Derrek Konrad

[Municipal Grants Act, November 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his great speech, but I have another issue.

The federal government passes regulations and laws that affect municipalities without any regard for what they do to their bottom line. It has recently come up with an idea for regulation to reduce the response time at airports. In particular, in the city of Prince Albert it is going to make a couple of minutes difference in the time the fire department can get to the airport. No one in Prince Albert, the council, the mayor, the people who run the airport and the people who use the airport, are concerned about it but the federal government makes this law.

Does the government have any plan in place to ensure that the city can afford the extra cost? No. It is to be passed on to consumers, the users, the airport shuts down, has limited use or something like that. Does the federal government give a hoot? It does not seem to as yet, despite the fact that we have made some interventions.

I would like to point out something else. When there is a disagreement in the private sector about property values, how is it handled? It is handled through a formal process with appeals. Once the appeals have been heard they are binding.

Is it that way with the federal government? Not at all. The federal government operates strictly on its own. It sets the rules. It sets the rules for appeals and all the rest of it. Even when it finally decides on something through the municipal grants review committee the minister is not obliged to accept the recommendations given, so the municipalities feel that the process does not work in their favour.

I would like to turn to the so-called Nisga'a final agreement and read from paragraph 7 on taxation and fiscal relations:

The Parties will negotiate and attempt to reach agreements in respect of grants, between them, in lieu of property taxes.

When we read all the way through the agreement we do not find that the federal government will simply enforce something on the Nisga'a people. However, we do not see an appeal process. We do not see anything. We see that it will sit down and attempt to reach an agreement. Who will determine when an agreement has been reached? It says in here that we will go through this every five years. Paragraph 3 reads:

Every five years, or at other intervals if the Parties agree, the Parties will negotiate and attempt to reach agreement on a fiscal financing agreement by which funding will be provided—

We presume that will also include transfers and payments in lieu of taxes. This agreement is very open ended. In the case of the bill before us it is not even open ended. It is closed. The federal governments sets the limits, and that is as far as it goes.

[Supply, November 16th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I note from the supply day motion that the Progressive Conservatives have attempted to cover all of the hot button issues they think are facing Canada today. They have certainly hit a couple of them. They start by excoriating the government for failing to provide leadership, a long term vision and workable solutions for Canada's fishery and agricultural sectors. Then they move on to the recent supreme court decision on the Marshall case which threw the Atlantic fishing community into turmoil. Then they go back to Canada's agricultural producers and urge the government to give urgent consideration to the immediate and long term needs of Canada's agricultural and fishing industries.

While they are busy bringing together a stew of a motion, Reform members are out in western Canada visiting about 60 communities. They are talking to farmers, municipal leaders, provincial politicians, anyone who has been hurt by the agricultural crisis, anyone who has a proposed solution to the agricultural crisis or who has information that would be useful in developing policy. It is not necessarily to address it so much as to answer how we are going to get the Liberals to even listen, how are we going to get them to know. The Liberals threw their high profile candidate in Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar to the wolves. They made no effort whatsoever to help him out. I think he got his deposit back, but that was it. The Reform Party is out there working.

The Liberal Party treated our agricultural and political leaders very poorly during their last visit to the national capital. They presented their case. They were basically shown some figures and then shown the door. Thanks for coming, don't call us, we'll call you is the attitude toward western Canadian leaders, and the Liberals wonder why they are unpopular out there. My stars, they have no idea at all.

The Liberals are improvising on agriculture. They are also improvising on Indian affairs, for instance on the Marshall decision.

I find it ironic that the Progressive Conservatives would express concern over the Marshall decision. They bandy about terms in the House such as “first nation”, “nation to nation”, “government to government”, “inherent right” and “sovereignty”, while they do not have a clue what they mean. They do not even try to find out what they mean. They just roll on talking with no concern that the words they use actually have legal meanings, that they create expectations and environments in which we end up with these types of Marshall decisions.

We ended up in a situation where fisheries managers have to allow the Mi'kmaq in eastern Canada to fully satisfy their right to fish for a moderate livelihood before anyone else can. They have priority over all other claims on the fishery no matter how long they were established, notwithstanding the ownership of a valid licence whether commercial or sport and no matter which level of government issues the licence. These priority rights mean that someone standing there fishing could well be moved along.

Is this supposed to create an environment where we get along with one another, where we care for one another, where there is equality? Not likely. That is not the way I see it. That is not the way most people see it. That is only the way those blinkered people who create such policies see it.

Part of the decision talked about a moderate livelihood. What is a moderate livelihood? Does anyone in this House presume to know what a moderate livelihood is? I do not. Before I became a member of parliament I had one idea of a moderate livelihood; now I have another. I presume people who own large and successful corporations have another. What would Bill Gates call a moderate livelihood? What would a person on welfare call a moderate livelihood? Is this to be decided in the House? Is it to be decided in Atlantic Canada? Is it to be decided back in the supreme court with another case which will really solve nothing? It will be sent back saying to go negotiate it.

Moderate livelihood, what does it do? Will it exclude the accumulation of wealth and buy only the basics such as food, clothing and housing, as they say? I heard it said the other day in New Brunswick that $80,000 is a moderate livelihood. The average income in my riding of Prince Albert is around $36,000. That means just about everyone in the riding is not making a moderate livelihood. If those are the numbers, what are we supposed to make of any kind of decisions that arise?

If it is only a moderate livelihood, day to day, a small house and enough food to get through today and not tomorrow, why would anyone make significant investments in fishing gear if they are only going to make what is called a day to day living and not accumulate wealth? After all, people want to lead a prosperous lifestyle. They want to look after their children, pass something along. That is accumulation of wealth.

The Nisga'a leaders who appeared before the standing committee stated that they wanted their children to live in dignity, respect and prosperity. They did not want a hand to mouth existence. They wanted prosperity. I do not agree that what is in the Nisga'a treaty is going to deliver it but that is their dream and their hope. I wish them well in pursuing it.

That definition of moderate livelihood is far too broad and vague to permit any definitive application.

What does it mean in the context of a native attempting to broaden the definition to cover other resource industries such as lumber which they are trying to do? For instance, if an Indian were making the so-called basic necessities or even prospering by being a member of a band government or a band administrator or a businessman, or whatever he is doing, could he then take his priority right to make a moderate livelihood out fishing for lobster, cod or whatever other species happens to be part of that priority right? Could he go into the New Brunswick forest and pick up a saw and go cutting after he was already making more than a moderate livelihood? Who figures these things out anyway? Would he be denied the right to participate in other resource industries as an Indian because that would move him beyond the basic necessities threshold?

Another point is that non-Indian fishermen do not and will not enjoy constitutional remedies for any loss of livelihood. The government therefore must compensate them fully for their loss of livelihood. But they are fishermen. Their families were fishermen for generations, going back as far as 13 generations. Most of us cannot trace our ancestry back that far. What did they do? They fished. Fishing became part of their tradition, part of their history, and they are denied it.

What are these people supposed to bother getting up in the morning for? To go down and check the bank account to see how it is doing when there is nothing in it? That is ridiculous. If they are given reasonable compensation, that is still a poor excuse for equality which would be a far better way to go.

The right to fish or gather has been defined as a communal right. An obvious question arises from that. It has always plagued socialist communal societies. If the right is communal, what does that mean? Does it mean that all can participate and must do so to benefit from the exercise of that right, or does it mean that those who do participate must share the wealth with those who do not?

We need answers to all of these questions. We cannot even begin to understand the implications of what has come down.

Unless the federal government can find a way, other than simply excluding non-Indians from participating in fisheries and other resource based industries, there will be ethnic conflict in this country now and in the future. Buy-outs are not an acceptable long term solution. It is a stop-gap measure.

In an article which everyone should read, “One country, two laws”, written by Peter Worthington in the Ottawa Sun , in speaking of Indian affairs he states:

The only federal party with a sane and workable policy on this issue is the Reform Party. It would make all Canadians equal before the law regardless of racial descent.

I say hear, hear to that and so should every other member.

[Aboriginal Affairs, November 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today the standing committee on aboriginal affairs begins hearings in B.C. on Bill C-9, the act to give effect to the Nisga'a final agreement.

Of course we know there is nothing final about this agreement, there are still some 50 areas to be negotiated. There is one thing that is final though, the list of witnesses now appearing before the committee. The list is locked up and no other witnesses will be allowed to appear. In addition, the committee will not be allowed to travel to all of the affected areas.

Two high profile persons who should appear but were not invited are former B.C. premier, Bill Vander Zalm and President of the Union of B.C. Chiefs, Stewart Philip. There are many more who should be heard from but will not be.

The government's haste, secrecy and lack of consultation on this important treaty will remind Canadians of a couple of other events dreamed up by political elites: the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords. They were rejected by Canadians after they found out what was involved. Is that what the government is afraid of?

[Civil International Space Station Agreement Implementation Act, November 2nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, the member for Wentworth—Burlington accused our member of toeing the party's line in speaking to Bill C-9 at this point in time after his government and he toed the party line by voting to shut down debate in the House. That is shameful and ought not to be done by a person who believes in democracy, as I am sure he did before he was elected to the Liberal Party.

Our whip said that we would begin to discuss Bill C-4 when we had finished discussing Bill C-9, and that has not happened yet. My colleague was entirely correct in his answer to the member on the other side. I would like to add my amen to what he said.

[Civil International Space Station Agreement Implementation Act, November 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed the hon. member's speech and his notations about the freedom to speak on something that we can all read from the government press releases and not to concern ourselves with the real issues that matter in the country.

I will read a few notes from the office of the leader of the official opposition of British Columbia regarding the democratic process that the member alluded to. He says “I am writing to note my extreme dismay over your government's motion to invoke closure on the Nisga'a treaty debate today.” What is important is what he says next. He says “This motion is an unacceptable slight to British Columbia and to all Canadians who deserve a full and open debate on this landmark treaty”. This is in contrast with the free and open debate on Bill C-4 which everyone is in agreement with.

He goes on to say “On a matter of this critical importance to our province, our country and our constitution, every member of parliament deserves an opportunity to speak”.

I would like the member to comment on what the B.C. premier had to say as well.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, October 26th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, where we see a real lack of democracy on the issue is that it is an agreement that affects all people in British Columbia. The people of British Columbia were denied a voice in the implementation of the treaty. They heard about it secondhand. I said that in my speech. Other members have said it and they will say it time and time again. The people of British Columbia were denied a voice in the democratic process. Their rights were overlooked.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, October 26th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has stated the case very well. Most of our rights have sprung from the ability to own, deal with, dispose of, or invest in private property and not property held in a collective. That is a good point. How will the collective deal with the individual rights when two individuals go to court to try to work out some form of an agreement where their property will be assigned to one spouse or the other?

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, October 26th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas for the opportunity to speak to this issue. There is already inequality on Indian reserves. Otherwise Indian women would not be speaking out about the need to look after their equality.

During debate on the last piece of legislation that went through the House, Bill C-49, the government and all other parties insisted that women were being equally treated.

It is our understanding that women's rights will not be looked after carefully in the agreement. This is not the way in which rights should be handled. When the agreement says that it respects the free and democratic nature of Nisga'a government, what is it really trying to say? It is not just a straight statement of fact. There is a qualifier in the ways and means motion which I think a good lawyer will find a way around.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, October 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today to Bill C-9, an act to give effect to the Nisga'a final agreement. I am fairly sure the final agreement will become known as the phantom legislation that changed the nation. I say that because we will not get a look at the real treaty which makes all the difference.

It might be of interest to know that the agreement, the accompanying appendices and taxation agreement are 50 millimetres thick in either English or French, while the ways and means motion before the House is in both official languages and is only 1 millimetre thick. That means that parliament was able to study roughly one-100th of the total material referred to.

The treaty which the bill implements is the first of its kind. It is meant to be a template for the remaining 50-plus treaties to be negotiated in British Columbia. It would create and constitutionalize features of government, taxation, representation, fisheries and resource management that are unique in that they are based on race.

This is not public government. It is a private government which is not based on residency but on citizenship in the Nisga'a nation. Other people cannot obtain Nisga'a citizenship no matter how long they reside on their lands. They will always be guests with none of the rights that accrue to citizens.

Just for interest sake, I would like to refer to a statement made to the special rapporteur and presented to the United Nations working group on indigenous populations: “It is the first time in our life that we are standing on lands that the white man has a right over and we as indigenous people are merely guests. I am therefore very grateful to the people of Switzerland for allowing us to be here”. That appears to be the type of thinking we are up against.

People other than the Nisga'a cannot obtain Nisga'a citizenship. It is not open to anyone except by hereditary means. They will not have any part in the election of the legislative body that sets the level of taxation levied or the amount of fees for services that are to be set. They will be at the mercy of a system that, no matter how well meaning the participants are, will deny their democratic rights and will do it for all time.

If the legislation creating Nisga'a government were outside the constitutionally entrenched land claim as it should have been, the treaty would be more acceptable. Furthermore, if it did not form part of a final agreement, it would be possible to test drive the proposed government model. One would not buy a car without driving it first to see if it fit one's needs, runs well and has a guarantee that would cover the cost of repairs if it fails to live up to the sales pitch.

In spite of these concerns this new governance model is not open to amendment in the House. Time allocation will likely be used to limit debate. There is no way to make changes that may be found to be necessary for a government which is founded on the failed practices of the 19th century.

In the legislation before us today we are told that it will help build the economy. This is stated not as a fact but as an article of faith without the slightest evidence to support it. The sad history of Indian affairs on which the agreement is based does not give me, and it should not give it to any member of the House, any reason for confidence.

Every member of the House knows, unless in complete denial, that conditions on Indian reserves which constitute a society apart from the mainstream are abysmal. The commonly accepted indicators point to complete failure. Time and time again statistics show that all social indicators on Indian reserves are much worse than for the general population. Infant mortality rates are higher than for the general population. Drug abuse is rampant. Diabetes is a scourge. Rates of incarceration, unemployment, inadequate housing and lack of economic activity all bear witness to the failure of the system that has been in place since the 1800s.

To digress for a moment, I draw the attention of the House to the interim report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development on aboriginal economic development. In its report the committee calls on the government to invest in social housing in Indian communities and in northern communities inhabited largely by Inuit.

I want the House to see and understand the contradiction in terms evident in such a statement. Social housing is neither a driving factor nor an indicator of economic development. If it is anything at all it is an admission there is no economy to stimulate or to build on. That the Liberal government thinks that social housing is an indicator of an economy rather than an indicator of abject failure shows that it has no idea what success is or how to achieve it. Therefore we must take its predictions of growth in the Nisga'a economy with a grain of salt, and I should suggest with much more than that.

In the agreement a collectivist approach rather than a private enterprise approach is entrenched. Therefore all indicators of failure will be entrenched.

The treaty is being presented as a fait accompli by the government in partnership with the Government of British Columbia. We know the Liberals are supremely confident that they and the B.C. New Democrats have it right and that the public has no need to look into what they have created. Historically this has been the modus operandi of the Liberals when faced with the big questions facing Canada.

Thirty years ago Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau introduced his white paper on Indian affairs which accurately defined the difficulties facing Indians because of the walls created by discriminatory legislation like the Indian Act. He proposed solutions to the problem that were visionary in their day and were breathtaking in their scope. His minister of Indian affairs at the time was in complete agreement with the prime minister. That Indian affairs minister is our current Prime Minister.

We need to ask what caused the failure of this grand vision for aboriginal people. What led to such a complete rout of the government of the day and the utter rejection of its vision, which continues to this day and which it rejects?

I believe it was caused by the Liberals' propensity to create grand doctrines all the while talking only to themselves. It is this predilection to shut the public out of the process and then spring some grand design for the public good on an unsuspecting public that caused it to fail. In thirty years nothing has changed. The Liberal government still has not learned anything about democracy and the need for wide consultation.

If the agreement is so good it should stand up to public scrutiny by B.C. residents in the same way it was put to members of the Nisga'a band. They should not be denied a voice in the affairs that concern them so directly. I suggest members of the House support the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition in which he calls on the government to withdraw the bill and refer the subject matter to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

I turn to a clause in the bill that to some extent sheds some light on the mindset of the government when we address these issues. The preamble to Bill C-9 states:

Whereas Canadian courts have stated that this reconciliation is best achieved through negotiation and agreement, rather than through litigation or conflict;

Then it goes on with a number of other whereas clauses. This clause serves no purpose in the legislation other than to tell the world that the Liberal administration had to be spanked by the supreme court and sent to its room. We would surely agree with that sentiment on this side of the House. However, it is our contention that the Liberal government is regrettably the senior level of government in Canada at this time and ought to behave in an adult fashion and not go to its room so easily.

Let us look at the taxation agreement as an example of what I mean. In section 37 under land claims agreements it states:

If within 15 years of the effective date, Canada or British Columbia enacts legislation giving effect to another land claims agreement applicable in northwest British Columbia that provides that all of the lands that were set apart as Indian reserves of an Indian band whose members were represented by a party to the agreement cease to be reserves, and provides in the land claims agreement that is referred to in that land claims agreement:

(a) tax powers that are not available to Nisga'a Lisims Government or Nisga'a Village Governments; or

(b) tax exemptions that are not available to Nisga'a Government or Nisga'a Villages;

Canada and British Columbia, on request of the Nisga'a Nation, will negotiate and attempt to reach agreement with the Nisga'a Nation to provide appropriate adjustments to the tax powers of Nisga'a Lisims Government, and to the tax exemptions available to the Nisga'a Nation and Nisga'a Villages, taking into account the particular circumstances of the other land claims agreement.

The rather lengthy legal text I read means just one thing. There is none of the vaunted finality in the agreement in respect of taxes at least. If any other band negotiates a better agreement, and that is inevitable, the federal and provincial governments must come to the negotiating table at the request of the Nisga'a government to add to the powers and exemptions that were not included in this agreement.

For the reasons I have stated I will be opposing the legislation and I call on other hon. members to vote in favour of the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, October 26th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, the member said that she feels the debate should deal in facts. She mentioned the oppression the Nisga'a had been under. I would like her to put some factual evidence before the House to document the oppression the Nisga'a have suffered under the provincial NDP governments, the federal Liberal governments and the federal PC governments that have governed this country and that province for a number of years.