Lost his last election, in 2000, with 28% of the vote.
Committees Of The House October 29th, 1999
Madam Speaker, Reform members joke about it. They are laughing. This is not a laughing matter. I take offence when people laugh at me. I am saying that I want the people of Canada to be heard in this budget process. They should not be laughing at a member of parliament for advocating such a thing. I am ashamed of them all.
Committees Of The House October 29th, 1999
Madam Speaker, not only do I agree with the statements, but I want to take it a little bit further.
People from all parts of Canada want to have input into how the next budget will look. There is a surplus between $15 billion and $20 billion. The people of Canada want to have a say in how that money is to be allocated. They want to go beyond what we say in the House. They want to have input. Students, farmers, small business representatives, women's groups and environmental groups all want to have a chance to say in their estimation how this surplus should be invested for future generations.
I have never spoken like this in the House. I have never felt like this. My friends in the Reform Party are saying to the people of Canada “We are going to do whatever we can so that you cannot tell the finance committee how to invest your tax dollars. We will not even allow a hearing to be held in Kamloops, Vancouver or Victoria”.
Committees Of The House October 29th, 1999
Madam Speaker, I know Reformers love this place because they do not want to leave. They do not want to go out to talk to the people in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta or British Columbia. In terms of how they are behaving, I would not want to travel out there either.
I think I have made my point. Members of the Reform Party should stop acting like a bunch of children, like immature children. That is a negative comment against children, because if most children do not get their way, they do not pick up their marbles and run away. The members of the Reform Party should grow up and start acting like decent parliamentarians and allow this place to function as it is intended to function.
Committees Of The House October 29th, 1999
A very reasonable manner, Madam Speaker.
It is a dark day in this House for a number of reasons. I will set aside the concerns with the government and the others dealing with the Nisga'a treaty. I am referring to my friends in the Reform Party, and I use that term advisedly. They are my friends and they are going against everything I have ever understood Reform members to espouse in this House, and that is the ability of Canadians to have access to the levers of power.
Members of the Reform Party are refusing the finance committee to travel to British Columbia. They will refuse permission to travel to any part of this country and I suspect we are talking about agriculture, forestry, mining and foreign affairs. In other words, it will shut down the ability of members of parliament to get out of this bloody place and into other parts of the country.
Committees Of The House October 29th, 1999
The phones are ringing from British Columbia because the Reform Party is refusing permission to travel to British Columbia to hear input on the finance committee.
Committees Of The House October 29th, 1999
The hon. member can yell. He makes a big threat that he will go to Kamloops. If we listen carefully we can hear jackboots pounding in this place, and they are being worn by the members of the Reform Party today.
Committees Of The House October 29th, 1999
Madam Speaker, this is probably one of the saddest days in terms of our parliamentary system and the state of democracy in our country. If we listened carefully we could actually hear jackboots slamming around this place.
I will set aside the government for the moment. I want to talk to my friends in the Reform Party and beg them to come to their parliamentary and democratic senses this afternoon. I know my friend has spent a lot of time as a schoolteacher. He has seen many kids who get angry because they do not get their way. They say “I am going to pick up my marbles and go home. I am not going to play”.
Reformers are saying that because they do not like what the government is doing in terms of its willingness to take a committee out to British Columbia. They will shut down the democratic process in this place for the finance committee and perhaps all others.
These are people who say they believe in the democratic process. They believe in grassroots democracy. They believe in a situation where British Columbians and other Canadians should have a fair shot at policy and legislation that are being developed. They are thwarting or stopping the finance committee from travelling across the country and hearing men and women from one coast to another. That is what the Reform Party is doing. My friends in the Reform Party astonish me because it goes against everything I have ever heard every one of them speak about.
Let us be fair. When Reformers say they believe in grassroots democracy we laud them. Of course it is what we all want to see. I have been on the finance committee for many years. The best times I have spent as a parliamentarian is when we go to St. John's, Newfoundland, Halifax, Saint John, Fredericton, Regina, Saskatoon, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and Victoria to listen to Canadians.
Does the government always follow their advice? I would say it does not always but it listens to Canadians. Canadians have a chance to make their views known. People from my community in Kamloops venture down to talk and express their views. They want to see some action on one front and some changes on another. They want the government to acknowledge these problems.
My colleagues in the Reform Party, for some stupid, idiotic and undemocratic reason today are saying that because they are mad at the government they will not let the finance committee travel. That is a travesty of democracy.
Supply October 28th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I have two very serious questions to put the minister. I appreciate his speech this morning.
One thing I have not heard in the discussions of the proposed merger is the people of Canada, through the Government of Canada, taking an equity position in a new airline to ensure decision making at the board. Is this something the minister would be open to? If not, why not?
Second, if there is a concern across the country it has to do with the jobs that will be lost. What safeguards would the minister provide us today that those jobs will be protected to the extent which is humanly possible?
Nisga'A Final Agreement Act October 27th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague has raised that issue. What has frustrated so many over the years is the inability of governments to deal with these issues, in particular in British Columbia where we do not have any treaties in place to bring stability to the situation.
People have been patient. Aboriginal leaders have been patient in anticipation that there would be a process under way. The government has set up some processes for treaty negotiation which I think are completely inadequate. There is growing frustration from coast to coast to coast that these issues are not being addressed seriously and adequately. There is increased tension on both the aboriginal and non-aboriginal sides and the situation is getting out of control.
I pose again, not so much rhetorically but as a very serious question to my Reform friends, that if this is not the approach to bringing certainty economically, in terms of the business climate in British Columbia, what else is there? If negotiations will not resolve this, the only other alternative is litigation. We have seen what that does, in particular most recently on the east coast of Canada. Litigation is not the answer to solving these issues. There have to be people sitting down at the table, negotiating something that is fair and equitable for everyone.
Nisga'A Final Agreement Act October 27th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, let me use this as an opportunity, in case there is some misunderstanding, to say that when it comes to treaty settlement in British Columbia, private property itself is not on the table. For the people who own private property in Kamloops or anywhere else, that property is not on the table in terms of being up for negotiation. I want to make that clear, and I realize what my friend was asking.
We all enjoy collective rights. Much of the municipality of Kamloops is a collective right that we enjoy. When it comes to individual territory, I look at the Kamloops Indian reserve, which is part of our city. The same situation exists there. Indian people on the Kamloops Indian reserve cannot own their property. They can obtain rights to their property, which they do, whether it is a home, a business, a ranch or whatever. That is what exists today.
I do not know where my friend wants to take this, but I challenge him and others, because people so far have not raised this and I am going to be here this afternoon to listen to them, that if members do not like this process, if they do not accept that first nations people should have their land and treaty rights negotiated—and I do not think the member suggests that they should be litigated—what is it that they would propose we do immediately to bring peace, stability and certainty to the British Columbian landscape?