I will get as close as I can, Madam Speaker. I was talking about the co-operation on the space station and I am talking about the lack of co-operation here. I will talk about that for the rest of my time.
There were obstruction and broken promises. We were promised full debate on the issue. I listened to the Prime Minister promise that. Is this important? Oh, it is so important. Full and thorough debate.
What happened in B.C. after 11 of the 22 clauses were discussed and debated? There was closure. Why would the NDP government in B.C. shut down debate on this issue? Here is the reason. When the bill came before the B.C. public, support was pretty strong. Sixty per cent said they supported it. As they learned more and more about the bill, what has happened?
Householders were sent to 534,000 homes in B.C., most of them in ridings held by Liberal MPs. In one riding 81.5% said not to vote for the bill. In another, 94% said not to vote for the bill. Then the Liberals tried to stop travel. They tried to stop committees from going to B.C. to let the public know. At that point a huge fight broke out in the House. It was a childish fight in my view with Reform members doing childish things because they were driven to do those childish things by a government bent on preventing that travel.
I am embarrassed by some of the things that go on here. I have to explain to high school students at home why we would do a childish thing like debating over and over again, preventing the finance committee from travelling so that we could get the aboriginal committee to travel. I wish I could explain that other than to say that that crew does not want the true information about Nisga'a to come out.
The Liberals said no to debate. They said no to travel. They said no to public input.
I would like to discuss this issue from a narrow perspective, from the intergovernmental affairs perspective. That is my portfolio in the House. Just from the narrow intergovernmental affairs perspective, what does the Nisga'a treaty do? What does this big document that had four hours and twelve minutes of debate do?
It sets up a new order of government that was unheard of when our constitution was put in place. It is a third order of government. It is so specific in the agreement that it gives the Nisga'a supremacy over federal and provincial laws in 14 new areas.
It is very interesting that in health, the Nisga'a will have supremacy on the issue of the delivery of health services. That is a totally provincial responsibility in our constitution. That responsibility is being given to the Nisga'a. It is being given by the use of a phrase that is very legal. I am going to quote it. I believe these debates will go down in history as important. I am going to quote the phrase that gives the Nisga'a that supremacy: “In the event of an inconsistency or conflict between a Nisga'a law under this paragraph”—relating to 14 different areas, health in particular—“and a federal or provincial law, the Nisga'a law prevails to the extent of the inconsistency or conflict”.
That sets up a new form of sovereignty. That sets up a new form of partnership. That sets up in my view a sovereignty association. This treaty can be used as an excellent debating position by those who would want to split up our country for a sovereignty association. On sovereignty this treaty is a mistake.
Another area in which the treaty makes a mistake is on race. On the issue of race, the non-Nisga'a, those living on the reserve that are not natives, will be disenfranchised or unable to vote. Their right to vote in elections or to hold office will be taken from them.
I have listened to my colleagues say that that is no big deal, that they can still be consulted. They can be consulted all right, on things like the health board. But when the Nisga'a government taxes them, and the provision is in the agreement to allow it to tax those non-Nisga'a citizens, they will be taxed without the right to vote for those who are taxing them. That is against every rule of democracy that I understand. This is a new order, a non-constitutional order, a third order. On the issue of race, this treaty is a mistake.
The third and most basic area in which this treaty is a mistake is on the issue of the charter of rights and freedoms. This is a truly debatable point. It says right in the treaty that the charter will apply, clearly, plainly and specifically. But the charter itself says that it should not be interpreted so “as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal treaty or other rights” of native peoples; abrogate or derogate, take away from, any of those native rights.
Here we have a treaty which says that the charter applies and we have in the charter a section that says that it does not apply. That is debatable and I am not sure where that would come down in a court of law being no lawyer myself. This treaty is a mistake as it relates to the charter.
Politicians are great at coming to conclusions and arguing those conclusions until they are blue in the face. We can hear that in the House. We have complete disagreement on this issue of the charter.
I will quote someone who I think is fairly balanced in perspective. This is a journalist I personally have faith in. I find this individual able to come to conclusions that are defensible. He says that the treaty would accord the Nisga'a status and rights far surpassing those of other native bands, nor is that the end of it. He also said that the premier of B.C. may no longer boast that the treaty would serve as a template for settling the province's sixty-odd outstanding land claims, but it is hard to believe that native negotiators in any future treaty would settle for less. If this treaty, as he says and as I agree with him, sets out a brand new order of government unheard of before with far greater rights for our native brothers, it will be used as a template and to break these agreements that were put in place years and years ago.
All that was a diatribe on the co-operation we have had in the House. What would improve the process in the future for natives? Surely they do not deserve the treaty system we have given them. Surely they do not deserve the reservations we have given them. Surely they do not deserve the health problems, the drug and alcohol problems and the employment problems that I saw in my practice as a medical doctor. I treated people from the reserves in my own riding who came to the hospital.
What could we have done better? We could have looked at the position of how we could gain equality under the law for every single Canadian. Some of the things in this treaty move in baby steps toward that.
On the issue of taxation we will end up with natives who will pay income tax but they do not have the economic levers they need to become individually self-sufficient. They do not have the ability to own their own property in fee simple. They do not have the ability to use that to guarantee them a mortgage. They do not have the ability to do the things other Canadians can do.
If this treaty becomes a template for the future of our native brothers, it will be a grave error. It is an error on those big principles I have mentioned.
I have been talking about the problems with this treaty. I will slip back to Bill C-4 and what I think could have happened with this treaty. There is co-operation among the countries on the space station. They have put aside their differences and have really looked for common solutions. That could have and should have happened on this agreement.
It has been an embarrassment to have to use this time on Bill C-4 to talk about the Nisga'a treaty. I say to every Canadian that I would have stood in my place and I would have talked even if it was for half as much time on the Nisga'a treaty if I had been allowed to. I was blocked from the ability to do that.
I apologize to those who wanted to hear about Bill C-4. I know I did not talk about it in a way that was appropriate to the space station, but the Nisga'a treaty will go down in history as a mistake. I want to say that so plainly and so clearly to every single Canadian who is listening.