Gerald Keddy

[Senate, February 24th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the private member's motion, Motion No. 98. I find it rather disturbing, with all the serious problems facing Canadians throughout the country, that the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton would choose to introduce a motion calling for the introduction of television cameras in the Senate to cover Senate proceedings.

I have listened closely to the debate this evening and two words keep coming to mind to describe it. Those two words are gratuitous frivolity. I have to question why we are debating having television cameras in the Senate at all. It is obviously not a point for the House of Commons to debate. It is a question for the Senate to debate.

The hon. member for Quebec Est discussed, at some length this evening, the attendance of Senate members. We never refer to the attendance of members of the House of Commons. It is against the rules to refer to the attendance of members of the House of Commons, yet we stood here and talked about the attendance of members of the Senate of Canada.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker—and I am saying this very carefully trying to stay within the rules—that any member who introduces any bill, private member's bill or other bills, in the House should stay for the full and complete debate of that bill. I think that would be following parliamentary procedure.

I recognize that the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton who proposed the motion has been openly critical of our Senate. He has certainly voiced his opinion on this subject through a number of mediums. Now he wants to use the time allotted for Private Members' Business to once again address the issue.

Major changes to the Senate, as all Canadians know, whether we are talking about the abolition of the Senate or the introduction of an elected Senate, will require constitutional change. I am convinced that Canadians do not have the patience for renewed constitutional discussions. Remember, we are not that far removed from the failed Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords. Minor changes to the Senate, such as TV cameras, must come from the Senate, not from the House of Commons.

Since Confederation there has been a certain decorum that has been strictly adhered to by the upper and lower Houses. The House of Commons governs the way we operate just as the upper chamber governs itself.

Although there have been many disagreements among members of both chambers, there has, nevertheless, been a sense of mutual respect for each other's role in our confederation. Both Houses have their own important role to play in our government.

The member for Sarnia—Lambton appears to want to infringe upon the responsibility of the upper chamber. He wants to impose his views on how the business of the upper chamber should be managed and reported to the Canadian public. We may or may not agree with his opinion on TV cameras. Really, that is a moot point. It really does not make any difference. It is not up to us to decide.

I am sure his intentions are honourable. Perhaps he believes there is not a role for the Senate in the Canadian confederation, that it is a waste of money. Perhaps he believes we should have a cameral versus a bicameral system of government. To make this point he introduced a motion that would see the government invest significant amounts of money to televise Senate debates. This little gamesmanship is being played at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer.

Every time we rise in the House it costs Canadians money. Why is the member for Sarnia—Lambton not focusing on some of the major problems that we have in the House of Commons rather than going on a tangent about the upper chamber? Would we not think that after witnessing the terrible debacle that was orchestrated by his government over the past three weeks that he would be looking to make significant changes in the House of Commons and leave the Senate be?

With the Department of Human Resources Development being involved in the greatest example of government mismanagement in the history of Canada, we would think that the member would be pushing his government colleagues to provide Canadians with answers to how $1 billion in government mismanagement was allowed to occur.

Why is he not pushing for changes within the House of Commons and, more specifically, question period? Right now question period is simply that, questions. We ask the questions of the government and it either chooses to ignore them completely or it answers something that is totally irrelevant to what was asked in the first place. Why is the member not pushing to change question period into question and answer period, whereby the government would be forced to answer the questions that are being put to it? Would that not be a novel idea?

Over the past three weeks the acting Minister of Human Resources Development and the real minister in charge, the hon. Prime Minister, have consistently ignored, sidestepped or made light of very serious questions and accusations. Actual answers to the questions have been at a premium. The government—particularly these two individuals—believes that it can simply throw Canadian taxpayers' money into the wind and not have to be held to account.

I really believe that Canadians do care how their hard-earned tax dollars are being spent. I firmly believe that the government has the duty to tell them. The government's smoke and mirror answers will eventually catch up to it and it will be held accountable for its actions.

The House of Commons and the upper chamber are filled with tradition. One of these traditions is that we respect each other's role in confederation and do not go about telling one side or the other how to run its business. In short, each House governs its own processes within our bicameral system.

If I remember correctly, another longstanding tradition in government has been maintaining the contents of the government's budget secret. Think about it. We have a budget coming down and the budget is secret. Nobody knows what is in the budget. Nobody has a clue what the finance minister is about to deliver to the House of Commons and, therefore, through the House of Commons to the people of Canada. Nobody has any idea what is in the budget.

I do not think that is necessarily correct. I think we do have some idea. Has it not become a joke the way the finance department has been leaking contents of the budget to the media in recent weeks? It is a wonder if anything will be left to announce come budget day. It will just be another day in the House.

It is no surprise that Canadians have been made privy to some of the details of the finance minister's budget. The government has been desperately trying to deflect attention away from the embattled Minister of Human Resources Development. The government hopes that by spreading a little good news here and a little good news there that the Canadian taxpayer will somehow overlook a $1 billion discrepancy. The sheer amount of leaked information coming out of the finance department simply highlights the extent to which the Liberal government is concerned about the damage it has done by the HRDC fiasco.

There are a few other issues I want to raise. There are other important issues that we should be debating in the House of Commons. One of them is the HRDC debacle. The other one is the September 17 Donald Marshall Jr. decision made by the Supreme Court of Canada and the way the government has handled that decision. It is deplorable.

We do not have a set of rules. It has been five months. There are 33 bands in Atlantic Canada and one of them has been dealt with. One band out of 33. In less than 60 days the lobster season will open on the east coast and we will be putting boats back on the water. What is going to happen then?

We want to talk about Private Members' Business and we want to talk about the role of parliament. We have issues to debate and one of them is not whether we have cameras in the Senate.

We have a trucking situation going on from coast to coast in this country—

[Human Resources Development, February 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development is unaccountable for a billion dollars of public money, yet the same minister is insisting that Atlantic Canadians be accountable for TAGS overpayments. Her department is clawing back TAGS overpayments as small as $6.

How can the minister justify this sudden interest in accountability for amounts as low as $6 when the same minister insists it is okay for $11 million in HRD grants in her riding to remain unaccountable and anonymous?

[Questions On The Order Paper, February 8th, 2000]

With respect to the lobster and fishing licences purchased by the government for first nations in Atlantic Canada: ( a ) how many licences were purchased, and of these (i) how many were inshore licences; (ii) how many were offshore licences; ( b ) what species are covered by these licences; and ( c ) what bands have been given these licences?

[Questions On The Order Paper, December 16th, 1999]

Has the federal government established a plan for turning the 500,000 hectare Stoltmann Wilderness protected area in British Columbia into a national park, and if so, what is that plan?

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 13th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I will be perfectly honest. I never read any press releases by the government and did not have to. I studied this issue, found out the information on it, was prepared to defend it and have on several occasions, and will continue to do that.

As far as the point he started to make about the Marshall decision, the outcome of the Marshall decision is exactly the outcome that will continue in this country as long as we do not have negotiated treaties. A treaty that was passed in 1760 is inappropriate for today. We need to sit down and deal with the serious issues before us in a responsible way for the benefit of all.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 13th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, the answer is very simple. There are two cases before the Supreme Court of Canada. The supreme court will rule on those cases. I have no fear at all about how that ruling will go.

I ask anyone who may be listening to this debate or anyone who is remotely interested in it to check the record. There were arguments for and against. Those arguments are on the record. People can decide for themselves. I have a point of view. People may disagree with it, which is fine, but I will defend what I have said any day. If the hon. member wants to check the record I challenge him to check it.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 13th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I must admit that the hon. member and I have had many good discussions about this piece of legislation. When the Liberals say that we have done a good thing, our spider sense has to tingle a little bit. We are on different sides here.

With respect, it was obviously a treaty that we could all agree on. The greatest thing about this particular piece of legislation and the greatest mistruths that have been stated by the Reform members was to compare the fear that Canadians have that there will possibly be one group of Canadians that will have more rights than another group. They threw that bone out, it did not go anywhere and they tried it again. In my opinion, this treaty does not do that.

It is the fear people have in eastern Canada when they look at a very difficult situation going on with the Mi'kmaq over the 1760 treaty. They feel that somehow this will not be settled in an amicable way and we will not be able to negotiate it. What this treaty does is clearly lay out the rules for negotiation. It protects the interest of Canadians, as the hon. member said. It allows for taxation of first nations. It removes that particular first nation from the Indian Act, which certainly all hon. members would have to agree is a good thing. I do not think that even the Reform members can say it is a bad thing to have the Nisga'a nation no longer under the auspices of the Indian Act.

The fear I have with misrepresentation is if we try to move the issue over and say, “look what is going on in Nova Scotia”. What is going on in Nova Scotia is because there is no treaty, an aboriginal title has not been settled. We are depending on something that went on in 1760 that is a page and a half long and that is open to very wide interpretation. Let us settle these issues. Let us negotiate real self-government for first nations in Canada. Let us understand that all first nations want to be real partners in the Canadian federation. Let us open that door and allow them in. Unlike the Victoria legislature, let us open the door and invite them in.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 13th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, with great respect to the Gitanyow, I will say to them what I have said already. Sections 33, 34 and 35 in the treaty allow for overlap. The treaty allows for a negotiated settlement. It also allows for the Nisga'a to be compensated by the Government of Canada and the province of B.C. should they lose property.

It is very clearly stated. The oval issue is recognized in the NFA. It is 1.5 kilometres, a fair amount of property for individuals. I respect both parties here and I hope that they would sit down and negotiate an agreeable settlement between the two first nations. With respect, I stated that very thing to the Gitanyow chiefs who presented their case extremely well.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 13th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, it has been a long day. Many of us have waited in the House to speak to this very important piece of legislation. I am certainly proud on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party to speak to Bill C-9.

With respect to the intervention by the hon. member who spoke previously, which I am sure was an enlightened and intelligent intervention, I would like to comment that the only time I ever heard a sound like that it came out of the south end of a dog that was headed north.

It is time that we debated this issue. It is past time that we debated this issue. We have stood in the House on numerous occasions and talked about the substance of the Nisga'a bill. We have talked about the legislation. We have talked about how it affects taxation, how it affects the charter of rights and freedoms, and how it affects the constitution of Canada.

I listened to the hon. member for Skeena speak about the constitution of Canada. I heard him state in this place that this changes the constitution of Canada. That is exactly what was said, and I have heard it from other members of parliament.

For the members of parliament who have read the legislation, I ask them to turn to page 17 where it references the constitution of Canada. It states in section 8 that this agreement does not alter the constitution of Canada. That is fairly straightforward, clear and pertinent to this discussion.

In subsection 8(a) it goes on to explain it further. This is the type of debate that should be raised. Members should read the statements and the sections of the agreement with which hon. members have a problem. They should be put before the country so that Canadians will hear what we are all listening to and make a reasoned and rational decision. I have no fear whatsoever about depending upon the good, common sense of Canadians when they hear all the points in this issue.

I will read some of the points in the legislation that have been singled out and have been, I think, misinterpreted by members of parliament. I will also describe why I believe they have been misinterpreted. Subsection 8(a) says:

This Agreement does not alter the Constitution of Canada, including: a. the distribution of powers between Canada and British Columbia; b. the identity of the Nisga'a Nation as an aboriginal people of Canada within the meaning of the Constitution Act, 1982; and c. sections 25 and 35 of the

Constitution Act, 1982.

It says further:

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to Nisga'a Government in respect of all matters within its authority, bearing in mind the free and democratic nature of Nisga'a Government as set out in this Agreement.

That is the same way that the charter of rights and freedoms applies to all democratic societies and governments in the country. There is nothing new there. There is no hidden design. I said in debate before that the earth will not open up and swallow British Columbia, not for a moment.

There have been other discussions on the bill. It is very important that we take those discussions a step further, that we look at them in the cold, clear light of day and debate them.

I have no problem with debating the bill. I will debate the bill until Easter without any problem whatsoever but I want to debate the bill. I do not want to debate some fictional caricature of this piece of legislation that on a good day is misleading and on a bad day totally affects the hard work starting in 1887 of the Nisga'a people, the province of British Columbia, the Nisga'a chiefs and successive governments of Canada. Negotiations were entered into in good faith.

The legislation deals with all those issues. Like any series of negotiations there is some give and take. The Nisga'a did not get the agreement they started out asking for, and perhaps on the government side it did not get the agreement either. However in negotiations we ended up with an agreement that is workable. The key ingredient for me is that we ended with an agreement that has some flexibility. This is not entrenched in the proverbial constitutional concrete that we keep hearing about. This agreement is protected by the constitution. It is not a part of the constitution of Canada.

I do not know how many times that has to be said in this place before someone will actually listen to the argument. It is easy to say no. It is easy to say I do not believe that, but if we look at the facts, study the legislation, talk to the legal experts, listen to the informed and often very good debate that occurred in the House on the treaty, we will come to understand that there are significant issues within the treaty that I believe are a template for other treaties.

There are parts of this treaty that I would hope will become a template for further treaties in the country. There are parts of this treaty that we should have as a template.

There is the fact that the Constitution of Canada prevails. The charter of rights and freedoms prevails. The interests of women and children are protected. The Nisga'a will own their land, and let me be very clear about this, fee simple.

There is no such thing as fee simple common. I do not know what that is. That term has been made up. That is one of the myths about this legislation that has been thrown out in debate. Hon. members use it and never have to back it up. They can sit down after they are finished in debate and say, “I have said it and I don't have to back it up. I don't have to go anywhere and defend what I am saying”. I have defended what I have said on this bill on numerous occasions and I am very happy to defend it one more time.

The issue of jurisdiction is extremely important. It is important for parliamentarians to protect the jurisdiction of the crown. It is important for parliamentarians to protect the jurisdiction of the province of British Columbia. Because we have entered into a treaty process with first nations in this country, it is important to protect future jurisdictions that will look at this treaty. It is not a template but we can look at many parts of this treaty with satisfaction and a great deal of pride and say we have done our duty as parliamentarians. We have protected the interests of Canadians.

We have put aside a historic wrong against the Nisga'a people. It started in 1887 when the Nisga'a chiefs paddled their canoes to the B.C. legislature. Hon. members should picture this in their minds. The chiefs dragged the canoes up on the beach, walked to the legislature, knocked on the door and were refused entry. It is unbelievable.

We have continued under the auspices of the Indian Act and other pieces of legislation to, I believe, inhibit opportunities for first nations.

An hon. member referred to Bill C-49. What a novel thought in Bill C-49 that first nations would be in charge, in control of and responsible for the land on their reserves. Several cases have arisen out of some of the legislation in Bill C-49, but here is the principle that land that we own or any first nation owns is their land to do with what they want to, as long as they obey the laws of Canada and the territory or province they are in, that they recognize stewardship and that they look after the environment.

None of us have a spotless record in this place, no group, no party, no individual. We can only work with the facts in front of us. We can only deal with one point at a time. It is great to shove all these points together and somehow throw them out, as if they were broadcasting grain to see which ones will grow and which ones will take root. They nourish those and divide them, spreading fear and innuendo and causing Canadians to ask if there is something wrong with this. Have we passed a piece of legislation in the House of Commons that does not protect the interests of ordinary Canadians? Absolutely not. We have not. That has not been done.

There is the issue of jurisdiction. There is the very important issue of overlap between the Gitksan and the Nisga'a, and the possible overlap with the Gitanyow.

I sat in Smithers and listened to the debate. The record was quoted earlier today. Any Canadian who would like to look at that debate should get a copy of the record and read it. They should read the questions that were asked about possible conflict and if there could be violence. Everything was done that could be done to get one first nation to take a stand against another, one Canadian against another Canadian, one community against another community, sowing the seeds of discontent.

As a private landowner and as a farmer I have been in numerous land disputes. Some of them were not very pretty. In some of those disputes harsh words were said, but at the end of the day there was never any intent on anyone's part not to somehow negotiate a fair and equitable settlement for everyone.

Canadians respect the rule of law. The Nisga'a people respect the rule of law. The province of British Columbia respects the rule of law. At the end of the day the issues of division that still lay undecided in this treaty will be settled because there is a process to settle them. It is not a complicated process and it is clearly laid out in the agreement. On every issue the Nisga'a final agreement prevails. Even if that part of the legislation is not carried over to the government's legislation, it still goes back to the Nisga'a final agreement and the Nisga'a final agreement prevails.

For those of us who have debated it, studied it and worked on it literally for months and months, there is nothing shocking here. There is nothing untoward. Hon. members talk about 14 areas where the Nisga'a will have more jurisdiction than the province of British Columbia or the Government of Canada. I would suggest that members read those issues, read those 14 areas. There is absolutely nothing shocking in the agreement. There is nothing there that takes away rights from ordinary Canadians. There is nothing there that allows for taxation without representation. That is patently untrue.

The taxation agreement with Canada and the province of British Columbia will allow the Nisga'a government to tax Nisga'a citizens. It absolutely does not allow the Nisga'a government to tax non-Nisga'a citizens. It is pretty simple. It even goes so far as to state that in the event that the Nisga'a sell a piece of their property to a non-Nisga'a, because Nisga'a property will be owned fee simple and the band or a member has every right to sell a piece of Nisga'a land, that is their land, they own it, then we go back to the agreement and the jurisdiction will rest for taxation in the hands of the province of British Columbia, not with the Nisga'a government. There is no way we can have taxation without representation. It goes on and on and on.

Most of us were here the other night and we voted. Certainly we showed up for the final vote. Reform members have made a big ruckus of party solidarity on this. I counted the votes on Motion No. 471. I was in the House. Thirty-nine members of the Reform Party voted. I believe if we check the record there are more Reform members than that. I know some of them were tired and I understand that. It is not inconceivable that members of parliament missed that last vote because it was tough. There is no question about it. Thirty-nine members voted. I do not think it is all love and apple pie in the Reform caucus either. I think there are some serious problems there.

We have dealt with jurisdiction. We have dealt with a number of issues. Let us talk for a moment about the fishery. Let us look at the fishery agreement which allows the Nisga'a government 27% of the TAC on the Nass River and 16% of the total TAC, that is offshore TAC.

I have heard this called a race based fishery. I would have to agree with that if the Nisga'a had 100% of the fishery on the Nass River. As long as they do not have 100%—and they do not, they have 27%—it cannot be a race based fishery. Other people will benefit from the stewardship programs introduced by the Nisga'a.

As I have said in the House before, having 27% of the total salmon catch on the Nass River is the same as having 27% of nothing, unless the stock is nurtured and allowed to reproduce and the government does not allow them to be caught on the high seas and they actually get to return to the rivers and spawn. If the resource is looked after, if the salmon population were to double, 27% is very significant. However, the remaining 73% for everyone else would also double.

It is a very fair agreement. It was worked out over time and with great difficulty. If we used this agreement as a template and applied it to every river in B.C., it would still keep the native fishery at 27%. It might be divided between five or six bands. It might be more. It might be 40%. This is why we have negotiations.

This is not a race based fishery. We as members of parliament are not encouraging some type of apartheid system. It is completely and unequivocally irresponsible and patently wrong and misleading to state that.

What is nonsense about this treaty is the number of people I have talked to who are adamantly against it yet they have not read it. They do not understand it and have not listened to one single word of debate. There is always give and take in negotiations. There is always give and take in debate. A good point can always be made. However, it is a lot easier to take cheap shots, to make an outlandish statement and say this treaty is apartheid. That is repugnant to the majority of Canadians. After listening to a member of parliament who should be respected by all Canadians use that word, how many Canadians would feel their skin crawl or their hair stand up on the back of their neck? I would suggest every single one.

This treaty deals with all of the pertinent issues which affect first nations in Canada. It is a tribute to the Nisga'a chiefs and their predecessors who worked long and hard on this treaty. I think it is a tribute to the Parliament of Canada. Many members of parliament were against this treaty and I do not have a problem with that. I have a problem with the fact that it was not debated. I have a problem with closure. I would have continued debating it until Easter without a problem and if we had to go longer than that, we would do so.

When we answer questions one at a time, and after reading the treaty, a lot of substance is removed from that argument. A lot of substance leaves the argument that people are mad and they can drive wedges into society and they can take a wrecking ball to public policy platforms.

On behalf of the Conservative Party, I am happy to support the treaty. Our party will continue to support the treaty. I expect that in 10 years we will look back and say that this was a great treaty.

[Natural Resources, December 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is again for the Minister of Natural Resources. Would the minister kindly explain the reason for the need of a mediator regarding the Nova Scotia—Newfoundland boundary when in 1982 under the Canada-Nova Scotia agreement on offshore oil and gas resource management and revenue sharing such a boundary was defined?

Is the minister saying that he has no faith in the principals of the day who signed the agreement: the then Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau and his minister of energy who was none other than Jean Chrétien?