempts to address. In 1992, one of the low points in the history of our country when the Conservatives were in office with a huge majority, they decided they were going to do something to punish municipalities from coast to coast. There were thousands of municipalities and the Conservatives said “We are going to freeze our grants in lieu of taxes to the municipalities”.

The municipalities had just gone through difficult, struggling times and were trying to predict their revenues for the next year. After all, they were, and are, the closest government to the people in terms of delivering programs. The municipalities make decisions on sewers, water treatment, road building, sidewalks, tot lots, parks and recreational facilities for the people of their cities. Given the fact that most Canadians are now living in cities, the municipal governments have become very close to them.

The municipalities depend on their ability to predict revenue sources to plan their budgets. There are somewhere between 50,000 and 60,000 federal properties in cities, which are all supposed to make grants in lieu of taxes. This enables the municipalities to plan and budget for the future, to plan to introduce new programs to assist the needs of the people in the various municipalities across the country. Along came the Conservatives, who said “Forget all your work. Forget all your planning. Forget all your projections. Forget all the improvements you want to make to your city. We are going to freeze your grants. We do not care what you think. We do not care what you say”. There were no consultations, no discussions. They said “We are so smart because we have formed the Conservative government in Ottawa. We are going to freeze your grants in lieu of taxes, and to hell with you. We do not care what you think”.

[Municipal Grants Act, February 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate briefly in today's debate on Bill C-10.

More than anything else, this bill reminds us of that horrible time in Canadian history when the Conservatives formed the government. It is one of those points that we cringe to recall, but it is real. Those early years in the 1990s were terrible years for Canada, terrible years for Canadians and, quite frankly, a disaster for the House, with continuous contempt of parliament and a disregard for the rules and traditions of the House of Commons.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 6th, 1999]

My hon. friend in the Reform Party asks if I am sure. No, I am not sure, but he is not sure either.

These are decent people. These are people who are dedicated Canadian citizens who take pride in their territory. They sure as heck are not going to invest the money in the Cayman Islands or Mexico. The money will stay in British Columbia for British Columbians, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal.

The Kamloops Indian band is one of a number of bands in my constituency which is incredibly progressive, leading the way in terms of change. It has started a huge housing subdivision on its lands. The houses are selling. The band is building as we speak, in spite of the Musqueam problem which people have identified. I am talking about a huge subdivision being built on Kamloops Indian land, being sold almost exclusively to non-aboriginal people.

There are numerous aboriginal businesses which are thriving and dynamic. They are hiring individuals and doing well. Alongside these businesses are hundreds of non-aboriginal businesses, all adding to the economy of the greater Kamloops area.

The Kamloops Indian band developed industrial parks in co-operation with the city of Kamloops. They agreed to share water and sewer treatment and various infrastructures to make economic development possible.

The Kamloops Indian band, working in co-operation with the city of Kamloops, has put together one of the most progressive industrial parks in British Columbia. It is filled with non-aboriginal and aboriginal businesses and most of them are doing very well. There is all sorts of local economic development, wealth creation and job creation. It can be done. This band will soon be coming forward to negotiate a settlement, not along the lines of the Nisga'a agreement but along its own lines.

I look forward to voting on this issue. Thank goodness we are moving to a new phase in our relations with aboriginal people in Canada.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 6th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in today's debate on the final stages of the Nisga'a treaty through the House of Commons.

I have been listening to the speeches this afternoon by my friends in the Reform Party. I use the term advisedly; they are my friends. I consider many of them my personal friends and I respect their views but they are totally different from mine.

I have had an image come to me. It is an image of Colonel Custer standing on the plains in the west completely surrounded by aboriginal warriors. In his last gasping breath, shooting wildly in all directions, he and his band of soldiers are wiped out. That is what I thought when I listened to my friend make his speech just a few moments ago. He does not have blond curly hair, but if he had, he would be the typical picture of Colonel Custer in his last stand.

Today and tomorrow as we vote, it will once again be a version of the last stand. I say that with all due respect but that is how I feel. The Reform members feel very strongly on certain sides of the issue. I feel equally strong on the other. I had this image of Colonel Custer shooting wildly in all directions, knowing that this was it and finally succumbing to the bands of Indian warriors on that very fateful day which changed history in terms of the plains and aboriginal peoples. Today we are at a similar kind of crossroads. Once again the people of the Nisga'a nation were consulted after their negotiators had gone through a very long and painful process of negotiation. I cannot imagine the tolerance that lasted over 100 years.

Madam Speaker, you know this story and I will not repeat it in detail, but I will give a brief history of the Nisga'a. They paddled their canoes almost from the Alaska boundary to Victoria over a hundred years ago, which is a long canoe paddle for anyone, to bring their grievances to the governing officials of the time. They said that they had never agreed to cede their territory and they wanted to negotiate a deal. We all know the terrible impact of the reaction when they were essentially told to turn around and paddle their canoes back home, which they did, but they never gave up.

Over 100 years later, after the patience of Job was demonstrated for decades and decades, a deal was negotiated. The Nisga'a people were asked what they thought about the deal. They said that they agreed with it, that it was not a perfect document, that they thought they could get a better deal. Some thought there were some problems with it, but overall they said it was the best deal they could negotiate with the provincial and federal authorities and they would accept it.

That is democracy. That is what life is all about. We negotiate a deal and then we ask people if they support it. They say yes and then we move on. British Columbia said yes and now Canada is saying yes, presumably in the closing stages of this debate. Then it will go off to the other place. I suspect that because it has the support of the two parties represented in the other place it will pass rather expeditiously, having gone through a lot of public consultation.

I know my friends in the Reform Party are saying that there has not been enough consultation. Fair enough. That is debatable. What is enough? I have held many meetings in my constituency. They were all public, open meetings which were well advertised and well attended. The discussion was always very thoughtful and very progressive. Yes, people had some concerns about the deal. I have concerns about the deal. We all have concerns about the deal, but that is the way deals are made. They are not perfect. The people who negotiate them are not perfect. We have come up with an agreement negotiated by individuals, all of whom are imperfect by definition, so yes we have differences.

In the House of Commons we witnessed a small political miracle. It is a small political miracle when Liberals are in agreement with Progressive Conservatives, who in turn are in agreement with people from the Bloc Quebecois, who in turn are supported by members of the New Democratic Party. Four of the five political parties in the House of Commons are agreeing on a major issue. Yes, we agree regularly on minor issues, all kinds of trivial issues, all kinds of minor homework issues and technical questions, but this is not a typical little deal. This is a huge initiative taken by this House that is historic in nature on which four out of the five political parties agree.

We could say that they do not know what they are talking about or that they do not know what they are doing, but let us face it, these are honourable men and women who have obviously given this a lot of thought, who have read the agreement, who have studied it, who have heard the reactions, and who have, in their judgment, decided to agree with it.

Do we all feel that this is a perfect document? No. Nobody does. However, we have looked at it, we have read about it, we have heard from our constituents and we have made a judgment, and four out of five political parties support it. The Reform Party opposes it. Fair enough. It is a free country and it has a right to its position. This must tell us something.

I consulted with Indian bands in my constituency of Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys. I asked if they supported the Nisga'a deal and they all said no. The Indian bands do not support it. They would not sign the deal because they think it is not good enough. Fair enough. That is their view. They say that they think they should do better and when they negotiate one day they will do better. That is their stated position. When my friends in the Reform Party say that this is a template for other agreements, I can say that the people of the Shuswap Nation say it is no template, that they will not agree to it because it is not good enough from their perspective. All right, we will set that aside.

I could not disagree more with some of the points made by my hon. friends in the Reform Party.

I want to say two things. First, there will be a massive transfer of dollars from Ottawa to British Columbia for the first time in history. I am talking about hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of dollars, which Ottawa will put into the economy of British Columbia. If $100 million goes to the first nations of British Columbia, they are not going to invest that money in Hawaii or the Cayman Islands.

[Petitions, December 6th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition signed by tens of thousands of Canadians.

The petitioners are calling upon the government to take appropriate steps to enhance the cultural industries of Canada, particularly the growing film industry. They lay out a number of recommendations for the government to consider. The petitioners are calling upon the government to take appropriate action to give strength to our dynamic cultural sector.

[Rcmp, December 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the solicitor general who will be aware that two constituents in British Columbia were recently swindled out of $700,000 in a very clear stock market scam.

The spokesperson for the RCMP in E Division, Peter Montague, wrote to my constituents saying “You have a valid complaint but due to the shortage of resources in the RCMP, we regret we are unable to continue with your investigation”. That was followed up by a letter from Phil Murray, the commissioner of the RCMP, who essentially agrees by saying “The current RCMP's position workload makes it difficult to investigate your complaint further”.

My question is—

[An Act For The Recognition And Protection Of Human Rights And Fundamental Freedoms, December 6th, 1999]

I have lots of friends outside the realm of the New Democratic Party. He wrote a very interesting article in which he said: “Parliament approved Bill C-29. It was a lot like motherhood. MMT, a product of Ethyl Corporation of Virginia, has been banned in Europe and in California. Almost every major U.S. petroleum producer, the minister said, had indicated support for the decision by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to forbid MMT being marketed as a gasoline additive”. He went on to point out that one-third of the American market, because of acute air pollution problems, prohibits MMT in these particular areas.

In other words, Europe does it. The state of California does it. One-third of the American market does it. And so Canada said that we would also do the same thing, which we attempted to do in Bill C-29. However, along came Ethyl Corporation which launched a $347 million lawsuit against the Government of Canada.

These lawsuits by Sun Belt Inc. and Ethyl Corporation against the Government of Canada, were not against the Prime Minister and a handful of people sitting in some office. Actually, the Government of Canada is the people of Canada, the taxpayers of Canada. The Government of Canada is all of us, all 30 million people. We represent those people in this place. When Ethyl Corporation sues the Government of Canada, it is suing the people of Canada. Men, women and children from coast to coast to coast are being sued by Ethyl Corporation over the MMT issue.

We all know what happened. The government said to Ethyl Corporation that it was sorry, that it would back off and pull the legislation, that it would settle out of court for $20 million and that it would also provide a written letter of apology. That is what we did.

Talk about property rights. Talk about corporate property rights. One could not get a better provision than what we call chapter 11 under NAFTA which essentially guarantees the ultimate in corporate property rights.

I know my friend who sponsored this legislation has done it in the best interests of the constituents he represents as he sees it. I do not think it is the right course when it comes to property rights in our country. I am not a lawyer but lawyers have told me that about 90% of the cases in a law office are case law when it comes to property and that about 10% of cases refer to people. In terms of property being protected, the track record is very very good.

My colleagues elsewhere will articulate other reasons that this legislation ought not to proceed. I could talk about the provision of assets during divorce settlements as an initiative. If one of the spouses has property rights guaranteed and he or she owns 99% of the assets, how will that affect divorce proceedings in their settlements? These are all arguments we have heard many times before.

I want to throw in as part of today's discussion the fact that under chapter 11 of NAFTA we have legislated property rights to the largest and most powerful corporations in the country, particularly in the countries of the United States and Mexico. Now they want to expand that through the WTO into virtually all of the nations of the world that we trade with. That would be nothing short of catastrophic.