Mr. Speaker, it is almost impossible to know where to begin after that speech.
The member made the presumptuous statement that there was no need for a referendum in British Columbia. That issue is before the courts, but he has decided for the courts. Obviously he knows best.
He talks about a nation to nation concept. I wonder if he believes that the Nisga'a nation constitutes a sovereign nation on the same basis as the country known as Canada.
He talks about conclusive agreements and things such as that. Let him talk to the residents of Burnt Church. All of his soothing words will not help there.
If it is not a race based government, then what is it? Is it a public government bill? It is not a public government bill. It applies only to the Nisga'a and no one has a choice as to whether they are a member. It is based on their race. I certainly cannot stand by and listen to that.
The hon. member says that it is non-constitutional. Does he understand the treaty to be under sections 25 and 35 and that the government portion of the treaty forms part of the agreement?
The question I would like him to answer is this. What is his stand on a referendum for the residents of B.C., notwithstanding the fact that he has already made the decision for the courts of British Columbia? The Nisga'a had a vote because the legislation affects them. That is fair. But does it not affect all British Columbians?
The Liberals say that the treaty is too complex to be understood by laypersons. The average British Columbian could not possibly understand it. Does the hon. member agree with that statement? Would he deny everyday rank and file British Columbians a say on a treaty which is going to affect them and be the template for more than 50 other treaties of a similar type?