House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2015, with 28% of the vote.
Supply February 9th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, in his speech the hon. member was talking about consultations with the provinces. He stated that the provinces have a consensus. They are opposed to interbasin transfers. He made no statement about whether they were opposed to bulk water exports.
Could the hon. member give us a clarification on where the provinces add up on that?
Supply February 4th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, if they end up shorter than 20 and 10, we would like to end it at that point and not bring a new speaker into the mix who would be cut off.
Supply February 4th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We want to consent to extend the period beyond 5.15 p.m. for the speaking block but not necessarily to 5.30 p.m. I understand there was some confusion about what was being agreed to.
Justice February 4th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, last Thursday James Staples appeared on charges of possession of child pornography in Courtenay provincial court in British Columbia.
The judge set a trial date for July 12, but said it would be very likely that those charges would be dropped because of Justice Shaw's decision.
Why is the Minister of Justice pretending that all is business as usual in B.C. courts when obviously it is not?
National Defence February 4th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the civilian employees at our military bases have not had a negotiated agreement since 1989 and no wage increases since 1992. Their military counterparts have received small increases, which they do not begrudge, but it is a daily reminder of how poorly they have been treated.
Since 1997 they have had 15 days of direct bargaining and 7 days of conciliation. These civilian employees have been in a strike position since January 18. The conciliation board reports that while the union made its offers and counter proposals in full, the government did not.
It is plain that the government is relying on its established track record of legislating the workforce instead of bargaining in good faith. When will the government get back to the negotiating table?
Supply February 2nd, 1999
Madam Speaker, I take great exception to the member making an analogy between a nuclear bomb and the notwithstanding clause. If we are ever going to send a message to the judiciary that parliamentary supremacy over legislation is meaningful, and if the public at large is going to receive that message as well, there is no better time to use this than at a time when something so offends the common sensibilities of people.
I am trying to get at the basis of why so many members on the other side, including the hon. member, feel so strongly that this is an overreaction. Why is it an overreaction?
First Nations Land Management Act February 1st, 1999
Mr. Speaker, we are all products of our history and our environment. We all view the world from our own vantage point. It has been proven by medical authorities that it is more stressful for a human being to listen than it is to talk. It is for sure that you learn more when you listen than when you talk.
We have seen a diversity of circumstances, a diversity of communities and name calling that does not suit the side over there that has been doing it. How long will this work? We are not here to advocate wishful thinking. We are here as legislators trying to create the best possible piece of legislation. This legislation is amendable. We could support it with amendments.
The member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore said that consultation cannot be mandated in the legislation but I beg to differ. There is a lot of legislation in this country that mandates consultation. That is what we are looking for. We are looking for clarity. The fact that consultation is not viewed as something that would contribute to the bill is one more reason that it is not hard to understand why the Liberals need a western task force when common sense is in such short supply on that side. British Columbians are tired of imposition of a federal native agenda in British Columbia that is not sensitive to local needs.
The member for Churchill said that Reform thinks first nations will abuse power. This has nothing to do with race. Any legislation we design in this place must be designed with checks and balances, native or non-native, it does not matter. We use the same tests. This has nothing to do with race, gender or any other circumstance. We are not doing our job if we do not do this thing properly.
The purpose of this legislation is even getting lost in this debate. This bill will impact on relationships between bands and local governments in a number of areas, including land use planning, environmental regulation and protection of third party interests. The federal government is imposing its will in terms of creating legislation that will disrupt local and provincial relationships. The Liberal government is not saying that is what it is doing and it does not seem to care. The implications are potentially quite far reaching.
I spoke to this bill in November. I talked about lease holders on reserve lands that would fall into being on land subject to this bill because they would be lands leased to 1 of the 14 bands to which this legislation applies. I spoke of my concerns and why the bill needed to be amended. Lo and behold we have had a seven week running story in British Columbia about the Musqueam band and what has happened to lease holders with properties in that jurisdiction.
I cannot possibly support legislation that does not address the issue of relations between communities and that does not deal with consultations on an ongoing basis regarding decisions that affect local and provincial jurisdictions in important areas such as environmental issues, land use, roads, other infrastructure questions and leases.
The minister of Indian affairs has been quoted as saying that her hands are tied on the Musqueam escalation of leases in the neighbourhood of $300 to in the neighbourhood of $30,000. The reason her hands are tied is that the previous minister assigned taxation authority to the Musqueam without any checks and balances. That is the very thing we are talking about here today. Now she is blindly walking into an expansion of similar situations for the Musqueam and others. The lease holders are unilaterally having their leases rearranged so they are no longer with Canada. They are subject to taxation without representation. Why is democracy being negotiated away?
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development allowed three years of negotiations to occur in secret with the Caldwell Band near Blenheim in southern Ontario and is now suffering a public backlash. Surprise.
The minister now says the Caldwell land claim should have been handled with more public consultation and she gives the example of the Nisga'a comprehensive claim in British Columbia. I can assure the House that is an empty statement. The public was not consulted prior to the signing of the Nisga'a agreement.
The forestry representative and member of the treaty negotiation advisory committee said publicly: “I cannot 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 the 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”.
The way this government handles its aboriginal affairs is archaic. There is no vision. The expropriation powers in this legislation are sweeping: “A first nation may expropriate any interest in its nation land that in the opinion of its council is necessary for community works or other first nation purposes”.
At this point I wanted to quote from a document from the Squamish Band but my colleague beat me to it. I think it is very important to point out that these expropriation powers are above and beyond anything that a municipality or other form of government has. So why does the minister perpetuate reserves?
We heard about the definition of insanity. We take something that is not working, repeat it over and over and hope that somehow it turns out different.
The Caldwell Band circumstances in southern Ontario were creating a brand new reserve. Have we not a better idea after 130 years of proving to ourselves that the reserve system is not the way to go?
We had a very similar circumstance occur in the western United States, a band with no land base. It was mandated to be given a land base, so what did it do? The legislative authorities decided that they better try to do something different that might work for a change. They came up with a land base and they said that land will belong to the band. That is your industrial base. We are going to ensure that you have homes in the community. We will buy every beneficiary in the band a home in the community. It is yours. You can do what you want with it in the future, but your land base is not zoned for residential use.
To me that is creative and avoids the problems of creating a community that may not work like so many of our reserve communities have not worked because of the fact that they are away from where the workplace really is.
Why do we fail to recognize that checks and balances are needed in aboriginal legislation? Why are we failing to represent the interests of tens of thousands of lease holders whose original leases were with Canada? Do not tell me this is not affecting Ontario because I know it is. There are lots of cottage owners, including a large group up in North Bay, I have been in touch with on this issue.
The federal native agenda is out of control and there are going to be predictable harmed stakeholders. This benefits nobody, native or non-native.
Forestry December 8th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, Greenpeace and other groups are running a full page ad in the New York Times today to expand their attack on B.C. forestry jobs. Meanwhile the Liberals spend hundreds of millions of dollars on self-serving advertising every year.
When will the minister take some of that wasted advertising money and spend it on something useful like countering foreign based propaganda that is killing Canadian jobs?
Greenpeace November 24th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the minister and the minister's officials do not know where CIDA money goes. We do. The money goes to the World Resources Institute, a lobby group that supplies Greenpeace with its information and political ammo.
Why are tax dollars from CIDA being spent to kill Canadian logging jobs?
Greenpeace November 24th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, Greenpeace and other lobby groups have launched an all out war on logging in B.C. That is not fair because B.C. forest practices are among the best in the world.
Greenpeace's attack on jobs is being helped in its campaign by money from CIDA. Why are Canadian tax dollars being used to help a campaign to destroy the jobs that pay those very same taxes?