House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 43% of the vote.
Natural Resources December 13th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources stated in the House that points raised by the Premier of Nova Scotia in his letter to the minister were rhetorical positions only.
Nova Scotia wants an interim agreement to allow exploratory drilling for Nova Scotia and Newfoundland in the Laurentian sub-basin.
Is the minister accusing the Premier of Nova Scotia of deliberately misleading Canadians?
Supply December 10th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I too listened intently to the member for Selkirk—Interlake. I think he wasted some of his energy at the beginning. Typical of partisan politics, he decided to take a shot at the Tories so I will take a little one at the Reform.
Western Canada was very well represented under the Tories. Agriculture was at the top of the agenda, not at the bottom of it. We had people like Don Mazankowski, Harvie Andre, Joe Clark and a number of others who were cabinet ministers, prime ministers and deputy prime ministers sitting at the table. They understood and represented the issue of agriculture.
The minister spoke about wheat and grain. Certainly they are issues but there is a greater one which I would like the member to comment on, and that is the desperate failure of the government.
Our grain farmers are supported by something like 65 cents to 75 cents per bushel of wheat. The United States supports its grain farmers by approximately $1.60 to $1.80. The numbers change constantly. The European Union supports its farmers by $2.30 to $2.40 per bushel of wheat. This is one of the major underlying problems facing us.
Natural Resources December 6th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the federal negotiator needs to work harder.
On September 3 the premier of Nova Scotia wrote to the Minister of Natural Resources to express his disappointment with the federal government's decision on this issue. Last year the premier of Newfoundland and Labrador expressed his willingness to co-operate. Everyone wants to co-operate except the federal Liberals.
How many jobs and economic benefits need to go to France before the minister drops this Ottawa knows best attitude and allows an interim arrangement to proceed?
Natural Resources December 6th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, France has been granted drilling rights on the Laurentian sub-basin, costing jobs and benefits for Atlantic Canadians. This occurred because the Liberal government poured cold water on the negotiation of an interim arrangement between the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland to allow drilling in Canadian territory.
Will the Minister of Natural Resources assure this House that he will allow an interim arrangement to be negotiated between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland so that the benefits of this resource go to Canadians first?
Firearms Acquisition Certificate December 3rd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, a South Shore constituent, who volunteers for senior's literacy, recently wrote to me concerning a police record check. He understands this process is meant to filter out unsuitable applicants but he resents the administrative bureaucracy.
After hand delivering his request to the local RCMP for a police record check, he realized he did not have his birth certificate but he did have a current Firearms Acquisition Certificate which has a scanned photo and a birth date on it. However, this card is not accepted by the RCMP to do a police check.
In order to obtain his FAC, he is required to submit his birth certificate so that a police and background check could be carried out as a prerequisite to its issuance. Logic would dictate in the circumstances described that the Firearms Acquisition Certificate is a verification of one's birth. Surely even this government could figure that out.
Nisga'A Final Agreement Act December 2nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand in the House today to speak at the report stage of Bill C-9. There has been a lot of work done in committee and a lot of debate in the House. There has been a lot of information put forth and certainly a lot of misinformation put forth. It is very difficult, but it is an interesting challenge to discuss this treaty with most of the members of parliament in this place and in other places where the committee has been.
The point that needs to be made and made consistently over and over again is that this is a very important piece of legislation, that it will be one of the major pieces of legislation to dictate and formulate policy in the treaty process in this country as we continue down the road of negotiation and treaty making. Although this is not a template, there are certainly many areas in this treaty that one would wish to be a template for other treaties.
It is important for the public and Canadian citizens at large to understand those areas that the Reform Party has spoken to on many occasions and that other members of the House have spoken to. One of those areas is whether the Constitution of Canada will prevail, and it certainly does prevail. Another area is whether the charter of rights and freedoms will prevail, and it certainly does prevail. And on and on it goes.
We could continue to debate single and numerous issues but I have listed a few. I was able to stand in the House on several occasions and debate this treaty. There were a few times after I had looked back over what I had said that I noticed I had actually missed a couple of points. It is important that we get all the points out there so everybody can understand them.
First I will speak to the areas of the agreement where Nisga'a laws will prevail to the extent of inconsistencies with federal and provincial laws. I have heard a lot of chest pounding and a lot of discussion and debate about the fact that there are 14—some days it is 14, some days it is 17—areas where Nisga'a law will prevail. Let us take a look at those areas.
There are no areas of exclusive jurisdiction for Nisga'a government. Instead Nisga'a laws are required to meet the minimum standards of federal and provincial laws except in the following areas. The Nisga'a government will be able to establish laws on Nisga'a lands concerning administration, management and operation of Nisga'a government. I do not think the world is going to come to an end on that one. I do not think the earth will crack open and people will be tumbling down this great chasm never to be seen again.
They control Nisga'a citizenship now. On the preservation, promotion and development of Nisga'a culture and language I do not think there is a hidden agenda. I do not think there is anything in it so far that I have read to members of the House that will significantly change the country of Canada that we all live in.
On the use and management of Nisga'a lands, who should be in charge of Nisga'a lands but the Nisga'a themselves in the same way that anyone who owns fee simple property has responsibility and ownership of that fee simple property? On planning and development of Nisga'a lands including operation of a land registry and expropriation, the same laws are due to any municipality.
The agreement refers to possession and management of assets other than real property, provision of health services, authorization and licensing of aboriginal healers, and child and family services on Nisga'a lands. I have made the point several times but I think it deserves to be made again that it is fairly clearly stated in the Nisga'a final agreement that the Nisga'a laws regarding children and families cannot be less than the provincial laws that are already in place. They can be greater than. They can be more beneficial and more protective of families and children but they cannot be less beneficial or less protective of families and children.
On adoption of Nisga'a children, pre-school to grade 12 education on Nisga'a lands of Nisga'a citizens, post-secondary education on Nisga'a lands, devolution of the cultural property of Nisga'a citizens who die intestate, federal or provincial laws will prevail. Other areas included are public order, peace and safety, regulation of traffic and transportation on Nisga'a roads, design, construction, repair, demolition of buildings and structure, solemnization of marriages within British Columbia, provision of social services, health services, prohibitions and conditions for sale, possession and consumption of intoxicants on Nisga'a lands, and emergency preparedness and emergency measures.
Except for adoption, social services and solemnization of marriages, the Nisga'a government will only be able to exercise its power on Nisga'a lands. For the three areas I mentioned there is an obvious need for laws to apply outside Nisga'a lands.
A number of fallacies have also been mentioned with regard to the Nisga'a final agreement. I have spoken about them at length in earlier debate and I have mentioned some of them already today. The application of the Canadian constitution and the charter of rights and freedoms are areas that need to be discussed and explained in a rational and straightforward manner with extensive and substantive debate. The issues should be raised, listed in priority, listed in order, discussed and explained, and then we should move on.
For instance, there will be no taxation without representation, which I have heard time and time and time again in the House. I think the record would show that every Reform member of parliament who spoke to this issue stated somewhere in his or her speech that there would be taxation without representation. That is patently untrue. There is no provision for that. It will not happen.
The taxation chapter states that the Nisga'a Lisims government may make laws in respect of direct taxation of Nisga'a citizens on Nisga'a lands. If a non-Nisga'a person purchases a parcel of Nisga'a land, that person will pay taxes to the provincial government rather than to the Nisga'a Lisims government. It is true that non-Nisga'a people will not be able to vote in elections for the Nisga'a Lisims government, but in areas where their interests are affected non-Nisga'a people will be able to have input and participate on boards.
It should be noted that there are hundreds of thousands of citizens, permanent residents and landed citizens who pay municipal, provincial and federal taxes and are not given the right to vote.
The very small minority, the 90 plus non-Nisga'a residents who live on Nisga'a land will not be taxed by the Nisga'a government. They do not have the right to vote for that government although there are provisions that could possibly change in the future. They will not be taxed by that government. I heard a member on the other side saying that perhaps that is not correct.
Obviously there is a fair amount of work required to get through the Nisga'a final agreement. There is a lot of reading but it is not that complicated. It is very straightforward. I would recommend that before those members stand in the House to vote against the agreement they should read it. That is one recommendation I would like to make.
That the Nisga'a final agreement diminishes the rights of non-Nisga people is patently untrue. On the contrary, they will have far greater input than currently allowed under the old Indian Act.
One of the best points about the treaty, one of the issues that makes it work, is that the Nisga'a will no longer be covered by the Indian Act. They will come out from under that archaic and perhaps racist piece of legislation. They will have their own laws, laws similar to those of any other municipality, with some quasi-provincial applications and some quasi-federal applications. They will become, if I can use the term, full and equal citizens before the law and full participants in the Canadian economy. They will receive the benefits that accrue from it.
I also had the opportunity to travel in British Columbia. Regardless of what some members in the House have said, I was not dragged kicking and screaming to B.C. I voted to go to B.C. I was happy to go to B.C. and I would certainly go back.
There is nothing to be ashamed of in this piece of legislation. There is a lot to be explained. It is the job of the government to provide that explanation and part of the explanation is travelling to B.C. and speaking to all those who want to appear before the committee. Unfortunately everyone who wanted to appear before the committee was not able to be heard.
I appreciate having had the opportunity once again to speak to this important subject.
Fisheries November 30th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the lobster season only opened yesterday for lobster fishing areas 33 and 34 in Nova Scotia and already the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has shown how unprepared he and his department are.
The Acadia first nation threatens to fish with 15 boats instead of the six boats that were supposed to be agreed upon on the imposed limit. Yet, Chief Debra Robinson says that the first nation never agreed to any limit on lobster boats in southwestern Nova Scotia.
That begs the question: What have the minister and his negotiator been doing in the months since the Marshall decision?
The November 17 ruling stated that the responsibility is placed squarely on the minister and not on the aboriginal or non-aboriginal users of the resource, yet the minister has done nothing to show the resource should be shared. Instead, he is asking for suggestions from the Conservative Party. It was our party that advised the minister to negotiate with all stakeholders and introduce an implementation plan with conservation as the first priority. It was our party that told him to apply one rule for all fishers.
The lobster fishers are beginning—
Fisheries November 26th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the minister is well aware that carapace size was supposed to increase by 1/32 in 1999 and by 1/32 in 2000. That is a 1/16 increase over two years. He has increased it by jumping it in one year because of mismanagement by his department.
How are fishers that were issued a variance order for carapace size to begin on November 28 to understand that order when DFO officials are saying that they have until December 15 to bring in the carapace size increase? So why—
Fisheries November 26th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has again shown blatant disregard for South Shore lobster fishers. In 1998 the industry started a voluntary V-notch program with a 1/32 carapace increase to follow in 1999. Weeks before the season opens, the carapace size has been increased from 3 1/4 to 3 5/16, or a 1/16 increase instead of a 1/32 increase. Why has the government changed regulations that were agreed to in 1998?
Supply November 22nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the member from Prince George made a statement about something that happened in Prince George which I had no intention of bringing up in the House today. I was there. I was at all the meetings. I would like an answer from the member for Prince George—Peace River. It would have been much more apropos to give the apology in Prince George, in the area the member represents with the people he represents.