Mr. Speaker, I am very aware of the seriousness of the allegations. Let me point out to the House and to the hon. member opposite who raised these concerns that I certainly did not start phoning Norway House asking for opinions. These people contacted me. They were making these allegations and they asked me to look into them on their behalf. They have asked me and other members of the Reform Party to go to bat for them, as it were, to try to get to the bottom of this because they are making some very serious allegations. They made allegations that people were actually paid money to change their position with respect to supporting this agreement. Since I was not there I really do not know.
I would like to ask the government if this referendum was overseen by Elections Canada. Was there a disengaged third party, as we have in all elections in this country? Every federal election in which I have run has Elections Canada, a disengaged third party that oversees the election so that it can fairly determine at the end of the night the veracity of the results. Without that, how can anyone ever say that they had a referendum and it passed or it failed? No one can do that. Canadians, I submit, would never accept that.
I think the people on these reserves are absolutely beside themselves. They are asking why there is one set of rules and regulations for Canadians that ensures fairness and on their reserves people can do whatever the hell they want and nobody cares.
I find it passing strange that the Liberal Party is trying to represent itself as the voice of aboriginal people when there are very serious allegations that it does not want to deal with. We did not have this fairness. We did not have an unbiased third party, Elections Canada or elections Manitoba or some responsible party, to oversee this referendum. That did not happen.
Was there a complete and proper enumeration done of all of the voters? Do we know that? Where is the evidence to support that? I have asked for that, but I do not have it.
We have to have assurance and the people in that community have to have assurance that this was a fair representation of community support. I submit right now that we do not have it.
I want to use another example. It is more recent and it is in my riding. The same principle is involved. I do not mean to digress. It is very important that we understand the issue. The principle here is whether or not these are fair and honest referendums that actually represent the consensus or the majority view of the people to be affected by these agreements.
I want to talk about the Nisga'a agreement for just a minute. We were told approximately 14 days ago that the Nisga'a people in northern B.C. had a referendum and that they ratified their treaty. This is the first stage. It has to be ratified by the B.C. government now and then it is going to be ratified by the legislature here. Apparently without any free votes, the Prime Minister is going to ram it down parliament's throat like he does everything else, but I digress again.
The Nisga'a people voted for two days. The referendum started on Friday and finished on Saturday night. I live in Terrace which is just south of the Nass valley where the Nisga'a treaty is going to come into effect. I waited on Saturday night with bated breath for the referendum results. I did not get them Saturday night. I waited all day Sunday and I did not get them Sunday. I started waiting into Monday. Monday morning there was an announcement on the radio saying that there should be some results that afternoon.
On election night Elections Canada counts approximately four million or five million votes, or maybe it is six million votes, anyway it is several million votes and we get the results within an hour and a half. In two hours we know who the next government will be. We know on an individual basis whether we were elected or re-elected as parliamentarians.
In a referendum where just slightly more than 2,000 cast a vote, it took two days to get the preliminary results. They were not final results, preliminary results.
This is what happened. On Monday afternoon we were told that the Nisga'a agreement had been ratified by 70% of the Nisga'a people. It hit the headlines and was carried right across Canada on CBC, CTV, et cetera. The next day we were told no, that was not an accurate figure, it was really 51%. I submit there is quite a difference between 70% and 51%. Again three or four days after that we were told that no, the final tally was actually 61%. That is supposed to be the final number.
We have had three different results on one referendum involving 2,000 people. It is a little difficult to accept the veracity of those results.
I was concerned about this matter. I started getting calls from some Nisga'a people who were not in support of the treaty and who felt that this referendum had some irregularities to it.
I phoned the department of Indian affairs in Vancouver and asked who oversaw the election. They told me that the Nisga'a tribal council, the very people who had negotiated the agreement, were actually in charge of the referendum. If anybody across the way wants to submit to me that that is a fair process, I would like them to argue that out in public because I do not think the Canadian people would buy that for a minute.
I found out that the department actually had only one observer to cover seven polling stations: four in the Nass valley, one in Prince Rupert, one in Vancouver and one in Terrace. There was one observer for all seven polls over a period of two days. No one can possibly persuade me or the Nisga'a people who are not in support of this treaty that that was a responsible way to oversee this referendum and to give assurances that the results are fair and accurate.
These people further made allegations that financial inducements were offered. Again these are allegations and I have not seen the hard proof, but I am told by Nisga'a people who live in the Nass valley that they have seen it for themselves.
I have also heard allegations that underage people were casting votes. In one case somebody made an allegation that a deceased person actually cast a vote. I do not know if that is true. I am not accusing anybody of anything.
What I will say is that there was not something like Elections Canada, some disengaged third party that is responsible for overseeing the vote and doing a proper enumeration, making sure that people who have not been enumerated and who claim to have the right to vote are given a fair opportunity to state their case and cast a ballot with a provision that they would have to have their credentials checked. I do not have a problem with the way Elections Canada does it and I do not think Canadians do either. It could be done the same way in the Nass valley for the Nisga'a people or with the Norway House band.
I find it difficult to understand how the Nisga'a government can say that 61% of its people supported this treaty in a referendum when slightly more than 2,000 people voted and it is a band with over 5,000 members. I did not get top marks in math at school but my math is a little better than that. I do not understand how the Nisga'a tribal council, or the Liberals for that matter because they are totally in support of this, could have us believe that this represents 61% of the Nisga'a people.
Before we can get on with debating the merits of the bill, and I am not saying there are not some, we have to have a very clear and complete picture of what the level of support is. I am concerned most that the people in the department of Indian affairs are aware of these allegations and may possibly be turning a blind eye because they have a vested interest in seeing these agreements supported and that they go through. I would never suggest that they would be actively involved but they may be turning a blind eye to irregularities and downplaying irregularities and just doing what they think is the bare minimum to get these things passed rather than seeing that the right thing is done.
The government should show us the irrefutable evidence that this was a fair, open and honest referendum, free of influence or collusion and free of inducements so that it can come to the House and tell us that it was the will of the majority when it comes to Norway House. I submit there is no way the government can do that. There is no way the government can come to parliament, come before the Canadian people, and say that this was a fair, open and honest referendum and that nothing disreputable or in any way reprehensible was done or engaged in. Until the government can do that, we do not have anything to debate in this House.
I certainly continue to hear from people from Norway House who are beside themselves. They consider this is being rammed down their throats, that it was undemocratic, was not a proper process to follow and that they will have to live it. They will be stuck with it and their children will be stuck with it. They do not accept that the referendum was in any way fair.
I challenge the government to lay before us the irrefutable proof, if it has it and I know it does not, that this was a fair process, that it was overseen by Elections Canada or some independent third party, that there were observers, scrutineers, and that there was no undue influence being exerted at the polls by anybody and that what we have is a fair reflection of the will of the people of Norway House. I am told that is not the case.
I cannot say with authority that the allegations are true. What I can say is that in the absence of a process that guarantees a fair result, the Liberals across the way are just blowing hot air if they try to tell parliament and the Canadian people that this agreement was supported by the band members of Norway House. I do not think they have any solid evidence to support that at all.