John Duncan

[Westbank First Nation Self-Government Act, April 20th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to Amendment No. 3, which of course is my amendment and deals with section 102 of the agreement.

Section 102 of the agreement is about the additional reserve lands. What this basically states is that:

subject to Canada's policy for additions to reserve, as amended from time to time, lands acquired by Westbank First Nation may be transferred to Canada for the purpose of being set apart as lands reserved for Indians--

My amendment requests that this clause include the specifics and recognize the reality that Westbank is contiguous with, adjacent to and across the floating bridge from the city of Kelowna. The city of Kelowna, although it is very supportive of this Westbank agreement, the Westbank government and the Westbank community and wants the community to fully prosper and succeed, also wants some certainty that should Westbank acquire lands within the community of Kelowna, it would have the ultimate consent as to whether or not those lands could be put into reserve status under the federal umbrella, because that would have the effect of taking them from taxable status into non-taxable status.

The city just wants to be able to control that. It is clear from the committee minutes and the appearance at committee of the mayor of Kelowna, Walter Gray, that this is not to say, even under current political leadership in both communities, which is very cooperative and very happy with the status quo, that there might not be a circumstance where Kelowna would be quite willing and happy to comply with reserve status, such as if Westbank would be, for example, building a museum or some other such building, an institution or public place that would bring economic benefit to the community.

I have had discussions within the committee, outside of committee, and today again with the parliamentary secretary. This is a very interesting dynamic, because there were times in these long negotiations with Westbank where the federal government probably did not appreciate how much was being done by the municipal level of government in British Columbia in this area of the Okanagan to keep these negotiations and the self-government agreement on track and to make sure that it reflected the pragmatic things the municipal level of government wanted to see which would make this a workable agreement.

There has been a lot of behind the scenes, volunteer, dedicated work done by many people at the municipal level, either at the regional district or within the city of Kelowna, which has been very proactive on this. They are at the point where they are asking for one thing. I hear the parliamentary secretary basically saying that we cannot cede power to a municipal level of government. I do not see it that way. This is not ceding power to a municipal level of government; it is recognizing a legitimate stakeholder.

When we brought this general discussion to committee, the chief of the Westbank First Nation was clearly on side with the concept. I will quote Chief Louie from the standing committee evidence of Wednesday, March 10:

I can assure you very clearly that the self-government agreement would apply to reserve lands and if we were to look [at] downtown Kelowna, let's say, look to you and say to you, Mayor, council members will you agree to give us 10 acres of reserve here in downtown Kelowna, I would expect, as you've clearly indicated, that your answer would be no. What would happen is we would need to approach the province of British Columbia. The province is required to give their consent and according to the additions to reserve land policy, they would be required to come to you and to the city and to local government, the community, to ask whether or not you would agree. If you did not agree, I think the answer would be very simple; there would be no reserve in downtown Kelowna, as simple as that. That's how we see the agreement and that is clearly enunciated in the agreement context itself.

Chief Robert Louie of the Westbank First Nation was speaking at committee to Mayor Walter Gray of the city of Kelowna via the committee process.

I think the intent there is all we need is certainty that goes beyond the current edition of the reserve policy of the federal government. Policies can and do change. The leadership at Westbank can change. The leadership at the city of Kelowna can change. The federal government can change. A number of things can change.

There was a suggestion by the parliamentary secretary that somehow adding this kind of clause to section 102 would dilute 102, but I refuse to accept that as a reality. If there was any suggestion of that, we could certainly work that out.

The other suggestion is that somehow we cannot have one statement in this agreement that is different from the ATR policy for the rest of the country. I beg to differ. We are creating individual self-government agreements for individual bands. Presumably that means we could have as many as 633 agreements throughout Canada. If we can have 633 separate agreements that are contemplated by the government, then why can we not have more than one agreement when it comes to municipalities?

We have the seeds of a problem here that go back to the old federal-provincial arena. Reserves are a federal creation under the Indian Act and under the Constitution. Municipalities are a provincial creation. Rather than add to that divide, this very straightforward and simple amendment could be utilized to bring the parties together.

Despite the fact that we now have committee evidence from the House of Commons all-party committee studying this legislation where the parliamentary secretary is on record as saying this would never happen without the city of Kelowna's consent, we have the chief's agreement. We have now entered that into Hansard through this exercise. I would still suggest that the certainty of having that in the agreement itself would be simple, straightforward and quite agreeable.

Another thing I want to briefly touch upon is Motion No. 1 by my colleague on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The intent of the agreement is that the Charter of Rights applies. Any difficulties that come in the way of pre-empting that would be a problem that we have with the Constitution. I do not want to see the Westbank agreement become the whipping boy for problems we have with our Constitution.

Although I appreciate the fact that we have shone a light on some of the problems of section 25 of the charter in terms of protecting collective rights as opposed to individual rights, that is not something that is brought to us because of the Westbank agreement.

[Westbank First Nation Self-Government Act, April 20th, 2004]

moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-11 be amended by adding after line 13 on page 2 the following new clause:

“4.1 Despite section 102 of the Agreement, lands acquired by the Westbank First Nation that are contained within the limits of the city of Kelowna, British Columbia, may be transferred to Canada for the purpose of being set apart as lands reserved for Indians under subsection 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867, or as reserves within the meaning of the Indian Act for the use and benefit of the Westbank First Nation, only with the consent of the City of Kelowna.”

[Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act, April 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-31 is a land claim and self-government agreement between the Tlicho, earlier known as the Dogrib, the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Government of Canada, and makes amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, and consequential amendments to other acts. Because it is a land claims agreement as well as a self-government agreement, it is constitutionally protected. As well, this is enabling legislation to give effect to the Tlicho tax treatment agreement.

I have many general observations about all this.

The federal government has been essentially carving up the north since the 1980s with the creation of Nunavut, the comprehensive Yukon Indian agreement for the 14 Yukon first nations, and the Gwich'in, the Inuvialuit and the Sahtu land claim agreements in the Northwest Territories. Essentially there are two areas not yet covered with a land claim in the north after the Tlicho, and they are the Akaitcho and Dehcho in the Northwest Territories which border to the south and west of the Tlicho, the agreement we are talking about, which is just north of Yellowknife. I hope that puts it in perspective for some people.

The impression I and others get from reading this agreement is that the federal government is trying to be all things. In the process it has agreed to provisions that contain some contradictions and a deliberate lack of clarity.

To give a bit of background,Stephen Kakfwi, the former premier of the Northwest Territories and the former holder of the aboriginal portfolio as well, promoted a very strong aboriginal and northern ownership agenda. In August last year he suggested that within five years virtually the entire Northwest Territories would live under some form of aboriginal governance. We have had a lot of land claim agreements but we have not had aboriginal governments until this agreement.

Jim Antoine, another longstanding MLA, as the Northwest Territories' resources minister stated that aboriginal governments will become allies in the territories' fight to win control of its resources and the associated royalties from the federal government. That was last August as well.

That gives a little of the flavour of where the territorial government is coming from in respect to this whole issue.

The agreement gives the 3,000 Tlicho people claims to subsurface resources, law-making authority and the power to tax, levy royalties and manage resources on 39,000 square kilometres laying between Great Bear and Great Slave lakes north of Yellowknife. That is an area roughly half the size of New Brunswick. It is bounded on the north by the Sahtu, on the east by Nunavut, and on the south and to the west by the future Akaitcho and Dehcho territories.

I talked a little in my question to the parliamentary secretary about the concurrence issue. I think he explained that reasonably well.

This agreement consumed $27 million in negotiation costs for the Tlicho. This has been a tremendously expensive process and one which I do not think demonstrates a proud record.

I still remain very concerned. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to the Tlicho government in respect to all matters within its authority. That is clear in the agreement. However the agreement states:

protections for Tlicho Citizens and for other persons to whom Tlicho laws apply, by way of rights and freedoms no less than those set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

That gives me some difficulty.

There are two operating diamond mines in the Tlicho territory that are specifically excluded from the land claim area but remain within the territory. Any future subsurface extraction on Tlicho lands would be subject to a Tlicho royalty regime.

As it stands right now, under the Mackenzie Valley resource sharing agreement the Tlicho get 10.5% of the first $2 million of mineral royalties received by the federal and territorial governments for subsurface resources within the five regions of the Mackenzie Valley and a further 2.1% after the $2 million figure is raised. This brings in about $3.5 million a year to the Tlicho government from the whole basin of the Mackenzie Valley.

The royalties from the existing diamond mines that are specifically excluded from the Tlicho lands, contribute to that formula, which is also shared by the Sahtu, the Gwich'in and others in the Mackenzie Valley region.

The proposed route of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline would not traverse Tlicho lands and therefore is not an issue at this time.

The band is involved in hydro development and is likely to become self-sufficient and a net contributor to the grid for the Northwest Territories.

The largest of the four Tlicho communities, Rae Edzo, is located along the Fraser Highway and the Tlicho government is planning an all-weather highway to link the other three communities, which are Lac la Martre, Snare Lake and Rae Lake.

Taxation provisions of the agreement are a little bit unclear since there is no concluded taxation agreement between Canada and the Tlicho government, although one is to be concluded.

Tlicho citizens would pay GST and income tax. Tlicho government corporations would not pay either tax when conducting business on Tlicho land.

The Indian Act would no longer apply to Tlicho citizens and Tlicho lands would not be considered reserve lands.

Tlicho citizens would have continued access to all federal programs for status and non-status Indians and Metis. The Tlicho government would receive taxes paid to the federal government from Tlicho residents.

The Criminal Code would continue to apply.

There are several other areas I would like to talk about but I will summarize where I will go next time. The first area relates to the provisions for governance and the setting up of a renewable resources board, a land and water board and some of the financial costs and funding details.

This is an agreement that has a $152 million cash settlement to be paid out over 15 years and the Tlicho government will pay off its $27 million negotiating loan in the first six years.

In addition, there is a one time payment of $5 million to an economic development fund to be managed by the Tlicho government. That fund comes from the federal government.

[Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act, April 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I have three questions for the parliamentary secretary that relate to the agreement.

There is a statement in the agreement that Tlicho laws will be concurrent with territorial and federal laws. I would like the parliamentary secretary's interpretation of what that means. When it comes to anyone looking at an agreement, concurrence is a concept that makes it very difficult when we have two sets of laws. Somewhere along the line someone has to pick one or the other. I do not know why the government has built that into the agreement.

My second question relates to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There is a statement in the agreement that talks about persons to whom Tlicho laws apply that will have rights and freedoms “no less than those set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms”. I always understood that the charter was the charter. I am just wondering why there would be a statement that seems to dilute our charter by comparing it with some other base line.

My third question is, can the parliamentary secretary give me any clarification as to the ongoing Métis litigation in terms of this agreement? As we know, the Sahtu agreement just to the north of the Tlicho was comprehensive in that it included the Dene and the Métis. This agreement appears not to do so. It includes the Dene and I understand the southern Slave Métis organization is actively a part of this set of negotiations, but there is ongoing litigation with the North Slave Lake Métis. Therefore, I am a little surprised that the parliamentary secretary did not address that issue in his speech. I think we have to see these agreements for what they are, wrinkles and all.

[Liberal Party of Canada, April 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I think it has everything to do with Liberal ethics and Liberal corruption. It is long overdue for the Prime Minister to assure British Columbians that persons who are currently part of the RCMP investigation into drug dealing and money laundering will not play a role in the Liberal campaign in British Columbia.

Will the Prime Minister assure Canadians that he has dismissed these individuals from the Liberal campaign team in B.C. because of their implication in the RCMP investigation?

[Liberal Party of Canada, April 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was in British Columbia contradicting himself by appointing Liberal candidates. While he was there, a B.C. judge released a summary of the search warrants for the homes and offices of individuals, including key figures in the Prime Minister's leadership campaign.

Can the Prime Minister assure the House that while he was in B.C. he did not meet with a single member of his B.C. leadership campaign who is part of the RCMP investigation into drug dealing and money laundering?

[Food and Drugs Act, March 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the amendment is in order without the last part that you referenced in terms of reporting back by September 30. I do not think it is up to the House to make a determination as to when the committee will report back. That amendment would be supported by this side of the House if it were to exclude any precondition about what the committee might or might not do with that report.

[The Budget, March 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, this is typical, coming from the government side. It is called divide and conquer. It is called be thankful for what we receive because we have been favoured by the government.

The government collects $7 billion in federal fuel taxes on an annual basis and gives back less than 10% of that into transportation infrastructure. The provinces spend 100% to 110%. The U.S. federal treasury spends 100%. The Canadian federal government sees fit to use those revenues for anything.

Then the government makes an announcement that it will spend a small part, and $1 billion is a lot of money, but it is still only one-seventh of what the government is collecting from our largest city, which represents approximately that percentage of the population. It is getting what it is due, but everybody else is not, so I am not sure why I should be so excited about it.

Government members are talking out of both sides of their mouths. It is time to deliver. Will the Liberals continue to collect those fuel taxes or will they turn them back to the municipal levels of government, through the provinces, so that the money can go back into infrastructure?

Today's announcement is typical of the federal government. It wants to keep its fingerprints all over the announcement rather than doing what is right and giving it to the level of government that can spend it efficiently.

[The Budget, March 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in response to the budget speech.

I guess the bottom line for me is that program spending jumps over 7.5% from last year to a record of over $143 billion. It jumps another 12.7% in the next two years, up another $41 billion over the last seven years.

We are seeing a distinct lack of fiscal discipline coming from the government. We have an EI surplus continuing to feed general revenues. That EI surplus will swell by another $4.3 billion in the next year. We will end up with over $48 billion EI surplus and no premium relief in sight for workers or for employers.

My other major observations on the budget relate to the fact that there is essentially nothing in the budget for non-urban Canada. The budget not only snubs non-urban Canada, it snubs our Department of National Defence and many of our workers who work in that area.

I have already talked about the EI surplus and how that is continuing to be abused. There is a premium freeze in place and no relief in sight. The premiums being collected are much higher than what is required to sustain the program. Therefore, our workers are paying much more than they need to in order to keep the government afloat in terms of the kind of revenues that it is now used to spending.

Canadians are not getting the level of service from their federal government that is appropriate for the level of taxation that is being dedicated to the federal government.

We saw a small amount of relief on the student front. We saw some government moneys dedicated to a learning bond, which is a longer term savings program.

What we did not see is what the priority should be for students and that is a focus on reducing tuition and increasing the ability to access the student loan program. The combination of those two things would do exactly what is right. It would give immediate relief to students so they can carry on with their studies.

There was no delivery on the fuel tax rebate that the Prime Minister has been touting. It will not take very long before our municipal politicians will become quite cynical. They are not used to the kind of treatment that the government has meted out to the provinces and is now planning on meting out to the mayors and councils at the municipal level.

The government will play favourites. We already have a great deal of suspicion that the so-called cities agenda will completely leave out all the smaller communities, the smaller towns, the larger towns and the smaller cities. The so-called cities agenda of the government is going to translate into many municipalities and other municipal levels of government completely left off the agenda. That is certainly where all the signposts are headed right now.

We have had some discussion about the lack of tax relief in the budget. The only people who think there was tax relief in the budget are sitting on the other side of the House. They are on the government side. That is a quick snap when we look at the budget.

I would like to look at the budget in a little more depth and where we sit in non-urban Canada in terms of this budget. For example, in my part of the world, British Columbia is the major softwood producer in the nation with approximately 50% of softwood contribution. We had a government softwood package announced 18 months ago or longer. As of a month ago we had zero dollar delivery in the Province of British Columbia, whereas we have seen that there has been program delivery on a fairly steady basis, for example, in the Province of Quebec because the government was playing politics.

Liberals thought that the best way to play politics in the Province of Quebec was to continue to make announcements month by month and they thought the best way to play politics with the softwood funding in the Province of British Columbia was to throw it all into the hopper just before the election.

We know that between that strategy and the fact that this whole exercise was put into the domain of western economic diversification instead of HRDC, that we then had to go out and hire a whole bunch of new people to run this program. Then we had a series of turf wars as a consequence of that within the bureaucracy. We have had second guessing.

I have had initiatives put into the government that were rejected by one level of the bureaucracy and overridden by another level. These proposals have gone back and forth as many as three times that I am aware of. It is very frustrating at the community level.

Meanwhile, we are marching ahead and we are almost at the government's fiscal year end. That also happens to be the provincial government's fiscal year end. This has complicated the whole equation because some of these are dependent on federal-provincial cooperation as well as private sector financing at times. This has become very problematical.

The frustrations at the rural community level with the softwood package are immense. We have other frustrations as well which are either budget related or government related. Rural coastal British Columbia is so immensely impacted by the downturn in the forest sector, the fishing sector and other sectors. I do not know how to be kind in trying to describe what has happened to rural coastal British Columbia compared to 10 years ago when this government came into power. What I do know is the one very strong light at the end of the tunnel is the proposal that west coast oil and gas be a natural development.

That requires the political will from the federal arena and the provincial arena to take us in that direction. The only strong political will that is coming from the government in terms of west coast oil and gas is coming from the Minister of the Environment and it is negative political will. It has put us at least 12 months behind where we should be in terms of that whole prospect. The government needs to get it and it needs to get it soon.

My time is winding down. There are other issues I would like to speak to, but I will conclude by saying that 10 minutes is hardly enough time to point out the problems associated with the budget and the government's performance in the area that I represent.

[Human Resources and Skills Development, March 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has found a new way to destroy jobs in high unemployment areas of British Columbia.

In December 11 foreign workers under HRDC permits issued in Delhi and rubber stamped in Vancouver began to dismantle part of the pulp mill in Gold River. Bids by Canadian companies using Canadian workers were earlier rejected and told their price was too high.

Why is the government hiring foreign workers to undercut Canadian jobs?