John Duncan

[Petitions, November 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to earlier petitions I have delivered on this subject, I have a petition signed by 75 individuals from my riding.

The petitioners are asking parliament to enact immediate changes to Canada's immigration laws governing refugees to allow for the deportation without delay of obvious and blatant abuses of the system.

[Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act, November 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is a little difficult to have my speech interrupted but it was an important issue and it was certainly the right thing to do.

Earlier in my speech I went into some family and personal background on coal mining. We are here to talk about Bill C-11 which authorizes the winding up of Devco, one of the most embarrassing public taxpayer funded exercises seen in Canada.

Now that the government has pulled the plug we have a painful and awkward situation for which there is no easy solution. When the government announced the closing of Devco in January of this year, the minister was booed. Miners were loudly upset. The minister was quoted as saying that the government will stand by Devco's employees in the coming days “just as we have supported Devco over the last 30 years, just as Canada has supported Cape Breton since Confederation”. If Canada has been supporting Cape Breton since Confederation and Devco for 30 years and if this is where we are now, then surely it is time to try some other approach.

Father Bob Neville of New Waterford, Nova Scotia hit the nail on the head when he said:

We have to rid ourselves of an archaic, patronage driven economic development model. [We have to] come up with a new development agenda, based on the people of the Island rather than politicians in backrooms making decisions for their friends.

The question we must all ask is that given the decades of politicization of coal mining in the maritimes, why should anyone believe that the government can handle the sale or dissolution of Devco now without some of the same problems? We also have to ask ourselves who will benefit from the sale of Devco? The public interest and the Devco employees must not be compromised because the government is once again favouring its friends. That is the track record of senior governments on this issue and that is what must not be allowed to occur again.

The main problem I have with Bill C-11 as it is currently written is its lack of open accountability. We have called for transparency in government for years. The original Devco act of 1967 stated in subsection 17(1) that Devco shall submit to the minister a plan for the “progressive reduction of coal production—and discontinuation of coal production from mines that are not economically viable, and the plan shall take into account progress in providing employment outside the coal producing industry and in broadening the base of the economy of Cape Breton Island”. This is a mandatory provision using the word shall. The government is failing to live up to its own recommendations.

At the very beginning of Bill C-11, it is stated in subclause 2(2) that subsections 99(2) to (5) of the Financial Administration Act do not apply to the authorization of Devco to sell its assets. These very subsections of the Financial Administration Act effectively say that crown corporations may sell property only in accordance with the regulations.

It is true that Devco was originally set up so that it was allowed to dispose of its assets on its discontinuation. It is imperative that if the government intends to remove these sections of the Financial Administration Act from applying to the sale of Devco as the legislation currently reads, those removed provisions must be replaced by new provisions that bring accountability and public scrutiny to the process. Otherwise we are back to cabinet being in charge of all information without the necessity for public disclosure, and the public interest will lose out to political considerations once again.

I am concerned about the lack of transparency and accountability in the whole process. From the beginning the whole Devco situation has been tainted by rumours that individuals connected with the government have benefited from federal money. It is essential the government open up the process of divesting itself of Devco.

We all hope that this process leads to continued employment for Cape Breton miners. The best opportunity for that to occur is to eliminate the political decision making in favour of investment decision making freed of those shackles.

I have not used all my time, but that is the conclusion of my speech.

[Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act, November 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as everyone is well aware at this point, we are talking about Bill C-11, the Cape Breton Development Corporation divestiture authorization and dissolution act.

Before I go into any specifics about the act I thought I would take this opportunity to talk about some personal and family history. One might say I have coal dust in my veins since it was the coal mines that brought my grandfather to Canada. Without coal I would not be standing before the House today. It is amazing how one can step back into history through people who are not long gone.

My grandfather was born in 1866 and by 1880, at the age of 14, he was working in a coal mine in Scotland. Later he operated a coal mine in China until the Boxer Rebellion at the turn of the century. He was on the docks in Shanghai when Europeans were being killed.

After returning to Scotland from China my grandfather, James, along with his two brothers, Ninian and Tom, came to North America to work in the coal mines of West Virginia. The three brothers continued to work together and moved to British Columbia where they worked in the coal mines. My grandfather worked at the Coal Creek mine near Fernie, British Columbia.

On May 22, 1902, there were 128 miners killed in the Coal Creek disaster. My grandfather was on the rescue team after this mine disaster and this traumatising event certainly affected him for the rest of his days.

I grew up in the coal mining town of Natal close to the B.C.-Alberta border in the Rocky Mountains adjacent to the slag piles and the coke ovens, adjacent to what was then the Trans-Canada Highway that went through the Crow's Nest Pass. It has since been moved from Crow's Nest to Rogers Pass.

We left there in 1955 because the government decided that Michel, Natal and Middletown should not be there. It bulldozed Michel, Natal and Middletown and relocated the communities to Sparwood, essentially because it was the entryway to B.C. on the Trans-Canada Highway. The three towns were bulldozed because of the government's concern for optics. This was the entry to British Columbia and on many days cars had to turn their headlights on because of the coal dust, and our house was white. People had a lot of pride in their community. There are a lot of people who still have strong emotional ties to these communities that are no longer there.

I understand the strong emotional attachments and the strong affinity to the coal mining industry expressed by the people of Cape Breton and Nova Scotia. I have been to Glace Bay, Sydney, Pictou County, the site of the Westray mine and the memorial. We cannot just wash this all away. Coal is in their veins.

Bill C-11 authorizes the winding up of Devco, one of the most politicized and embarrassing public taxpayer funded exercises seen in Canada. In a misguided and paternalistic way governments in Canada for the last 30 years, and in fact for the last 70 years when one considers the predecessors to Devco, have spent taxpayer dollars on the coal mining business in the maritimes.

Some of the cynical among us might say that this money was to buy votes. I would prefer to think it was just wrong-headed thinking, but then I am cynical.

In any event, it has created an economy that is not free and balanced by natural market forces. Now that the government is pulling the plug, we have a painful and awkward situation for which there is no easy solution.

[Aboriginal Affairs, November 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I received a copy of the following letter only yesterday from the Liberal leader in B.C. It reads:

Dear Prime Minister,

I am writing to note my extreme dismay over your government's motion to invoke closure on the Nisga'a treaty debate today.

This motion is an unacceptable slight to British Columbia, and to all Canadians who deserve a full and open debate on this landmark treaty. On a matter of this critical importance to our province, to our country and our constitution, every member of parliament deserves an opportunity to speak.

It was wrong for the NDP government of British Columbia to close debate on this treaty, and to deny British Columbians' elected representatives the chance to even ask questions on 11 of its 22 chapters. I would submit that it is equally wrong for your government to engage in this same indefensible conduct, conduct that will only serve to further erode public trust and confidence in the treaty process.

Sincerely,

[Committees Of The House, October 29th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, when I moved the motion I was in debate. I had not completed my time on debate. There have been no questions and comments. As well, when I was speaking I asked to split my time with the member for Dewdney—Alouette. None of that has occurred yet.

[Committees Of The House, October 29th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I would like to split my time with the member for Dewdney—Alouette.

The Liberals have been revising history on the Nisga'a agreement since 1994. Now they are revising history in terms of what is going on with this committee travel business from as recently as yesterday and the day before.

The motion we are debating is on the finance committee travelling across the country. It is an all-party committee. Committee travel is not a one-way street. The government wants everything its own way. The official opposition has some needs and wants as well.

The official opposition obviously would like to travel, in particular to British Columbia. The Nisga'a agreement happens once. The budget happens every year. British Columbians have never had a say on the Nisga'a agreement. They have never had undiluted access to consultation on the Nisga'a agreement. Those are things we are asking for. We think they are pretty important.

There are major financial implications to the Nisga'a agreement. It is just as important in many respects. This week the public accounts revealed that there is a $200 billion liability put forward so far on aboriginal claims. The cost to the province of British Columbia, never mind on the federal side, is in the order of at least $10 billion. There are much higher estimates. If anything this is a conservative estimate. Everyone admits it is only a partial estimate.

When I spoke on the Nisga'a bill on Wednesday, the time had expired which determined whether I had time to speak for 20 minutes or 10 minutes. I asked the indulgence of the House to extend my time from 10 minutes to 20 minutes. The government once again denied me and the official opposition the ability to say the things we needed to say on that agreement.

There is a clause that not many people have recognized in the Nisga'a agreement which binds the parties, British Columbia, Canada and the Nisga'a, to all of the provisions of the agreement and requires consent of all three parties for any change. In other words, none of the parties to the agreement may challenge the agreement, which is a veto.

This hobbles what is currently the official opposition federally, and the official opposition provincially, the Liberals in British Columbia. There has been no opportunity for a referendum in the province on the Nisga'a. The public in British Columbia have basically been told to take a hike by the federal Liberals.

I have been talking about the Nisga'a deal since 1995. I did a complete analysis. The 1998 final agreement is a very comprehensive document as we all know. It is 252 pages long with an appendix of 462 pages. Despite all of that, more than 50 areas have yet to be negotiated.

I am a firm believer that the public has been manipulated. The facts have been manipulated. There has been misrepresentation that is not in the public interest by both senior levels of government.

The federal government is imposing a deal in British Columbia that it would not impose on itself. There is a track record and a history of federal negotiations completed in the Yukon and in the territories. Unlike the Nisga'a deal, self-government is not constitutionally entrenched in the northern agreements. The tax exemption for aboriginals enabled by section 87 of the Indian Act was deleted in the Yukon without new tax exemptions being created.

There is a memorandum of understanding on land claims in British Columbia. The province has been co-opted by the federal government. A federal responsibility is being off-loaded on the province to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. That is something that many people in British Columbia recognize and they want an opportunity to get at the federal government in terms of telling it how that is all happening.

The public was not consulted prior to the signing of the Nisga'a agreement in principle on February 16, 1996 in any meaningful way. After the initialling the forestry representative and member of the treaty negotiation advisory committee said this publicly:

I can't say we worked on this document, because we never saw it until February 15, just hours before it was initialled. Not one page, not one paragraph of this 150 page document was shared with TNAC, the government's Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee, or any of the local advisory committees, or any of the people with legal interests in the crown land that this agreement would give to the Nisga'a.

That is what the forestry representative said. If the very people who were paid to know the contents of the negotiations were kept in the dark, where was the average British Columbian?

It is not easy to be a critic of the federal native agenda. In 1996 for example I was threatened with court action for saying that it was a conflict of interest for a provincial land claims negotiator to be lobbying the provincial cabinet on behalf of the Squamish band regarding their Lion's Gate Bridge proposal. One can make an excellent living if one is willing to swallow the federal native agenda, and I am talking about lawyers, consultants, negotiators, contract services and the academic community.

Madam Speaker, at this time I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

[Committees Of The House, October 29th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, there are a lot of financial implications in the Nisga'a treaty. The federal official opposition represents 24 of the 34 seats in British Columbia. The provincial government put the Nisga'a agreement we are talking about through the provincial legislature using closure. There is a clause in the agreement that hobbles the official opposition federally and provincially.

Both the Liberal official opposition provincially and the Reform Party official opposition federally have some difficulties with the Nisga'a agreement. That is clear to everyone. There is a clause in the agreement whereby no party to the agreement may challenge it once it is ratified. That is a very important clause because it completely hobbles the governments in waiting once they become government. Simply, many of those issues have not been addressed.

I cannot comprehend why the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle would suggest we should roll over and allow the government to ram that agreement through this place without proper debate and without hearing from the people in British Columbia who very much want that opportunity but have been denied it.

[Fisheries, October 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as a result of the Marshall decision the Mi'kmaq have announced that they are preparing to fish offshore within the 200 mile limit, and bands on both coasts are claiming they can fish where they want and when they want.

On every fishing front the government is being asked more and more questions and it has no answers.

Livelihoods are at stake. This is serious business. Where is the Prime Minister's plan to address this growing crisis?

[Fisheries, October 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, last February DFO rejected a request from the Mi'kmaq to develop a contingency plan prior to the Marshall decision. That was over eight months ago. Last month in another meeting, one day before the Marshall decision, DFO again rejected a request to develop a plan. Now we see the results of this inaction: chaos, violence, confrontation, uncertainty. The minister is simply not getting the job done.

I ask the Prime Minister, where is his plan to resolve this growing crisis?

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, October 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this is very frustrating indeed. For those people who are watching, I am going to give them my website, which is www.duncanmp.com. I do offer proposals as to how to do this differently. I have been doing that since 1996 with regard to the Nisga'a agreement, prior to it becoming an agreement in principle. I also have been making suggestions in aboriginal policy areas since 1994.

I cannot help but respond to the previous speaker. We obviously have a different vision, but we both want to fix what is wrong in the area of aboriginal issues. We both agree that the native population has received shoddy treatment. I would be the last one to say that has not been the case.

Reform believes that equality is created by treating everyone equally, unlike the NDP and the Liberals. They consider it a criticism of us that we want to treat everyone equally. I believe that is a fundamental philosophical difference that will forever separate us and is what separates us on this agreement.

The member from Kamloops talked about residential schools. My wife went to a residential school. I do not need any lessons on that issue from anyone.

A bit of time was spent talking about the taxation issue. I will simply say that, yes, individual taxation exemptions for the Nisga'a under the agreement will be phased out over 12 years, but there was a whole new tax exemption brought into the agreement and that is for the Nisga'a central government.

We did not need a treaty to get out from under the tax exemption differential that exists in this country. We could have done it legislatively. It all flows from section 87 of the Indian Act. It is a very simple thing to fix.

I could talk about the Nisga'a agreement for hours, but I am going to focus on only one aspect because my time is limited. I want to talk about public consultation. If I have time I will offer some proposals.

I was the aboriginal affairs critic in the last parliament. I did the first publicly available comprehensive analysis of the Nisga'a agreement in principle. I did that in early 1996, after the agreement in principle came out.

The Liberals would have the public believe that Reform has not dealt with or had discussions with the public, stakeholders or the Nisga'a. The Liberals are revising history and I can prove it. I have a track record of having dealt with the agreement before it was ever unveiled and of having discussions with the public and stakeholders, including the Nisga'a, which is contrary to the revisionist history and statements being made in the current debate coming from Liberals with their public relations spin.

The Liberals are trying to revise history. I am revisiting history. There is a big difference.

Reform MPs in British Columbia, including our current critic, have been talking about the Nisga'a agreement since 1994. We are on the public record, especially in British Columbia.

The only body given official standing as adviser for the Nisga'a treaty was the provincial treaty negotiation advisory committee. The public was excluded other than through this formal committee. I can demonstrate that that committee was also excluded from the process by both the federal and provincial governments.

We have not erected barriers, but the two senior governments, provincially and federally, certainly have. The manipulation of their so-called public consultation has been ongoing.

When the Nisga'a agreement in principle was unveiled in February 1996, a member of TNAC, the committee I just talked about, said publicly:

I can't say we worked on this document, because we never saw it until February 15, just hours before it was initialled. Not one page, not one paragraph of this 150-page document was shared with TNAC, the government's Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee, or any of the local advisory committees, or any of the people with legal interests in the Crown Land that this agreement would give to the Nisga'a.

That is what the forestry representative said. If the very people who were paid to know the contents of the negotiations were kept in the dark, we know where the average British Columbian was.

Long before the agreement was initialled we knew it consisted of some leaks and from these leaks we prepared an analysis. We took that analysis and other speculations on the road. We visited 10 towns across British Columbia and conducted townhall meetings. We talked about self-government, tax exemptions and other matters that we thought were the direction of the government. It was sponsored by the current aboriginal affairs critic and me.

Nisga'a and other aboriginal groups attended some of these meetings. Representatives from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, its bureaucrats, were also in attendance.

Later in the same year, in November 1995, I held another series of townhall meetings to follow up on the earlier meetings. I remember driving through a blizzard 2,000 kilometres in 36 hours to hold two meetings. We met in Nanaimo, Prince George, Terrace, Penticton, South Surrey and Maple Ridge. Once again there were aboriginal representatives and Nisga'a representatives particularly in Terrace, which is in the front yard of the Nisga'a.

My office prepared a 37 page analysis which was published as a tabloid and sent to half a million households in British Columbia in the middle of 1996. After the Nisga'a final agreement came out that analysis was revised. It can be found on my website today.

The province talks about consultation. The province got into the act with the so-called consultation in 1996. Everyone in the public thought that they were going to something which would allow them to say what parts of the Nisga'a agreement were okay in their minds and what parts were not.

What did the government do? It changed the terms of reference. The public was to tell it what parts of the agreement could be negotiated in other treaties and what could not be. This was done by a very biased chair of the committee. I will quote from something he said to give clarity to my charge that it was biased. He said:

I am just in awe, really. I've been around, federally; I've been in constitutional negotiations and so on. I don't know what the...I keep thinking about the Fathers of Confederation as they call them, or whatever the words, putting together the BNA Act and so on. The amount of work you people have done in this is really quite unbelievable.

He was talking to the Nisga'a negotiators. He continued:

You're to be really commended...We are coming at it kind of as amateurs seeing your work. I guess that's a long way of saying I'm very impressed.

Is it any wonder that the B.C. Liberals walked away from the process? Obviously no substantive criticism ever came from that committee.

Essentially the public has been excluded by both senior governments. The rationale behind separating the Nisga'a treaty process from the B.C. treaty process was that the Nisga'a treaty predated the creation of the B.C. Treaty Commission. That is how we ended up with the only sanctioned body being this treaty negotiation advisory committee. I have already mentioned how it was excluded.

It is fair for me to say that our current critic has had ongoing dialogue with the Nisga'a and other interests throughout. We have been participants in public consultation. I know, for example, that he had a televised debate with Chief Gosnell from the Nisga'a nation.

If one is to be critical of an agreement, I agree with the hon. member from Kamloops that there is an obligation to provide constructive criticism. I will not deal with that part of my speech, suffice it to say that members should visit my website.