House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 65% of the vote.
Aboriginal Affairs November 22nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the Nisga'a agreement is an affront to the notion of equality. It inflicts race based discrimination on the Nisga'a. It excludes the Gitksan and Gitanyow bands and rejects their claims to the same resources.
The Nisga'a people have had an opportunity to vote on a deal which affects the entirety of British Columbia but all other aboriginals and non-aboriginals have not.
Why will the government not put the Nisga'a deal to a province-wide referendum in British Columbia?
Supply November 22nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I have a comment and a question. In his statement the minister said that we could not have a referendum because it would constitute changing the rules after a long process.
In the Quebec case this is precisely what the government is arguing, to change the rules in the middle of the game. I wonder how the minister squares his position that it is not proper to change the rules here to give people a greater say, yet it is possible to change the rules in the other case. That is my comment.
My question is on the agreement. Even the process described by the minister is essentially an agreement among governments. It has been negotiated between the Nisga'a government, the provincial government and the federal government. People from rank and file Nisga'a to other aboriginals in B.C. and to rank and file other British Columbians have not been involved in this process.
If this treaty is so good, if this agreement produced at the top by governments talking to each other is so good and has so many benefits for all these people who were not involved in the negotiations, if this is so good that it will carry their judgment, why is the minister afraid of putting it before the British Columbian people in a referendum?
Supply November 22nd, 1999
Madam Speaker, I believe I did answer the question at the beginning of my remarks. The Reform Party believes in constitutionally entrenched rights. We include and believe in the use of the courts to uphold those rights. We also believe in the opportunity for people to vote on constitutional amendments. There should be a balance used between the referendum mechanism and constitutionally entrenched rights and use the courts to enforce them. That is how we achieve the balance.
It is our view that this country is going to have to achieve that balance or it is going to get increasing disrespect for the charter of rights and freedoms and the legal mechanisms used to enforce it.
Supply November 22nd, 1999
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I am glad he has paid attention to our demands for referendums. I wish he would pay attention to everything we say on this subject because we have answered this question at least a hundred times before.
We believe in the use of a referendum to allow people to express their opinions. We also believe in legal definitions of rights and constitutional provisions for bills of rights which provide some constraint on the other side so that rights cannot be simply trampled by majorities at their whim. We support the use of the courts to uphold those rights.
We are talking about a balance. This country hardly ever resorts to referenda. This is a country which professes to have great respect for majority opinion and it hardly ever goes to the public on any issue. Even to make changes in the Constitution of Canada itself as profound as the ones in Meech Lake and the Charlottetown accord took enormous public pressure.
This country is hardly overdosing on referendums. We have had a national referendum on conscription, a national referendum on prohibition and a national referendum on the Charlottetown accord. Canada has had three referendums in 135 years. The country is not overdosing on referendums. There ought to be more occasions where the public gets a chance to have its say. The Nisga'a treaty particularly in its all pervasive effects on British Columbia is one of those instances.
Supply November 22nd, 1999
Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in favour of the motion before the House which calls for the federal government to conduct a province-wide referendum in British Columbia on the Nisga'a final agreement.
On October 26 in the House, I fully expressed my own views on the Nisga'a treaty itself. The focus of today's motion, however, is not so much on the treaty as on the democratic right of the people of British Columbia to register their opinion on this treaty; their support for it or their opposition to it through a province-wide referendum. The point at issue, in other words, is the democratic rights of the people of British Columbia.
The other members of the official opposition today will put forward the main reasons for a referendum. In our judgment, those include economic and financial reasons because this agreement and future agreements modelled on it will have a major financial impact on British Columbians and on other Canadians.
There are, of course, social reasons why this should be subjected to a referendum because this treaty and others modelled after it will have a profound effect, as the member said, on the social and community relations between aboriginals and non-aboriginals throughout the entire province.
There are also constitutional reasons for having a referendum on this issue because the agreement establishes a new order of aboriginal government with jurisdiction over many areas of activity which were formerly the exclusive prerogative of the federal and provincial governments.
I do not want to spend my time on these reasons, important as they are. What I would like to do is to recognize that all the parties in the House, with the exception of the official opposition, have chosen to co-operate with the government in the unseemly task of pushing this treaty through the House with a minimum amount of discussion and a minimum amount of consultation with the people of British Columbia.
Nevertheless, I would like to make some arguments as to why members of the respective parties in the House, regardless of their position on Nisga'a itself, should consider supporting the motion before the House.
The motion tests the commitment of various members and parties to uphold democracy, the democratic rights of British Columbians to affirm or withhold their support for a major piece of legislation with economic, social and constitutional ramifications for the entire province.
How members vote on the motion will tell voters a great deal about the commitment of those members and their parties to democracy, the democratic rights of the people themselves to decide certain major issues rather than have solutions forced upon them.
To be specific, I first appeal to the Bloc members. The Bloc Quebecois members never tire of telling the House about the democratic rights of the people of Quebec to decide their own future on constitutional matters. Surely, if they are that committed to democracy and the use of referendums to settle issues democratically, they cannot turn around and deny that same right to the people of British Columbia with respect to a quasi constitutional issue of great importance to them.
I would appeal to members of the New Democratic Party. The New Democratic Party professes to have a special commitment to democracy. It is embodied in the name of the party. In the old days when it was still the CCF, it purported to be the party for the little person, the party that wanted to give ordinary people a voice and a say in the great decisions affecting their lives.
The old CCF supported such measures as greater use of referendums, citizens initiatives and recall, not unlike those that are currently in the platform of the Reform Party.
I would appeal to New Democratic Party members, for the purpose of this motion at least, to return to their democratic roots and regardless of their position on the Nisga'a treaty itself, to give ordinary rank and file British Columbians a chance to express themselves on this matter through a referendum.
I would appeal to the federal Conservative members in this way: It was a Conservative federal government which brought in the Federal Referendum Act of 1992. Section 3 of that act reads:
Where the Governor in Council considers that it is in the public interest to obtain by means of a referendum the opinion of electors on any question relating to the Constitution of Canada, the Governor in Council may, by proclamation, direct that the opinion of electors be obtained by putting the question to the electors of Canada or of one or more provinces specified in the proclamation at a referendum called for that purpose.
Whereas the B.C. referendum legislation requires an actual constitutional amendment to trigger a province-wide referendum, the federal legislation, enacted by a Conservative government, is much more inclusive, permitting a referendum “on any question relating to the Constitution of Canada”.
While some members may dispute the official opposition's claim that the whole Nisga'a agreement is a de facto constitutional amendment, no one, regardless of their position on this issue, can deny that it certainly raises questions relating to the Constitution of Canada.
For example, the preamble of the treaty makes reference to section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
The first provision in chapter 2 of the treaty defining the “nature of the agreement” says that the agreement is “a treaty and a land claims agreement within the meaning of sections 25 and 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982”. The Nisga'a agreement is described within itself as being by definition a constitutional document.
Section 8 of chapter 2 makes specific reference to the Constitution of Canada itself. Section 9 refers to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which is part of the constitution. Section 23 of chapter 2 elaborates on Nisga'a rights as provided for in section 35 of the constitution.
Since the Nisga'a final agreement obviously raises questions relating to the Constitution of Canada and the Conservative Referendum Act of 1992 specifically provided for the use of referendums to obtain expressions of public opinion on such matters, I would therefore appeal to Conservative members to uphold the principles and the spirit of their own referendum act and support the motion before the House.
It is evident to the official opposition that a majority of the members of the Liberal government have simply written off the opinions and interests of British Columbians. The government is at odds with the people of British Columbia on everything from the handling of illegal immigrants, to the collapse of the west coast fishery, to aboriginal issues in general, to the Nisga'a treaty in particular.
We, therefore, do not expect a majority of the government members to have any respect for the democratic rights of the people of British Columbia to express themselves on this issue, even though the provincial Liberal Party in B.C. under Gordon Campbell has explicitly called for a referendum on the Nisga'a treaty in that province.
The motion before the House, however, does provide a specific opportunity for the last remaining Liberal MPs from British Columbia to declare where they stand when the democratic rights of the people of that province conflict with the position and party line of the federal Liberal government.
The people of B.C. expect that when there is a conflict between the Liberal Party line and the position of the electors of B.C. that the position of the electors should prevail.
A majority of the people of British Columbia would therefore expect the following members to support the motion and will be watching with keen interest tomorrow night to see if, in fact, they do. I refer to: the member for Victoria, the member for Richmond, the member for Vancouver South—Burnaby, the member for Vancouver Centre, the member for Vancouver Kingsway, the member for Vancouver Quadra, and the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam.
The eyes of B.C. are upon these members. Will it be the Liberal Party line or the democratic rights of British Columbians? The vote on the motion will tell the story.
I appeal to all members, regardless of their position on the Nisga'a treaty, who profess to value the democratic rights of the people of British Columbia to decide for themselves whether the Nisga'a agreement is in the interests of aboriginal and non-aboriginal people in that province to support the motion before the House.
I move:
That the motion be amended by inserting after the words “British Columbia on” the words “the ratification of”.
Csis November 16th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, it is quite apparent that the minister did not comply with the basic statutes governing CSIS for which he is responsible. The next logical question, if the minister can follow this, is: Why did the minister not comply with section 20(2) of the CSIS act?
Csis November 16th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the one simple way this parliament keeps a hold on the executive is through the law.
One of our laws, section 20(2) of the CSIS act, states that the minister must send the report with his comments to the Attorney General of Canada and SIRC. Did the minister comply with section 20(2) of the CSIS act?
Aboriginal Affairs November 16th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, more to the point, why is the deputy minister not supporting the provincial Liberals in British Columbia?
The Nisga'a treaty is of such wide-ranging importance to aboriginals and non-aboriginals that it should be submitted to a province wide referendum in that province.
The treaty establishes a new level of government. It establishes two tier citizenship. It abandons the principle of equality before the law. It creates taxation without representation and fails to protect the rights of aboriginal women and entrepreneurs. If these are not sufficient reasons to hold a referendum in B.C. on the Nisga'a treaty, what would be?
Aboriginal Affairs November 16th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister's answer is completely unacceptable to the people of British Columbia including provincial Liberal leader Gordon Campbell.
In correspondence with the Prime Minister, Mr. Campbell said he found the limited hearing process in B.C. and the skewing of witnesses unacceptable. He described the limiting of parliamentary debate on the Nisga'a treaty as an unacceptable slight to British Columbians and to all Canadians.
Why will the government not accept the advice of the provincial Liberal Party in British Columbia that its entire handling of the Nisga'a treaty is flawed and unacceptable?
Aboriginal Affairs November 16th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the Nisga'a treaty entrenches inequality under the law. It establishes two tier citizenship. It fails to protect the rights of aboriginal women and it denies aboriginal private enterprisers the tools for economic development.
These are all very serious flaws, yet the government is cutting off debate on this treaty in parliament. It is limiting the public hearing process in British Columbia and it is even skewing the list of witnesses in its own favour.
Why is the government so afraid of parliamentary scrutiny and so afraid of public input that it will not allow Canadians to have their full say on the Nisga'a treaty?