John Duncan

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 6th, 1999]

moved:

Motion No. 370

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:

“27. Sections 9, 10 and 13 come into force on March 12, 2007 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 6th, 1999]

moved:

Motion No. 343

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:

“27. Sections 2, 4, 14 and 20 come into force on March 20, 2009 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 6th, 1999]

moved:

Motion No. 330

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:

“27. Sections 2, 4, 6 and 7 come into force on April 1, 2008 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 6th, 1999]

moved:

Motion No. 316

That Bill C-9, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:

“27. Sections 2, 4 and 5 come into force on February 10, 2009 and the remaining provisions of this Act come into”

[Fisheries, December 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday RCMP and fisheries officers seized 30 tonnes of Fraser River sockeye from a business. This is not the first time. These fish were caught under a native food fishery supposedly for consumption by the Sto:Lo, Musqueam and Tsawwassen band members, this in a year when there was no commercial fishery on the Fraser for conservation reasons.

Is the minister going to take control of the west coast fishery, or wait until we no longer have a fishery?

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 2nd, 1999]

The silent seven.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the member for North Vancouver asked me to correct a statement he made in the heat of debate in which he mentioned that British Columbia had over 90% of the bands in Canada. The number is actually about 30%.

As a politician I thank the Liberal government for being so stupid, clumsy and arrogant in how it is imposing this agreement since it is creating animosity toward the governing Liberals that will not scrub away. I am more concerned about what will happen to my family, my community, my province and the nation. The Nisga'a disagreement is the most important and the worst social and economic legislation and constitutional amendment in my lifetime.

I have been talking about the Nisga'a agreement since 1995. I am intimately familiar with the agreement. Much to the contrary of what some of its proponents have been saying, we have read the agreement. We have studied it. We are familiar with it. I wish they were as familiar with it. They are glossing over the real facts. I have done more than read it. I have analyzed it. My analysis is available at my website, www.duncanmp.com.

It is with a heavy heart that I speak to this agreement once again, knowing that the government is committed to what will be seen down the road as a monumental social and economic blunder.

I have talked to live audiences more than 25 times and sent out half a million householders across the province. British Columbians are well informed compared with people in other provinces, jurisdictions and territories in terms of the Nisga'a agreement. They are better informed than many members of parliament. I only had to witness some of the comments this morning to appreciate how true that is.

On Friday, November 26, I spent the afternoon in Vancouver at the official opposition sponsored hearings. I will briefly talk about three presentations that were made because they illuminate with some clarity what is going on. Mike deJong and Geoffrey Plant, provincial MLAs from the B.C. Liberal Party, the official opposition; Jeff Rustand, the lawyer representing Mr. Lloyd Brinson, a small landowner in the Nass Valley of British Columbia who is surrounded by Nisga'a lands; and Miss Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Q.C., a lawyer and Musqueam leaseholder, appeared as witnesses.

Interestingly both B.C. official opposition Liberals and Mr. Lloyd Brinson have launched lawsuits in attempts to bring accountability and common sense to this federal and provincial negotiated agreement which has excluded the public interest and flies in the face democracy, equality and constitutional principles. For starters, I will quote Kerry-Lynne Findlay:

I am a Musqueam leaseholder. I live there with my husband and four children. I am a mortgage holder. I am also a lawyer and I seem to have found myself in the role of kind of general counsel and spokesperson for the Musqueam leaseholders. I have advocated on their behalf in many areas. Taxation without representation, Bill C-9, particularly the expropriation portions of that bill, and the treaty process in general. One of the comments I am always given, one of the answers I am always given by the federal government is that the Musqueam situation has no bearing on Bill C-9, which is separate legislation. It has no bearing on the Nisga'a Treaty, which is a separate matter.

It has no bearing on the treaty process in general, which is a separate matter. I have a fundamental disagreement with that concept because I believe it is part of an overall approach of divide and conquer, which is very much alive and well in Canada in 1999. All of these legislative initiatives, the treaty process, what is happening through the transfer of taxation powers to aboriginals under the Indian Act, this is all about the transfer of power and authority and the setting up of new governance institutions and new governing systems. Of course the stakes are very high... There are many aspects of the treaty that concern Musqueam leaseholders.

They include, if I can just highlight, the treatment of non-aboriginals on aboriginal lands; the fact that the treaty is one step away from giving taxing authority to the Nisga'a and, in our experience, could very well mean taxation without representation and all of what that entails because of the lack of vote that non-aboriginals have in Indian government; the lack of a timetable for this Nisga'a self-sufficiency; the open-ended financial commitment that all taxpayers are being asked to enter into and, of course, the constitutional level changes we are dealing with...all of this process reminds me very much of the discussions around the Meech and Charlottetown accord. At that time I was the National Chair of the constitutional law section of the Canadian Bar Association. I was very involved in those discussions and the process that evolved at that time. What happened there, of course, is not news to most people here, is there was the Canadian elite, those who headed up the large businesses, large monopolies of the country, big business and big government, got behind both of those and said that's the way this country should look, that is what we want.

Ms. Findlay continued:

I say that, in part, as a Liberal, and I want to say that today because I think it's important. I have been a Liberal Party member nationally and provincially since I was a teenager. I worked for that party. I've actively campaigned for that party in elections. I have acted as a legal adviser to people who are now members of parliament. I am fundamentally ashamed of that party and its lack of vision...I use the word “ashamed” because it is the true feeling I have and I think many of us will have right now because of the way the government has shown its indifference and arrogance on this issue. It is a fundamental issue for the Canadian fabric and it is important to both non-aboriginals and aboriginals that it be handled well and clearly and that the guidelines be precise.

We had testimony from Geoffrey Plant and Mike deJong of the B.C. Liberal opposition. I will quote briefly from what they had to say:

We have commenced a court action. We have concerns about what is in this treaty, we have concerns about the self-government provisions, we have concerns about a treaty that would purport to limit your ability to vote for a government that has responsibility over you and limit that right to vote on the basis of your ethnicity. We think that's wrong. We think a fishery, a commercial fishery, based on an allocation that is tied to ethnicity is wrong, and we think there are alternatives...We're asking the court to declare that the Nisga'a final agreement is unconstitutional. There are three basic pillars of the argument.

They went through them and concluded by saying:

If we're right on any of those points, then what has happened is that the governments have tried to negotiate a document which is outside their constitutional authority to do so.

Finally, we had testimony from another very interesting witness, and these are only three of many, Mr. Rustand, representing Lloyd Brinson, a small landowner in the Nass Valley. I will quote a bit from his speech because I am running out of time. He said:

Mr. Brinson owns a small patch of land up in the Nass Valley. The land that he owns is going to be if this treaty is implemented surrounded by what is known as the Nisga'a Lands. Now, what this means is that although Lloyd's land will remain technically part of the B.C. Land Title system and part of B.C. and subject to the laws of Victoria and Canada, all the lands about him will be subject to the laws and the administration of the Nisga'a government. To give you a microcosmic view of what this means for Lloyd and others who will be in his position, this means that everything related to his livelihood and his daily living will be under the purview of a government that is established for the purpose of administering to the needs of a racially defined group, on a communal basis, without an outsider. The issues that will come up for Mr. Brinson are such things as water...wood-lot rights, he requires wood for his heating...simple things like garbage disposal, business activities, commercial transactions, zoning, access to health, education, maybe not so much for Mr. Brinson, payment of local taxes....Because Mr. Brinson lacks the bloodlines to qualify as a Nisga'a citizen, the treaty takes a giant step backward to something which, if this happened in any other community in Canada today, would be considered an abomination.

Rafe Mair said recently in a public meeting which I attended, “Never assume that the people in charge know what they are doing”. That is what is happening with this Nisga'a disagreement.

[Canadian Tourism Commission Act, December 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I notice from the intervention by the parliamentary secretary that the government at times can interpret acquiescence to mean agreement, because by using federal government spending power it is buying something.

The member for Mercier talked about duplication of effort and abuse of federal spending power. I would like her to elaborate on how this is an abuse of federal spending power. I am sure she has a couple of examples to elucidate that.

[National Parks Act, November 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak to Bill C-236, an act to amend the National Parks Act. It specifically deals with the Elaho Valley near Squamish.

In the case of this private member's bill from the member for Davenport, the Liberal government is on the record as not being in favour of it. I also happen to know that the NDP member from New Westminster is not with the member on this bill, even though he can usually be relied upon to promote preserving forests in British Columbia, the taking of land from the working forest and putting it into the preservation of the forest. The province is certainly not in favour of the bill. There is a very long history to what has gone on in this valley.

I have been in this valley and in this area. I had an invitation from the union to travel to the area. I have also travelled to the area with some European parliamentarians, and with the member for Davenport as recently as September of this year.

To put it all in some context, I have worked adjacent to Pacific Rim Park and to what was then the germination of a national park in South Moresby. Both are in the same region, one of the 39 regions identified by Parks Canada as regions requiring national parks. There are already two parks in the region that are also represented by the Elaho Valley. There are other regions that have no national parks. Rightfully, the priority of the department of the government is not in this region.

B.C. has turned itself inside out in terms of land use planning, particularly on forestry issues. British Columbia has been targeted by people around the world as an area of great beauty, of great forest resources and of special forests. Consequently, the United Nations targets were adopted quite some time ago; 12% preservation. We currently exceed that number already on the coast of British Columbia, the very area covered in the bill.

We have an enviable track record. One of the things that must be considered, and the member for Davenport said it, is that this area is three hours drive from Vancouver. There are individuals in preservation oriented groups who have decided that they want to create their own domain at public expense in an area they can easily access close to Vancouver. Because 95% of the B.C. forest land is publicly owned and because provincial governments tend to respond to the public, coastal B.C. has now reached this 12% target through a public consultation process. That is the way it should be done.

There is a very strong message that can be delivered. As Canadian representatives in Europe, when we talked to European parliamentarians this spring, we talked about the fact that we have been so responsible with our forest practices in British Columbia, in Canada in the Canadian context that we tend to be targeted because we do have this substantial old growth reserve virtually across Canada. Many countries have totally diminished that old growth reserve. We are never going to get there because of our very responsible practices.

What the bill tends to do is promote continued agitation. The reality is that there are protesters in this area. I have visited the protest site. From the very site where the protest was being carried out, I could see the 30,000 hectare Glendenning Park that has just been established to satisfy land use concerns in that area. I found this most disconcerting because any users that wanted to have that old growth experience only had to go there instead of where they were.

I talked to members of the union who were working in that area. They are very frustrated. They have had months of head games and attempts to incite a response by these very professional agitators. It is not a very nice way to spend a day trying to earn a living.

In summary, the 30,000 hectare Glendenning Park does a more than adequate job. There is no great public pressure on it at this point as there is on hundreds of thousands of hectares of other preserved areas on the B.C. coast. We need to balance the environment and the jobs. This is what the provincial land use planning exercise was all about. We have gone through that in the 1990s.

I can only wonder why the member for Davenport is trying to upset this balance that we have now achieved on the coast of British Columbia.

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time I have spoken to this bill, although the last time it had a different number attached to it.

The official opposition believes in sustainable development and management of the environment to both preserve biodiversity and conserve the environment for the enjoyment of Canadians at present and in the future.

The heritage minister by this bill simply expands her domain and encroaches on what is more properly the responsibility of the Minister of the Environment, her old portfolio. The minister in this bill sidesteps the proper role of parliament with the insertion of Henry VIII clauses, as we have already heard described today. The bill requires provincial governments to obey it. The bill impinges on provincial jurisdiction in many ways. Enforcement officers may arrest without warrant and enter private property without permission. That is a summation of some of my concerns.

This is a politicized environmental bill and not a useful one to assist the environment. That is the problem with the bill. It will burden us with another layer of government bureaucracy. This will prevent honest fishermen, hardworking oil and gas exploration companies, local anglers and recreational boaters from being able to make a living or enjoy themselves.

The bill will not prevent natural disasters. It will not prevent poachers. It will not prevent the environment from being ruined. Bill C-8 will do none of this.

I attended committee. Reform brought some witnesses to committee. The chief of the Campbell River band was at committee. The North Coast Oil and Gas Task Force was there. West coast fishermen were there. Rather than accept at face value concerns by west coast stakeholders, what did we hear? A lecture from the chairman of the committee. Quite frankly, I was amazed at the treatment meted out to people who had travelled so far.

If this bill proceeds, we will have three federal departments that can protect marine areas: Environment Canada, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and this bill will put Heritage Canada into that picture as well. This is very sloppy indeed and is not the way to proceed. Any time more than one party manages something, we get diffused management, diffused objectives and things tend to fall apart.

I am going to talk about the west coast because I know it best. About half of the British Columbia coastline is in my riding. Obviously it is a busy place. There is aquaculture going on, fishing activity, commercial and recreational, undersea harvesting of different kinds, some of it actively being pursued and others are proposed. There are transportation activities of every kind, tug and barge, marine commercial transportation, ferries, cruise ships, we have the works. We also have a history of oil and gas exploration. I am going to spend some time talking about that.

The oil and gas reserves on the west coast exceed many times, for example, the oil reserves in Hibernia and other areas in Canada, which are currently being exploited quite successfully. At the end of 1998, the Hibernia operation had already provided 107,000 man years of work, a very significant number and one that British Columbians are taking note of.

We should not be pre-empted from an opportunity to fully develop our industry by legislation that blindly creates parks without taking all of these things into account. It is very clear, from the way this bill has been developed, that those things have not been taken into account.

British Columbia is unique. We fought as a province to establish provincial jurisdiction over the Gulf of Georgia, which is salt water and seabed and marine resources that are owned by the province. This legislation would be tantamount to the Nanoose Bay expropriation if it were done without the agreement of the province. That is what the legislation attempts to do.

I have major concerns with the politicization of the protection of marine areas. This bill doe not accomplish anything for the environment. It is only here as a public relations exercise by a department and a minister of the government.

When the legislative package came out, I sent it out to 22 groups that I knew had an interest in this type of legislation and that should have been consulted by government. These groups found they could not comment in any meaningful way on this legislation because they did not know where the marine conservation areas were being proposed. The legislation is not at that stage. By the time it gets to that stage, there will be no parliamentary purview other than some ability to comment on what they can do by order in council without further reference to parliament. That is wrong. We are opposed to it. We know that west coast interests will be overruled because we have already seen the attitude display in this process.

The recreational sector, which will be heavily impacted by anything that comes out of this, has no effective lobby. It is composed primarily of individual anglers. Once enabling legislation is drafted to create these areas and then they are not created, the bureaucracy is uncomfortable because the minister has a mandate.

What we have is a self-perpetuating machine churning out regulations in new areas that have no business existing in the first place. We end up with marine conservation areas with a very weak rationale which flies in the face of common sense and local sentiment. There has to be a better way.

We recommended that the municipal level of governance be put into this legislation in a meaningful way so that it can have a decision making role in whether these specific areas will come into being or not. There have been no changes or movement whatsoever in that regard.

A major concern we have with the bill is its potential to affect offshore oil and gas exploration and industry. We have had a moratorium since 1989 on the west coast. This is supported by a federal moratorium which will be in place until B.C. decides to allow this exploration. In September 1999, in the B.C. northern development commissioner's report, he said:

The report clearly shows that northerners support the development of a process that would reconsider the current oil and gas moratorium.

It appears that British Columbians are very interested in developing these resources. If the federal government proceeds with Bill C-8, British Columbians may be hampered in developing this industry due to the additional restrictions that may be imposed by Bill C-8.

I will conclude by saying that this is a bad piece of legislation and we should kill it.