House of Commons Hansard #25 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was treaty.

Topics

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Reform

Keith Martin Reform Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Madam Speaker, I could not help but hear the absolutely incorrect comments, and that is putting it kindly, by the member from the New Democratic Party.

It is true that the Reform Party stands alone in opposing the Nisga'a treaty. It is not because we are against the Nisga'a people. It is not because we want to keep the Nisga'a people or indeed aboriginal people under the hammerlock of separation and impoverishment that they have been subjected to for more than 100 years. Rather, the Reform Party wants to liberate aboriginal people and make sure they have the same powers, the same equalities and the same rights and responsibilities as non-aboriginal people.

In 1969 the then aboriginal affairs minister who today is our Prime Minister said very clearly that the aboriginal people stood at a fork in the road. They could either pursue a course of separation and marginalization and of being treated differently, which I might add the Nisga'a treaty epitomizes, or they could move forward in the ability for them to live by their own cultural traditions and rights and responsibilities in the context of being equal with other Canadians.

Does the member from the New Democratic Party agree with the white paper on aboriginal affairs put forth by our present Prime Minister in 1969? Does she agree that the rights and responsibilities that exist under the Nisga'a treaty, the right to own land and the benefits from the Nisga'a treaty, are accrued to the aboriginal leadership and not to individual aboriginal people?

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC

Madam Speaker, that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard, that the Reform Party wants to liberate aboriginal people. I guess talk is pretty cheap.

That is what we just heard from the Reform Party, that it wants to liberate aboriginal people. Every single action I have seen in the House, every single example that is used by the Reform Party when it comes to aboriginal people, has been negative, has been allegations of what it perceives to be corruption, and has been divisive. If that is what the Reform Party calls liberation, I do not want any part of its liberation.

I do not know about the 1969 white paper. I was 16 years old at the time and I do not know what it said.

But I do know that the Nisga'a treaty was negotiated by the Nisga'a people. If we are talking about liberation, then we have to understand that the representatives of those people sat down at the table, negotiated in good faith and came up with an agreement, while not perfect, is one they could live with. They did that in good faith. To me that is part of a just and democratic process and it is a liberation in terms of assertion of their equality.

I might ask the Reform member why his party's position is so patronizing to the Nisga'a people to assume what they negotiated is somehow not right for them? They are the people who did the negotiating. The member was not at the table. I was not at the table. It was their representatives and they believe that they have treaty. To me that is something they are willing to live with. I think it should be ratified by the House.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Reform

Jim Pankiw Reform Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK

Madam Speaker, the hon. member kept using the words “divisive” and “uncertainty”. She said that our calls for a referendum on the issue would cause uncertainty and divisiveness.

My question for her is how on earth could a referendum in which all the citizens could participate and exercise their democratic will, and after which there would be a clear result, possibly create uncertainty? Would that not clarify the matter? Would that not empower the people of British Columbia to determine their destiny on this?

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

NDP

Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC

Madam Speaker, I believe that it would be a grievous error to submit this treaty and the issue of minority rights to a referendum. Who would vote? The Reform Party is saying that it would be everyone in B.C. Some people may argue that all Canadians should vote.

I believe that democratic expression and the substance of that is what is valued. There are times for referendums. There are times when a referendum can be appropriate. Under our constitution our governments have the mandate and the responsibility to negotiate treaties. That is what was done in this case. That is what has been arrived at and that is what must be approved.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Gerald Keddy Progressive Conservative South Shore, NS

Madam Speaker, I have listened to the debate today. I have spoken on this issue many times, have participated in the debate, have examined and cross-examined witnesses. Having the information before me as a member of parliament, I really do welcome this debate today. Primarily, I welcome this debate for very selfish reasons.

This debate will be on the record, further debates will be on the record and past debates on this issue are on the record. There has been a lot of reference to what has been said, what has not been said, who has said what, when and where. I implore members of parliament and the listening public to see for themselves. They do not have to take my word for what has been said. Look in the records. Check Hansard . Look at the record of the committee. See who said what, where and when.

All one has to do is look at the records to see what has been said by the members for Prince George—Peace River, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Skeena and Calgary Southwest, and by the Leader of the Official Opposition, have said. They have repeatedly said in the House that the treaty will lead to a fishery based on race, that it will take away the rights of women, that it will affect the constitution of Canada and that it will somehow change the charter of rights and freedoms so that it will not apply to this group. Those statements are patently false.

If anyone wants to listen to the Reform wrecking ball approach to public policy debate, then they should check the record. The record stands. The written word is there for anyone in the country to check.

There have been a number of mistruths said in the House. I want to make a statement about mistruths. I was thinking about this earlier while watching the debate. A mistruth is not necessarily a mistruth if the speaker does not know any different or any better.

If a member of parliament has not done his or her homework, it could be said that her or she has been delinquent in his or her duty as a member of parliament. However, if that member of parliament has done his or her duty as a member of parliament and does know the difference and does know how this treaty applies, and that member stands and deliberately leads the public in a mistruth, then that member is delinquent in his or her duty as a member of parliament. There is a dramatic difference.

Let us talk about this treaty as it applies to Canadians and as it applies to the Nisga'a. Some time ago we entered into a treaty process in Canada in good faith with all parties coming to the table. We allowed first nations to sit down with the provinces and federal government and negotiate the best possible treaty we could work out.

I support this treaty for very selfish reasons. I support it because of the things it addresses, the inequalities and inadequacies of the old Indian Act, which on a good day is a colonial piece of legislation and on a bad day is definitely a racist piece of legislation. What this treaty does for the Nisga'a is it takes them out from under the umbrella of the Indian Act. It forever takes away the right of the Indian Act to govern the Nisga'a.

The Nisga'a will govern themselves. They will govern themselves in a municipal style of government with some rights that are quasi-provincial and some rights that are quasi-federal. I have listened to Reform members of parliament talk about how these changes will have a detrimental effect on the good people of British Columbia and on the Nisga'a themselves.

All anyone has to do is read the Nisga'a final agreement. It is not a secret document. It is a public document. It is there for any and every Canadian who would care to take the time to read it.

I can certainly attest to the fact that I am one Canadian who has read the NFA. It takes a little wading through. Starting at the beginning one asks a lot of questions before getting to the end. However, there is not one question arising from reading that document that cannot be answered.

What it takes is someone who can read the document with an open mind, who can see into the future of the country and can accept some of the basic rules and laws that we all accept as Canadians. We would hope that some day those rules, laws and regulations would be applied to all of us.

The information can be checked off. The Reform Party has stood repeatedly and said there is something wrong with the process. I cannot attest as a new member of parliament to everything that went on in the past regarding the debate of the treaty. I can attest to what has happened since I have been involved as the Progressive Conservative Party critic on this issue.

Certainly we all know, and it is a matter of record, that there was debate in the British Columbia legislature. I have heard two different numbers; one is 116 hours and the other is 120 hours. It should be duly placed on the record that debate in this House on the average for a piece of legislation that is fairly hotly contested may be eight or ten hours, but more often it will probably average five or six hours. We had 116 or, Madam Speaker, if you prefer, 120 hours of debate in British Columbia and somehow that debate was not adequate. It was insufficient. It is kind of like the old adage when one is on a job working. If the first break is not sufficient, thou shalt have a second break of equal length. That is not quite how it works.

We had honest debate and fair debate. Everyone who wanted to speak on this issue had opportunity to speak. The debate collapsed after 120 hours, as it rightfully should.

The motion today is about referendum, about the fact that the majority of Canadians should establish laws and should judge laws for the minority. It is never good, ever in any way, shape or form, to have the majority continually be in charge and make laws that apply always to the minority. If we go to referendum that is exactly what happens.

There has been a referendum. It has gone through democratic debate in the province of British Columbia. It has gone through democratic debate and is continuing to go through democratic debate in the Parliament of Canada.

We have heard many witnesses before committee and we will continue to hear them. I think some 64 witnesses in total will appear before committee.

This process has been a very long process and continues to get longer. As part of that process, there are extremely legitimate views and opinions that deserve and need to be heard. However, let us stop for a second and let us take a handful of the opinions that have been put forth.

One of those ideas and opinions just minutes ago was the fact that we are not going to have fee simple land management. Quite honestly, I have spoken about land ownership until I am blue in the face talking about it. Clearly stated in the NFA is that the Nisga'a will own their property fee simple. We cannot make it any plainer than that.

On the day that this treaty is approved some of the lands that the Nisga'a hold will be fee simple to the Nisga'a government. Some of the lands will transfer fee simple to individuals. The rest of the lands that are owned now without any property ownership system at all can in the future be turned into fee simple and can be held fee simple by the Nisga'a government the same as any municipality holds its property fee simple. It is the same as the province of Nova Scotia where I come from. It holds its crown based property. To allude to it any differently is to mislead the public.

We have debunked the myth of secrecy of negotiation. We have debunked the myth of fee simple land ownership. Let us go back to referendum. Does B.C. have a right to vote but not the rest of Canada? Does Canada have a right to vote but not B.C.? Who decides? Referendums in our constitution are there and can be used for items that change the constitution. That is another myth of this treaty. This does not change the Constitution of Canada. It is affected by the Constitution of Canada and protected by the Constitution of Canada but it does not change the Constitution of Canada.

We can say it a million times, but if individuals have their fingers in their ears they will not hear it. It is important, as long as we are debating the motion, to talk about the real issues, the substantive issues, the issues that concern Canadians and all of those issues which concern Canadians.

I have heard time and time again the official opposition saying that it is not against the treaty process, that it supports the treaty process. Well, this is the treaty process. This is the negotiated process entered into in good faith by three parties that came up with the negotiated solution. Some people gave up items during the debate and the negotiations and some people gained some. It is like any negotiated process, a process of give and take. At the end of it, we reached the best possible agreement we could reach to the advantage of all three parties. That is what we have today with the Nisga'a final agreement. We have the best possible solution reached by people working in good faith.

Individual members of parliament may not like that. They may want to vote against it for some obscure reason that I have not been able to identify. If that is the case, they have every right to stand and vote against it, and I support that. However, they should not stand and vote against it on the basis that we do not have fee simple land ownership. They should not stand and vote against it on the basis that the charter of rights and freedoms does not apply. They should not stand and vote against it because they say that the Constitution of Canada will not be effective. Those issues are very clearly laid out in the NFA and dealt with.

I have heard the numbers 14, 15 and 17 areas where the Nisga'a will have greater jurisdiction than the province of British Columbia or the federal government. Let us look at some of those areas. We are talking about areas of environmental regulations. We are talking about areas of family and children's services. This is not a giveaway of unprecedented proportion in Canadian history.

We have said to the Nisga'a that through negotiation they have the right to control family and children's services, which would ordinarily be a provincial right. However, when the members of parliament rail against that, they forget to mention that it very clearly states in the agreement that those rights and privileges have to be as good or exceed existing provincial regulations. Therefore the Nisga'a cannot be less protective of families and children than the Province of British Columbia. They can be more protective if they wish but they cannot be less protective. It is in the agreement.

I have said time and time again that members should read all of the Nisga'a final agreement. They should get their constitutional experts and they should ask for legal opinions. They should talk to the province of British Columbia. They should talk to all of them.

I have listened to the Reform debate on this until I am sick of it. We have an expression at home, and if anyone in the House is a hunter they will recognize it. When the debate has heated up and we have chest pounding, hair pulling, arm waving and squawking, it is like crows on a gut pile. That is exactly what it is like.

We have to get beyond this. We have to talk about the real issues in this treaty. There is a very serious question of overlap. The Gitanyow and the Gitksan are extremely troubled about overlap. Again, it is dealt with in the Nisga'a final agreement. It very clearly states within that agreement how the Nisga'a will deal with overlap. It does not exclude a final settlement coming down in favour of the Gitksan or the Gitanyow, but what it does include is that if the the Nisga'a lose territory because of future land claim settlements, they will be given compensation of some form, either more land or dollars.

The process is there. It allows for arbitration. It allows for joint jurisdiction with other bands, the federal government or the provincial government in some areas. Surely we have reached a stage in the evolution of the political life of the country and the provinces and territories that make it up, that we can embrace this type of legislation.

Surely we have reached the point in the country where we can look at legislation for what it is worth to the nation and not be against it for what it is worth for a political party. Those are entirely the wrong reasons to be against something.

They should take the politics out of this and talk about the treaty. They should deal with the question of overlap. It is dealt with in the NFA. They should make recommendations if they want to make recommendations, but they should not burn the barn down because they are not happy with the fact that they are not making a good living. They should not just destroy it. They should step away from this wrecking ball approach to public policy debate. They should be constructive by looking at the issues one at a time and deal with them.

We went to British Columbia on committee and I welcomed the opportunity to go there. It was an interesting process in B.C. I have been out there several times so I feel very much at home in British Columbia. I talked to a lot of people on the street and a number of shopkeepers. Maybe these non-scientific polls that were done are a reality, but that was not the opinion I got on the streets in B.C. It was not even close to the opinion.

Unfortunately, the hearings were marred by some protesters. Anyone has the right to protest and that is one of the great things in this nation. However, no one has the right to interfere with involved, informative and insightful debate.

There are many issues and certainly one is the referendum issue. Do we in Canada want to establish public policy with a referendum every time we turn around? Referendums are generally espoused and advanced by people who have already lost the debate. They took part in the process and they have lost the debate so they want one more kick at the can. That is the referendum mentality.

It is unfortunate that we run out of time in the House. Part of that, as I understand it, is because the Reform Party and the Bloc in 1993 really did not do their job as the opposition and allowed debate to be cut off after six or eight hours.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

I am afraid the time has expired.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Hec Clouthier Liberal Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague from the South Shore give a rather compelling, thought-provoking dissertation on this particular treaty, but one thing struck me very clearly. It seems to me that the Conservative Party, which is perceived to be a bit right of centre of the political spectrum, is completely at variance with the loyal opposition.

I was wondering if the member from South Shore could fill me in on how members in his party could ever believe that they would ever come together with the Reform Party in some kind of a united alternative when it disagrees with something as fundamental as this.

Would the hon. member for South Shore please inform those members present on all sides of the House why his party's position is so different from the loyal opposition, and especially from the position of the member for Wild Rose who seems to think that the member for South Shore is coming from the wrong side of the boat on this?

SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Gerald Keddy Progressive Conservative South Shore, NS

Madam Speaker, sometimes marriage can be a wonderful thing. Sometimes it can be a marriage of convenience. Sometimes it is arranged. Sometimes it ends in divorce. Sometimes it never happens. I appreciate the hon. member's question and I will try to answer it fairly succinctly. It is difficult as I am trying to think of the proper answer to it.

I am a Conservative. I have conservative values. I am a fiscal conservative. That does not mean that when I was born someone cut out my heart and threw it away. One can be conservative and still have a heart. If there are inequalities or injustices in the world one can still stand up for the rights of people who have no one to protect them. One can still look at legislation as it exists and judge it one item at a time.

We do not have to agree with everything the government does, and quite frankly I do not. We need to look at the merits in legislation and approve or disapprove it on its own merit.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Reform

Derrek Konrad Reform Prince Albert, SK

Madam Speaker, the member for South Shore said that the opinion the Reform Party was expressing was not the opinion he heard on the streets of British Columbia. I would like to bring his attention to a couple of facts and some questions which were asked of British Columbians.

The first question was: “Do you believe the public has had adequate opportunity to provide input into the Nisga'a treaty?” There were 7,556 people who responded to that question. Of those 88.75% or 6,706 said no.

The second question was: “Do you believe that the people of B.C. should have the right to vote on the principles of the Nisga'a treaty in a provincial referendum?” The number of responses in total were 7,556. Those who said yes totalled 6,923.

In the few minutes the member for South Shore had to talk to people other than those on the gerrymandered witness list, I wonder what percentage he found, how many thousands of people from British Columbia he talked to, and whether it would add up to 90% disapproval as I have just pointed out to him.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Gerald Keddy Progressive Conservative South Shore, NS

Madam Speaker, as I said at the beginning the great thing about this debate is that it is on the record. We can look and see what people have said. We can check it in 10 years time or we can check it tomorrow. It is all on the record.

As far as public input in British Columbia is concerned, I want to ask the hon. member where it stops. At the end of the day somewhere and somehow there has to be an end to the process. We might not all agree with that.

There are compelling reasons to have ongoing public debate, and 120 hours is pretty serious public debate in B.C. Numerous information sessions have been brought to my attention. However, at the end of those sessions we might have a small minority or a small majority of people who are not satisfied with the public debate, are not satisfied with their public officials and want to throw it out and start over. They want to forget the negotiation process, forget everything.

That is like Reformers saying they can get rid of the Indian Act. The Indian Act is protected by the constitution. It is part of the constitution. They cannot do that. That will not happen. It is false to insinuate and to lead people down that trail. They cannot even begin to do it. As far as the people I have talked to in B.C.—

SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

An hon. member

Two.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Gerald Keddy Progressive Conservative South Shore, NS

There are a few more than two. I was surprised that ordinary men and women on the street were not pulling their hair and cawing. There was hardly any cawing out there at all. People were concerned. They had legitimate questions and they wanted legitimate answers. The trouble is that they have not been receiving legitimate answers.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Reform

Roy H. Bailey Reform Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Madam Speaker, I have been listening today to the comments and the back and forth dialogue across the House. Would the hon. member not admit that what we are establishing within the treaty is a brand new level of government? Never before have we had such a level of government created in Canada.

With that said, is it not possible or is it most likely that once the treaty is passed there will be 130 or more across Canada who will want to follow almost the exact wording of this treaty? The treaty is probably the most socially important piece of legislation we will face in the next century.

The member should not stand here and tell me that this is a bunch of nonsense. People from coast to coast want to know where it will go next. Will the government and this member justify six or seven treaties going on in my constituency within the next two years once this one is passed?

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Gerald Keddy Progressive Conservative South Shore, NS

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question. It absolutely is not a bunch of nonsense. Categorically this is not a bunch of nonsense. This is an extremely important debate.

We are not setting up some type of brand new government. A brand new government would imply that the charter of rights and freedoms does not apply. It would also imply that the constitution of Canada does not apply. Anything in the country that is under the constitution and under the charter of rights and freedoms is acceptable to the laws and the governments of Canada.

It is very clear. It is not patent foolishness at all. It is a few uninformed individuals who care not to look at the facts, who care not to enter upon debate, who want to call down, call names and wave placards every time somebody else has a different opinion. I am frankly tired of it. I am not exhausted but I am tired.

It makes one want to fight that much harder. It get one's blood up. There are issues here we need to discuss. I am willing to stand here as long as the Reform Party of Canada cares to enter into this debate and debate it.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Reform

Myron Thompson Reform Wild Rose, AB

Madam Speaker, I commend the hon. member on his speech. Three-quarters of it was directed at the Reform Party. I thank him for that. I am glad he recognizes us.

The NDP people have done the same in their speeches. They talk about the Reform more than they do about the Nisga'a. I thank them very much for recognizing the Reform. The Liberals are just renowned for that, especially the member for Mississauga West who cannot wait to get up and say something about the Wild Rose guy. Then there is the Bloc party from Quebec that constantly likes to try to conform.

It is wonderful to be the official opposition in a House where nobody likes us. That is good. In 10 short years we got here and the reason we are here is the undemocratic processes that have been taking place for 130 years in the House. The nation was brought to its knees with a $600 billion debt by the party at that end and that party over there. They are just like brother and sister. Why do they not unite?

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Gerald Keddy Progressive Conservative South Shore, NS

Madam Speaker, I will leave the uniting of brothers and sisters to the Reform Party any day.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Reform

Randy White Reform Langley—Abbotsford, BC

Madam Speaker, I am going to be splitting my time with the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley.

In a way as House leader I have witnessed a lot of things on process in the House. I will talk about the process but I find it sad the way some of these parties are going on about this important Nisga'a debate. I will talk a bit about what it is to be opposition in the House of Commons and about what it takes to stand up and have a little courage in one's convictions.

The process of debate in the House on this whole issue was not only shortened by time allocation after four and a half hours of our debate time. The total time was around eight hours, but of course the other parties that are supposed to be in opposition here agree with the issue.

That may not seem much to the government but it is to the people we represent. The issue has come up in question period time and time again. Government references the official opposition by saying that all members from British Columbia should speak to the issue as they know what they are talking about. It happens that a majority of them are in this caucus and should have had full opportunity to speak to this issue rather than have debate cut.

After the government eliminates debate time through time allocation we go into committee. The committee on aboriginal affairs did not want to go to British Columbia, so as House leader I basically said that we would not travel in any committee then, that all committees had to come through the House for approval to travel and we would oppose them all. That encouraged the government to travel to British Columbia. That is the only reason it ended up going to British Columbia. Otherwise it was not going.

We said then we wanted to go to a number of communities in British Columbia. No, it did not want to go where the Nisga'a agreement was opposed. After hours of debate we finally got it to go to Victoria, Vancouver, Terrace, Prince Rupert and Smithers. It did not want to go to Smithers because of the opposition that it knew it would hear. It did not want to go to Kamloops so we sawed it off and went to Prince George.

I was sitting in my office and members of the aboriginal affairs committee came in and said that a list of 62 names, all in favour of the Nisga'a agreement, were tabled in that committee. They were voting to bring those names forward as they travel throughout British Columbia to support the Nisga'a agreement. We went back into committee and said there should be better representation, pro and con. That seemed reasonable.

What happened? A small minority of individuals were opposed to it and a vast majority were in favour of it. The vast majority of people in favour of the agreement got to fly to British Columbia at government expense to make presentation as witnesses. Some of them were not even from British Columbia. A minority of people who were opposed were allowed to speak.

We could ask what is the point of going to British Columbia and what is the point of even having witnesses at a committee. Under those circumstances there is not any point, but what the government and people in the country do not understand is that this happens frequently with all committees such as the agriculture committee and the finance committee. All the witnesses are voted on by a majority of government members. People think committees are travelling around the country getting input. The whole thing is staged. By and large the environment committee and all these committees are just staged events by government. That is the problem.

Since we have seen this with the Nisga'a agreement we are now about to change the rules on how committees work because I will no longer put up with this charade. Committees will not travel if that is the way it is to be. We will have to see about debating committee travel in the House if and when they want to travel. That is fine with me. I would sooner have it that way anyway.

They would not allow television. No television cameras could go into the committee meeting because they said the rules were not set up ahead of time. A committee is master of its own destiny and choices. They could have changed it right there but they did not want to allow it.

They are right. This is probably the end of this debate because the government has a majority and can outvote us any time it wants, particularly when there are opposition parties that are more Liberal than on the right side of politics.

What will we do? We will have a referendum next, an opportunity to give people input in British Columbia. They have told us time and time again they want it. The NDP government in British Columbia would not allow it, even though the opposition parties and the majority of people in British Columbia wanted it. Tomorrow night there will be a vote in the House. All the Liberals will stand and say “no referendum”.

Why not give the people their say through a referendum? The NDP will stand and vote against the referendum. I do not know where the Bloc stands on a referendum. The Progressive Conservatives, the people who brought referendum legislation into the House of Commons, will not even agree to a referendum.

I ask myself, what does it take to be in opposition in this country when we have a bill such as this which has such ramifications and about which there are many questions?

I have a question about the perpetuity of the financing, the more than $30 million a year for the rest of our lives, our children's lives, and our children's children's lives. I have a question about that. I thought the permanent financing would come to an end at some point.

Why should I not have the right to debate? Why should the people in my community not have the right to ask the question: What is $32 million in perpetuity? How much is that in tax? If this is only one agreement and it is the template for all other agreements and they are all going to have money in perpetuity, should we not ask the questions now instead of later? I did not think there would be benefits in perpetuity, so why can I not have the right to ask the questions?

If anybody in opposition has these questions, do they not have the right to ask them without the slanderous and ridiculous comments of New Democrats, the socialists in the House, and without the comments of the PCs, as few as they are in the House? What is wrong with asking questions in the House of Commons? Why is it that these opposition parties will not even oppose or ask serious questions about these kinds of issues? It is because they are too damn busy calling those who are asking articulate questions racists and bigots. That is their problem. They are afraid that if they stand to ask questions about this they will be labelled by that sort of talk.

I thought we were past that in this day and age. What is wrong with the House of Commons that we have got down to the lowest, dirt level talk, this gutter talk? There is something wrong when members cannot stand to debate an issue, no matter what the issue, without these people trying to make political brownie points by slandering others. It is terrible.

If that is the kind of opposition that people watching this and listening to me today want, those comments which are nothing more than slanderous rhetorical statements, rather than getting down to the real problems that exist in legislation, then we are in serious trouble. This government will be perpetuated along with those who support it.

I am here as an opposition member. I am damn well here to ask questions and I am going to stay here to ask questions. I am not here to side with these people. I am here on behalf of many Canadians to ask questions; logical questions I hope.

Finally, there is one other thing I want to say concerning all of the questions on the Nisga'a agreement. Why is it that when the issue of public schooling and the Catholic school system in Newfoundland came up and there was a referendum in Newfoundland nobody had a problem with that? That was the proper thing to do. The referendum was held, it was brought back to the House and we debated it. No one was then saying that this is an important issue, but we have to push it through because there is a referendum. In fact, the government wanted a debate on it. It did not call time allocation.

One has to wonder what this is all about on all sides of those supporting the Nisga'a agreement, whether it is just rhetorical politics they are talking about or really trying to get in depth on legislation.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Agriculture; the hon member for Vancouver East, Poverty; the hon. member for Davenport, Foreign Affairs.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Gerald Keddy Progressive Conservative South Shore, NS

Madam Speaker, the statement that was made about political brownie points was made by the master of political brownie points. There is no lesson to be taken there. There is a lesson given and a lesson received.

Concerning the referendum for religious schools in Newfoundland, I am not absolutely positive, but I believe there was a referendum on that issue because the constitution of Canada had to be changed. That is why there was a referendum.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Reform

Randy White Reform Langley—Abbotsford, BC

So? I need one of these lessons from one of these petty politicians from Joe what's his name and the other fellows down there?

There was a referendum in Newfoundland. The members should try to understand that there was a social responsibility. There was an issue that was important to Newfoundlanders and the process was the right process.

I am sure it was wise on behalf of Premier Tobin to hold a referendum. Whether it was entrenched in any agreement, it was the proper thing to do.

The member does not really seem to understand what he is talking about. I was saying that it is the right thing to do in British Columbia, much as it was the right thing to do in Newfoundland, regardless of whether the process is documented in legislation. Surely members on the other side can understand that.

If a referendum was permitted to be in the process in British Columbia, then the people would either say yea or nay and they would confirm either way for those who are attempting to get the agreement in place.

There are overlapping land claims comprising well over 100% of British Columbia's lands. This is the template. It is not just about Nisga'a and the Nass Valley, it is about my community of Abbotsford and Langley. It is about all of the communities of the people who live in British Columbia. If the first agreement is going to be the template, then why are all the people in British Columbia denied a say in the template? That is what this is about.

I know that Ottawa is a long distance from British Columbia. We have known that for years. The mentality in this place is that we live in the boonies. What we are saying to the House is that we deserve a say. All of our communities deserve a say, not just one isolated area.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Gerald Keddy Progressive Conservative South Shore, NS

Madam Speaker, I would like to enlarge upon the Newfoundland referendum a bit. The member is talking about these overlays and templates and he is trying to put them on every public policy issue there is.

There was a majority of Newfoundlanders who had religious goals, whether those goals happened to be Catholic or Protestant, who needed the vote on that very important and fundamental issue to Newfoundland. It was not the majority trying to decide something for a minority right, it was the majority deciding for the majority.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Reform

Randy White Reform Langley—Abbotsford, BC

Madam Speaker, we can spin it any way we want. The fact of the matter is that the people of British Columbia are asking the House to respect their wishes and hold a referendum. That is what they are asking. These kinds of arguments put forward by someone who obviously has not even read the agreement, much less knows much about what I am talking, is kind of sad. We in British Columbia are asking for a democratic right we believe we should have. All we are doing is asking the government to respect that in the vote tomorrow night.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Reform

Val Meredith Reform South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC

Madam Speaker, for the people who are watching the debate, I think it is appropriate that I read the motion so it can be clearly understood. The motion states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the federal government should conduct a province wide referendum in British Columbia on the Nisga'a Final Agreement prior to the consideration of any further stages of Bill C-9, an act to give effect to the Nisga'a Final Agreement.

I do not think that is too much to ask, as my eloquent colleague has stated. A referendum is the desire of the people of British Columbia because of the social implications and the long term implications that this Nisga'a agreement will have on the province of British Columbia and all of the people who live in the province of British Columbia, native and non-native.

British Columbians are concerned. They are concerned about the long term financial commitment. They are concerned about the responsibilities. They are concerned about the template. There are 50-plus agreements yet to be settled. They claim over 100% of the territory of the province of British Columbia. Of course the people of British Columbia are concerned that all of the issues need to be be clearly understood.

It is very clear to me from comments made by hon. colleagues from around the country that there is not a clear understanding of what are the implications of the Nisga'a agreement for the people of British Columbia. There are people who support it and there are people who do not support it. All the people of British Columbia are asking is that they be allowed to express their position on this agreement.

During the negotiations that took place over a period of about 10 years the people of British Columbia were excluded because the negotiations were held behind closed doors. There was not an opportunity for the citizens of British Columbia to take part in the process.

When the agreement in principle was made public a couple of years ago, the people of British Columbia asked to take part in that discussion. They asked that there be a referendum. They asked that there be a public consultation process. That was denied them. It was a very controlled exercise in government manipulation, both from a provincial level and from a federal level, manipulating an agreement through the system without being held accountable to the people of British Columbia.

It is not just non-natives who are concerned. There are a lot of natives within the Nisga'a community, the Gitksan and other communities who are concerned because of the way the agreement is written.

All that we have asked is for the government to lay open the agreement to the people of British Columbia and let them respond.

It is interesting that the government in turn tries to tell the House and Canadians who are listening that it is the Reform Party which wants this. Let me assure the House that it is not the Reform Party, it is the people of British Columbia.

Months ago, before the heat of the Musqueam issue and the other issues came up, such as the Marshall decision, I asked them about the Nisga'a agreement and how they wanted it to be handled. I asked if they wanted to have a provincial referendum and 78.66% said yes.

Since other issues have surfaced and this debate has drawn more public attention, an official poll was taken. It was a recognized poll done through the proper means, not a householder poll. Some people would like to say that my householder polls are not legal or official.

I noticed the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans sitting here a minute ago. In his riding this poll showed that 92.21% of the people opposed the Nisga'a treaty. It will be interesting to see if he is going to respect his job to represent the people who elected him to sit in this House and show his opposition, or if he will do as he is told and support the government.

When we have tried to address this issue with the minister of aboriginal affairs, his responses have been, at the most, in contempt of the people of British Columbia. When I asked him whether a majority of members from British Columbia showing that they did not support the government would be an indication to him that the people of British Columbia, who we represent, did not support the government on this issue, and would he recognize that and withdraw the bill, he made some derogatory comment, which seems to be his normal course.

This is the same man who after the supreme court Marshall decision announced to the country that it applied to logging, minerals and offshore oil and gas reserve. When the supreme court subsequently announced that its decision did not apply to any commodity other than the eel fishery, it said that it would have been nice if people had actually read its judgment before making all sorts of pronouncements about its implication. We would have thought that the minister would have been one of those persons who would have read the court's decision to clearly understand it, or at least have had somebody else read it to him if he was not capable of reading it himself.

It is this kind of contempt that the government has shown to the people of British Columbia, who are asking for nothing more or nothing less than the people of Newfoundland when it asked for a referendum on Term 17, a very serious issue that challenged their social structure and would have changed the way they lived with each other.

The people of British Columbia understand the ramification that this agreement will have on them in years to come. All we are asking is for British Columbians to have the opportunity to go to the polls and mark an X as to whether or not they can support the government's position. All they are asking for is to exercise their democratic right to involve themselves in the governance of our country.

It is very clear from the attitude and actions of the government that it does not respect democracy. It does not respect the will of the people. It does not think Canadians have any right to participate in the debate and in the decisions that are made on their behalf.

We hear ministers and government officials saying that they are in the House of Commons to represent them. We then hear that they do not recognize that representation. Even though the majority of the members of parliament from British Columbia will not support the Nisga'a agreement and the government, it will merrily win support with the majority that it holds from Ontario. The 101-plus members on the government side will make a decision for the people of British Columbia whether they like it or not.

It is interesting how some things never change in the country. It expresses the need for government members and all parliamentarians to really look inside themselves as to why they are here. If they are only here to support a position by a leader or by a dogma, and if they are not here to represent the people who elected them to be their voice in the House of Commons, then they should look inside themselves to see if they really belong here. We are in this place to represent the people who do not have the ability to speak out and who are now being denied the ability to even make a decision and vote on the Nisga'a agreement. They send us to speak on their behalf.

It upsets the people in the House that we speak on behalf of our constituents or that we challenge the sections in this agreement that are not right and are not clear. They do not seem to accept the fact that we want accountability in the spending of taxpayers' dollars. I cannot be here in this place except to give my commitment to the people I represent to speak on their behalf and to make sure their voices are heard in this debate.

I ask the other members in the House to look beyond their party line and to consider what the people of British Columbia are asking for, which is the chance to place their voice in this discussion.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Nancy Karetak-Lindell Liberal Nunavut, NU

Madam Speaker, when the hon. member was talking about people not feeling represented, I spent a week listening to the very people who were most affected, the Nisga'a people. They said that they had not spoken to their particular member since 1993. As an aboriginal person, I felt that I had to represent people who were not being represented by their own member of parliament.

Over the week that I was in British Columbia, I also heard very many different views presented to us. I do not think anyone of them completely said what they wanted the referendum question to be. I heard many different views of what they thought the referendum question should be.

Who does the hon. member think should write the question and what should the question be in the referendum?