Mr. Speaker, first of all the hon. member said that public consultation meetings were held. I do not ever recall seeing him in the northern part of British Columbia. I am not aware that he has ever made a trip there.
For his own information there were no public information meetings ever held to solicit any input from the public until the agreement was already announced. Then the provincial government had a dog and pony show that went around the province supposedly to get input from ordinary British Columbians. Subsequent to that, not one word of the agreement changed, not one word.
That public consultation was hollow. It is the kind of consultation we expect from the provincial NDP government. It is the kind of consultation we expect from the federal Liberal Party. It is interesting to see that these parties are all on the same page when it comes to public consultation. It is just a matter of putting on a show for people and saying that they have consulted but they are not interested in legitimate public input on these issues.
My question for the hon. member goes to the issue of taxation without representation. The member is a lawyer. The member knows that agreements mean what they say they mean.
On page 217, in chapter 16 of this agreement under taxation it is stated:
- From time to time Canada and British Columbia, together or separately, may negotiate with the Nisga'a nation, and attempt to reach agreement on:
a. the extent, if any, to which Canada or British Columbia will provide to Nisga'a Lisims Government or a Nisga'a Village Government direct taxation authority over persons other than Nisga'a citizens, on Nisga'a lands;
That is absolutely a contemplation of providing the taxation authority to a Nisga'a government over non-Nisga'a residents living in the Nass Valley. That is taxation without representation as the member knows full well that the non-Nisga'a residents living in the Nass Valley will not be able to run for office. They will not be able even to vote for the representative they want.
I ask the hon. member to respond to that. Does he not agree that these words mean what they say they mean?