Yes, both of you. It is amazing. Members of the NDP are trying to justify their position. They vote more often with the government than not. It is the same with the other parties.
I want to make a point about seven Liberal members of parliament from British Columbia. Why is it that they voted for time allocation and why is that they are voting for this bill when after we polled their ridings we found that there is no support for it? They come to the House having been told by the government whip that they will vote for the Nisga'a agreement whether they like it or not.
We sent polls to 534,000 homes in British Columbia and 10,000 returned. That is an extensive poll. It showed that in British Columbia 91.5% want their MP to vote against Nisga'a. It is not 60% or 70% which is high, it is 91.5%. Does that viewpoint carry forward here through members of parliament at voting time? No. We just saw the opposite from the Liberals and three NDP from British Columbia.
Of the Liberal ridings targeted, opposition to Nisga'a among respondents ranges from 81.5% to 94% in those ridings alone. Yet those members stood and voted for it.
Oftentimes we hear members say they do not know much about the agreement. My colleague from Skeena knows more about aboriginal agreements than anybody else in the House. Our caucus makes a point of studying the agreements. There is one point alone as to why the opposition parties should have been in opposition to it.
On page 217, paragraphs 3 and 4 of chapter 16 read:
- 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; and
(b) the co-ordination of Nisga'a lisims government or Nisga'a village government taxation of any person with existing federal or provincial tax systems.
- Nisga'a lisims government and Nisga'a village governments may make laws in respect of the implementation of any taxation agreement entered into with Canada or British Columbia.
If that does not beat all. I cannot believe the other three opposition parties in the House of Commons would allow taxation without representation and would allow treaties with that in it without debating it in the House. I do not understand why.
One day in the not too distant future, similar difficulties with these treaties will come into our homes and into other areas of the country. I hope we convince the other parties over here to at least have the commitment and the courage to stand up in the House of Commons, amid all the worry of the rhetorical comments, and bring to the attention of this nation the problems that are involved with these treaties.