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.