Debates of Nov. 1st, 1999

Petitions

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present some fine petitions from very educated people throughout the country, from Niagara Falls, Kelowna, as well as my riding, regarding Bill C-232, an act to make the month of May hepatitis awareness month.

The petitioners call upon parliament to support Bill C-232, one of my own, an act to provide a hepatitis awareness month, ensuring that throughout Canada, in each and every year, the month of May shall be known as Hepatitis Awareness Month.

[Chuck Cadman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I wish to present a petition from Mrs. Nancy Caldwell of Middleton, Nova Scotia.

Mrs. Caldwell has collected some 6,700 signatures from her fellow citizens. They are requesting that parliament enact legislation providing for tougher penalties to be meted out for those who commit sexual assaults against minors.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-9, an act to give effect to the Nisga'a Final Agreement, be read the second time and referred to a committee, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

Nisga'A Final Agreement Act

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak today, as only about 16 opposition MPs will get an opportunity to speak because closure has been imposed by the government. There are 24 members of parliament from British Columbia alone who should have the opportunity to speak to this motion, but will be denied by a government that does not believe in democracy.

We need to look at this issue. All of us are concerned about the native people of this country. The United Nations has condemned Canada for its treatment of native people. We have thrown treaties at them. We have thrown money at them. We have thrown programs at them. We have thrown Indian affairs concepts at them. We still have the same problems today that we have had for so long.

We have developed an Indian industry in the country, much of it run by white people. We have put in over $7 billion, at least $5 billion of which was used up by the industry itself, never reaching the grassroots people. We have chiefs and councils working against the grassroots people who we in the House should be protecting and improving their way of life.

We have tried to amend our consciences. I guess that is what we have been doing over the last 30 years. Look what we have. We have told native people that they can ignore the hunting, fishing and logging rules. We have told them that they can avoid income tax and sales tax, as well as Bill C-68. We have told them that they can be admitted to school with lower grades, have employment quotas for preferences, can invade parks and block roadways and we will just ignore it. Are we doing them a favour?

What are we doing for these people? I am sure the member for Wild Rose could tell us in great detail because he has been on the reserves, has seen the grassroots people and talked with them right across the country. The reality is that they do not have sewer and water facilities. They have a crime rate that is four and a half times greater than the rest of the population. There is a high suicide rate, three times more AIDS, no initiative, and alcohol and drug abuse is at 62%. That is the reality of what the Indian affairs policy of the country has given the native people.

In my riding, Yolanda Redcalf, a Sunchild O'Chiese member on reserve, went on a 45 day hunger strike because of housing conditions. The answer from Indian affairs was, finally we will give in to her, shut her up and we will not worry about the rest of the people. That happens over and over again. That is the policy of the government.

We need to deal with this huge problem, which is probably as great as the Quebec unity issue. It is a problem that will face us for many, many years to come.

Let us talk about some other groups that have come to the country. I often hear that we are the ones who caused the problem. To a great extent I expect that we are. As one person told me in Kitchener last week, we should think of the refugees who came to this country. Let us go back to the Chinese population who built the railway across the country. What about the Italians who came? My wife's parents came to this country with six kids and less than $100.

In Kitchener I talked with two Polish brothers. I talked to members of the Serbian and Bosnian communities. They said “Listen, when we came here we wanted to work. We wanted to build something better for ourselves”.

What have we done to the native people to destroy their initiative? Why are they not starting businesses? Why are they not building something for themselves and for their families? It is because of a racist policy that the federal government, largely Liberal over the last 30 years, has put forward.

As a party we believe in equality for all people. We believe that people should have the same status, no matter what their religion, colour or race. Everyone is equal. As soon as we start giving special status to people we start the decay and the decline which we see today. It is the special status which some Liberal government long ago decided to give these people that is at the root of the problem. We are not doing them any favours.

Let us look at what is happening in Atlantic Canada today. Let us look at the salmon fishery on the Pacific coast. The same thing has happened around the world. The homelands were given to the people of South Africa. There was once a guy in Germany who said that people with blue eyes and blonde hair were better. What is the difference when the Liberal government—

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

The member has no right standing up in the House and saying “racist policy of the government”. If there is racism in the Chamber, it is over there.

[The Deputy Speaker]

That is not a point of order.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, you can see how touchy they are about this. They do not like being called that sort of thing. Neither do we when they throw it back at us. It is not true. We believe in equality and that is really where it is at.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

It is true.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I trust you are listening to the sort of abuse that comes from across the floor. The Liberals can say something but nobody else can say it.

What happens in the Liberal's race based policy where they build a dependency on welfare and act like an east bloc operation? Socialism might be a great idea but it just does not work.

The Nisga'a agreement has a template for homelands. This is something that will affect the country down the road in a dramatic way. People will look at the debate, or lack of it, in the House and say that this has changed the country and it is not for the good.

We are creating a rivalry, a dispute. We are creating something that will come back to haunt us for years to come in the country. The Indian industry, largely in many parts set up by whites, has not made a better place for our native grassroots people. We will destroy the Indian people by this sort of legislation, by not giving them equality and by not helping them to enter the 21st century as equals.

I see nothing in the Nisga'a agreement that will improve the situation. We are setting up a third line of government. We are setting up a third order that will leave nothing but confrontation and rivalry between the native people and their neighbours.

We should talk about that because many of the neighbours of native people have learned to understand them, to work with them and to help them. I think that is where we want to be. We do not want to set them aside as separate individuals. Even the B.C. Liberals, these people's brothers and sisters from B.C., do not agree with that.

We could talk about the cost of these treaties. We could talk about how this will be a template for what could happen and how treaties, like Treaty 8 in Alberta, can simply be reopened and the problems that can create. How can the government, in all conscience, sit there and allow the balkanization of our country? How does it have the nerve to let that sort of thing happen?

Although I am no expert, we could go through the agreement and find many others areas.

I cannot close without reading a news release. “The motion this morning by the federal government to invoke closure on the Nisga'a treaty debate is a reprehensible abuse of democracy”, said Liberal leader, Gordon Campbell, today at noon. “This is an egregious abuse of the democratic process and shows flagrant contempt of all British Columbians”, said Campbell. “It is an unacceptable slap in the face to our province and to all Canadians who deserve a full and open debate on this landmark treaty”. That is from a Liberal. That is how the Liberals feel in B.C. I think that message should be listened to by all members in the House.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak on Bill C-9, the Nisga'a final agreement.

I spent the first five years in this country from 1957 to 1962 in the province of British Columbia. I continue to this day to visit twice a year and make it a point to consult with members of the first nations to gain understanding of issues of concern to them.

Their frustration at the snail's pace of the treaty process is one of their greatest concerns. So when members of the Reform Party call for more time for consultation, they are being disingenuous. They want to kill the bill. They do not believe in justice for our first nations.

Since my time is limited, the focus of my presentation will be the earlier part of the Nisga'a people's struggle for the social justice the agreement represents.

The passage of the bill will bring closure to unfinished business of the 19th and 20th centuries. The bill will lay the foundation of a relationship between Nisga'a people of British Columbia and our government.

The bill will address some our longest outstanding social justice issues in Canada and thus set the stage for the next millennium. We have an opportunity here today to restore trust and good faith and to truly begin the reconciliation process.

The Nisga'a agreement is not just a treaty that has been negotiated in this past decade that we are asked to ratify here today. The Nisga'a treaty is a symbol and its historical timeline is one we must acknowledge here today and we must understand in order for all of us to move forward.

British Columbia was the last part of Canada to be colonized. One hundred and fifty years ago the Hudson's Bay Company established a proprietorial colony on Vancouver Island. In exchange for all natural resources of that territory, it had to establish a simple infrastructure and governance system.

When the gold rush began, the colony of British Columbia was formed in 1858 with Governor James Douglas at the helm. It was then that a small attempt to sign treaties began. The areas where the Hudson's Bay Company did business were where the small colonial treaties were signed: at Fort Victoria, at the coal mines in Nanaimo and Fort Rupert, and the Fort Langley trading post. Fourteen small treaties in all, for a few blankets I might add.

Unfortunately the old colonial documents show a disagreement of who should pay for the cost of making treaties, and by the 1860s treaty-making was halted. If only Governor Douglas was to know how long the debate of who was to pay what would continue.

Rather than speak to the Nisga'a final agreement in Canada's historical treaty-making and policy development context, I want to speak to the Nisga'a people's living memory of this experience.

When B.C. joined confederation in 1871, article 13 of the Terms of Union stated that the federal government would assume responsibility for Indians and lands reserved for Indians. British Columbia agreed to provide lands for reserves and the Government of B.C. considered the land question to be resolved.

However, the Nisga'a did not, nor did they know that their lands and rights had been dispersed by a third party.

When the first surveyor entered the Nass Valley in the 1870s to gazette today's Nisga'a reserves, he was met by the grandfather of Frank Calder. The surveyor O'Reily was told to leave and that this was not his territory.

Within a decade of that encounter, the first of many delegations of hereditary chiefs travelled to Victoria to demand of the premier settlement of this land question. They demanded recognition of their title and affirmed the ownership of their territory since before the time of the flood. They journeyed home unsuccessful; the government of the day considered the land question resolved. The chiefs who had a direct link to each of their territories since time immemorial thought the land question had just begun.

In 1890, the first land committee was formed with its first members: the grandfather, great-grandfather and great-great-grandfathers of today's Nisga'a negotiating team.

Shortly after the turn of the 19th century, the land committee of the Nisga'a petitioned the privy council in England seeking to resolve the land question. Again their efforts were not successful.

All the time the communities of the Nisga'a raised money, penny by penny, to send representatives to the various governments, to hire lawyers to argue their cause. Over a century and a quarter of bake sales, raffles and donations have brought Bill C-9 to the Chamber today.

By 1884, the central organizing unit of aboriginal people in Canada was outlawed. The potlatch ordered the governance, religion and economy of the peoples for thousands of years and with the stroke of a pen the covenant between the Nisga'a and the creator was made illegal. As well as the loss of their land, the very social, governance and religious structures of the Nisga'a feast houses were legislated away by our government not to be repealed until 1951.

The original land committee saw the death of many of its members over the next century only to be replaced by their chieftain heirs, their sons and their nephews. The Nisga'a final agreement has been a cost to the Nisga'a people of generations of negotiators who dedicated their entire lives to their struggle.

No other time in Canada's history can we trace the lineage of active participants in a cause to direct lines for 130 years. This is not a modern treaty. This is a modern solution to a very old outstanding debt. The Nisga'a continued to lead the young province's aboriginal leaders, and in the early part of the 20th century were part of the allied tribes. The allied tribes united the diverse cultural tribes and nations of British Columbia into one goal, the land question. Chiefs from more than 50 languages assembled in an unprecedented way to peacefully question the legality of the land and its ownership. People of warring tribes, different cultures and customs joined peacefully in one overwhelming cause, the land question.

How did we as Canadians respond? We amended the Indian Act to make it illegal for Indians to raise money to advance land claims. We also made it illegal for lawyers to be hired by Indians for that purpose.

The legislation stayed on the books until 1951. Did that stop the Nisga'a? No, it did not. The Nisga'a land committee went underground and worked through other organizations, including the Native Brotherhood to advance their cause. Whenever a federal government official tried to attend any meetings that discussed land questions, most groups would launch into hymns in order to cover up their illegal activity. To this day, Onward Christian Soldiers is the battle hymn of the Native Brotherhood of British Columbia, North America's oldest Indian organization.

When the legislation was repealed, the Nisga'a land committee resumed in public. In 1968, Chief Frank Calder led the Nisga'a tribal council on the land question to court. The council's lawyer was young Thomas Berger. Mr. Berger articled with Thomas Herley, underground legal counsel for the Native Brotherhood of British Columbia.

The delegation of people who stood on the steps of the Supreme Court of Canada to represent their people in the final stage were the third and fourth generation of those who posed before legislatures and courts to have their photos taken to record momentous occasions. Many of those who stood on the steps of the Supreme Court of Canada and later in Prime Minister Trudeau's office have since passed over and have been replaced by younger generations.

The Nisga'a chief negotiator, Chief Joe Gosnell's late father, Elijah and late brother, Chief James Gosnell, were both on those steps.

After a lengthy deliberation, the supreme court was evenly split on the decision for the Calder case, with one judge voting on a technicality of whether or not the Nisga'a could actually sue the government. Even though the decision was not a clear victory, aboriginal title was recognized and Prime Minister Trudeau reversed his policy on the land question. In 1973 he announced the comprehensive land claims policy.

Three years later, in 1976, Canada entered into a bilateral negotiation with the Nisga'a tribal council. British Columbia continued to deny that any aboriginal title still existed there, insisting that colonial legislation had dealt with it. However, on the heels of the Delgamuukw case and under the conditions of staying the Meares Island case, the provincial government re-examined its stand on the land question.

In July 1991, the task force to review aboriginal claims in British Columbia released its report. It contained 19 recommendations on how to negotiate the settlement of the land question in B.C.

On August 4, 1998, a canoe with Chief Frank Calder in it, grandson of Arthur Calder who met the first surveyor, was carried into the great feast hall. This canoe symbolized the many journeys the Nisga'a people made from the 1870s to the 1990s to peacefully assert their title to a land they had held since time immemorial. The journey was not just physical for the Nisga'a, it was spiritual and, at times when it buried the generations that had travelled in that symbolic canoe, it was transforming.

On November 9, 1998, members of the Nisga'a Nation ratified the final agreement through a ratification vote and on April 22, 1999, British Columbia passed the legislation it introduced to ratify the agreement. The British Columbia legislation was given royal assent on April 16, 1999. The final agreement was signed by the Nisga'a and the Government of British Columbia on April 27, 1999 and by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on May 4, 1999.

Treaty-making is a quintessential part of the relationship between Canada and the first nations in the country. Negotiation and reconciliation are two pillars of the Canadian way. With the Nisga'a treaty, we reconcile the past with the present. We find a way to live together with mutual respect and understanding, a way to look forward with anticipation to the developments of the next century. The treaty is consistent with the federal policies on comprehensive land claims to self-government.

I respectfully urge all members of the House to support Bill C-9, the bill to ratify the Nisga'a final agreement. Justice must be done.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was so enthralled by that departmental speech that I wonder if I could have unanimous consent to ask the reader a question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the House give its consent for a period of questions and comments?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

No.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to take part in this debate on Bill C-9, after the member for Saint-Jean, the Bloc Quebecois Indian affairs critic, and to repeat in the House that the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of this bill, that it is in agreement not only with the implementing legislation, but also with the content of the Nisga'a final agreement, and that it supports this initiative because its purpose is to confer genuine self-government on the Nisga'a people.

Unlike the member for Saint-Jean, I have not had the opportunity to meet on Nisga'a lands with representatives of the Nisga'a nation, people like Mr. Gosnell, Mr. Nice, or Mr. Calder, the individual at the origin of the dispute now coming to a close, the individual who took this case to the courts, with the result that the supreme court recognized the inherent rights of the Nisga'a nation. But I recall my early days as a law student at the Université de Sherbrooke, where this important case, one of the first recognizing the inherent rights of first nations, was studied by my fellow students.

I did, however, have an opportunity to meet with representatives of the Nisga'a nation when they were here in Ottawa last week. I saw the degree to which their fight was a fight for freedom, a fight they were proud to wage, a fight they wanted to see out in the House, in parliament. We assured them that members of the Bloc Quebecois would rise and give their support for this bill, as I am doing today on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois.

I told the representatives of the Nisga'a nation that, as a professor of constitutional law interested in native issues, I found this treaty a fascinating document. It is document that shows it is possible to find a novel and original formula to bring together various people and to get them to share the same territory. The various chapters of the agreement ensure the form of self-government that all aboriginal nations, not only those of Canada, but those of other countries also, must enjoy.

Let me reiterate that the work done by the negotiators and especially the Nisga'a negotiators deserves to be recognized as a novel and original initiative that sets a very interesting precedent for the negotiations to be held elsewhere, by other aboriginal communities in Quebec and in Canada.

It is a fascinating document that includes provisions dealing with lands, land title, forest resources, roads and rights of way, wildlife and migratory birds. Environment issues are addressed. It also mentions the administration of justice, cultural artifacts and heritage, questions that are of concern to the Nisga'a and on which they will now be able to legislate. The agreement also provides for a Nisga'a government, village governments, as well as a Nisga'a Constitution and legislation that will implement the underlying principles the Nisga'a have chosen to enshrine in their Constitution.

The self-government system created by this agreement will ensure that the Nisga'a, the Nisga'a nation and its representatives will become masters of their own destiny and make their own decisions concerning their economic, social and cultural development.

Some of these provisions are a source of concern to certain members of this House. I must admit that I do not understand the Reform Party's attitude.

Not only do I not understand it, I am rather ashamed of their attitude in this House. Their interpretation of this agreement shows that they do not understand it. It shows that they did not examine it properly or, if they did, then they are real demagogues.

For example, when it comes to the issue of citizenship, the agreement clearly provides that it can only be granted to those who qualify as Nisga'as, but that the Nisga'as can adopt laws to extend the concept of citizenship and grant it to people who do not meet the criteria set in the agreement, as provided in clause 20 on the eligibility and registration of Nisga'as.

To claim that the agreement is racist, that the concept of citizenship is racist, is an argument that does not hold up.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are quick to discourage unparliamentary language in the House. I remind the Speaker that the word demagogue is a word that is not allowed according to all rulings that we have had.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I listened to the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry when he made his remarks. I will look at the blues this afternoon and I will get back to the House regarding this issue, if necessary.

I thought I heard him refer to the actions of a party amounting to demagoguery, or words to that effect. I do not believe he called any hon. member a demagogue. However, I will check Hansard , as I have indicated, and come back to the House should that be necessary. I did not hear him apply the epithet to a member which I agree would be unparliamentary.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think you did in fact pay close attention to my remarks.

The issue of citizenship, as set out in this agreement, indicates no racist intention, no intention of excluding anyone. It must be understood that the concept of citizenship and its possible extension are based on historical precedent and are intimately tied to the history of the Nisga'a nation, which was covered by the Indian Act, which was racist, of course, but which will be replaced by an agreement on self-government allowing native peoples to grant citizenship according to their own rules, which will not show them to be racist, in my view, any more than the other peoples of this country, such as the people of Canada and Quebec.

What interested me in this agreement is the willingness to allow the Nisga'a, the Nisga'a people and its government, to examine international issues, international agreements, international arrangements. Indeed, it is mentioned in chapter III, which concerns fisheries, particularly in section 115 where the Nisga'a are given the right to be consulted when the Canadian government negotiates fisheries agreements having an impact on existing rights they could have over these resources.

It is interesting to note that there was no hesitation whatsoever about this, despite the fact that negotiations on these points were difficult, apparently. That is what the Nisga'a representatives told us. Provinces, particularly Quebec, seldom have a voice in the process and have nothing to say in the development of a negotiating position concerning international treaties and agreements.

This agreement constitutes an example of partnership that should inspire all those who want to conclude agreements with the native nations. It would certainly inspire a sovereign Quebec, since Quebec intends to maintain the existing ancestral treaty rights of native nations when it attains sovereignty. It also wants to negotiate partnership agreements with the 11 native nations in Quebec.

Finally, I want to wish the Nisga'a people, its members and its representatives that the new freedom and the self-government the agreement gives them will allow for the full development of their nation. It is a process that will interest the Quebec people, which is searching in its own way and with its own timeframe for the same kind of development and freedom, and which will walk side by side with the Nisga'a people.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House again to debate the Nisga'a treaty, Bill C-9. Hopefully I will dispel some of the rumours, innuendo and plain mistakes that have been cited in the House about the treaty and perhaps about the way we deal with first nations in the future of the country.

As with any piece of negotiation, as with any agreement where two parties sit down to try to formulate a long lasting and permanent treaty, one side will negotiate some issues more vociferously and adamantly than the other side and they compromise. At the end of the process hopefully they come up with a treaty which reflects the interests of both parties. In this case it actually reflects the interests of three parties: the Nisga'a nation, the province of British Columbia and the Government of Canada.

The treaty was not something that was entered into in a frivolous manner. It was negotiated over 110 years and now it is in the House. I certainly condemn the government for forcing closure on this piece of legislation and not allowing free, open and continuous debate. However we have reached the point where we are at closure in the House and I think there are a couple of basic points which need to be reiterated one more time in this place so everyone who is listening or watching or interested in the proceedings today understands the basic premises of the treaty.

We know that the Nisga'a stand to gain a number of things in the treaty. They stand to gain nearly 2,000 square kilometres of land in the Nass Valley which have always been their traditional lands. They stand to gain 18% of the salmon catch in the Nass River. With the salmon stocks where they are, obviously 18% of the salmon catch today is not significant. Eighteen per cent of the salmon catch in the future with conservation applied could be extremely significant and a great opportunity for both commercial and industrial growth.

Certainly, there is a settlement of $190 million which will go directly to the Nisga'a from the federal government.

The Nisga'a will have a sustainable allowable cut in the valley from their numbers of 115,000 cubic metres of fibre per year. The point should be made that since timber has been cut in the Nass Valley starting in 1958, in the last number of years 250,000 cubic metres have been harvested on an annual basis. That is more than double the sustainable allowable cut of the Nass River Valley. To cut that back to 115,000 or 120,000 cubic metres of fibre is a sensible, responsible and conservation based way to harvest timber.

There is a 10 year agreement on taxation. That agreement is based on eight years for provincial tax and ten years for federal tax. Surely, even the most rabid opponents to this bill can understand that this is the way we should deal with first nations in the future.

On the argument that this is possibly some sort of a template, our forefathers made a decision many years ago to deal with first nations in Canada on a nation to nation basis. This is not a template. This is a treaty between the Nisga'a nation, the Government of Canada and the province of British Columbia. This treaty will be looked at when we negotiate other treaties, but it is not a template for another treaty. We base each treaty on its own merit given the number of band members, the geographical area and the traditional territory that they once held sway over.

There will be 300,000 decametres of water flow from the Nass River, or 1% of the total water flow in the Nass Valley, which will be set aside for Nisga'a use for possible future industrial purposes.

Moreover, the rights of the Nisga'a are protected, the right of language and the rights over culture.

Many members have stood in the House and argued that this is a race based government. It is patently unfair to say that. People stood in the House and said that non-Nisga'a will not be allowed to vote in this government. Quite honestly, non-Nisga'a are not allowed to vote for chief and council now. Non-natives have never been able to on any reserve in Canada. This is a step beyond that, with full recognition of inherent rights of first nations in British Columbia and in the rest of the country.

The thing we do not hear about in the House is the fact that non-natives living in Nisga'a territory will have rights. Those rights are protected by the constitution of Canada, the charter of rights and by the Nisga'a government. They will have their property ownership in fee simple. They will even own the road beds and have rights of way to the road bed and highway leading to those pieces of property. To say that non-Nisga'a have no rights in the Nass Valley after this treaty finally goes forth is patently false.

The other thing that has been misrepresented about this treaty is that the charter of rights and freedoms will not apply. The charter of rights and freedoms does apply. The constitution of Canada applies. There should be no mistaking those two issues because they are basic to the democratic rights of all Canadians.

I would like to read an excerpt from the treaty on the charter of rights and freedoms. Section 32(1) states that the charter of rights and freedoms applies. I heard a lot of members try to make the argument that the charter of rights and freedoms does not apply. This charter applies to the Parliament and Government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of parliament, and to the legislature and government of each province in respect to all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province. As it relates to the Nisga'a final agreement, “the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to the Nisga'a government in respect to all matters within its authority, bearing in mind the free and democratic nature of Nisga'a government as set out in this agreement”.

This means that the charter of rights applies within the parameters of section 1 of the charter of rights and freedoms which says that rights are guaranteed in a free and democratic society. This is not rocket science. This is pretty basic stuff that should not be misconstrued, or manipulated in a manner that was not meant to be implemented.

Therefore if the charter of rights is breached, apparently it is okay as long as it would be accepted in a free and democratic society or in other words if government can justify the infringement. It is no different for the Nisga'a government than it is for the Canadian government or for any provincial government. This is a basic right that gives a level playing field for all Canadians, whether those Canadians are aboriginal Canadians or non-aboriginal Canadians.

Quite frankly we have to decide how we are going to deal with first nations in this government. A few rules and parameters have already been set down which we have to abide by.

I will go back to when Canada became a nation in 1867. Our forefathers made a decision that we would recognize first nations in this country nation to nation. Surely we cannot turn our back on that concept now.

I am running out of time but one more point needs to be made. We should stop mixing up aboriginal rights as granted under the Sparrow decision and aboriginal title. They are two distinct and separate things. To put them all into one grey area that they are exactly the same thing is patently wrong. It is misleading to all Canadians who are interested in this important debate. It should be an informed debate. All of the issues need to be brought out and discussed in the light of day. I do not think there is anything to be ashamed of but there is a lot to be gained.

In conclusion, there are three ways we could deal with first nations. We could have open warfare which is not acceptable nor wanted by either party. We could try to negotiate or deal with first nations through the court system which is another mistake because no one gains at the end of it. Quite often the issues become more blurred. Or we could sit down and negotiate modern day treaties which is obviously what the Nisga'a treaty represents.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member who just spoke. He made a lot of sense. He is obviously well versed on the issues, not just those that surround this treaty but I think all issues as they affect aboriginal Canadians. I was particularly struck by the comments which had to do with the attempts to change direction or perhaps interpret things differently.

I am going to attempt a difficult thing for me. I am going to attempt to keep the debate at a reasonably low level because the facts are extremely important. Although we heard it from the hon. member, we do not hear in debate from the opposition, from the Reform Party, the actual facts about what this is about and the consultation process that has taken place.

I did not hear anyone in the Reform Party say that it was somewhere around 1887 when the leaders of the Nisga'a nation made their first trip to the legislature in British Columbia to talk about this treaty. Reform Party members talk about lack of consultation. This has been kicking around for over 100 years.

In fact the formal consultations from the government's perspective started approximately in 1990. That is when a number of committees were established to deal with all the different issues, whether it was hunting, fishing, logging or access to minerals and resources below the ground and all of those issues which are extremely important to the future economy of this group of Canadians.

I was here on Friday during the debate on authorizing the finance committee to travel. The opposition was leading what I would describe as a filibuster. Having been in opposition I respect the rights of opposition members to use whatever tactics they feel are appropriate, but their reason for attempting to stop the finance committee from travelling was that they felt it was important that the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development be authorized to travel.

I respect that attempt at leverage. It is one of the few things an opposition party can do. Even though I did not particularly like some of the debate, I understand in this place that the minority in dealing with a majority government has to use certain tactics in an attempt to bring about change.

As a result I am astounded that no one from the Reform Party has risen here to thank the government for the motion that was passed earlier today. The Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development is authorized to travel to Victoria, Vancouver, Terrace, Prince George and Smithers, British Columbia during the week of November 14 to 20 to hold hearings with regard to the treaty.

I am sure it is an oversight. I am sure in their eagerness to prepare for question period and this ongoing debate they probably just assumed that one of their other caucus colleagues would stand to thank the government for doing that. In effect that is what is happening. I would have thought they would be in a congratulatory mood because of that opportunity.

It will be very interesting to see what happens at those hearings. I am sure they are already busy attempting to derail or create some kind of protest at the hearings. I am sure they are already in touch with Gordon Campbell, the leader of the Liberal Party in British Columbia, whom they love to quote, in an attempt to put a certain viewpoint across.

The process is not what bothers me. That is quite a legitimate process in the greatest democracy in the world. It is quite legitimate for an opposition party or someone opposed to something the government is doing for them to do that. The question is, are they going to put the facts on the table?

The Reform Party is the only party in this place opposed to the treaty. Many members of the Reform Party represent ridings in British Columbia and other parts of western Canada. I do not believe they have a member east of Manitoba but I stand to be corrected. And I do not think they have any in Quebec or the maritimes. The Reform members represent that part of Canada. They have a real vested interest. What is it they object to?

Could it be that they object that the Nisga'a, under a general provision in the treaty, will continue to be an aboriginal people under Canada's Constitution Act, 1982? Do they object to that? Would they like to eliminate the Nisga'a people, the Nisga'a culture, heritage and language? I cannot imagine political representatives saying they would want to eliminate a people.

I say to my friends in the Bloc that I get a little nervous when they stand and speak in support of this bill. I suspect they believe what the Reform Party has said, that this could somehow be interpreted as a template for separation. I get a little nervous about the support of the Bloc Quebecois for the bill when they use that particular rationale.

I do not know if the issue is that the Reform Party does not like the fact that Nisga'a will continue to be a people under the constitution act or that the Nisga'a will continue to enjoy the same rights and benefits as other Canadian citizens. Does the Reform Party object to that? We heard the previous speaker quote right from the treaty wherein it says that the constitution of the country applies. The Nisga'a will have the same rights as other Canadian citizens. Would someone from that party please rise in his or her place and say that they do not agree with that if in fact that is true? Do they object? I find this incredible.

Under general provisions lands owned by the Nisga'a will no longer be reserve lands under the Indian Act. One of the fallouts of that is that it means the Nisga'a nation will become taxpayers just like everyone else. Do Reform members object to that? It would astound me to hear that is the case. However it is there. It is in the general provisions.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms will apply. I have heard instances in this place of members of that party standing and saying that if they do not like something the notwithstanding clause should be invoked and to heck with the charter of rights.

I have heard members opposite speak about scrapping the charter of rights. The charter of rights is a difficult document to manage within a democratic country like ours, but we must think of the price we would pay without one. We must think of the price we would pay when an individual government is able to do as it pleases, ignoring something like the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Do they object to the Nisga'a nation having full protection and access under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? I would like one of those members to tell us if that is it.

As most of the agenda of that group tends to deal with crime, they have said there will be a problem in this area. Yet federal and provincial laws such as the Criminal Code of Canada will continue to apply to Nisga'a citizens and others on Nisga'a lands.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police currently has a detachment in the Nisga'a community of New Aiyansh. It will continue to have an RCMP detachment there once the treaty takes effect. Nothing in the treaty prevents the Mounties or the provincial police from enforcing federal and provincial laws on Nisga'a land. That is a fact. That is the truth. They should not attempt to misrepresent that. The Nisga'a will have no authority over criminal law and the criminal code will continue to apply to everyone.

I ask my hon. friends to stand in their places to tell Canadians, British Columbians and the Nisga'a people what exactly it is that they object to with a landmark treaty such as this one.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe I should be allowed to respond to the direct challenge by the member as to the precedence of Nisga'a law over Canadian and provincial laws. If he would refer to page 113 of—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am afraid the hon. member is not on a point of order. He seems to be getting into a debate. I know the debate is a vigorous one on this issue and I know hon. members will want to participate. To that end, I think we should resume debate.