Dick Harris

[Supply, November 25th, 2004]

Yes, well, it was an ordeal at times, Mr. Speaker, because I generally have a lot of respect for the member and I certainly was interested in hearing what he would say.

I was really disappointed in his presentation. Only for a very short time during his speech today did the member deal with the people affected by this expropriation. He tried to get as far away as he possibly could from the wrong that was caused back then during the expropriation.

Yes, he talked about things that are going on at Mirabel and he talked about the Conservatives. He did not mention that it was the Progressive Conservative Party of the time that actually got 80,000 acres back into the agricultural mix. This land is now being worked.

As the member knows, the Progressive Conservatives were trying to do whatever they could to make the best out of a really bad mistake made by the Liberals. Mirabel is the biggest white elephant in the history of this country, I believe, but no, not quite, the EH-101s probably are.

However, I want to get to the point here. The member talked about the expropriation process. He said “this did not happen in a legal vacuum”. Probably not. There are provisions under the Expropriation Act which ensure that people get compensation.

However, there is one thing missing in that act and that is the right of people who do not want to sell to refuse, people who want to stay on their land, who want to stay with the dream they had to have a farm for their generation and generations to come. That right of saying, “No, I do not want to sell”, is not in there.

The Trudeau government of the day used the Expropriation Act and whatever cabinet powers they had, in my opinion, because of the price they paid, which was about $200 an acre, to basically cheat the landowners out of their property. I use that word because they got it at bargain basement prices. The Trudeau government knew what it was doing, because not a year later down in Pickering they were prepared to pay about $2,000 an acre for raw farmland.

It clearly shows that the government took advantage of the people living in the Mirabel area. They took advantage to plunder their farms for what turned out to be a very bad investment. The government just refused to recognize the wrong.

Our party wants to talk about the future of the families that wanted to stay there and the people who still want to get back so they can have their future as well.

[Supply, November 25th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell--

[Forestry Industry, November 25th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it has been two years since the B.C. government first asked the Liberals to help it in a major attack against pine beetle damage but they have never really responded to that request. Now the province of B.C. is back again asking for help on a new 10 year plan to mitigate the damage caused by the pine beetle.

My question is for the Minister of Industry who is from British Columbia. Will his government finally recognize the magnitude of this damage and join in with the province of B.C. in its new 10 year plan to rescue its forests from this beetle damage? Will the government do it?

[Supply, November 25th, 2004]

The arrogance, yes. It is the arrogance and dictatorial way that they have governed this country for years. Is this not just another example? It is all about them and not about the people of the riding.

[Supply, November 25th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, listening to the debate, and in particular listening to the Minister of Transport, I am hearing what I have heard for 11 years in the House.

Over and over the Liberal government talks about what it believes in, what it wants, how it sees things, and how it believes this country should operate. However, one thing is missing, and particularly on this issue. He has been up talking about “we, we, we”. He has never responded to my hon. colleague from Niagara Falls, the transport critic for our party, who asked him specifically to forget about what the government's false vision might be on this issue, but rather to talk about the people whose lives it has affected in such a terrible way.

The government plundered the land from the people, the farmers, who had visions. We are talking about the people of Canada incidentally, the farmers of that land who had visions of a future for them and their families that would span decades and perhaps centuries of farming in that particular area.

The land was ripped from their grasp, ripped out of their dreams, for what became probably the biggest white elephant investment that a Liberal government ever made in the history of the years during which it was in charge of the country.

I want to ask the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel a question. Is this not just typical of the way that Liberal government members have acted for so many years while in power? It has been all about them, what they feel, and what they say is best for the country, not about what is best for the people of this country. Is this not a perfect example of the--

[Criminal Code, November 15th, 2004]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-275, an act to amend the Criminal Code (failure to stop at scene of accident).

Mr. Speaker, this bill is a result of an incident on January 6, 2003, when 13-year-old Carley Regan lost her life at the hands of a driver who failed to stop his truck after he hit her with the vehicle. The driver received a sentence of 18 months in prison which was reduced to 14 months to time served. He was later released after serving only 10 months of his sentence.

Rarely, if ever, do perpetrators of hit and run causing bodily harm or death receive more than two years in prison, but the families who lost loved ones suffer for the rest of their lives. This is not acceptable to these victims and their families.

Therefore, my bill would eliminate plea bargaining for hit and run charges, it would introduce a minimum sentence and it would equate hit and run causing death to murder and hit and run causing injury to manslaughter.

My colleague, the hon. member for Abbotsford, has been very active on this issue for a number of years and is co-sponsoring this bill.

We ask that Parliament would seriously consider supporting victims of hit and run by voting in favour of the bill, which we are calling Carley's law. A message needs to be sent that it is unacceptable to evade responsibilities by failing to stop at the scene of an accident.

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

[Petitions, November 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition containing several hundred names from the riding of Cariboo--Prince George which was begun on the initiative of Katrine Reagan of Quesnel, B.C.

Ms. Reagan is very concerned about the fact that since 1997, in the event of a marriage breakup, the parent paying spousal support is of course no longer allowed to claim that child support on his or her income tax. However, that child support is calculated on the payer's gross income, but not net income.

The petitioners with to bring to the attention of the House that a parent who has to pay child support is paying on his or her gross income and would like to see that changed in order for it to be calculated on the net income of the paying parent.

[Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act, November 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, every agreement that the government enters into with anyone in this country, any first nation band or any province, must have terms within the agreement that certain things are going to be carried out.

There are jurisdictions that are delegated to provinces and there are jurisdictions that are delegated to first nations. In those delegations it is assumed that the terms of the agreement would be fulfilled.

I have been here since 1993 and this is one of several first nations self-government bills that have come before the House. Every time the question of accountability came up, there was the issue of accountability from the federal government as well as accountability from the first nation in order to stay within the terms of the agreement. There is a glaring lack of accountability.

In terms of self-government, we in the Conservative Party want the self-government goals to be completed with first nations across the country in respect of the Constitution of Canada.

Back in 1992, in the Charlottetown accord proposal, there was section after section that proposed to give first nations in this country powers of self-government that would supersede federal, provincial and regional authorities.

The people of Canada looked at that Charlottetown accord and they looked at that part of it. Debate after debate went all across the country. The Canadian people said no to that accord, as the House knows. They did not like the terms of it. They did not like the broad language. They did not like the further questions that it could raise in the future.

It was a good day for Canada when the Charlottetown accord was defeated. Since that day, since the Liberals were elected in 1993, slowly but surely, but invariably in every single first nations piece of legislation that has come to the House we have seen the Charlottetown accord provisions being inserted into those pieces of legislation.

The same Charlottetown accord provisions that were defeated by Canadians have been present in every single first nations legislation put before the House. The same provisions that were defeated by Canadians in a nationwide vote have surreptitiously been brought back in every piece of legislation by the Liberals.

[Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act, November 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I go back to my earlier comments that it is historical that Liberal governments in Canada, including this one under this Prime Minister and when he was in cabinet before, have continuously introduced legislation that affected the people of Canada and fostered divisions in the country.

When the government was out on the election stump, it claimed that we were one great nation and that it wanted to ensure that people from coast to coast to coast received all the benefits and the attention of the federal government. That is just lip service when we compare it to the historical record of Liberal governments of fostering division. This is not what Canadians want.

When we sign agreements with first nations people, in my opinion and in my party's opinion, we want them to reflect the principle of equality in the country, that everyone is created equal and has an equal opportunity to create and improve a standard of life that is as good as anyone else. I believe people should not be deterred from that in any type of legislation. The job of the government is to allow Canadians the opportunity to live and prosper in safety, to raise families and to have adequate access to health care. That should apply to everyone.

In an agreement such as this those principles must apply to the agreement as to how it will affect the Tlicho first nation in the same manner that it affects every other Canadian. Provinces do not have the right to supercede the government on international decisions. Provinces are unable to successfully challenge the Constitution. There is a formula involved. Provinces cannot arbitrarily say that they have made a decision that something does not work for them and, notwithstanding the Constitution, then change it.

That is a provision in Bill C-14. In some cases it can be seen very clearly to supercede the Constitution of our country. We cannot have that. We cannot allow that to happen. Everyone must be governed by the Constitution of Canada.

[Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act, November 1st, 2004]

The members do not like to hear the truth. The history of Liberal legislation over the past several decades shows very clearly the fostering of divisions by the government and previous Liberal governments. They do not like it but they cannot deny it.

What is astounding is that Bill C-14 appears to recognize the right of the Tlicho First Nation to enter into international agreements and, in some cases, to stand in the way of Canada entering into international agreements. The agreement states that it does not limit the authority of the Tlicho to enter into international, national, interprovincial and interterritorial agreements. Further, it requires that the Government of Canada consult with the Tlicho First Nation before Canada enters into an international agreement that may affect the right of the Tlicho government, the Tlicho First Nation or Tlicho citizens. That is very broad and disturbing language and puts a remarkable restriction on the constitutionality reserved for a federal government.

We in the Conservative Party believe that the broad language of the agreement could impede the power of the federal government to enter into international agreements and agreements with the provinces in the event that the Tlicho First Nation were to believe that in some way it could affect its nation or one of its citizens.

We do not need agreements in this country that could be tied up in court challenges on an endless basis, which is why we must be very clear and concise with the language we use. We must do our best to ensure that words like “may, should, could, possibly, perhaps” or “maybe” cannot be applied to the language of the agreement and cause challenges to it. Our obligation to the people of Canada is to ensure that every piece of legislation or agreement that we enter into with the provinces, the first nations or any other peoples or territories do not use terms that cause doubt about the agreement that may lead to challenges on and on in the years to come.

The Conservative Party of Canada looks for agreements that have distinct language and very clear terms that should not be able to be challenged because of broad language that may cause people to believe they can interpret the language for their own terms. We have all the abilities to ensure that agreements are safe and sound and have safety nets within them for all people of Canada.

The electoral system within this agreement causes us great concern. People living in a new Tlicho First Nation government, living within those territories and under that jurisdiction, while they should still be under the jurisdiction of Canada as a whole, because all of the territories, all of the provinces and all of the first nations in our country are all part of Canada, they all must be covered and protected under the Constitution of Canada and under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Canada.

It appears to us that this agreement would create what could be described as a racially based electoral system. The agreement creates a category of citizen called Tlicho citizens who are the only people who may be elected as chiefs. Further, 50% of the elected council must be Tlicho citizens. This is arguably counter to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We must ensure that anyone living under the jurisdiction of the Tlicho self-government is treated fairly, equitably and in a manner that is governed and overseen by the Constitution of Canada and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as it applies to every other individual in Canada.

Another point I would like to make is the agreement contains similar languages to what I believe will create a problem down the road. It appears to be giving governing powers within our country which in some respects, and even one is too many, would allow the formation of another country or nation within the Canada. It would have powers that would supersede the powers of the Government of Canada, the Constitution of Canada and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We are very dangerously close in the agreement to creating a country within a country as we have been dangerously close on previous agreements.

The Liberals have talked about wanting to unite and have a unified Canada. If there is any doubt they have said that, one only has to look at their attempts in the sponsorship issues going on right now. One only has to see how much money they spent, in many cases under suspicion, but that is another story. They talked about how important it was to have a total Canada, including Quebec and including every people in this country, no matter from where they came, Canadian citizens or landed immigrants, a Canada that was unified. We are in danger once again, as we have been on past agreements dealing with first nations. The terms of the agreements gave rise to fear that we could be creating a country within a country, enclaves within a country, apartheid, a partition, because of the lack of common sense and the use of broad language in the agreements that we have entered into.

When I believe a divisive type of legislation is being applied to people of the country, I am very happy to say that I have had the opportunity to speak against it. This is another example to which I am proud to speak.

The agreement is jurisdictionally confusing as well. I just talked about this. The agreement describes three different hierarchies to determine which legislation is paramount in the event of conflict: the federal legislation, the territorial legislation, Tlicho laws or the agreement. It is not clear that the Tlicho citizens will have the benefits of protection under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the even of conflict with the Tlicho constitution.

It just amazes me how the government could allow such open-ended language in such an important document. We are trying to create a self-governing environment for the Tlicho nation, one that will give it the confidence that it can do some long terms planning and one that will give Canadians confidence that the issue will now be settled. It will be one that we will not be looking at over and over again as we go down the road into the future. It will be one that we will not be faced with constant challenges and confusion about who has the authority.

Canada has the authority. Canada is the federal authority to run the country. It creates laws. It delegates authority to provinces and to territories. Authority that the federal government delegates away must be an authority that is good for all Canadians and good for the agreement. It should not give rise to questions in the future.

I remember speaking to the dangers of Bill C-68, the infamous gun registration bill, when it came into the House in 1995. I asked then justice minister, Allan Rock, if he would tell Canadians whether Bill C-68 and the regulations contained therein would apply to every single Canadian. It was a simple question. We had been hearing from the Liberals for several weeks that Bill C-68 was a law for all Canadians and everyone would be included under the regulations. New parliamentarians in the House will hear the following type of responses from ministers. The justice minister said, “Bill C-68 is universal in its application”. That was okay because it would apply to everybody. He then said, and it is in Hansard , that it would be “flexible in its implementation”. In other words, it would apply to everyone but it really would not.

Bill C-14 is proof positive that we were getting double talk back in the days of Bill C-68. The agreement specifically gives the Tlicho first nation authority and power to make its own laws over firearms and ammunition. Therein is the comment the minister made back then, “flexible in its implementation”. It never was meant to apply to everyone. Time and time again we have seen the government delegate authority to first nations to govern their own firearms and ammunition regulations.

Bill C-68 then becomes what could be called race-based legislation because it applied to one group of Canadians but not to another. That is very dangerous. Why would we want to foster divisions rather than promote unity? Every Canadian is as valuable and equal to every other Canadian and should be treated the same under the same laws and under the same Constitution and Charter of Rights.

The Conservative Party of Canada believes that self-government must occur within the Constitution of Canada, but it must have a finality to it, it must have clear language and it must have absolute terms. We cannot have terms in broad language that would lead to interpretations down the road once the agreement was signed.

To ensure fairness and equality, a Conservative government would ensure that the principles of the Charter of Rights applied to aboriginal self-government. The least we can do for our first nations people in Canada is give them equality, protection under the Charter of Rights and the Constitution and assure them, by signing agreements with them, that they are equal and as valuable as any other citizen in the country. We are a unified Canada, not one where divisions are fostered by a government.