Mr. Speaker, since the Marshall decision of September 17 the only agreement reached has been negotiated without government help. Does the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans have a plan to implement when this crisis returns next spring?
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 43% of the vote.
Fisheries November 1st, 1999
Mr. Speaker, since the Marshall decision of September 17 the only agreement reached has been negotiated without government help. Does the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans have a plan to implement when this crisis returns next spring?
Young Offenders October 29th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of tougher penalties for young offenders.
In the spring of this year two young men, aged 16 and 17, forced their way into the home of Stuart and Ruth Hebb. One viciously beat 90 year old Mr. Hebb, stopping only after he was unconscious. Both then turned their abuse upon 74 year old Mrs. Hebb, who was struck and threatened with the same fate as her husband.
Because these young offenders tore the phone from the wall the elderly couple waited, one victim too injured to move and the other too traumatized to leave her husband's side, until help arrived many hours later.
The punishment in this case has been a mere slap on the wrist, with one of the offenders getting three years in custody and the other two years in custody and a year of probation.
The Hebbs, on the other hand, have received a life sentence. Their lives can never be the same. The sanctuary of their home was invaded and their safety in the community questioned. They live in constant fear of future retaliation; not a pleasant way to spend what should be their golden years.
Supply October 28th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the member's speech and, for the life of me, I do not know in which direction he is headed. He started at one point in the circle and he chased himself all the way around the circle. I will ask him a direct question which has to do with foreign ownership.
On October 26 the minister said that he would address the 10% foreign ownership regulation. He said that he would take another look at it. That has not happened yet, but there is a lot of discussion on it. The minister is willing to look at it. We now have a new Onex bid, with direct Liberal connections, that is apparently proposing 14.5% foreign ownership.
If the minister wanted to open this up for direct competition, would it not have been better to open up the foreign ownership bid early on when the Competition Act was cancelled? When the foreign ownership part is opened up 78 days later there are fewer people willing to put a bid together in the timeframe that is left during the 90 days when the regulations of the Competition Act have been suspended.
We are stifling competition. We are allowing one person to bid because they have already done their homework, they have already spent millions of dollars, and they already know how much and what limit they can reach.
Supply October 28th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I picked two words from the member's speech. Those two words were transparent and competitive, that the process is transparent and competitive. What is transparent is the strategy used by the government to make sure one company and one company only takes over the airlines. It is very transparent.
The member stated that on October 26 the minister started a new strategy and in a new direction to see how the airline would eventually be taken over. He would make the process more competitive by perhaps abandoning the 10% rule to allow an airline or a company to own more than 10% of a Canadian airline. We must realize that by October 26 there were only 16 days left in the process. There are only 14 days left in the process now. Suddenly we are opening it up.
By some type of a miracle or coincidence Onex puts a bid in for 14.5% Canadian ownership. It is a coincidence. I understand that, but the bottom line is that if he wanted to make the process competitive, should he not have changed the 10% rule at the very beginning of the process? Probably a number of other bidders would have bid on the process at that time. However, 74 days into the process they have been cut out. They will not come in now with a new plan so what we really have to do is extend the timeframe.
Nisga'A Final Agreement Act October 26th, 1999
Madam Speaker, I have one question and a point that I would like to raise. The hon. member says that private property rights are not protected in the Nisga'a agreement when in reality if he has read the agreement he must be aware that private property rights are protected in the agreement.
Private landowners, non-Nisga'a landowners who live in the Nass Valley, are not under the Nisga'a agreement. They still have full title to their property. It even goes so far as to give them ownership of the roadbeds leading to that property. Therefore private property rights are definitely protected.
I find it a bit incongruous that government members are not standing to debate and defend the Nisga'a agreement. They have left it up to opposition parties in the House that may or many not agree with each other. Surely the Government of Canada, which represents the people of Canada, should be doing the job of defending the treaty that I am on my feet doing right now. It is a good treaty and I would like to hear more from government members. I would like to hear from the hon. member on that.
Nisga'A Final Agreement Act October 26th, 1999
Madam Speaker, I have listened to the Reform's debate and, quite frankly, it seems that we come around to this point every time where the Reform wants to take this wrecking ball approach to public policy debate. If nothing is working, we tear it all down to the base common denominator and then somehow build some constructive process on top of that after there is nothing there to start with.
There has been a fair amount of talk about the Supreme Court of Canada. We have gone to the supreme court far too many times in dealing with first nations in the country. Every time we have gone to the supreme court we end up with a decision that binds us by law to abide by and to live with.
When the member looks at the Sparrow, Delgamuukw, Simon, Gladstone, Smokehouse and all of the supreme court decisions of the last decade and some from the decade before, would he advise us to continue to go to the supreme court? I have heard the comments about what is happening on the east coast of Canada.
Or, are we not far better off to sit down in a public policy debate with first nations, the federal government and the provincial governments and establish some type of a treaty process, that may not be perfect for everybody but is perfect for the majority, and come to some concrete examples and terms of a decision that all Canadian can live by?
Does the hon. member not think that this is a much better process than allowing the Supreme Court of Canada to dictate Canadian laws to Canadians?
Nisga'A Final Agreement Act October 26th, 1999
Madam Speaker, it states very clearly in the Nisga'a final agreement that the rights of Nisga'a men and women are equal and protected under the law. It states that very clearly. Let us put aside the assertion that somehow there is inequality between men and women in the agreement.
The other assertion that needs to be set aside is that this is not a democratic process or is not democratic enough, or it could be more democratic. The Nisga'a government went before its own people and 61% of the voters in Nisga'a lands voted in support of the agreement. Looking at the total number of people in the Nisga'a lands, 75% voted for the agreement. The Reform Party itself agreed to change the way that party works. Some 25% of Reform Party members voted for that and it was good enough. I would like a comment from the member.
Nisga'A Final Agreement Act October 26th, 1999
Madam Speaker, the hon. member who just spoke referenced several issues that deal with the constitution and the charter of rights and freedoms. The Constitution Act, 1982 states very clearly in subsection 52(1):
The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.
It is my understanding that the constitution of Canada applies to the Nisga'a treaty and that the charter of rights and freedoms applies to the Nisga'a treaty. That can be argued in several different directions and the Reform Party has done that in several instances.
I would like the hon. member's opinion on whether or not the charter of rights and freedoms applies and whether or not the constitution of Canada applies.
Nisga'A Final Agreement Act October 26th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I agree that all Canadians need to fully understand this treaty and its implications. I support informed, full, clear, open and continued debate on this issue. I stated earlier that the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada does not in any way, shape or form support closure on this matter.
The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake had several other questions. One of them I had a bit of difficulty following, but it certainly was a bit of a contradiction. He stated that he supported dealing with first nations on a nation to nation basis, and I think the hon. member has a full understanding of how the constitution of Canada applies to first nations and the fact that we do deal with the 630 first nations in Canada on a nation to nation basis.
However, he also thought that the Nisga'a referendum should have had some dialogue or something in the process to allow for comments. Perhaps he was talking about overlapping land claims or other first nations who live in northern B.C. If we accept the theory that we deal with first nations in Canada on a nation to nation basis, then we cannot say that other first nations should have some say in the treaty that we formulate and go forward with for the Nisga'a. We cannot have it both ways. It can only be one way or the other.
The important thing to understand is that the charter of rights and freedoms will still prevail. The constitution of Canada will still prevail. The Nisga'a government will be a municipal style of government with some provincial rights and some federal rights. At the end of the day we will give the Nisga'a people an opportunity to move forward, to go into the second millennium and have their rightful place as equal partners in the Canadian federation.
Nisga'A Final Agreement Act October 26th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I wrote down six questions. I might have missed one or two, so I will start with the nation to nation concept.
It completely and utterly astounds me that Reform members of parliament can stand in the House and continually talk about the constitution of Canada and the charter of rights and freedoms and fail utterly to understand how they apply to Canadian citizenship, to Canadians and to aboriginals in the country. It is totally amazing.
I am sure we will have an opportunity to continue this debate. Quite frankly, I look forward to that because there are a number aspersions that have been put forward by the Reform Party of Canada that simply do not hold water and will continue not to hold water. They need to be looked at and explained one at a time.
Concerning a referendum for the people of British Columbia, the B.C. legislature approved and ratified the treaty. It decided there would not be a referendum for the people of British Columbia. That is the reason there has not been a referendum in the province. It has nothing to do with the Parliament of Canada. I would suggest that it is improbable, impossible and even immoral that the entire Canadian nation should vote on this matter. This is not a matter for the people of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia or any other group to dictate.
We deal with first nations in the country on a nation to nation basis. We may not like that. We may not approve of that. Every individual member of the House may have individual thoughts on that, but first nations are protected under the constitution and we deal with first nations on a nation to nation basis. We deal nation to nation with 630 first nations. That is why we have this treaty.
Anyone wanting to look at the Burnt Church issue will find that it is directly the result of the lack of dealing with the aboriginal issue in the country, the lack of a modern treaty, the result of going back to something that was established in 1760 and the result of those laws being forced upon Canadians in 1999 by the Supreme Court of Canada.
The Reform Party wants to think that we only accept supreme court decisions when we like them. A person going to court runs the risk of losing his or her case.
We allowed the Supreme Court of Canada to decide an issue concerning Burnt Church and the Donald Marshall decision in Nova Scotia that should have been negotiated between the Mi'kmaq chiefs and the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, P.E.I. and Newfoundland. It should never have been in the courts.
In Delgamuukw the supreme court clearly stated that it is not the place to settle every issue and difference in the country, that we should be negotiating in good faith to settle differences.
This treaty is protected by the constitution, but it does not affect or change the constitution. That is how it applies. The hon. member should read it over and understand how it is affected by the constitution.
The treaty is complex. Not for one moment has the Progressive Conservative Party said that it is not complex. However, let us be very clear when we state that we approve of full and open debate in the Parliament of Canada and that we do not approve of closure on this bill or any other bill. We support clear, informed and open debate, and will continue to do so.