Mr. Speaker, I withdraw hiding the truth.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 44% of the vote.
Agriculture November 3rd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw hiding the truth.
Agriculture November 3rd, 1999
With these numbers that have apparently been cooked up in the last few days, why is the Prime Minister hiding the truth about the farm income crisis?
Agriculture November 3rd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, in the 1997 election I ran against a Liberal cabinet minister by the name of Dr. Jon Gerrard on the Reform platform for agriculture. I am here and he is there.
The Prime Minister must be the only one who believes that Saskatchewan's farm income has improved by $400 million overnight. Certainly no farmer I know will see the benefit of this bureaucratic—
Civil International Space Station Agreement Implementation Act November 2nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I am certainly as proud as anyone about the international space station and I am very enthusiastic about the use of space and how it can affect our daily lives. One of the greatest uses of space to date has been the global positioning system. RADARSAT has been of great benefit to us with respect to to ice conditions and agriculture.
My question to the member for Wentworth—Burlington concerns the fact that the boundaries for the Nisga'a people in the Nisga'a area have to be determined on a scientific basis. I want to know if this member can explain how space can help set those boundaries. I would like him to also explain how these boundaries can be set so as to avoid any conflict with neighbouring aboriginal people who are claiming the same land. Is there some kind of magical outer space area that will settle these problems here on Earth, for example through the use of the GPS? I think he understands the question.
Civil International Space Station Agreement Implementation Act November 2nd, 1999
Madam Speaker, I will ask a simple question. Does Bill C-4, the space agency bill, deal with the constitution of Canada? If not, could he tell us other bills that in fact deal with the constitution of Canada where the Liberal government is trying to railroad and wreck democracy in the country?
Civil International Space Station Agreement Implementation Act November 2nd, 1999
Madam Speaker, the member has spoken quite eloquently about the economic and side benefits that are going to Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia.
I happen to represent a riding in the province of Manitoba. I am sure the member can prepare an answer for me as to what the economic benefits are that will accrue to Manitoba, if any, in a direct sense as opposed to an indirect sense in that we are all Canadians and we know that we will receive an indirect benefit.
We have six members from the Liberal government in Manitoba. I have not heard them asking what benefit Manitoba will get from this. Possibly the member for Vancouver Quadra could tell the House and Canadians just where Manitobans fit in to the space agency program.
Agriculture November 1st, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the government has its head so deep in the sand it does not understand the problem.
The problem in western Canada has not been addressed by what the government has done to date. The premiers of two provinces were here. People out west are crying out. They are hurting. Some have even committed suicide. The major reason is the farm income crisis.
Does the government not understand? I am pleading. Try and do something. Do it now. Listen to the premiers of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. That is all I ask.
Agriculture November 1st, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister had the audacity to tell farmers last week that their problems are not as bad as they think. The agriculture minister keeps saying that limited emergency funds are available but forgets to mention that almost all of the funds are still sitting on the cabinet table.
Now we find out that the government is pressing ahead with a $47 billion shopping spree. What will it take for the Prime Minister to realize that farmers are a priority too, another 1,000 foreclosures or how about another eight suicides?
Nisga'A Final Agreement Act November 1st, 1999
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the people of Selkirk—Interlake. I intend to address this issue in a limited way due to the complexity of the Nisga'a treaty.
The Nisga'a treaty has arrived in this parliament to be debated and passed, or not passed, as members of the House decide. I would like to say from the outset that I am against the signing of this treaty for the simple reason that contained within this lengthy document is a large question as to whether the Parliament of Canada has supremacy over this land and over the laws we all live by.
That the supremacy of parliament has been supplanted to the degree that is possible within this agreement I think bodes poorly for the future of our country and our children; not only Canadian children of non-Nisga'a descent, but also Nisga'a children and future generations of Nisga'a people.
The people of Selkirk—Interlake and I support the signing of treaties and support negotiations with aboriginal people. Within my riding we have firsthand experience with this process in that we have lands being added to our reserves through purchases and additions to the land holdings of aboriginal people. We certainly see that there is nothing wrong with that.
The problem, which I will restate briefly, is the question of who is ultimately supreme with regard to the functioning of society within geographic boundaries. I believe it is purported by the government that the boundaries of Canada are still from the Queen Charlotte Islands, past Victoria, right through to Newfoundland and past Prince Edward Island. This contiguous land mass is meant to be governed by this parliament.
I have a problem with whether Canadians really understand and know what is going on, whether they understand and know what is happening to their country. They may well, on full information, be willing to say that it is a great treaty and it is just what they are looking for. The problem is, that has not been done to this point in time. The chance for Canadians to really understand was contained within this debate in the House. What do I see in regard to parliamentary democracy, the give and take of debate, the understanding of the issue? I see limited participation on the part of Liberal members. I see limited opportunity for us to question ministers, parliamentary secretaries and other members of the government who speak on this issue.
Canadians have to know absolutely, to understand and to buy into it in order to have the future that I perceive we should have in Canada, a future of peace and harmony. If Canadians do not fully understand this treaty, all of a sudden they will wake up to see disputes between aboriginal tribes over borders. We have already seen it in the case of Nunavut. Islands off the shore of Quebec have been claimed by both the Quebec Cree and by Nunavut.
Why would we be setting up future problems in our country? We see neighbouring aboriginal first nations to the Nisga'a already disputing portions of the land that will fall under Nisga'a control. It does not seem sensible to proceed with this treaty, vote it into law and then proceed to negotiate and fight through the courts for many years. Animosity will build among native people, as well as among native and white people.
I am looking at background material which has been provided by the government. It says that the Nisga'a government may make laws in respect of a number of areas, including citizenship, language and culture. It also indicates that the criminal code will form part of the criminal law of the Nisga'a land. The problem arises in the administration of justice. I will deal with this from the concept of organized crime.
Organized crime operates solely on accumulating wealth. When it comes to combating organized crime, the only way it can be done effectively is by having an overriding supreme parliament and a national police force that is capable of and has the authority to conduct investigations on every square inch of Canadian land and into every corporation subject to Canadian law. In this case there will be, in effect, Nisga'a crown corporations set up to do Nisga'a business.
Under this administration of justice the Nisga'a will have their own police service. What is in the Nisga'a document that will guarantee that the RCMP will be able to conduct investigations without having the Nisga'a government saying no, the RCMP will not investigate a given corporation, or it will not investigate a certain set of individuals?
Anyone who says it is entirely unlikely that the Nisga'a people will be involved in organized crime does not know very much about organized crime. Organized crime is prevalent throughout this country. Every society, every race, every background has individuals who are involved. It is paramount that the Canadian government, through parliament, have the authority and the ability to conduct investigations into organized crime on Nisga'a land and within Nisga'a corporations.
Corporations and businesses are the very means by which money is laundered in this organized crime scheme. Those in organized crime find it very difficult to launder their money so they can account for it without its being recognized as having come from the sale of drugs or other illegitimate means.
If parliament is not supreme, the Nisga'a government can stop or thwart investigations. This has been done in the United States where there are all kinds of problems between jurisdictions. Organized crime could flourish through the corporations which are set up to administer the collective on the Nisga'a land. This is a great concern and relates back to the supremacy of parliament.
In South Dakota there was a similar set-up with regard to the supremacy of the state legislature as opposed to aboriginal land. There is a farm with 859,000 hogs on a piece of land in South Dakota. It is and will continue to be an environmental disaster. Where is the supremacy of the federal government of the United States over that kind of environmental damage?
I am against this treaty because the material has not been put out to Canadians. It is not 100% clear on jurisdiction. It is not 100% clear on who is in charge. As a result, I see nothing but problems for Canada and the Nisga'a people in the future.
Agriculture October 28th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, feeble attempts are not enough. Farmers are judging the government by its actions. They are judging by results. AIDA has been a complete waste of time.
Farmers want to see the Prime Minister fighting American and European subsidies. They want to see input taxes slashed. They want to see emergency compensation coming to help. Farmers need help now.
If the government does not step in, thousands of more farmers will be made homeless just before Christmas. Why is the Prime Minister refusing to help these farmers make it through the winter?