House of Commons Hansard #38 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was agreed.
Darrel Stinson Reform Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's speech. I have one question for the hon. member with regard to the treaty and land. What does the member say to the Gitanyow with regard to their land claims being lost over this treaty? What does he say to those people now that we have taken their land away from them?
Gerald Keddy Progressive Conservative South Shore, NS
Madam Speaker, with great respect to the Gitanyow, I will say to them what I have said already. Sections 33, 34 and 35 in the treaty allow for overlap. The treaty allows for a negotiated settlement. It also allows for the Nisga'a to be compensated by the Government of Canada and the province of B.C. should they lose property.
It is very clearly stated. The oval issue is recognized in the NFA. It is 1.5 kilometres, a fair amount of property for individuals. I respect both parties here and I hope that they would sit down and negotiate an agreeable settlement between the two first nations. With respect, I stated that very thing to the Gitanyow chiefs who presented their case extremely well.
David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment
Madam Speaker, with this legislation we have one of those welcomed occasions when two worthy goals can be reached at the same time; on the one hand, pragmatic economics to help the economy of British Columbia, and on the other, the regaining of a people's dignity. These two are bound together in this one piece of legislation. We will vote on it in one vote.
Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I may be wrong but I am suspicious that the minister is beginning a speech. I think he may not be aware that we are still in questions and comments.
Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
We will qualify the matter right away. Is the hon. minister asking a question or commenting?
David Anderson Liberal Victoria, BC
Madam Speaker, I was recognized by you as starting my concluding speech for the last 10 minutes of the debate.
Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
I am afraid that I did call for questions and comments. There is still about eight minutes left for questions and comments following the speech from the hon. member for South Shore.
David Iftody LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his work on this committee and his travel with us to British Columbia. I wonder if those watching the debate, when the cameras shift from one side to the other, know which party the member belongs to. He is a Progressive Conservative member and that party has properly supported this piece of legislation throughout the debate. The member has done an excellent job for his constituents and I commend him on that.
I appreciate very much what he said, but I want him to go a little bit deeper. He talked about the myths being proposed by the Reform Party members and about some of the ridiculous and foolish things that they have said and argued, notwithstanding testimony by Canada's leading constitutional experts about the fact that the charter does apply and that the constitution is not abridged or broken in any way or offended even slightly by this process.
I ask the member what the interests are of the Reform Party members from British Columbia. Why are they pushing this? Why are they hammering this deal? What is in it for them that they would go to these great extremes to stand up against 80% of the people voting in the House, and therefore Canada, to oppose this deal? Why?
Gerald Keddy Progressive Conservative South Shore, NS
Madam Speaker, I must admit that the hon. member and I have had many good discussions about this piece of legislation. When the Liberals say that we have done a good thing, our spider sense has to tingle a little bit. We are on different sides here.
With respect, it was obviously a treaty that we could all agree on. The greatest thing about this particular piece of legislation and the greatest mistruths that have been stated by the Reform members was to compare the fear that Canadians have that there will possibly be one group of Canadians that will have more rights than another group. They threw that bone out, it did not go anywhere and they tried it again. In my opinion, this treaty does not do that.
It is the fear people have in eastern Canada when they look at a very difficult situation going on with the Mi'kmaq over the 1760 treaty. They feel that somehow this will not be settled in an amicable way and we will not be able to negotiate it. What this treaty does is clearly lay out the rules for negotiation. It protects the interest of Canadians, as the hon. member said. It allows for taxation of first nations. It removes that particular first nation from the Indian Act, which certainly all hon. members would have to agree is a good thing. I do not think that even the Reform members can say it is a bad thing to have the Nisga'a nation no longer under the auspices of the Indian Act.
The fear I have with misrepresentation is if we try to move the issue over and say, “look what is going on in Nova Scotia”. What is going on in Nova Scotia is because there is no treaty, an aboriginal title has not been settled. We are depending on something that went on in 1760 that is a page and a half long and that is open to very wide interpretation. Let us settle these issues. Let us negotiate real self-government for first nations in Canada. Let us understand that all first nations want to be real partners in the Canadian federation. Let us open that door and allow them in. Unlike the Victoria legislature, let us open the door and invite them in.
Mike Scott Reform Skeena, BC
Madam Speaker, there you have it. Self-congratulations is the basis for public policy in this country. The other party members all have a well worn spot between their shoulder blades where they have been patting themselves on the back.
The hon. member discounts out of hand the expert advice we received. He is a member of the committee and he sat there and listened to the advice from the likes of Professor Stephen Scott, a professor of the law faculty at McGill University; Mel Smith, former constitutional adviser to no less than three premiers in British Columbia; Gordon Gibson, the former leader of the Liberal Party in British Columbia; Gordon Campbell, the current leader of the official opposition, the Liberal Party of British Columbia; and Professor Tom Flanagan from the University of Alberta. They are recognized experts in their fields who have said that this is indeed a violation of Canada's constitution. It is the subject of two lawsuits in British Columbia brought by the B.C. opposition Liberal Party and by the Fishery Survival Coalition. The member stands up and completely discounts this out of hand.
Along with the remarks that he has made about the Reform Party and the aspersions he has cast on us, is he casting aspersions on these people as well? Does he put them all in the same boat as the Reform Party? Is he suggesting that these constitutional legal experts are deliberately attempting to mislead Canadians by fabricating myths?
Gerald Keddy Progressive Conservative South Shore, NS
Madam Speaker, the answer is very simple. There are two cases before the Supreme Court of Canada. The supreme court will rule on those cases. I have no fear at all about how that ruling will go.
I ask anyone who may be listening to this debate or anyone who is remotely interested in it to check the record. There were arguments for and against. Those arguments are on the record. People can decide for themselves. I have a point of view. People may disagree with it, which is fine, but I will defend what I have said any day. If the hon. member wants to check the record I challenge him to check it.
Derrek Konrad Reform Prince Albert, SK
Madam Speaker, I have one quick comment. The biggest waste of money in the House is the appropriations for research for the other opposition parties.
Derrek Konrad Reform Prince Albert, SK
It is not out of order to make a fair comment.
They only use the press releases by the government for their research and think they have done a job for the Canadian public.
I could say a lot of things but I am really disappointed in the opposition members of the House who just bow and scrape and, as my hon. colleague said, pat themselves on the back and call it public debate.
Gerald Keddy Progressive Conservative South Shore, NS
Madam Speaker, I will be perfectly honest. I never read any press releases by the government and did not have to. I studied this issue, found out the information on it, was prepared to defend it and have on several occasions, and will continue to do that.
As far as the point he started to make about the Marshall decision, the outcome of the Marshall decision is exactly the outcome that will continue in this country as long as we do not have negotiated treaties. A treaty that was passed in 1760 is inappropriate for today. We need to sit down and deal with the serious issues before us in a responsible way for the benefit of all.
David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment
Madam Speaker, in the five minutes that remain, I do not have enough time to complete the speech that I had outlined here which indicated the great economic benefits that come from the certainty of having the Nisga'a treaty in place in British Columbia.
There are two major sources of economic uncertainty in British Columbia. One is the unfortunate policies of the provincial NDP government. The other is the fact that aboriginal title in so many parts of the province is uncertain. This treaty is a major step in the right direction in dealing with that second uncertainty. I strongly welcome it on behalf of all those who are interested in B.C.'s economic future.
The opportunity to speak is fast evaporating. However, I would like to suggest that it has been known since the very beginning by non-Nisga'a that this was an injustice done to the Nisga'a people. Let me refer to my own family history.
My grandfather, born in 1880, was a small boy at the time of the 1887 arrival in Victoria of the Tsimsean and the Nisga'a people who came to plead for the land. Later, when I was much his age, he told me based on his experiences and his time in northern British Columbia of that injustice. At that time, when I was a small boy, he persuaded me—an easy job—that in fact there was an injustice to right. I must say how proud I am after all this time that I am here in the House with the privilege of being the last speaker in this debate as the senior minister for British Columbia, pointing out that we will now right that injustice done all those years ago.
Many things have been said about this treaty in the heat of debate which hon. members of the official opposition will not only regret but will be deeply ashamed of in the years to come. They know that if we do not settle this treaty now, which has been discussed, debated and argued in meeting after meeting throughout the province, in the legislature of British Columbia in its longest ever debate, in this House for hour after hour, then it is a case of going directly to the courts.
There is no opportunity for starting the negotiations again. They hold that out as a hope that somehow negotiations will take place and will result in the Nisga'a giving up some of the things they have negotiated for and fairly won in this treaty process.
If we do not wish to go back to court and have these matters determined by the courts alone but to have them determined instead by fair discussion, debate and honest analysis of one another's positions, as has taken place, then we had better approve this treaty. That is the crux of the Nisga'a treaty that is before us today.
The treaty is fair and practical. It will contribute to peace and prosperity in British Columbia. It will facilitate long awaited reconciliation that has been sought for over a century.
As the justices in the Delgamuukw decision said, we are all here to stay so we—
Dick Harris Reform Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask for unanimous consent to ask the minister if he knows that over 90% of his own constituents oppose the Nisga'a treaty.
Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
That is not a point of order.
David Anderson Liberal Victoria, BC
Madam Speaker, that is clearly debate. It is clearly out of order and it is clearly typical of the way the Reform Party has approached this debate day after day, week after week, month after month. Every opportunity to divert attention from the actual facts of the treaty Reform members have jumped on because they know that faced with a clear examination of this treaty the people of British Columbia know it is in their best interests. We recognize that. The Reform Party does not. It is attempting to conceal this fact and therefore Reform members come up with phoney points of order and phoney—
Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
Order, please. It being 6.15 p.m., pursuant to order made on Monday, December 9, 1999, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
All those opposed will please say nay.