Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by notifying the Chair that I am pleased to split my time with my hon. colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.
The hon. member across the way who just delivered his speech made some very serious allegations that I found quite disturbing, obviously since they were directed at me, at my party and at my colleagues.
I would like to start by noting that despite the claims to the contrary the reality is that the Liberal government in Ottawa shut down debate in the House of Commons on this piece of legislation after allowing the official opposition only four hours and 12 minutes of debate.
Why do I single out the official opposition other than the fact that obviously I am a member of it? The reality is that in this debate we have the absurd situation where three of the opposition parties are in total agreement with the government. They are not opposing it at all, even though there are things I am sure they could find wrong with the legislation and the treaty. They have to find something that they would oppose. Yet to listen to them in debate, one would think that it was perfect, that the whole situation has been supposedly resolved, that it is a perfect piece of legislation and they have little to do other than to support the government.
In reality, while we have had more debate than that, what is the point of debate or should we even call it debate, if speaker after speaker from the New Democratic Party, the Bloc Quebecois, and the Progressive Conservative Party are basically the mouthpieces for the Liberal government on the bill? How is that a debate? I think the people of Canada realize that it is not a debate.
The only true debate taking place is by the official opposition in the points it is raising. I pointed out to the viewing public that only four hours and 12 minutes so far have been allocated to members of the official opposition to bring forward these points of how the treaty, once implemented, is going to change the landscape of Canada for all time.
The thing that saddens me the most and which was really reinforced when the committee travelled last week to my home province of British Columbia is that democracy plays little or no role in this process. In fact, if democracy was ever a part of our political system in Canada, it is certainly nowhere to be found in the debate on the Nisga'a treaty.
I challenge the members, as did my leader when he made his remarks earlier today, that this debate is not so much about the specifics of the treaty. We have had the limited debate the government has allowed on that particular aspect contained in the treaty itself, the pros and cons. Obviously, the government is not listening to the points being brought forward about some of the dire consequences once it is rammed through parliament. The debate today is about the process of holding a referendum on the issue and giving all British Columbians the opportunity to vote either to support or to reject the Nisga'a treaty.
Let us look at the process that took place until now. Hon. members from across the way, and I believe from some of the other so-called opposition parties, have stated that it was Reform that forced the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to travel to British Columbia. Contrary to the points of view put forward by some of the members across the way, it was not to try and orchestrate some huge protest or to try to demean individuals and their parties. We were hoping against hope that once the committee was in British Columbia it would actually listen to British Columbians about this legislation and treaty. Unfortunately, that did not happen. Unfortunately, the committee chose not to listen. Unfortunately, it chose to prevent people from making presentations.
We tried to get the committee to spend more time in British Columbia. We tried to get it to go to more locations than just the five: Monday in Terrace; Tuesday in Smithers; Wednesday in Prince George; Thursday in Victoria; and Friday in Vancouver. We tried to get the committee into Kamloops but there was no movement by the government. It was opposed to letting the people of Kamloops come forward.
Let us review what took place at the meeting I attended. It is the one I have firsthand knowledge of because I was there. I was in the city of Prince George for that hearing. We started out with seven, possibly eight witnesses. A couple of possible or probable witnesses to appear were listed. All but one were from out of the area, from the lower mainland, from Vancouver, Vancouver Island. As time progressed, people dropped off for various reasons.
It came to the attention of the hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley and myself that we were left with four witnesses that would appear that day. Three were from Vancouver or Vancouver Island. Only one was from Prince George itself.
When the hearings began, my colleague from Prince George—Bulkley Valley and I attempted to raise a point of order with the committee chair. We asked her, that since we had people who had dropped off the witness list and that since there were people who had taken time off work to attend that hearing that day who represented groups of local people in Prince George, if the committee in its wisdom could not decide to hear them. We all know that a committee is the master of its own destiny. It can make these decisions. It can change the format. It can change the witnesses if it so decides.
The chairman of the committee ruled that we were not even allowed to put forward that point of order. The government did not want to hear the people from Prince George who had taken time off work to go to that hearing. They were sitting in the audience, prepared to step up to the microphone and put forward their point of view on the treaty.
One group wanted to speak out in favour of a referendum. It has a very special interest in holding a referendum. It was the organization that had spearheaded a local plebiscite in Prince George. It was a voluntary plebiscite in which over 9,000 people participated. Some 9,000 people in northern British Columbia came forward voluntarily to participate even though it had no mandate and even though they knew their vote would probably fall on deaf ears. Nevertheless they came forward. People took the time to come from work or home to cast their ballot and 94% voted against the treaty.
That group, called B.C. in Focus is a non-partisan group. They are not Reformers. Certainly some of them are. Both the hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley and I are here as testament that we have pretty solid support in the city of Prince George so obviously some of those people who belong to B.C. in Focus, that lobby group and citizens group, are obviously reformers. It is not some conspiracy concocted by the Reform Party of Canada. It is an independent group. It was refused the opportunity to put forward its point of view.
The other group was the Central Interior Logging Association. A gentleman whom I know reasonably well, Roy Nagel, is the general manager. That group came with a brief to put forward to the committee. The group asked for permission to do that and was turned away.
Some very unfortunate comments were made, I would agree with my hon. colleague from across the way. On behalf of the citizens and people of Prince George, I would apologize to anyone. The hon. member for Nunavut is present today, and I offer that unconditionally.
I think we have to look beyond the fact that those types of comments were made and look to why they were made. It is the extreme frustration the people of British Columbia are feeling about this process and the treaty. That is the problem. It has been a closed door process from the very beginning. People were shut out yet again when this group came to Prince George. Unfortunately some people voiced their frustration in ways that were not very kind.
Obviously we have to turn a corner here. I call upon all members of all parties to exercise their right to vote in favour of this motion and give the people of British Columbia a referendum on this treaty.