Preston Manning

[National Unity, November 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will tell the House why the Prime Minister is on this misguided course. It is because he is being driven on this issue by his ego, not by the interests of Canadians.

The Prime Minister's personal reputation has always been lowest in the province that knows him best, in Quebec. He has been dismissed by the sovereignists as Trudeau's lackey; and he has been dismissed by the federalists as the guy that almost lost the referendum in 1995. Now the Prime Minister is trying to salvage that reputation by this misguided initiative.

Is not the real problem here that the Prime Minister is putting his own legacy ahead of the national unity issue?

[National Unity, November 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has never got it right on the proper mix between plan A and plan B on this issue.

Reform has advocated being tough and presenting plan B when the sovereignists were growing in strength. But Reform has also always advocated presenting a third way, one that would be particularly attractive to Quebecers when they became weary with sovereignty and the referendum.

The Prime Minister should be offering reform of the federation, not tinkering with referendum rules.

[National Unity, November 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, when support for sovereignty in Quebec was strong before the last referendum, the Prime Minister grovelled before Quebecers promising distinct society and anything else that would change their minds.

Now that Quebecers show signs of weariness with constitutional matters, with referendums on sovereignty, the Prime Minister restimulates interest in this issue with his own referendum proposal. His potential allies in Quebec say that this approach is completely misguided. Why can the Prime Minister not see that?

[Aboriginal Affairs, November 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, when treaty No. 6 was signed, the minister responsible swore up and down that it was in the best interest of the Blackfoot people. When treaties Nos. 7 and 8 were signed, the government of the day insisted that those treaties were in the best interests of the aboriginal people. They were dead wrong in both cases.

Why does the government insist on going down the same road of race based segregation by imposing the Nisga'a treaty on the aboriginal and non-aboriginal people of British Columbia?

[Aboriginal Affairs, November 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, four out of five parties agreed on Charlottetown and look what happened to it. The government is alienating the people of British Columbia on every front. It taxes them to death. It has mismanaged the west coast fishery. It has bungled the people smuggling problem in British Columbia. Now it is imposing a 19th century race based treaty on the people of that province.

If the Prime Minister really believes that this treaty is in the best interests of the people of British Columbia, why does he not allow them to have a say through a province-wide referendum?

[Aboriginal Affairs, November 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says that it is the duty of parliament to decide, and yet look at how the government has treated parliament on this issue. It uses closure and time allocation to cut off debate. It stacks committees and stifles committee hearings. It was not going to hold hearings in British Columbia until forced to by the official opposition. It denies free votes to its own members on any issue of government policy.

If the Nisga'a treaty is so good, why does the government have to resort to all of these undemocratic procedures in order to ram it through parliament and impose it on British Columbia?

[Aboriginal Affairs, November 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister has been talking about democracy at Commonwealth meetings his government has been busy denying democracy at home.

The people of British Columbia have not yet been given an opportunity to vote on the Nisga'a treaty which establishes a new race based government in their province, which assigns access to natural resources on the basis of bloodlines and which denies the Nisga'a people access to property rights.

If the Prime Minister wants to champion democracy, why does he not hold a province-wide referendum on the Nisga'a deal in British Columbia?

[Aboriginal Affairs, November 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago the minister for aboriginal affairs said that he had not heard from any aboriginal leaders who object to the Nisga'a agreement.

At the aboriginal committee hearings recently, Chief Darlene Vegh, chief of the Gitanyow, testified at the committee. She said these words: “The Nisga'a final agreement is a supreme violation of the Gitanyow and Gitksan laws. The Nisga'a final agreement will force us to defend our land. We believe the Nisga'a final agreement is an invasion of our birthright to our homeland”.

What is the minister's response to this aboriginal leader in B.C. when she says, “We believe the Nisga'a final agreement is an invasion of our birthright to our homeland”?

[Aboriginal Affairs, November 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is that kind of reasoning which led the people of British Columbia to reject the majority of Liberal candidates in the last federal election.

Section 3 of the federal Referendum Act allows for “any question relating to the Constitution of Canada” to be put to the people.

The Nisga'a agreement, particularly in part 2, refers repeatedly to the constitution of Canada, in particular constitution sections 25 and 35. The referendum law is on the books. This issue pertains to it. The mechanism is there. Why will the government not simply use that law?

[Aboriginal Affairs, November 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the government's idea of democratic government makes a mockery of the very concept.

It uses closure and time allocation to choke off debate in the House. It stacks committees and committee hearings. It disregards results of democratic elections like the Senate elections in Alberta. It denies free votes to its own members in the House and it denies votes to other Canadians through referendums like in the Nisga'a case. How can such a government possibly be pretending to exercise democratic leadership in government when it behaves in that way?