House of Commons Hansard #12 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was treaty.

Topics

Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Reform

Reed Elley Reform Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, in carrying over my closing remarks from yesterday's debate I wish to say that it is with the deepest regret that I must oppose the current Nisga'a agreement. I oppose it for three main reasons.

First, if this treaty is truly a template for all other treaty negotiations, it does nothing to address the climate of mistrust and fear that exists at the band level between ordinary aboriginals and their band leaders. Until the serious problem of band accountability is addressed, there is no guarantee that the proceeds of any treaty will actually get to the people who need it most.

Second, I do not believe that this bill is good for British Columbia. Much has been said that the economy of B.C. will take on a new vibrancy after the passing of this bill. Who can say this with any certainty? Instead, I believe that this bill will increase confrontation over other outstanding aboriginal disputes in British Columbia. If a businessman was looking for a place to invest his money, would he want to invest it in a B.C. like that?

Third, this bill is not in the best interests of Canada. Look at what is really happening today. The paternalistic environment created by the Indian Act and recent decisions by the courts all point to trouble ahead. Look at what is happening with the Musqueam land in Vancouver, the east coast fishing dispute, and the controversy around the west coast fishing and logging rights. This agreement is a recipe for further disaster.

I have three native children who are part of my family. I love them very much, just as I love my other five children who are non-native. We have made this work in our family because we love and trust each other. I want them to grow up in a country where they will not encounter prejudice because of the colour of their skin. However, I am afraid for them and for all of us. I am afraid that this agreement paves the way for more confrontation rather than less, afraid that it does nothing to address the climate of fear and mistrust and corruption at the band level. I must therefore take my stand against this bill.

In closing, I move the following amendment:

That the amendment be amended by adding the following words:

and that the committee make a report to this House no later than June 5, 2000.

Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I declare the subamendment to be in order. The debate is on the amendment to the amendment.

Resuming debate. I believe the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan was the second member for ten minutes. I will therefore recognize the hon. member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys.

Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Reform

John Duncan Reform Vancouver Island North, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan was not on the second part of 20 minutes. Mr. Speaker, you may want to ask him for clarification.

Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The Chair has checked with the table officers. I should advise the hon. member for Vancouver Island North that during the debate last evening the last two speakers were the hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla and the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan who just completed his remarks. They apparently had split their time.

Even if they had not, I believe, having had four speakers in a row from the hon. member's party, that it is time for a change as they say, if someone else wishes to speak and someone else does. Accordingly I recognize the hon. member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys.

Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

NDP

Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is a very real privilege to participate in today's debate on Bill C-9, an act implementing the Nisga'a agreement.

I have before me the Indian Act which this bill will do away with. The Indian Act has a subtitle which states that it is an act respecting Indian people. That is probably the most erroneous title one could have for this piece of legislation, because it does exactly the opposite. It does not respect Indian people. It is an act filled with disrespect for Indian people.

The fact that the Indian Act will now become redundant at least in the Nisga'a territory of British Columbia is probably one of the brighter things that has happened in a long time. We say enough of this act that disrespects Indian people. As we approach the 21st century, we look forward to beginning a new era in aboriginal and non-aboriginal affairs. Let us face it. That has been long overdue.

Way back in 1887 the Nisga'a people paddled their canoes from the northern part of British Columbia to what is now known as Victoria. They asked the government for the opportunity to negotiate some kind of a settlement and they were rebuffed. They were told to leave, that the officials could not be bothered with that. After paddling more than 1,000 kilometres down to Victoria, they had to paddle more than 1,000 kilometres back home empty handed.

Here we are 112 years later in the Parliament of Canada wrapping up a debate that will eventually see the Nisga'a people become self-determining, self-governing and self-reliant. This has to be a major step forward for perseverance. We have to acknowledge that the Nisga'a people have been very patient. They have persevered. Others would have long since given up, but they knew they were doing the right thing. They knew they had right on their side, which is a great motivator.

As I said, 112 years later, and as we approach the new millennium, we are finally at the stage where we want to enact legislation that will see this treaty become law of the land. It is a treaty that was negotiated in good faith between the Nisga'a people, the province of British Columbia, because of the fact that it holds the resource rights, and the Government of Canada which has the fiduciary responsibility to support aboriginal people. The three groups got together and over a prolonged period of time negotiated a treaty which we are in the process of ratifying today.

To put this in some context, let us go back a few years to before the Europeans came to that part of British Columbia on the northwest coast. The Nisga'a people were there. That well established society had been there not for generations but for thousands of years. For thousands of years the Nisga'a people have lived in the Nass Valley and the surrounding area. They were a very highly sophisticated society, self-sustaining and self-reliant. They were self-sufficient and self-governing. They were prosperous and entrepreneurial. It was a dynamic society.

Europeans then appeared on the scene. I say with some hesitancy and with some reluctance, that a form of ethnic cleansing took place. At that time there were somewhere in the neighbourhood of 30,000 Nisga'a people. After a very short period of time that number was down to 800 individuals, the result of illness and all sorts of inappropriate behaviour on behalf of the European population. The Europeans set out to essentially exterminate the Nisga'a people. We call it ethnic cleansing today. They were almost successful.

Thankfully we can now say that there are 6,000 Nisga'a people in the area and they are making a major comeback. This legislation and this treaty is a major step forward in reversing this very negative process which took place over the last number of years.

A large number of people should be acknowledged today. I note that some of the speakers before me have done that. We should acknowledge some of the leaders in British Columbia and others from the Nisga'a people themselves.

I personally want to acknowledge Joe Gosnell, the Nisga'a Tribal Council chief, who said the other day that this was an example of the Nisga'a now making their way into Canada. Let us think of this, making their way into Canada. A lot of people have said that obviously the Nisga'a have been part of Canada. In fact, they have not been part of Canada like others have been part of Canada.

People say that they just want everybody to be treated equally, in other words, treated the same. It is clear when we look at our history first nations people were not treated the same as others. They were not treated equally.

When my ancestors first came from Norway many years ago, they were eligible to homestead on 160 acres of land virtually for free. They did and they built the family farm and it is still in our family today. They had that right.

Did Indian people have the right to do that? Could they go out and buy 160 acres of land? The answer is no. They were not even able to hire a lawyer to advance their cause for what they called their treaty rights. They were unable to hire a lawyer. It was actually against the law for them to do so.

Could they, living on a reservation, go to the bank and get some money to start up a business and so on? No. Could they vote? The right to vote in a general election is a fundamental right in our society. It is embarrassing to say this but it was 1960 before aboriginal people had the right to vote in our country.

To say that everyone has been treated equally over the years could not be further from the truth. First nations people have been treated very shoddily.

I mentioned a form of ethnic cleansing that took place in the western part of our country. I suppose the best example of ethnic cleansing is in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador where first nations were completely eliminated. Not a single person was left from those early cultures.

There is a lot of catching up to do. One thing this bill and this treaty moves us toward in my judgment is that it will bring some stability and certainty to the decision making in that part of British Columbia. It is not going to be the answer. There is still a long way to go and much negotiation to complete. However, it is the beginning of bringing certainty to the landscape.

If there is one thing that capital does not like, it is uncertainty. Capital will flee uncertainty. If there is anything insecure about a particular place, we can rest assured that capital will not stay there very long. That is one of the things happening in our country today. A lot of good economic investment is not being made because of the uncertainty that surrounds the whole issue of land and the jurisdiction over land.

I say with some pride that I come from an area of British Columbia that is often referred to as the Shuswap nation, represented by the Shuswap people. A number of reservations and a large number of people living in the towns and urban areas in this area have their tradition from the Shuswap central part of British Columbia. They are very progressive bands on very progressive reservations and are doing relatively well. Even in this area a number of issues remain outstanding because there is no effort at the moment to negotiate some kind of settlement.

Yes, there is a treaty process in British Columbia. As an aside, some people have asked why we are concentrating so much on British Columbia. As the European population came in contact with aboriginal peoples from the east coast, through the central part of Canada and out toward the west, they negotiated treaties with the native people. The understanding was that with these treaties certain rights would go to the aboriginal people and certain rights to the newcomers.

However, that did not take place in British Columbia. There were no treaties signed for all intents and purposes. The European population basically came in and told the native people they were going to live on a little crummy piece of land while they would take all the rest. Obviously the aboriginal people did not like that but the Europeans said that it was too bad because that was the way it was.

We had all sorts of forced relocation. People were taken from their traditional territory and their traditional lands and told where to live. Rest assured that although today those lands might be well located, in those days they were always the crummiest pieces of property, the most remote, swampiest and rockiest places that the others did not want. That is where the first nations people ended up. We forced them onto those lands.

I heard an awful lot about the great treatment the first nations people have experienced, of all the things they have received and about how we should all be treated equally. If there is one aspect of growing up in recent times as a first nations people it was that period of time when, in the best interest of our churches primarily, they decided that children should not be part of first nations families, that the children should be taken out of the families, by force in many cases, and put into residential schools to get rid of their aboriginal, traditional and cultural ways and to drop their language.

Can anyone listening and watching television today imagine what it must have been like in those thousands and thousands of aboriginal families to have someone with a European background, who looked maybe like me, come in and say “I am taking your children away from you for the next 10 months and putting them in a residential school where they will not be able to ever speak their language?”

Year after year those children grew up with no parents. Not only did they grow up with no parents, they developed no parenting skills. The parents were devastated and the children were devastated. This went on time and time again.

Let us face it, people who have had that kind of violence perpetuated on their families will not just drop it and forget it quickly. It will probably be many generations before that kind of evil behaviour will be overcome.

When we talk about aboriginal peoples being treated equally and fairly, let us remember what we perpetuated on those people. We took their children away from their homes, their parents, their grandparents and their loved ones and put them into a military style residential school. We cannot understand the incredible human, emotional, psychological and spiritual impact that must have had on all those people. However, that is what happened.

Today we are trying to do what is right. We are sitting down with aboriginal people and offering to negotiate a fair deal for everybody. That is what Bill C-9 is all about. Is it a perfect piece of legislation? I have never seen a perfect piece of legislation, and since human beings negotiate legislation, I do not suppose we ever will.

However, the Nisga'a people on balance have said they like the deal with 72% of them voting in favour of it. The duly elected Government of British Columbia said it supported it. Today we are being asked whether we support it.

What I can gather from the speeches being presented in the House, four out of the five political parties, representing the vast majority of the citizens of Canada, say we support implementation of the treaty.

Let us acknowledge right up front that the treaty is not a perfect document. However, I ask those who are naysayers to the process, I ask those who will one day vote against the legislation, what is it that they propose? If we tell the native peoples of the country that we will not negotiate any treaties and will not acknowledge the uncertainty and instability that exists from coast to coast in all sorts of matters, then what do they propose?

This may not be the perfect process, but if the bill and the treaty do not proceed what kind of signal will that send out to aboriginal leaders, particularly militant aboriginal leaders, who are really frustrated at how slow the process has worked and is working across the country today? This slowness has resulted in all sorts of things that we have seen in the last few weeks, in particular with the east coast fishery.

What choice do we have? We have to do something. This is what is before us. For those who say that they do not want to support this, I challenge them to say what they are proposing we do as a country to resolve these outstanding issues and, most importantly, to bring certainty to aboriginal people and non-aboriginal people alike. I think that is a fair challenge to put, particularly to my colleagues who are going to be voting against this and who do not like what the process is all about.

In spite of what others have said, this is not a template. This is not a border plate piece of negotiation that is going to apply elsewhere because first nations groups will not support it. I represent the Shuswap area of my province. Most of the bands in the Shuswap Nation do not support the Nisga'a agreement. They agree that it is what the Nisga'a want and respect their right to decide on their own future, but the Shuswap Nation wants a lot better deal. They want things that will be much different for them because they have a different culture with different expectations, requirements and so on. This is not a template nor a border plate piece of legislation that we can apply willy-nilly to any piece of negotiation across the country. I felt this was one point that ought to be made.

Second, have we had adequate input into the process? I know the debate today is on second reading, which is the way legislation proceeds. From there it will go to a committee where experts, from a variety of backgrounds, will comment on the pros and cons of the treaty. They will point out some of its strong points, presumably some of its weak points and some of the concerns people have. The bill will then come back to the House for debate at report stage and then a final debate at the third reading stage before it goes on to the Senate where it will go through the same process.

It is a fairly thorough process. It has already gone through a pretty thorough process. In my own area, we had a lot of meetings on the Nisga'a agreement. There were over 500 consultations on the Nisga'a agreement throughout British Columbia. Yes, people have strong feelings. Yes, many people have deep concerns based on, in my judgment, a lot of misconception because they have not studied the document carefully. They have also been sort of conjuring up a mythology attached to the treaty.

The Nisga'a treaty was achieved within Canada's existing constitutional framework. The Nisga'a government will be a democratic government for the Nisga'a community. It will protect Nisga'a language, culture and property, promote the future prosperity and well-being of the Nisga'a people, and give the Nisga'a the control over their lands and destinies that most of us have had for a long time and have always taken for granted.

It will not create an order of government apart from Canadian law and society. As many people have indicated, the charter of rights and freedoms will continue to apply to the Nisga'a people. Federal and provincial laws, such as the criminal code or B.C.'s family relations act, will apply.

The treaty lays out those areas where the Nisga'a government will have the right to enact laws. These laws will only prevail in matters internal to the Nisga'a people, important to their culture and essential to the operation of their government. In general, federal and provincial laws will continue to prevail. If there is a conflict between Nisga'a law and the laws of Canada or the laws of British Columbia, there is a dispute settlement mechanism that will be invoked.

One of the areas I want to emphasize in this agreement that non-aboriginal people in particular want to hear about is the issue of taxation and the extent to which certain aboriginal peoples do or do not pay taxes. There is a lot of mythology around this area, but the reality is that in most cases people who work and make their livelihood from enterprises on the reservation do not pay income tax.

The Nisga'a agreement will eventually end this. After a 12 year phase-out period, Nisga'a people will pay taxes the same way other Canadians do. If nothing else, this has to be an incredible breakthrough in terms of breaking the kind of mindset that exists between non-aboriginal people and aboriginal people.

The reliance of the Nisga'a people on transfers will be reduced over a time. I suppose we can say that if there is a final goal it will be that the Nisga'a people will be as economically self-reliant as any other Canadian as a result of economic development and wealth growth in their territory.

I am particularly proud to be part of a group of people who, after the process is completed, will vote in favour of the enabling legislation. It is a good day for Canada, a good day for the Nisga'a people and a good day for the province of British Columbia. The treaty will move us toward an element of certainty, predictability and stability in areas which are, at the moment, woefully wanting.

Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Provencher Manitoba

Liberal

David Iftody LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his interventions today. I think those people watching his dissertation would agree with me that he has spoken very well.

For those Canadians who are watching the debate, I welcome the member's participation. I have talked to him about this on several occasions. I was quite delighted to see him speaking in the House today. He is a veteran member of parliament from British Columbia and a member of the New Democratic Party. He provides some insights and a different angle with respect to British Columbia.

Many members from rural British Columbia have repeatedly spoken against the deal in the House. I want to ask the member why he thinks, feels, or believes that the Reform members, even those next door to him in his riding in British Columbia, have so strongly opposed what he and I both agree is a great deal for the people of British Columbia? Could he elaborate on that complexity and misunderstanding with the Canadian people?

Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

NDP

Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is not appropriate for me to speak on why representatives of other political parties do what they do.

I will say something that has made me rather curious in times past. My Reform Party colleagues from British Columbia, who work hard in their constituencies, know the uncertainty surrounding the land issue in British Columbia when it comes treaty rights.

I kind of look ahead to the next provincial election which will be coming soon. If there is a provincial election and a change of government, which is possible, and that new government throws out any concept of negotiating treaty rights or land claims with first nations peoples, that province will see complete chaos because it will appeal to the militant extremes on both sides of this question.

What has confounded me, and I say this with all due respect to my Reform friends, is that as a party that espouses a businesslike approach to issues, to do anything that would not advance the cause of certainty, security and predictability economically I think is folly.

I suspect that I will have a question from my Reform friend next, so I will ask, for a political party that does not like these kinds of negotiations, that does not support this negotiation process, what is it that Reform members would suggest we do as a province and as a country to bring certainty and stability to these areas?

Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Reform

John Duncan Reform Vancouver Island North, BC

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the speech of the hon. member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys. There are obviously many areas where we disagree. I am presumably the next one to speak and I think I will have trouble delivering everything in the time allotted, so I will ask the hon. member some questions.

The hon. member is correct in stating that the Indian Act is gone, but one part remains, and that is the part that deals with who is an Indian, which is the very worst part of the Indian Act.

There are many other concerns I would like to get to, one of which is the fact that we are here to represent a very educated public in British Columbia, a public which is more educated on this issue than those in any other part of Canada. Has the member done any polling in his riding? We have.

Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

NDP

Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC

Mr. Speaker, let me make it clear to my friend that I am not a courier service. I am not someone who exclusively takes the views of my constituents here, but that is part of it. I have not taken a survey, but I suspect that the situation in my riding is relatively balanced. Quite frankly, I am not a courier service. We have Fed-Ex and we have EPS and others to take care of that. Otherwise there would be no point in our being here.

I ask my hon. friend, whom I respect greatly, when he stands to give his speech, condemning the process and the treaty, will he please offer what he is proposing as an alternative? If what he is proposing as a clear alternative will not bring stability, an element of peace to the landscape and certainty to British Columbia, I say he is not doing this process a real service. Yes, he can criticize it. Yes, there are problems with this treaty. It is not a perfect document. However, what is it that he would propose in lieu of this?

Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Reform

Jim Hart Reform Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys. I presume the member owns a piece of property. I presume he lives in a community, on a street with other residential properties.

I am wondering if the member could explain to me why he would not want to see the Nisga'a people have the same rights to individual property as he enjoys and the people in his neighbourhood enjoy. Maybe then he could explain to me and to the House how he would feel if one day he was told that he did not have those individual property rights any more, but in fact there were communal rights to the property that he now enjoys. Why would the member not want the Nisga'a people to have individual property rights just as other Canadians enjoy?

Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

NDP

Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC

Mr. Speaker, let me use this as an opportunity, in case there is some misunderstanding, to say that when it comes to treaty settlement in British Columbia, private property itself is not on the table. For the people who own private property in Kamloops or anywhere else, that property is not on the table in terms of being up for negotiation. I want to make that clear, and I realize what my friend was asking.

We all enjoy collective rights. Much of the municipality of Kamloops is a collective right that we enjoy. When it comes to individual territory, I look at the Kamloops Indian reserve, which is part of our city. The same situation exists there. Indian people on the Kamloops Indian reserve cannot own their property. They can obtain rights to their property, which they do, whether it is a home, a business, a ranch or whatever. That is what exists today.

I do not know where my friend wants to take this, but I challenge him and others, because people so far have not raised this and I am going to be here this afternoon to listen to them, that if members do not like this process, if they do not accept that first nations people should have their land and treaty rights negotiated—and I do not think the member suggests that they should be litigated—what is it that they would propose we do immediately to bring peace, stability and certainty to the British Columbian landscape?

Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, the member from British Columbia, who is one of the most honoured colleagues in the House of Commons, with over 20 years of service to the Canadian public, knows very well that the Conservative and Liberal governments of before and today have constantly told the aboriginal people to pound sand and take their case to court.

As a long time veteran of the House, could he advise the House as to why governments have constantly done that and why the Nisga'a treaty is so valuable in today's process?

Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

NDP

Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague has raised that issue. What has frustrated so many over the years is the inability of governments to deal with these issues, in particular in British Columbia where we do not have any treaties in place to bring stability to the situation.

People have been patient. Aboriginal leaders have been patient in anticipation that there would be a process under way. The government has set up some processes for treaty negotiation which I think are completely inadequate. There is growing frustration from coast to coast to coast that these issues are not being addressed seriously and adequately. There is increased tension on both the aboriginal and non-aboriginal sides and the situation is getting out of control.

I pose again, not so much rhetorically but as a very serious question to my Reform friends, that if this is not the approach to bringing certainty economically, in terms of the business climate in British Columbia, what else is there? If negotiations will not resolve this, the only other alternative is litigation. We have seen what that does, in particular most recently on the east coast of Canada. Litigation is not the answer to solving these issues. There have to be people sitting down at the table, negotiating something that is fair and equitable for everyone.

Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Before I call for resumption of debate on the motion, I should advise the House that the time for 20 minute speeches with 10 minutes of questions and comments has expired. We will now start 10 minute speeches with no questions or comments.

Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Reform

John Duncan Reform Vancouver Island North, BC

Mr. Speaker, I have a point of clarification. The time before which I would have to speak and still get 20 minutes was 3.53 p.m. We are past that time. I have had a challenge posed to me by the member from Kamloops. I fully would like to respond to his questions. Could I ask the House if I could speak for more than 10 minutes and no longer than 20 minutes?

Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to speak for 20 minutes instead of 10 minutes?

Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Reform

John Duncan Reform Vancouver Island North, BC

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.

Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Reform

Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since the member who just spoke is clearly one of the most knowledgeable people in parliament on this issue, I would ask again for unanimous consent to give him another 10 minutes. I think it is important to do that.

Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is there unanimous consent to extend the hon. member's speech?

Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Greg Thompson Progressive Conservative Charlotte, NB

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak to Bill C-9, an act to give effect to the Nisga'a final agreement. My colleagues from South Shore and Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough have already spoken on this ratifying legislation and I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on it today. I will pretty well stick to my script. I do not want to be sidetracked because I want to make sure my remarks are on record.

The Nisga'a final agreement offers new opportunities to the approximately 3,000 Nisga'a people living in the upper Nass Valley region of British Columbia, opportunities they will be able to realize because of the agreement.

The Reform Party has been vocal on its position on the Nisga'a final agreement, a position which contradicts that of every other opposition party. The arguments it has put forth have been misleading and serve only to confuse the issue.

The Nisga'a people have worked hard to reach a negotiated settlement with the provincial and federal governments. Some 61% of them approved the agreement in the referendum last year. The provincial government in British Columbia did the same in April of this year.

There are three ways that parties often use to try to reach agreements, some better than others. For instance, we all witnessed what can happen when violent confrontation is used as a negotiating ploy and how destructive it can be to any peaceful and reasoned process that may already be in place.

In Oka a few years ago we all saw how quickly such tactics could get out of hand. No one wants to participate in that kind of demonstration. It ultimately delays any agreement and does nothing to develop peaceful, effective and harmonious relations. It does not matter whom we are talking about. Violent confrontation seldom accomplishes the intended objective and does not effectively lead us to peaceful negotiations.

The same type of confrontation was seen recently involving the Burnt Church first nation of New Brunswick. We all know the Marshall decision recognizes treaty fishing rights for Mi'kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy people. Since that September 17 ruling there has been confusion and unrest in some communities in the Atlantic region.

Confrontations between aboriginal and non-aboriginal fishermen and community members only emphasize the problems that exist in finding a long term solution to the matter. The violence that we witnessed at Burnt Church resulted from a lack of leadership and a lack of involvement of stakeholders in any kind of a process to outline how the fishery would operate.

There are only three ways to reach agreement. The second one is through the court system where judges determine how parties will interact. As we have seen in the Marshall case, this does not necessarily provide the most effective agreement but instead provides guidelines for future negotiations.

I would argue that the court system has a place in society in establishing common ground among parties or overcoming bias and discrimination that may otherwise exist. It does not establish a solid basis of mutual respect for future negotiations. Instead, the parties involved know the limitations imposed and must work within such a framework to establish an agreement that satisfies not only the court's requirements but the objectives of each party.

The Marshall decision opened the door for more aboriginal involvement in the fishery in Atlantic Canada. What has been lacking, and I emphasize it, is direction from the federal government on how to implement such a decision. That responsibility has fallen to the people involved: aboriginal fishermen, non-aboriginal fishermen, community groups and other stakeholders.

We have already seen in Atlantic Canada some agreement on how the fishery will operate and when and where aboriginal fishers will take part in the fishery in the short term. This was not the result of the federally appointed negotiator's involvement, but the desire on the part of stakeholders to have a peaceful, clear and concise agreement on what will happen in the fishery.

This leads me to the third point that negotiations are the best means of reaching agreements like the one we are debating today. Negotiation is the most effective means because all the parties involved are there for one reason, and that is to formulate the best settlement they can, recognizing the limits, objectives and aspirations that each party brings to the table.

The Nisga'a final agreement provides the Nisga'a people with almost 2,000 kilometres of land and $190 million to be paid over a 15 year time period. It provides a commercial fishery and a resource ownership including forestry and mining opportunities. The Nisga'a people will establish a Nisga'a Lisms government and will begin paying taxes, an important word in the House, on a phased-in approach over 12 years. The Nisga'a will also have a constitution.

I would like to take a moment to discuss the fisheries aspect of the final agreement. Under the agreement the Nisga'a people will receive a percentage of the Nass River salmon stocks and money toward buying into the commercial fishery. Conservation remains paramount, however, for all aboriginal fishing rights. As with the lobster fishery on the east coast, if stocks do not meet minimum levels established by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, no one including aboriginal fishers may fish. Conservation must remain paramount.

The provisions of the treaty are the result of years of negotiation which have finally culminated in the treaty or agreement we have today. The ratifying legislation we are debating is the final step before the Nisga'a people assume the obligations and, another key word, responsibilities entailed within the agreement. The agreement was negotiated on a nation to nation basis.

The Reform Party suggests that the agreement will be a template for other agreements, particularly in B.C. where there are 50 outstanding land claim agreements. While a number of the basic concepts contained within the treaty may provide a foundation for future agreements, the nation to nation concept precludes this from being an actual template for other agreements.

Each first nation will arrive at the negotiating table with different objectives and will negotiate from a different perspective. Social conditions, geographic location and financial circumstances will all play a role in what future agreements will look like and how they will be reached.

It is important to note that the agreement was reached peacefully. I am sure the Nisga'a people and other negotiators would like to have seen the process concluded a long time ago. They have been working a long time to bring certainty and closure to the issue. However, they can be very proud of the fact that they did it effectively and peacefully and that harmonious relations among the three parties will prevail.

The Reform Party has tried to minimalize and degrade the efforts of the Nisga'a people in reaching and ratifying the agreement. They have made assertions that the charter of rights and freedoms does not apply, that it is a race based government and that non-Nisga'a people will be taxed without representation. All these statements are wrong, false and very misleading. The Nisga'a final agreement clearly states that the charter of rights and freedoms continues to apply to the Nisga'a people. The agreement states:

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to Nisga'a Government in respect of all matters within its authority, bearing in mind the free and democratic nature of Nisga'a Government as set out in this Agreement.

The Nisga'a people will not tax non-Nisga'a people living on Nisga'a lands and non-Nisga'a people will continue to vote in municipal, provincials and federal elections. As well, non-Nisga'a people will have voting privileges where their interests are affected by Nisga'a law. More important, they will have more rights than currently exist under the Indian Act where non-aboriginal people have no opportunity to vote.

The Nisga'a final agreement will be the first modern day treaty in B.C. I commend the Nisga'a people for their perseverance in seeing the agreement to its conclusion.

The situation on the east coast only emphasizes the importance of having agreements among stakeholders, agreements that set out the role of each party involved and that are negotiated with the input of all stakeholders without confrontation or court involvement. The Nisga'a final agreement shows how effective negotiation can be.

Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Surrey Central, Aboriginal affairs.