Debates of Dec. 6th, 1999

Nisga'A Final Agreement Act

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise again today. It is probably the lowest point in parliament so far.

We are talking about the Nisga'a agreement and the amendments to it at report stage. The NDP and the Liberals would like to muzzle Reform. They have said so previously in the debate. The Liberals used the phrase “the Canadian way” and it became obvious as we listened that it is really the Liberal way that they were talking about.

I cannot figure out why closure is being invoked on this bill. Is it because the public might raise concerns, or that the concerns with the bill might become more public and opposition to it would continue to grow across Canada, the same kind of opposition that is now present within B.C. among the majority of the people there?

All the people of B.C. have not had input. I have heard one of the members from Vancouver talk about all the consultation and meetings that have been held. The problem is the people of B.C. in their majority have not been allowed to address all of the concerns they have.

One of the Liberals who spoke said he voted but with an expressed caveat. He had reservations about this. What a joke. What a joke to say, “I am going to vote yes to this agreement”. Does that member think that the minister of Indian affairs will listen once the vote is over, that anybody will take into account any of the concerns he expressed? No, because once it is passed, it is a done deal. People will just laugh at him when he says, “I raised this and I voted yes, but I want to have it understood that I have these concerns”. Does that member think any court will listen to him after this is implemented because he made a speech here raising some of these concerns?

The Liberal member is playing pure politics if he is afraid to stand up now and be counted. It will be too late after this bill is implemented. Mark my words, this sets a precedent for which there will be no turning back. The courts will take this and run with it.

I just finished a speech a couple of hours ago on property rights. The Liberals claim that the charter will protect the aboriginal people and all Canadians. In my speech on a bill which the Liberals did not even allow to be votable, I said that there is no protection in the charter for property rights. The court has said so itself. Their appeal to the charter to protect aboriginal property rights is not based on any fact. As my colleague said, it is valueless. It is useless.

We have not had time to debate some of these things. I have raised this issue but it will not be dealt with here. Yet the Liberals claim that the charter will protect them. I have pointed out areas where the charter cannot protect them and the court has said so.

The process has been flawed from the beginning. The negotiations were secret for many years. When other Reformers and I became aware of this in 1994 and 1995 there was a refusal on the part of the government to even have any public disclosure as to what was happening. Any objections we raised were belittled. We were portrayed as being evil people. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are the only political party right now that is standing up and asking the serious questions about this treaty. None of the other opposition parties are doing that, nor are any of the backbench Liberals doing this in any serious way.

In B.C. the debate was cut off even before half of the treaty was debated. The consultation is not just with four or five chiefs. I have heard the government say that there were three parties involved in the agreement, but they were all the tops. It was a top heavy thing. The rank and file people have basically been shut out of this whole process and that is really a concern. Opposition parties should express the concern of all Canadians and only Reform is doing that.

This is a change in the social contract. We are not focusing upon the cost. We realize the cost could be unbelievable. Some estimates run as high as $30 billion or $40 billion. We have to look at how this is going to change the dynamics within Canada. The democratic rights of all B.C. are being thumbed by not having it fully debated and a referendum held.

One of the points that has been raised is that we do not hold referendums on this kind of thing because there is no precedent. How ridiculous an argument can one have? If it is this important and if it is going to involve a change that is this fundamental, we have to have input by all people.

What about the Charlottetown accord? The people spoke very clearly on the relationship of aboriginals to the rest of the country. We are ignoring that and we are going ahead with this without having another referendum.

I do not know what excuse one could come up with for not having a process that includes everybody. The government ministers talk about listening to all sides but they have created the sides in this. They have created the divisions that will get even wider as we continue along. If it is so good, as the government claims it is, why not put it to all the people of B.C.?

One person has asked, is there any place on reserve where the conditions are as good as off reserve? The government has not answered that question. People have said that they want to get out from under the Indian Act. With this thing they are ending up with the very same thing. They are not getting out from under the oppression that they are feeling at this time.

Canadians are concerned that the courts are going to be dictating this legislation. Do the courts have the right to tell members of parliament how they should speak? That is what one Liberal asked. I would like to ask that question.

With respect to aboriginals before the law, a former minister of justice stated clearly “We have one law for all, but it is flexible in its application”. Only a Liberal could come up with that forked tongue type of speaking.

One hon. member said there are no legitimate concerns being voiced by grassroots people in B.C. I would beg to differ. There are major concerns being voiced by grassroots people.

It has been said that this is a template for scores of other treaties. Does this not warrant more careful scrutiny? Unfortunately, we are standing alone in asking for this.

Quite some time ago when the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples brought in its report I made a speech. In the context of the Nisga'a agreement, I would like to bring up some of the key points that were raised at that time, which are still valid today.

At that point an editorial in the Globe and Mail stated that if those recommendations were to be implemented, and they are being implemented today, they would lead to separation, both political and economic.

We have said that we need to move toward equality. Here are some of the key, crucial steps that we need to take to move toward the goal of equality. The Indian Act must be repealed and replaced with legislation that will move closer to true equality. This bill does not do that.

We need to agree on a definition of self-government. I believe that the majority of Canadians, including grassroots Indian people, would support aboriginal self-government as long as the federal government's relationship with Indian reserves was similar to that of the relationship between provinces and municipalities.

Most of Canada's aboriginal people, and there are about 500,000, already live in municipalities under provincial jurisdiction. The federal government retains responsibility for about 350,000 people.

For self-government to work, Canadian law, including the charter of rights and freedoms, must apply equally to all aboriginal people. Local Indian governments will never be truly democratic or financially accountable until and unless a normal local government to taxpayer relationship is established. The federal government must make treaty entitlements payable, in part at least, directly to individual treaty Indians living on reserve. I emphasize that. They should have the same rights as the rest of us. They will not get that through this agreement and they should have that. We need to move toward equality that will be of benefit to all.

Every treaty Indian is entitled to compensation benefits or services promised by the treaty and they should have a choice of receiving those benefits directly from the federal government or through their local Indian government. They should be able to exercise that option at any time.

Land claims settlements should be negotiated publicly, not behind closed doors, and they should outline all of these things.

[Bill Matthews, Progressive Conservative, Burin—St. George's, NL]

Madam Speaker, I take great pleasure in rising today to participate in the debate on Bill C-9, the Nisga'a treaty.

I could not help but reflect on the mood of the House and how it changed from the very partisan thrust of question period to just a few minutes ago when we took a few moments to remember the terrible tragedy which happened at the École Polytechnique 10 years ago. I think that says something about us as Canadians and as parliamentarians, how our moods change, how we understand, how we can be tolerant and of course how we remember.

That brings me to today's debate. The first and most important thing to say is that we acknowledge and appreciate the overwhelming support for the Nisga'a treaty from members of three of the four opposition parties represented in the House of Commons.

We have heard criticism often repeated by the official opposition. Now we see hundreds of amendments aimed at dismantling, undermining and changing this agreement, which has been entered into honourably by different parties. We have to be very clear that Reform amendments seek to tear up the Nisga'a final agreement. In this effort Reform members stand alone. They are isolated. They are wrong.

Support from political parties as diverse in their views as the Bloc Quebecois, the New Democratic Party and the Progressive Conservative Party vindicates our view that the Nisga'a treaty is truly a non-partisan issue. What the Nisga'a treaty demonstrates is the government's commitment to aboriginal peoples in this country.

Just this past weekend there was an agreement signed in my riding of Burin—St. George's among the Miawpukek First Nation, the Federation of Newfoundland Indians and Human Resources Development Canada for some $12.3 million, which will enable those people to address the needs of youth and equal access for people with disabilities, as well as the child care initiative that has been built into the Conne River agreement. That demonstrates very clearly this government's commitment to the aboriginal peoples of this great country.

The Nisga'a treaty, as with other modern treaties, should rise above the ordinary back and forth and thrust of partisan debate. The amendments which have been proposed by the Reform Party relate more to its make believe treaty than to the bill before the House and to what the treaty would give effect. In many cases, as we shall see during the course of the debate, the amendments do not relate to the actual document that has been negotiated among the parties. Additionally, they do not relate to the specific provisions of the final agreement which have been restated in Bill C-9.

The first treaty, the real treaty that was negotiated, has been ratified by the Nisga'a and Her Majesty in right of British Columbia. It is this treaty that has been tabled before parliament, which will be ratified with the passage of Bill C-9. It is the treaty referred to by the government and the three opposition parties other than the official opposition.

The official opposition is trying to impress its make believe treaty upon members of the House. The official opposition, the Liberal Party of British Columbia and a minority of editorialists seem determined to misrepresent the real treaty's elements. Among the many myths the official opposition seems bent on perpetrating are that the treaty undermines the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that it creates uncertainty. Of course, that could not be further from the truth.

Let me start by debunking the first myth. Since 1982 the Nisga'a have agreed that their treaty would be subject to the charter. Accordingly, the treaty clearly states that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to the Nisga'a government in respect of all matters within its authority.

Still the Reform Party attempts to tinker with the wording of this bill which reflects the final agreement. Its Motion No. 25 would delete the reference to the charter of rights and freedoms from the preamble of Bill C-9. It is not its objective to make constructive amendments, but rather to tear them down and raise contradictions between the bill before the House and the Nisga'a final agreement.

What we are seeing here once again, and what I have observed in the House of Commons since I have been here, is more of the same old Reform Party that Canadians have come to know. The same old divisive nature and the same old obstructionist tactics and manoeuvres are being used by this official opposition known as the Reform Party. Canadians are finally starting to see what really is behind the motives of the Reform Party. Polling results across the country are starting to show that.

The end result of its tactics, if accepted, would be a bill of contradictions, surprises, misstatements and errors. Rather than building upon certainty and understanding, lawyers would have a field day trying to comprehend how the Reform bill would actually accord with the final agreement. I ask once again, does the Reform Party want a final agreement with the Nisga'a nation or not? Is there something it does not want to be final? I think all members of the House, after being engaged in this debate for a period of time, know the answer to these questions. The answer is no.

Being the kind of people we are in Canada, being parliamentarians in the House of Commons representing Canadians, I wonder what the true motives of the official opposition are.

We are a country of tolerance. We are a country of goodwill. We want to rectify injustices in the country. One of the reasons we were sent to parliament was to deal with these issues. What better opportunity to rectify some of the injustices of the past, to correct some of the wrongs of the past, to show compassion and to lend support where it is so badly needed than the Nisga'a treaty, Bill C-9?

There is overwhelming support across Canada to ratify this agreement. Why is the official opposition being obstructionist in its tactics? That party will try to keep us in the House for the next 48 or 72 hours, with amendment after amendment, trying to obstruct and delay the implementation and approval of an agreement which will benefit many people in this country.

I would ask members of the Reform Party—and I see there are a couple present—if any of them see the inherent contradictions in some of the amendments they have proposed. There are some startling contradictions in the amendments.

The best way to learn about the Nisga'a treaty is to understand it. In addition, numerous summaries and academic articles are available which support the treaty. The Reform Party's arguments and amendments ignore hours of very valuable testimony setting out how this final agreement operates, the meaning of the final agreement and its constitutional status. As the House carries on with its deliberations it will be necessary for all members to consider whether members of the official opposition are describing the actual Nisga'a treaty or their own make believe treaty.

The Nisga'a have bargained with the federal and provincial governments peacefully and in good faith. They have every right to expect that the treaty will be upheld and the agreement will come to fruition. All Canadians can be proud that the Nisga'a final agreement is a fair, affordable and honourable settlement which puts to rest historic frustrations that have divided British Columbians for more than 100 years. I say that the amendments proposed by the Reform Party, in motion after motion before us today, undermine that very objective. The consequence is to separate Canadians, to deny what the Nisga'a have honourably negotiated and to weaken the treaty process in British Columbia.

The Nisga'a treaty should be celebrated as a national achievement, proof that people working in good faith can resolve their differences without confrontation or litigation. The Nisga'a have waited long enough. This agreement has been studied and debated extensively and it must be ratified. Then and only then can we go forward into the next millennium ready to face the challenges of the future.

[Chuck Cadman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Madam Speaker, there is one very simple reason for which members of the official opposition oppose this treaty, which is that we are representing the views of the vast majority of our constituents in British Columbia.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the amendments proposed in Group No. 1 concerning Bill C-9, an act to give effect to the Nisga'a final agreement.

The government calls this a debate, but we all know that it has no intention of listening. We all know of the government's commitment to pass the Nisga'a final agreement before we break for Christmas. We all know that the government has made a commitment to refuse to even entertain any amendment to the Nisga'a final agreement. In effect, the government is making parliament superfluous. In this instance parliament no longer has power over its own legislation. The government in power is forcing the passage of an agreement over which this place has absolutely no input or control. It is indeed unfortunate that the other opposition parties are permitting this action to occur without a whisper of condemnation.

All members of this place must at many times wonder whether we have become redundant when we continually witness the Prime Minister, his office and the Privy Council office dictate what legislation passes through this place and in what manner.

Bill C-9 is a prime example of the complete abdication of democratic principles. Sure, we are being provided with the opportunity to speak, the opportunity to challenge the actions of the government and the opportunity even to vote on this legislation, but the government members are given their marching orders and the government is not open to any alteration of the bill. It is all just a charade. There is no democracy in the legislation.

The minister has been put in a position of accepting an agreement entered into by his predecessor and he has been told to get it through parliament without any changes. It is a tough job because he has been given a Volkswagen and has been told to sell a Cadillac, with all due respect to the folks at Volkswagen.

He has an agreement that creates a third order of government and he tries to suggest that the constitution is not being thwarted. He has an agreement that creates inequalities and he tries to suggest that equality of all citizens is being upheld. He has a clause in the legislation that clearly states that if there is a conflict between provincial and federal laws and the agreement, then the agreement reigns supreme, but he argues that this is not the case.

I would certainly like somebody to explain to me paragraph 13 of the general provisions of the agreement. It states:

In the event of an inconsistency or conflict between this Agreement and the provisions of any federal or provincial law, this Agreement will prevail to the extent of the inconsistency or conflict.

That quotation certainly appears to state that the agreement is paramount even to federal and provincial laws. In fact, it sounds suspiciously like a constitutional document, but it has not been added to our constitution through the amending formula. It has been undertaken by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and we are merely rubber stamping it.

I received quite an extensive e-mail from one of my constituents. She is a 17 year old student who has taken the initiative to study the Nisga'a final agreement. She is strongly opposed to the treaty.

She is concerned about the land of the agreement being handed over to the Nisga'a people when the Gitksan and Gitanyow people also have claims to some of the same parcels of land. What does the minister say about this issue and the concern? He maintains that he is working on it and these other bands will be looked after in future negotiations and agreements.

I have great difficulty in accepting these proposals. First, if the land is already allotted to the Nisga'a and it actually belongs to these other bands, how can justice really be done to rectify the situation in the future? Second, will Canadians have to pay a premium to these other bands should it be determined that they have been deprived of ancestral lands? While I certainly do not suggest civil disobedience or illegal activity, my 17 year old constituent is certainly concerned that these other native bands might be forced to take the law into their own hands in order to obtain their rightful lands. Is this what we are bringing forth with this legislation?

I have expressed my displeasure and disappointment over the complete disregard for democracy with Bill C-9. I would now like to discuss a recent poll taken from the citizens of my home province of British Columbia. It significantly supports the amendments as proposed by Group No. 1 in the report stage of this legislation. The poll also strongly supports my claims in regard to the failure of the democratic principles to be respected.

Citizens of British Columbia were asked if they had had adequate opportunity to provide input to the Nisga'a treaty. Of no surprise the results were much the same as they are for this place. They have been given a fait accompli and have been told to live with it. The deal is done. The treaty and the legislation will pass unchanged.

Some 91% of the citizens polled from the riding of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans did not feel that they had been provided with adequate opportunity to provide input into the Nisga'a treaty. Will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans stick up for his constituents? I think we all know the answer to that question.

The citizens of British Columbia were asked if they believed the people of British Columbia should have the right to vote on the principles of the Nisga'a treaty in a provincial referendum. Some 94% of the constituents of the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and Status of Women stated that they believed that they should have the right to vote in a provincial referendum. What does the government say? It states that the members of this place represent their constituents and vote for them, but that obviously fails to work democratically in situations such as this when members of parliament vote against the wishes of their constituents.

The poll also asked how the people of British Columbia wanted their federal member of parliament to vote on this treaty. Of those polled, 94% wanted the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam to vote against this treaty. Do we really think this member will vote in compliance with the wishes of his constituents? No, he will vote as he is told by the powers to be here in Ottawa. It is a shame: 82% of the constituents of the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and Status of Women want her to vote against this legislation but she will not do so; 92% of the constituents of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans want him to vote against this legislation but he will not do so; 92% of the constituents of the member for Richmond want him to vote against the legislation, but he will not do so; and 91% of the constituents of Vancouver Quadra want him to vote against this legislation. I will not say that he will not listen to his constituents as he has been known to buck the powers to be in the past. I can only hope that again he will see the light.

I would just like to conclude with a quote from Professor Ehor Boyanowsky who appeared before the panel of my colleagues in Vancouver. Professor Boyanowsky is a professor of criminal psychology at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, British Columbia. His area of expertise is individual and group violence and inter-group violence and conflict.

Professor Boyanowsky told a compelling story based on an extrapolation into the future of the conditions being set up today under the Nisga'a agreement. I will not go into his story but suggest that members read it for themselves. There is one thing he did say which bears repeating. He stated:

The psychological literature is very clear. Where you draw a line around people, where you can take an underclass and make them into an overclass, very quickly they become the object of enmity. Where you form the basis of difference between people on an ethnic basis or genealogical basis, you create hatred. This was true in eastern Europe, it is still true in the Balkan countries. We are re-creating, reimposing because our English predecessors who came here knew no better, so they reimposed a British model on Canada. I think what we have to do is say that we have a certain image in our minds of how Canada should function and we do whatever we can to try to preserve that. This does not mean that we do not compensate native peoples for the lands and the injustices they have been the subject of in the past, but what we do is we remain true to certain kinds of principles. And those principles are based on individual ownership, individual opportunity, and the opportunity for redistribution of resources unfettered by genealogical distinctions or ethnic differences. I think that otherwise, what happens is you end up with enmity, with hatred and with people partially frozen in time between an old system and a new system, especially when they, for example, cannot use their lands.

With that I will conclude my remarks.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to address a couple of points that I think are fairly key in this debate over this historic treaty.

I am a Canadian from the city of Mississauga in Ontario. People might wonder what interest I could have in a treaty with aboriginal people on the west coast. I think there are some things happening here both as to how this place functions and the significance of the negotiations with the Nisga'a that should concern all Canadians from sea to sea to sea.

I understand that there is no possible way, there are no circumstances, there is no opportunity for us to satisfy the concerns of the official opposition. If there were, we would not be facing some 500 amendments to the bill after it has gone through the extensive process that it has gone through. One would think that a parliamentarian could go through committee, could go through negotiations, could discuss within this place the issues of concern and come to some understanding of it. While the opposition says that the government is unwilling to accept amendments, it continues to put what I think the Canadian people would consider to be either frivolous or dangerous amendments to this legislation.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been listening to the hon. member. I am sure that he is aware that we put many amendments forward and they were all rejected at committee.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

This is debate.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know that is the strategy of the Reform Party and that is fine if members want to continue to interrupt me because I will get the point across. The point is that what the Reform members are doing in terms of trying to gum up the wheels of government is, frankly, irresponsible. If they would just admit that there is nothing that could satisfy their concerns because they have failed to put those concerns on the record in this place. They stand and talk about the potential impact to our charter. They say it is creating some new level of government. What they do not say is that the Reform Party is inextricably opposed to self-government and self-determination by aboriginal Canadians. It is absolutely the case. They will not say it but that is fundamentally what they are opposed to.

The bill has had provincial hearings and community hearings. We have had federal negotiators who have met for countless hours. We all know it has been an issue for in excess of 100 years. We all know that the Nisga'a people have attempted to negotiate with the province of British Columbia and the country of Canada and in the past they have failed, so what do we do? Do we simply ignore the injustices? Do we simply ignore the heritage of the Nisga'a people in British Columbia, or do we try to move ahead incrementally and put in place a bill and a treaty that will bring some justice to them?

Reform Party members can be obstructionist if they want to. It is unfortunate that this issue has come down to a debate between our philosophy and theirs when in fact what we should be dealing with are the real issues.

When I talk about frivolous or even potentially dangerous amendments, let me give an example of one that the member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley has put forward. Clause 5 of Bill C-9 states, “The Nisga'a final agreement is binding on, and can be relied on by all persons”. The amendment being put forward by the member would delete the words “and can be relied on by”. Therefore the clause would read, “the Nisga'a final agreement is binding on all persons”. The Reformers would delete the words, “and can be relied on by all persons”. Why would they want to do that? What is the impact of that?

Let me give an example. During the negotiations the federal negotiator met with a number of third parties to this particular agreement. Those third parties are companies in forestry, mining, fishing, other resource sectors, utility companies, other business interests, environmental groups, local government, Nass Valley residents who are not part of the Nisga'a people and many other groups with legal interests in this particular agreement. The Reform Party amendment would take away any opportunity for any of those groups to be able to challenge anything within the agreement, perhaps in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, or the Supreme Court of Canada. Why would the Reform Party do that?

Members of the Reform Party stand in this place and say that the rights and the protection of women is not in the Nisga'a agreement. The minister has stood in his place as early as today in question period and clearly stated—I do not know why they cannot grasp this concept—that the rights of Nisga'a women will be protected under provincial laws, the same way as all women in British Columbia and Canada enjoy protection. Why does the Reform Party need to have it specifically addressed in the agreement?

When we put a clause in the bill that says that they can rely on this agreement, by deleting that, if we want to set women up as a specific group, then we are saying that women will not be able to rely on this particular agreement. The forest industry, or the mining industry, or the other groups I have talked about will not be able to rely on it. We have to ask ourselves whether Reform's researchers do not understand the impact because words in this place are so all important.

Words set the future course for the government. Words tell Canadians what the government feels and what the opposition feels. By deleting those few little words in that agreement, we are potentially taking away the rights of so many groups who perhaps are not specifically mentioned in the Nisga'a agreement but who have a substantial interest.

I have another example. This agreement gives Canadians the right to reasonable access to Nisga'a lands. Would the Reform Party's amendment deny that?

In my own province of Ontario, in a place just north of Parry Sound, there was a dispute where the native community blockaded a road and would not allow access to cottagers, who had historic access, to their lakes. If we were to follow and extrapolate the views of the Reform Party, they would lose any protection should that situation occur under the Nisga'a agreement simply because Reform put an amendment that said that those cottagers, to use that example, could not rely on the agreement. They could not rely on their rights as Canadians to cross that particular barricade to access lands that perhaps will be isolated as a result of the redrawing of boundaries through this agreement.

I know many members of the Reform Party. I work with them in committee, whether it is on citizenship and immigration or public accounts. I see the esteemed chair of our public accounts committee in this room and welcome him back after his trials with health problems. We are delighted to see him here. There is a reasonable individual, and there are others over there. Do they not see that by deleting those little words it would take away the rights of all Canadians, interest groups, environmental groups and women to enjoy the access to and benefits of this particular agreement? I think it is a mistake. I can only assume Reformers do not understand it, but it is rather tragic that we have got to this point.

Let me just read another clause, which states:

The Nisga'a Nation releases Canada, British Columbia and all other persons from all claims, demands, actions, or proceedings, of whatever kind, and whether known or unknown, that the Nisga'a Nation ever had, now has or may have in the future, relating to or arising from any act, or omission, before the effective date that may have affected or infringed any aboriginal rights, including aboriginal title, in Canada of the Nisga'a Nation.

Are members suggesting that there is something wrong with that? We are saying that in return for granting new rights and a new treaty to the Nisga'a people, we are asking that everybody else who could be impacted on in any way whatsoever be relieved of that implication. This agreement is historical. It is a travesty that Reformers are throwing out absolutely false information. They should simply support this agreement and let the Nisga'a people enjoy the many benefits that come with it.

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-9 at report stage, Group No. 1, an act to give effect to the Nisga'a final agreement.

I want to first assure the Nisga'a people, other native groups and all my constituents, despite what the current powerholders say about our questioning of the deal, that my interest in the bill is to address the need for a better future for the Nisga'a people and all those under the Indian Act and in relation to each other and with other Canadians.

We understand that after years of negotiation within a framework dictated by the Indian Act but controlled by the federal government and Indian affairs, most Nisga'a leaders feel that they have no alternative but this agreement. British Columbians have been wrongly told that it is this deal or nothing. Sadly, it is just more of the same that has already failed.

Opposition MPs are not similarly tainted. We question and oppose because we do not believe this agreement, in the long term perspective, is in the best interests of the Nisga'a people, in the long range interests of aboriginals throughout B.C. or in the interests of the people of Canada.

It may be noted that the official parliamentary aboriginal affairs committee shut out many astute witnesses. So with a view to being more responsive to citizens than the traditional parties in the House, Reform conducted additional hearings to let others have a say. For example, one witness was Kerry-Lynne Findlay who was on the constitutional section of the Canadian Bar Association. She was asked for her views. Somewhat in this vein, I said to her that I was sure she had reflected a lot about these matters and of society's relationship with aboriginal people and that it was not just a Canadian problem. I told her how I had discovered during my visit to Taiwan that it has aboriginals who it has to work out a relationship with.

I asked her if she could reflect on society's general relationship with aboriginals, what would be a better way, in general principles, the main things we must not forget, if we are going to actually ameliorate the situation, raise standards of living, try to modernize democracy and try to get to a situation where we might say that we have one land, one law and one people.

I will paraphrase her comments. She said “—people really get confused with the notion and the idea of assimilation—People say that if you are treated the same, somehow you will be assimilated if you are being treated equally”. She went on to say:

Of course, I don't think that's what anybody is talking about, and clearly antiquated policies that try to achieve that hurt everybody and I don't think anybody quarrels with that today. However, that is not the same thing as bringing aboriginal peoples along with other peoples who live here, some of whom have arrived recently, into what we call sort of the mainstream of Canadian society. That means that the opportunities are equal for all, even some recognition, perhaps, for those who need a little help to get where the opportunities are equally applied. But it doesn't have to mean that your culture disappears. It doesn't have to mean that you language disappears. It doesn't have to mean that your traditional ways and points of view and, particularly, your religious beliefs disappear.

Somehow...in government circles, the distinction between the two has been entirely lost and, therefore, there's been a buying into this concept that rather than getting rid of separation of peoples we will actually entrench it. Again, most of the problems with the way it was done historically is that we took whole groups of people and said, “You will live there and please don't cross the line,” and in some cases even moved them into that place they were going to live.

Yet here we are now putting a (legal) fence up around those places and saying, “We're going to help you keep the outside world out”. It isn't realistic in modern terms at all and I don't think it will work. Over time I really fear we are headed toward civil unrest and more of the standoffs of the kind we saw at Oka.

These occurrences will happen again...when people feel left out and that's what we are talking about. My solution is to bring people on board. Bring everyone on board and have everyone part of the process. So many of these decisions aren't even being made by the minister or the politicians, they're being made by the bureaucratic system in Ottawa and by faceless and nameless bureaucrats who do not have to stand up before the people and be accountable for their decisions, and that's a shame.

Those are some of the comments she made. Certainly, Ms. Findlay ought to know as she was part of the Liberal policy development machine in times past.

A Reform member on the committee put it to her further and said that often in the development of the treaty process we have a problem with government policy toward aboriginals and that it was very difficult at the beginning to get people to understand what the issues were because they simply were not involved. He went on to say “I think that has been a problem, to a large extent, with some of the treaty process, that until it hits you directly”—such as the fishermen, many who are aboriginals, who will, as a result of this deal, lose their share of the catch—“it is merely an academic problem that you may or may not become interested in. I think that's a pretty fair statement of the situation in the real world”.

In response to the member, Ms. Findlay, the lawyer, responded this way about the political legitimacy and the broad community consent and awareness. She said:

I think it is, but I believe it is changing, I really feel, because I think finally, now, for whatever reason, linkages are being made right across the country, and I am certainly experiencing that. When I send out an e-mail now, it goes all across the country, because I have people from across the country contacting me and saying, “We want to link with you and we think that the fishermen who are affected, and the loggers who are affected, and the non-native leaseholders who are affected, and the other people in the resource-based economies who are affected, we want to know you, and we want to support you and be part of this.”

So you see groups springing up, the United Canadians for Democracy, that is a group that the leaseholders are part of forming, but it is based out of Ontario. CanFree is a new group that has been set up right here in British Columbia. I think that you are seeing this more and more now, and certainly that's why I know who Phil Eidsvik is now, and he knows who I am. This is why, when I was back in Halifax, I contacted fishers back there because of the Marshall decision that had just come down. So I think it's changing. Again, though these processes take time, and time is something we don't have with the Nisga'a treaty, but it may be something we have with other treaties coming up and maybe so with this one.

I think the government, the federal and the provincial government, are being, themselves, very naive now if they feel that they can continue to use that divide and conquer approach and that Canadians are not linking, because they are.

Our effort today in the House is to do our constitutional duty, to require the government to make its case to the electorate. The point is that the Liberals are out of date. When failed policies, wrong ideas and false assumptions narrow the range of choices, the shape of destiny will always be sadly lacking if not bringing deep sorrow.

The mandate to negotiate and the manner in which it was done by B.C. politicians is discredited. The arrangement will not bring about lasting reconciliation, and it is just one treaty down and fifty to go. The legal expectations are there now and the template is set.

Much is to be worked out in the future and so much is written in vague terms. Fairness guarantees are very elusive in the package. Its emphasis is to separate rather than bring together. Legal equality principles have been sometimes abandoned. In such experiments, we must support equality, democracy, accountability and the coupling of entitlement with responsibility. Tolerance and diversity and mobility rights are there entwined in the settlements with Canadian natives. It is of grave importance when we assess the proposal for embedding by treaty small closed societies in a large, complex and open society, that is itself struggling to keep its place in a changing world.

We can ask how the treaty will help to engage the peoples in the World Trade Organization. It is because I care about my neighbour that I serve. It is because I know we can do so much better as a country, for all not just a few, that I speak to the mistake parliament is making today. For where there is injustice we must right it, where there is discrimination we must denounce it, where there is violence we must stand against it and where there are wounds we must heal them. May we be generous, be fair and be honest in our deliberation and learn to be guided as we go forward determined not to reflect the mistakes of the past.

Nothing informs the public mind to understand and evaluate an issue like a public referendum. First, let us have one. Second, the government needs to ensure in better terms that we are not amending the constitution and that all of it applies to us. Third, the government needs to ensure all Canadians that the competing overlapping claims will be accommodated and properly dealt with.

At this late hour, I call the government to at least do these three things and the next time to be guided to negotiate more honourably.

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to be taking part in this debate, which is a very important one for the Nisga'a and the Government of Canada.

I think it is important for all members to understand how the Nisga'a final agreement was negotiated within the Canadian legal context.

The Nisga'a final agreement was negotiated with an eye to the rights and interests of all Canadians and, as recommended by the courts in recent cases such as Delgamuukw, is intended to reconcile the rights of the Nisga'a with the title and sovereignty of the crown.

Although all components of the Nisga'a final agreement fully reflect the Canadian legal context, it must be linked to the Canadian constitution, Canadian laws and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

First, let us look at how the Nisga'a final agreement relates to the Canadian constitution. In fact, the Nisga'a final agreement recognizes the constitution as the supreme law of Canada. No amendment to the constitution is therefore necessary to give effect to the Nisga'a final agreement, and the agreement does not alter the Canadian constitution.

Although this agreement includes self-government provisions, the legislative authority of the Nisga'a will be exercised simultaneously with existing authority.

The following are a few examples of how the Nisga'a final agreement was negotiated with a view to the Canadian constitutional framework.

The Nisga'a final agreement states clearly that it does not alter the constitution. The intention of the parties was for the Nisga'a final agreement to be interpreted in a manner consistent with the constitution.

The preamble to the Nisga'a Final Agreement Act states that the constitution is the supreme law of Canada and reaffirms that the Nisga'a final agreement does not alter the constitution. The courts may refer to this preamble when interpreting the Nisga'a final agreement act.

Reform Party members have proposed that we delete from the bill the clear and unequivocal statement by all parties that “the Nisga'a Final Agreement states that the Agreement does not alter the Constitution of Canada”.

What problems do they want to create? What confusion are they stirring up with this amendment? What is more, they are also proposing an amendment to the wording of the preamble as it relates to application of the constitution. It is certain that Reform Party members cannot have it both ways.

The proposed preamble makes the intentions of the parties clear and will assist the courts in their interpretation of the Nisga'a final agreement.

Let us touch on the charter of rights and freedoms as it applies to the Nisga'a final agreement. I want to point out that one of the general provisions of the final agreement calls for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to apply to the Nisga'a government in respect of all matters within its authority, bearing in mind the free and democratic character of the Nisga'a government as set out in the agreement.

It is therefore clear that the charter will apply to all activities of the Nisga'a government. Consequently, the charter will apply not only to legislation enacted by the Nisga'a government but also to other activities, such as the decision to hire someone or to issue licences. The charter will protect all individuals who might be affected by the decisions of the Nisga'a government, not just the Nisga'a people.

The last part of this article—“bearing in mind the free and democratic nature of Nisga'a Government”—is similar to the terms used in section 1 of the charter, which indicate clearly that the rights conferred by the charter are not absolute.

Governments, including the Nisga'a government, must justify any limits to be imposed on the rights guaranteed under the charter. This expression shows therefore that the Nisga'a final agreement provides for the establishment of a government of a free and democratic nature. A Nisga'a government established in accordance with these provisions could invoke section 1 of the charter like any other government in Canada.

The Nisga'a have supported the application of the charter since the conclusion of the agreement in principle in 1996. The language of the final agreement, as I have said, follows the wording of the charter to facilitate its application.

In closing, the Reform Party has proposed an amendment under which the Nisga'a government would be treated differently from other governments in Canada. Does that make sense? Does this further the integration of the Nisga'a into Canadian society which we are all seeking?

The Reform amendments run contrary to the desire of all of us here to see the Nisga'a government integrated with the other governments in Canada. Is that really what they want?

[Deepak Obhrai, Reform, Calgary East, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak this afternoon on behalf of the constituents of Calgary East in the debate on Bill C-9, an act to give effect to the Nisga'a final agreement.

Like many of my colleagues speaking here today, I am not from British Columbia, but that does not diminish our resolve to see an agreement that is in the best interests of British Columbians, Canadians, and the Nisga'a people. That is why I am speaking to this bill today.

Bill C-9 is not an ordinary piece of legislation. The agreement that is before the House is an arrangement providing for the government of the Nisga'a people, the government of the local economy and the government of the relations with each other and with non-aboriginals. The bill seeks to replace a terribly flawed system that has existed for 130 years. It is a system with a track record of bringing poverty, family breakdown, violence, illness, shortened lifespan, unemployment and suicide to the aboriginal people of this country. It is a system established and mismanaged for over 100 years by successive Tory and Liberal governments. The system as it exists today simply does not work. Its record speaks for itself.

An effort to change the system has led to a series of land claims, court cases and court actions which are further straining the relationships between aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians. In addition to the billions and billions of dollars that Canadian taxpayers commit to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development every year, the Canadian taxpayer is on the hook for a potential $200 billion price tag as an estimate of the cost of all aboriginal demands. This is an absolutely staggering figure.

It is clear that tensions between aboriginals and non-aboriginals are perhaps higher than they have been in years.

Many are looking at the Nisga'a agreement as a framework that will miraculously solve all our immediate problems and provide a template for the future. However, this government does nothing to redress the key components of aboriginal governance and economic development.

If this agreement sought to give the Nisga'a people a chartered municipal government similar to the form of local government enjoyed by most Canadians, this would be a step in the right direction, a removal from special status and a step toward equality. However, Nisga'a laws according to this agreement will override provincial and federal laws in a multitude of areas. It will give the municipality paramount power over 14 areas of exclusive jurisdiction and shared powers in another 16 fields of federal and provincial jurisdictions.

The Nisga'a government will be exempt from a range of provincial taxes and stumpage fees and will not have to pay the GST. Individual Nisga'a citizens will be permanently exempt from having to hold or pay federal and provincial licences, fees, charges and royalties on fish and wildlife entitlements provided under this agreement.

At first glance the above points may seem almost trivial. However, we must remember that this agreement is supposed to provide a template for 50 similar agreements in British Columbia. The precedent is being set for race based tax exemptions throughout British Columbia and indeed throughout Canada.

I would like to address the lack of physical and democratic accountability in the Nisga'a agreement. The Nisga'a treaty effectively centralizes power in the hands of governments on aboriginal lands and not in the hands of the people. Individual Nisga'a will depend on the government in a variety of areas, including housing, social assistance and employment. In fact, most of the employment on Nisga'a lands will be either with the Nisga'a government or with corporations owned by the Nisga'a government.

Similarly the model of economic development proposed in this agreement is one in which nearly all revenues flow from the federal and provincial governments to the Nisga'a government. It does not flow to the Nisga'a entrepreneurs, workers, taxpayers or citizens. It flows to the Nisga'a government to generate economic activity.

This agreement in fact continues to deny aboriginals many of the political and economic tools available to other Canadians. From responsible self-government to all the tools of the marketplace and private enterprise for economic development, this agreement in essence denies aboriginal people access to tools that the vast majority of Canadians take for granted.

Let me look for a moment at property rights. There is an absence on reserves of the most basic of property rights, just as there is an absence of contract rights. There is an absence of free markets in housing, labour and capital. Because these fundamental rights do not exist on reserves, many aboriginal people have had to leave the reserve in order to get the tools that other Canadians take for granted.

I look to the many small business owners in my riding of Calgary East. Many of them use their properties or homes to secure capital from the banks to get their businesses off the ground. This is a luxury that has been denied to the native entrepreneurs because of the system of socialist economics that exists on reserves. The reserve system has not only had a negative impact on the aboriginal people, but it has been poisoning the relationship between aboriginals and non-aboriginals.

The fact is that investors and business people thinking of doing business in areas contained in aboriginal lands and treaties are thinking twice about making these investments.

I would like to talk now about what the official opposition proposes as a solution to a system that has proven itself to be ineffective and in fact harmful to aboriginals and non-aboriginals alike.

First, the official opposition believes in equality for all Canadians. Aboriginals and non-aboriginals alike should be entitled to the same rights, entitlements and powers in law with the freedom to use the law in different ways to give expression to their uniqueness and diversity.

Second, the official opposition believes that all Canadians are entitled to the services of a local government that is fiscally and democratically accountable to the people it serves.

Third, the official opposition believes strongly that the department of Indian affairs should begin the process of funding aboriginal persons on reserves directly, then allowing local aboriginal government to tax its own people to get access to it. This measure would go a long way to enhance the process of fiscal and democratic responsibility.

Finally, we believe that private property and contract rights must be established on reserves. We must develop real housing and labour markets on reserves, including equal economic rights for men and women.

To conclude my comments today, Bill C-9 does nothing to repair the damage caused by the 100 plus years of the reserve system. The bill does nothing to provide to aboriginals the basic rights that the vast majority of Canadians enjoy. The bill does nothing to satisfy the principles of equality under the law, fiscal and democratic accountability, private enterprise and free market.

The bill fails even the most basic of democratic principles. It fails to take into consideration the democratic rights of people living in the federal riding of Skeena, who will be most impacted by the bill. It fails to fulfill the democratic interests of British Columbians who continue to be denied adequate representation. It fails to take into account the interests of Canadians in general who have been denied full debate and disclosure of a bill that will have a tremendous impact far beyond the Nass Valley and British Columbia.

I would like to thank the member for Skeena and my Reform colleagues for standing in the House and fighting for what they believe is right, and for what I believe the vast majority of Canadians believe is right.

The bill is unfortunate for the Nisga'a people, British Columbians and Canadians.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Gasoline Pricing; the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester, Airline Industry.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in today's debate on the final stages of the Nisga'a treaty through the House of Commons.

I have been listening to the speeches this afternoon by my friends in the Reform Party. I use the term advisedly; they are my friends. I consider many of them my personal friends and I respect their views but they are totally different from mine.

I have had an image come to me. It is an image of Colonel Custer standing on the plains in the west completely surrounded by aboriginal warriors. In his last gasping breath, shooting wildly in all directions, he and his band of soldiers are wiped out. That is what I thought when I listened to my friend make his speech just a few moments ago. He does not have blond curly hair, but if he had, he would be the typical picture of Colonel Custer in his last stand.

Today and tomorrow as we vote, it will once again be a version of the last stand. I say that with all due respect but that is how I feel. The Reform members feel very strongly on certain sides of the issue. I feel equally strong on the other. I had this image of Colonel Custer shooting wildly in all directions, knowing that this was it and finally succumbing to the bands of Indian warriors on that very fateful day which changed history in terms of the plains and aboriginal peoples. Today we are at a similar kind of crossroads. Once again the people of the Nisga'a nation were consulted after their negotiators had gone through a very long and painful process of negotiation. I cannot imagine the tolerance that lasted over 100 years.

Madam Speaker, you know this story and I will not repeat it in detail, but I will give a brief history of the Nisga'a. They paddled their canoes almost from the Alaska boundary to Victoria over a hundred years ago, which is a long canoe paddle for anyone, to bring their grievances to the governing officials of the time. They said that they had never agreed to cede their territory and they wanted to negotiate a deal. We all know the terrible impact of the reaction when they were essentially told to turn around and paddle their canoes back home, which they did, but they never gave up.

Over 100 years later, after the patience of Job was demonstrated for decades and decades, a deal was negotiated. The Nisga'a people were asked what they thought about the deal. They said that they agreed with it, that it was not a perfect document, that they thought they could get a better deal. Some thought there were some problems with it, but overall they said it was the best deal they could negotiate with the provincial and federal authorities and they would accept it.

That is democracy. That is what life is all about. We negotiate a deal and then we ask people if they support it. They say yes and then we move on. British Columbia said yes and now Canada is saying yes, presumably in the closing stages of this debate. Then it will go off to the other place. I suspect that because it has the support of the two parties represented in the other place it will pass rather expeditiously, having gone through a lot of public consultation.

I know my friends in the Reform Party are saying that there has not been enough consultation. Fair enough. That is debatable. What is enough? I have held many meetings in my constituency. They were all public, open meetings which were well advertised and well attended. The discussion was always very thoughtful and very progressive. Yes, people had some concerns about the deal. I have concerns about the deal. We all have concerns about the deal, but that is the way deals are made. They are not perfect. The people who negotiate them are not perfect. We have come up with an agreement negotiated by individuals, all of whom are imperfect by definition, so yes we have differences.

In the House of Commons we witnessed a small political miracle. It is a small political miracle when Liberals are in agreement with Progressive Conservatives, who in turn are in agreement with people from the Bloc Quebecois, who in turn are supported by members of the New Democratic Party. Four of the five political parties in the House of Commons are agreeing on a major issue. Yes, we agree regularly on minor issues, all kinds of trivial issues, all kinds of minor homework issues and technical questions, but this is not a typical little deal. This is a huge initiative taken by this House that is historic in nature on which four out of the five political parties agree.

We could say that they do not know what they are talking about or that they do not know what they are doing, but let us face it, these are honourable men and women who have obviously given this a lot of thought, who have read the agreement, who have studied it, who have heard the reactions, and who have, in their judgment, decided to agree with it.

Do we all feel that this is a perfect document? No. Nobody does. However, we have looked at it, we have read about it, we have heard from our constituents and we have made a judgment, and four out of five political parties support it. The Reform Party opposes it. Fair enough. It is a free country and it has a right to its position. This must tell us something.

I consulted with Indian bands in my constituency of Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys. I asked if they supported the Nisga'a deal and they all said no. The Indian bands do not support it. They would not sign the deal because they think it is not good enough. Fair enough. That is their view. They say that they think they should do better and when they negotiate one day they will do better. That is their stated position. When my friends in the Reform Party say that this is a template for other agreements, I can say that the people of the Shuswap Nation say it is no template, that they will not agree to it because it is not good enough from their perspective. All right, we will set that aside.

I could not disagree more with some of the points made by my hon. friends in the Reform Party.

I want to say two things. First, there will be a massive transfer of dollars from Ottawa to British Columbia for the first time in history. I am talking about hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of dollars, which Ottawa will put into the economy of British Columbia. If $100 million goes to the first nations of British Columbia, they are not going to invest that money in Hawaii or the Cayman Islands.

[An hon. member]

Are you sure?

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

My hon. friend in the Reform Party asks if I am sure. No, I am not sure, but he is not sure either.

These are decent people. These are people who are dedicated Canadian citizens who take pride in their territory. They sure as heck are not going to invest the money in the Cayman Islands or Mexico. The money will stay in British Columbia for British Columbians, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal.

The Kamloops Indian band is one of a number of bands in my constituency which is incredibly progressive, leading the way in terms of change. It has started a huge housing subdivision on its lands. The houses are selling. The band is building as we speak, in spite of the Musqueam problem which people have identified. I am talking about a huge subdivision being built on Kamloops Indian land, being sold almost exclusively to non-aboriginal people.

There are numerous aboriginal businesses which are thriving and dynamic. They are hiring individuals and doing well. Alongside these businesses are hundreds of non-aboriginal businesses, all adding to the economy of the greater Kamloops area.

The Kamloops Indian band developed industrial parks in co-operation with the city of Kamloops. They agreed to share water and sewer treatment and various infrastructures to make economic development possible.

The Kamloops Indian band, working in co-operation with the city of Kamloops, has put together one of the most progressive industrial parks in British Columbia. It is filled with non-aboriginal and aboriginal businesses and most of them are doing very well. There is all sorts of local economic development, wealth creation and job creation. It can be done. This band will soon be coming forward to negotiate a settlement, not along the lines of the Nisga'a agreement but along its own lines.

I look forward to voting on this issue. Thank goodness we are moving to a new phase in our relations with aboriginal people in Canada.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is good to follow a speaker from the party opposite who has had some very bright moments in terms of first nations people in his constituency.

Earlier today we reflected on the terrible event which happened in Montreal 10 years ago with the massacre of young women by a lone gunman. As Canadians we reflect on history. Today if we reflect on our history we could go back some 400 years to the arrival of the Europeans. They came to this continent and met the aboriginal people of this country who had their settlements, their ways of life, their culture, their activities and their civilization.

In 1579 Sir Francis Drake claimed British Columbia for the English crown. Over 200 years later, in 1793, George Vancouver arrived and for the first time met the Nisga'a people of northern British Columbia.

In question period today the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration answered questions concerning the immigration policies of the country. I am not sure what immigration policies the good people of British Columbia had back in the 1700s and 1800s, but certainly the Europeans who came to that area were welcomed and they became a very important part of the British Columbia economy as we know it today.

The people of British Columbia who lived in B.C. prior to the arrival of the Europeans found themselves at a great disadvantage in terms of the relationships which eventually developed between their people and the new arrivals to that colony.

The people of northern British Columbia, the Nisga'a, the people of the Nass River and the people of Fort Simpson, where the Hudson's Bay Company set up trading in 1834, encountered a new way of life. They encountered a people who were very aggressive, who tended to push them back from their civilization and who interfered with their hunting and fishing grounds and their natural resources. As a result, today we find ourselves trying to resolve a final agreement among the peoples of the Nisga'a nation, British Columbia and Canada which will terminate this period of conflict and develop a new arrangement by which all Canadians, especially the Nisga'a people, can live in their territories with some degree of pride and respect for our Canadian nation.

The vote that was held among some 2,500 Nisga'a people living on reserve, with a very small minority of white people present, indicated that most of them supported the agreement that we are looking at today. Some 61% voted in favour of it. Undoubtedly, a few felt that it was not right. Probably more of them felt that the agreement we negotiated with them over some 20 years was not as generous as it might be. In fact, the land settlement encompasses about 2,000 square kilometres and the original demand of the Nisga'a people was for some 20,000 square kilometres.

It is interesting to note that the entire area of the Nass River which the Nisga'a negotiated is an area which is probably about one-quarter of the size of that small island at the mouth of the St. Lawrence River, the island of Anticosti. It is a small area in terms of the overall size of the province of British Columbia. To some it sounds like a lot of territory and natural resources, but without a lot of people. We hope that with this agreement those people will be able to develop an economy, an existence and an area in which they can have pride, show leadership and, above all, sustain their people and enter the economy of our country.

I heard in the House today many statements about what we are and who others might be. I would say that when we try to impose our values on others, whether they be in terms of ownership, how society should operate or our European traditions, we are not doing those people who were here before us much of a favour. They have a civilization that is thousands of years old. It is a civilization that was developed with great pride in terms of housing, artwork and the canoes they use to fish on the rivers and on the coast. Those people do not need great lessons on how we might see all Canadians fitting into one pattern.

Henry David Thoreau talked about people who listened to different drummers, who listened to different musicians, who had a different way of life. As Canadians we have to realize that there are many people in this country who cannot be made to fit a single mould.

I was very impressed to find that on the Internet there is a tremendous amount of information on the Nisga'a treaty, the Nisga'a nation and the northern British Columbia area. I ask people who are watching to consult the Internet, to look at those web pages to better understand the debate we are having tonight.

The final Nisga'a agreement reflects a different attitude than that which is reflected in the Indian Act, which has been a tremendous problem for many first nations peoples. We find that there are great restrictions under the Indian Act. The new Nisga'a agreement will mean that the people of the Nisga'a nation will develop a new type of arrangement among themselves and with our governments. That arrangement will not only deal with how they develop the fishery, mining and forestry resources. It will also mean that they may develop a system of taxation by which they may tax their own people. In the long run over a period of time, taxes will be applied both by the province of British Columbia and by the federal government in terms of income tax, sales taxes and GST.

Above all, we hope it will develop among our people in that great area of northern British Columbia near the Alaska border a sense of pride and freedom and an opportunity to develop themselves. It will show the other first nations of this country that when agreements are made, wise people sit down at tables to develop understandings and a new sense of arrangements. It might become a lighthouse of great hope by which the people of our many 600 first nations across the country may see themselves being involved in further agreements and attempt to resolve the many issues that have afflicted our country since the time when our two peoples came together.

Some members today have indicated the problems of the American west. As Canadians we can certainly be proud of the fact that in most situations in this country, the big stands like the stand at Little Big Horn never existed in terms of relations with our first nations peoples.

I know there are different opinions in the House. I certainly cannot agree with some of the opinions I have heard. Hopefully as good people we can look to the strength and the goodness in all people and with that, with the development of the best ideas and the best resources, tonight and tomorrow as we look at this treaty we can come to a definite arrangement with the Nisga'a people which will be in the best interests of all of us as great Canadians.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on the Nisga'a final agreement.

It was not planned that I would speak but, after listening to all the speeches by members opposite and by members of all parties, particularly the official opposition, I now feel that I must make my humble contribution to the debate.

I lived for several years in close proximity to aboriginals on the north shore, and that is where I got to know them. Canada has some atoning to do when it comes to the native peoples.

I can remember that as recently as 1965 aboriginals were not allowed to have liquor on reserves. Unlike other Canadians, they were not allowed in establishments that served alcohol, such as hotels and taverns. Aboriginals were excluded. I saw this with my own eyes.

Unfortunately, I also lived through the period when, more through ignorance than ill will, Canadians, myself perhaps included in those days, treated aboriginals, our fellow citizens, unfairly. Fortunately, with age comes experience and one gets to know and accept others, and often discover that they have things to teach us.

I would like to speak more specifically about the north shore, the Montagnais in Sept-Îles and the Bersimis, who are now known as Innu, as I learned recently. I have worked closely with these people. I met with some good people who did not necessarily share our values.

Astonishingly, they were not caught up in the idea of making money, an idea that unfortunately we all have developed to some degree, however varying. The aboriginals I knew were not bent on making money at all costs. They were at peace with themselves and with nature, but this did not exempt them from some serious attacks on their dignity. I think that the worst thing that happened to aboriginals was the Indian Act passed by the federal government, in 1876 if memory serves.

They were contained within very clearly defined parameters, rather like animals in a zoo. They were fed, kept clean, housed, as in zoos, and could not leave in favour of an active and happy life without risking the loss of their status. And what was the sense in all this?

The aboriginal people were stripped of their dignity, a dignity they had before we came along, and today they are demanding it back. I am no different from anyone else. I have no stones to throw at my friends across the floor. When the Erasmus-Dussault report came out we were told, and that was not so long ago, maybe two years, that it would be costly to reintroduce equity for the aboriginal peoples, to restore to them part of what has been taken from them, as well as the dignity they have lost. The Nisga'a agreement is, in my opinion, a step in the right direction.

The Nisga'a have perhaps been had, as far as certain aspects are concerned, and that is always a possibility with the government across the way. Time will tell. I am sure that the Nisga'a did not have the battery of experts, lawyers and so forth to conduct the negotiations as they would have liked, but that is what freedom is all about. It is the ability to make one's own mistakes sometimes and also to fix them.

I support this Nisga'a treaty. These are the first nations. They have been here for at least 20,000 years. Historians do not agree on this, but there is no doubt they were here 20,000 years ago. When the Europeans arrived, they were cavalierly crowded together. There were 50 million of them in what is now Canada and the United States. How many are left? I think there are even fewer of them in the United States than there are here.

We have destroyed them, although perhaps not always intentionally. Diseases against which they had no immunity killed many once the first Europeans appeared in North America.

I wonder if there are many of us, Europeans and their descendants, who would have put up for so long with the treatment we have given the aboriginal peoples, without demanding compensation and without waking one day and saying “We want a say on the matter. We want to express our opinion, to direct our economic development and to be part of Canada's economic growth”. I do not think many of us would have let ourselves be treated the way these people have.

It is hard to avoid comparisons between the criminal world of the past and the attitude of some aboriginal people now because they have no hope. Someone said to me the other day that young Italian immigrants arriving in the States in the middle of the last century and at the beginning of this one had no chance of settling in the North American context, benefiting from economic growth or enjoying the benefits of it.

They were compartmentalized in a way that put them in the service of others all their lives. They had the right to settle in the United States, but not the right to prosper there, to live in peace, the right to happiness and, in particular, to hope. That is what led to the emergence of gangs, and the same thing is happening here with our aboriginal people.

They have been contained, as I have said, and not allowed the opportunity to contribute to, and to profit from—for there are two sides to every coin—the benefits of the Canadian economy.

Now with this little treaty, a first, we have succeeded in giving the Nisga'a the power to regulate themselves, a kind of self-government, although this will nevertheless be under the authority of the Canadian constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This may be the start of a better life for them. Perhaps we will begin to see positive effects: far more interest, far more dynamism, far more hope. When a people is deprived of hope, what does it have left? Quebecers know something about that; we have not gone unscathed either. That may be the reason why today the sovereignist forces are so strong in Quebec.

It must be terribly insulting for the Nisga'a to see a newly recognized right challenged by people who were not here 50 years ago, people who are claiming that an injustice is being done because they are losing some of their province's territory. What exactly is going on?

I would ask Reform Party members to give this some serious thought. Most of them were not here 50 years ago, while the Nisga'a have been around for a very long time. Let them learn to live with others.

As early as 1985 the former PQ Premier of Quebec, René Lévesque, recognized the first nations in Quebec and offered them self-government in a future sovereign Quebec. We were 14 years ahead of the Liberal Party of Canada.

I am pleased that my party has approved this Nisga'a treaty and I hope it is the first in a long list that will set the record straight and put a stop to the injustices that have been going on for over 125 years.

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join in the discussion on the Nisga'a final agreement.

During the debate I have listened to my colleagues in the Reform Party with much dismay. Let me make one thing clear to the people of Etobicoke and all Canadians. The Nisga'a agreement is not a race based policy of the government as charged by my colleagues in the Reform Party. It is an agreement that speaks to the principles of fairness, equity and respect.

The Nisga'a people have spent over 100 years bringing their claim to the attention of governments and their neighbours. They participated in complex and significant negotiations and they are at this point in time in need of our support.

In British Columbia where very few treaties were negotiated at the time of settlement, approximately 50 other first nations are in the process of negotiating land claim settlements and self-government arrangements with the federal and provincial governments. We hear other members who are from that region speak of those arrangements.

From talking with my constituents I know that the Canadian public in general is supportive of addressing the longstanding grievances of aboriginal people. However, I also know that some have not yet come to terms with the fact that imposed solutions are not good solutions.

The very nature of negotiation means that no one party can have everything it wants. The ultimate goal of negotiations is to come up with solutions that balance all potential issues. At the end of the day this means that certain parts of the agreement will be easily supported by certain sectors of society, while some groups will be more satisfied with other parts of the agreement. This is life and this is what happens in just about every area.

To satisfy my constituents who are deeply interested in the agreement, I had to do my homework. I discovered that throughout the process of the Nisga'a negotiations government representatives consulted with the public, with third parties, with neighbouring communities, keeping them informed through briefings and information sessions. Approximately 500 consultations and public information meetings were held during the Nisga'a treaty negotiations.

In addition, a provincial select standing committee on the agreement in principle held hearings in dozens of communities around the province. All of this is well documented.

Much of the advice from these consultations has found its way into the final agreement. In fact the final agreement contains many provisions that directly reflect the concerns expressed during these consultation meetings. We are encouraged to hold consultation meetings. We are encouraged to hear from everyone in the community, everyone who has an interest in some way, and that has been done.

Those consulted indicated that they wanted the treaty to represent a final settlement with the Nisga'a people. The treaty contains provisions ensuring that the treaty is final. Those consulted told us that they wanted conservation to be a priority in the areas of fisheries and wildlife. The Nisga'a treaty contains provisions to ensure that federal and provincial ministers retain their overall authority to manage fish and wildlife with conservation as a top priority. The treaty also provides harvesting entitlements that give all citizens a share of the resources.

Canadians told us that they did not want treaty lands to be separate from the rest of Canada. The Nisga'a treaty contains provision to ensure that the Nisga'a lands may be registered in the British Columbia land title settlement or land title system. It also contains provisions to ensure that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the criminal code and all other federal and provincial laws continue to apply on Nisga'a lands to protect all Canadians, Nisga'a and others. This is important for my constituents, this notion of fairness, this notion of partnership with Canada, this notion of being a part of the entire system.

Those consulted told us that they wanted all citizens to be subject to the same taxation regimes. As part of this agreement the Nisga'a will pay taxes in the same way that all other British Columbians do after a transition period of eight years for sales tax and twelve years for income taxes.

The final agreement reflects years of negotiation and the give and the take on the part of all parties. I think my colleague from the New Democratic Party spoke quite eloquently about this give and take on the part of all. They negotiated throughout a wide range of views. Their goals were to act fairly, were to act justly, were to balance the range of interest expressed by people who were consulted and we see that this was done.

There were issues that arose in a discussion that I had with constituents when they talked about overlapping claims. What happens with one group of first nations people who are involved in negotiations and who have primary responsibility for resolving issues arising from overlapping claims with other first nations people? That too is consistent with recommendations that have been made.

There is a report of the tripartite British Columbia claims task force that made some recommendations in this regard. One of the things that was said was that first nations resolve issues related to overlapping traditional territories among themselves, that they resolve that among themselves.

Canada has always adopted this approach in its comprehensive claims policy. However, Canada also recognizes that it is not always possible to resolve long standing disputes. But we know that somehow this has to be worked out in a fair way in dealing with overlaps, that progress in addressing the claims of aboriginal people in this country could be very limited unless we allow them to negotiate among themselves.

For this reason Canada is prepared to proceed with treaties in the absence of overlap agreements provided that there are two conditions which must be met.

It is important to set out those two conditions. First, Canada must assure itself that best efforts have been made by the first nations involved to resolve the overlapping issues among themselves. Second, Canada must assure itself that the treaty appropriately provides protection from infringement of any aboriginal rights other first nations may have in the territory covered by the agreement or the treaty rights which they may acquire.

This treaty has been a long time in coming. The Nisga'a people have chosen a peaceful and lawful path to reach their objectives. It may not have been the easiest or the fastest path but all members in the House should applaud the Nisga'a for choosing it as the best way to maintain strong and respectful relationships with other Canadians.

Now is the time to take action. Now is the time to open the doors so that the Nisga'a first nations can have their proper agreement. Now is the time to put a Canadian framework in place. It is not a Utopian solution that fulfils the needs and dreams of all Canadians. It would be ridiculous to expect any agreement to provide that result. It is, however, a practical and fair agreement that takes into account the broad spectrum of interests and sets out detailed provisions to allow people to live together in the best way that they can. The parties have carefully negotiated, they have agreed on the terms of this treaty, it is time to get on with it.

Let us vote tomorrow to do what is fair, to do what is just for the Nisga'a people.

[Howard Hilstrom, Reform, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to stand on behalf of Selkirk—Interlake and speak on Bill C-9, better known as the Nisga'a treaty, the Nisga'a final agreement act.

There has not been a great deal of information distributed in my riding by the government to inform people about what is actually in the Nisga'a treaty from the government's point of view. This should have been done in a proactive way so that we could have understood. As well, the government has distributed its information to selected entities in British Columbia and I am not sure where else.

I would like to touch for just a moment on the fact that Bill C-9 is a treaty for the Nisga'a people in northwest British Columbia. It has been passed by the British Columbia legislature which used closure in effect to stifle debate in that legislature. There was a referendum in the Nisga'a treaty lands and the people there had a say on it. However, this right of referendum was not extended to the people of British Columbia.

We see in the House also that closure is being used to stop debate in the House where we are attempting to look at all the facts, at all the sections of the treaty and to expose to the government and to the Canadian people parts of the treaty that are not as perfect or as good as they could be. What I am talking about is certainly the role of an opposition member.

The Nisga'a people never received a treaty from the British crown at the time of European colonization. From the late 19th century to the mid-20th century the issue remained on the back burner without resolution. Successive federal governments refused to negotiate or even acknowledge the need for a treaty relationship. To a certain extent we have the Liberals in particular, and the Progressive Conservatives also as johnny-come-latelies recognizing that in fact they have been one of the biggest problems to the aboriginal people of Canada.

In 1996 an agreement in principle was reached between the three parties after some seven years of closed door negotiations. The final agreement was drafted over the next two years and was initialled in August, 1998. Although the Nisga'a people had a referendum on the final agreement, the federal and B.C. governments, as I said earlier, have refused to allow a referendum to consult the people in British Columbia who live outside the Nisga'a reserve and in fact all Canadians through the idea of giving them information so that they could reach some conclusion on their own.

On May 4, prior to the agreement even being introduced in parliament, the three parties concerned signed the final agreement. Then it was presented to parliament. It would seem that perhaps the Canadian people should have had their say first before presenting this bill to parliament for debate and before the final signing was done.

I would like to say that I believe and acknowledge that treaty agreements should be signed and that the treaties signed in the past have to be honoured. In Manitoba full entitlement is being given in lands and money where the original compensation was deemed to be inadequate or was contrary to the treaties that were signed.

This agreement contains both sections that are good and sections that leave some doubt as to whether or not they really serve the needs of Canadians and the Nisga'a people themselves. We have a case of both good and bad in this treaty.

I have a question for the Progressive Conservatives, the NDP and the Bloc. What is their role in this parliament in dealing with legislation put forward by a government? The role of an opposition member of parliament, whether in the official opposition or just another opposition party, is to critically look at legislation the government brings forward and not just to rubber stamp it saying, “Yes, that must be good. The government brought it forward and it has been working at it a long time”. In fact, it should closely question and monitor what is actually happening.

Ultimately an opposition party may vote in favour of the legislation, but to stand here day after day, as the NDP, the Progressive Conservatives and the Bloc members have, and to simply applaud the Liberal government just does not cut it for an opposition member. It is not doing the job we were sent here to do. As a result—

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I beg to contradict the hon. member from Selkirk. We do not just applaud the Liberals on every piece of legislation they have.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Nice try, but that sounds like debate to me. The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake.

[Howard Hilstrom, Reform, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the duty of opposition members in the House is to question closely, to hold the feet of the government to the fire, so to speak, and say “You prove to Canadians that in fact what you are saying is factual, that in fact you have had full disclosure, that in fact you have given all Canadians a full opportunity to understand something that affects them as fully as it does when the country signs an agreement with a people who were sovereign at one time in the British Columbia area”.

The extent of the government information sharing has been a website which is becoming more accessible. Certainly in my riding it is more accessible all the time. However it is still not sufficient to make sure that people are informed. Many people, in particular middle age and older, are not too familiar with computers and as a result do not have the information. They still have to live with the agreement that is signed and their children, on whose behalf they are making decisions, also have to live with it.

It is the duty of the opposition parties to clearly identify the good and bad as I have stated.

To simply stand here and say that they are not doing their job, while it may be the truth, is not sufficient either. The question is whether the other opposition parties are worried that the bill may not go through, even though they would like to see it go through. However, we have repeatedly seen in the House that the Liberal government can quite quickly have its members vote the way it wants and pass the legislation that it wants.

In speaking to why we in the Reform Party want to question the Liberals closely on this, let us look at a couple of facts that have already been demonstrated. The first one that concerns me, and should concern all Canadians, is that in a couple of sections, Nisga'a law, when it is passed by the Nisga'a people, will supersede Canadian law where the two are in conflict. That strikes at the very heart of the supremacy of parliament.

The second obvious thing I find right off the bat is that the land, which has been negotiated on behalf of the Nisga'a people, has overlapping land claims from neighbouring aboriginal peoples who also have a legitimate claim on the land. It would seem that after it is signed, put into law and put into the lands registry office in B.C., it will be too late to have another negotiation later to sort out just what will happen to those Indian people who also deserve a share of the land. It is their land as much as it is Nisga'a land.

Why would we want to create this kind of dissension for our children, our children's children and our children's children after that? That is exactly what is happening.

The other thing that really bothers me is that aboriginal women, who I have spent a lot of time with over the last two years and have spoken on behalf of with regard to their rights under the Indian reservation system in the Indian Act, are not being specifically addressed here, particularly in the area of matrimonial rights.

I conclude by saying that the government has failed to fully inform Canadians and give all Canadians a say in this treaty.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at last I get to speak on the Nisga'a treaty.

I would like to begin by picking up on something the former speaker, the member for Selkirk—Interlake, said when he pointed out that it was the duty of the opposition to oppose. I noticed that throughout this debate there have been representatives of the Nisga'a people in the gallery. I would like to say to them that the member for Selkirk—Interlake is very correct. Something goes absolutely wrong in parliament when there is no opposition. This place becomes a dangerous place when everyone is on side, Mr. Speaker. I do believe that the Reform Party, which seems to be the sole party that is opposing this legislation, is doing its duty, and quite properly so.

Having said that, I would like to look at some of the arguments the Reform Party has put forward. I have to say that I do find some of the arguments wanting. I would like to just strip away some of the rhetoric of those arguments which seem to fall into three categories.

The first argument is that the Nisga'a treaty is wrong because it transgresses the constitution in some way.

The second argument is that there is great uncertainty about how the laws will be applied by the Nisga'a; those laws that are given to the Nisga'a people as a result of the treaty.

Finally, Madam Speaker, one of the other major concerns expressed by the opposition was that somehow the citizenship that would be applied to the Nisga'a lands is a race-based citizenship.

Firstly, Madam Speaker, on the constitutional question, I followed the debate very, very closely. Quite frankly, there is no substance to the fear that the constitution of Canada is being somehow circumvented through the back door. The reality is that there is nothing in this legislation and in the treaty that does not fully empower this parliament to devolve certain privileges in law to the Nisga'a people. It is no different than when the constitution or the Parliament of Canada gives certain privileges in law to a province, to a municipality or anything like that. I just did not find any substance in the constitutional issue at all.

However, the second problem, the problem that pertains to how the Nisga'a people will manage those laws. Well, there is always fear and this is where the debate from the Reform Party has had substance, because it is correct to look at what powers the Nisga'a people are going to have and to wonder whether the Nisga'a people are going to apply those powers in a just and equitable manner.

There is some reason for concern in B.C. on this very issue right as we speak, because not long ago the Musqueam Band in Vancouver acquired from the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs the right to manage its properties that were on the reserve. It had a number of rental properties that came up for lease renewal involving some 71 non-native families. This has led to a very unfortunate confrontation between the Musqueam leadership and the tenants on this property.

I have to tell you, Madam Speaker, that I went out there to try to arbitrate and bring the two sides together. It seemed to me that if both sides could sit down and work out their differences in good faith, the situation could be resolved. But, Madam Speaker, I failed in my mission, and as a result I wrote a letter to the minister just summarizing the results of my mission to the Musqueam, shall we say.

I would like to read a few passages, Madam Speaker. I will not take too much time on it. If you are patient, you will see how it does relate to the Nisga'a peoples' agreement. Anyway, I met with the Musqueam Band and its tenants on September 30-October 1. In writing to the minister, I said:

I met with representatives of the tenants first. Given the acrimony of the current situation, they said they would like nothing better than to leave the reserve but, naturally, want some kind of compensation for the money they have invested in their homes. In some cases that money may have been considerable.

The next day I met with the chief, the band lawyer, and a handful of the band council. The discussion was dominated by the chief, the lawyer and one councillor whom I will refer to as the band leadership. They were adamant that the tenants should either pay up or get out.

In my presentation I stressed that in my opinion while the tenants had long enjoyed an unreasonably low rents and probably did not have any legal basis for compensation, it was in the band's material interest to be conciliatory and offer the tenants something in exchange for the good will that would be engendered. I emphasized that if the tenants are evicted summarily, this could compromise the band's ability to attract new tenants and other investors. The leadership rejected this proposition outright, although I do not know what impression I made on those councillors who did not speak.

Clearly under the influence of their lawyer, who has no other client than the band, the leadership is convinced that the tenant properties are worth the rents decreed by the courts ($22,000 average plus taxes of about $5,000). The leadership contends that it has the full support of the band community in insisting on these rents. I suggested that notwithstanding the court decision, rental properties are only worth what people are willing to pay. This idea was rejected.

I am quite convinced that because of the failure between these two groups to come to terms, and because there is a lawyer involved who is preventing people of goodwill from speaking one on one, that not only will the tenants lose but I believe the band will lose. I believe the band will lose heavily because I think it will have terrible problems getting any kind of income on those properties. Nevertheless, it has become a political issue within the band.

As a matter of fact, the chief said to me that he does not like politicians, and yet he appears to me to be playing politics himself.

Finally, I have one other paragraph. I said to the minister:

If the band is to learn a hard lesson by its unyielding attitude, then it must do so. Self-government by any community means that the community must bear the consequences of the decisions of its elected leaders. Enough advice has been offered the leadership. In the end the decision is theirs.

What does that have to do with the Reform Party's concern about the Nisga'a? It is simply that when we give people independence, when we give people the right to make their own choices about their future, we also give them the right to make mistakes, and that is democracy.

How many times has the Reform Party—and it really only has been the Reform Party-raised concerns, and very legitimate concerns, about what the Nisga'a will do when they get this right to manage their own affairs. Will they always make the right decision? No, Madam Speaker. They may make many mistakes, just as the provincial government makes many mistakes, just as my own municipality and the city of Hamilton often has made mistakes that are quite contrary to the interests of the people in the region.

So, too, the Nisga'a must be allowed to make their mistakes because, Madam Speaker, that is democracy. When it really comes down to it, what is sovereignty but the ability to make our own mistakes and be responsible for it. So, I say that what we see is democracy in action. Actually, I would hope that the Nisga'a will be tremendously successful, more successful, because if they leave the lawyers alone and if they negotiate and talk with other Canadians, with the spirit of goodwill, their own conscience and their own good judgment, I am sure that the Nisga'a nation will be a wonderful success.

The final question is the race-based citizenship. I want to draw your attention, Madam Speaker, to the fact that what we are really talking about here is not race-based citizenship, what we are talking about is territory. We are talking about territory in the same sense that we talk about Quebec as a territory. I noted that during the debate often the Bloc Quebecois supported the Nisga'a in their aspirations because the Bloc Quebecois saw resonance with the situation with the Quebecois, who wish of course to have a sense of preservation of their identity.

What is it that the Quebecois or the Nisga'a are preserving? Are they trying to preserve the race? I think not in the case of the Quebecois. They would never that they want a province to be based only on the white race. Are they trying to preserve francophones? No, because there are allophones and anglophones in Quebec. Are they trying to preserve the French language? No, not just the French language because there are people who speak other languages, many other languages in Quebec.

What I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that they are trying to preserve in the territory of Quebec, and I suggest to you this is the same situation with the Nisga'a people, is they are trying to preserve a culture, a heritage. They do not want that heritage to be lost. When I read the Nisga'a treaty and the legislation, I noticed that the Nisga'a have provided for the fact that ultimately—and maybe it will become that way—anyone could become a Nisga'a. The key thing is to preserve a tradition, a tradition that goes back hundreds of years and goes back before Quebec.

[Rahim Jaffer, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, on the surface, the Nisga'a treaty may appear to many Canadians to be an issue that only affects a relatively remote and isolated region of northwest British Columbia.

However, I believe that Canadians are beginning to see that this treaty will have implications for the entire country that will extend beyond northwestern B.C. and well into the next century.

There has been much attention attributed to this treaty, although the official opposition believes that there still has not been enough debate on the issue. Today I intend to focus on a few key aspects of the Nisga'a treaty, and specifically I want to focus on the following questions.

What is the Liberal vision for Canada? What vision are the Liberals offering all Canadians, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal? Where will this vision take us? Will this Liberal vision actually lead to the building of a stronger, more united Canada or will it lead to the fragmenting and polarization of individuals and groups? How does the treaty and others that will flow from it fit within a Canadian cultural reality that is becoming only increasingly diverse rather than singular?

Let us briefly consider some of the key components of the treaty. First, it establishes a Nisga'a government in northwest B.C. with title to 2,000 square kilometres of land plus management rights over another 10,000 square kilometres. It provides that government with $190 million in cash and gives it paramount power in 14 areas, along with shared jurisdiction in another 16.

It requires the Nisga'a to pay income tax in 12 years time but grants them preferential access to the local fishery and exempts them from paying certain other taxes and licence fees in perpetuity.

What is perhaps most alarming is that the Nisga'a treaty is a template. It is a model for more than 50 treaties to come in B.C. There is no way to know precisely how much these treaties will cost but a 1999 study by R.M. Richardson and Associates estimates that the total cost could be as high as $40 billion.

There is little doubt that the creation of more than 50 entrenched ethnic government enclaves in B.C. will usher in a period of tremendous uncertainty in economic development. The cost of settling these claims within the parameters set by the Nisga'a agreement will be staggering.

The Public Accounts of Canada estimated the total known costs of land claims in Canada to be about $200 billion. In addition the public accounts document included the statement: “The government is aware of an additional 2,000 potential land claims currently being researched by first nations. A reliable estimate of these potential land claims cannot be made at this time”.

Incredibly the Liberals are pursuing this and other treaty making without giving Canadians, especially British Columbians, a fair voice. They have done this without asking what is affordable to the people of Canada. This is hard to believe because it is the Nisga'a and other bands currently negotiating other treaties who will have to live together not only with the people of B.C. but with the rest of Canadian taxpayers as well.

I will now return to a central concern I have with the vision of Canada being offered by the Liberals. Their policy course would be more appropriately referred to as one that is desperately lacking vision.

Fundamentally the Nisga'a debate is about nothing less than the kind of country we want to create for our children and our grandchildren. It is about whether we want to live in a Canada in which the quality of one's citizenship is determined not just by one's race, or whether we want to live in a country where all Canadians have equal rights under the law. It is about whether we are prepared to stand aside and watch the government sow the seeds of perpetual ethnic conflict and division within Canada or whether we are prepared to say no to the failed and bankrupt policies of the past.

Future generations of Canadians, those not yet born and those who are not of voting age, as well as future immigrants to Canada will be asked to assume a huge liability, both fiscal and social, that was never theirs.

It is no exaggeration to state that the Liberal aboriginal policy has completely failed. For one, it does not serve grassroots natives on reserves. Also, the costs of the Liberal solution supported by the Tories, the Bloc and the NDP are completely unaffordable to the people of Canada.

The Nisga'a treaty perpetuates all of the problems inherent in today's reserve system and entrenches them in a modern treaty. The failed policies of the past centred on the collective ownership of land are continued under the Nisga'a treaty.

We on this side are echoing the concerns of millions of other Canadians who fear these treaties will leave enormous political and economic power concentrated in the hands of the band leadership rather than dispersing it among grassroots Nisga'a by guaranteeing private property rights.

The treaty also grandfathers many special rights for ethnic Nisga'a including a priority commercial fishing allocation on the Nass River and other entitlement programs available to status Indians but unavailable to other Canadians.

While individual Nisga'a will pay income tax after 12 years, the Nisga'a government will be exempt from a range of taxes and fees, including the GST. At the same time, the federal government will be obligated to financially subsidize the Nisga'a government in perpetuity.

The treaty establishes the shocking precedent of denying voting rights on the basis of race. Non-Nisga'a living on Nisga'a lands will have no right to vote in Nisga'a elections even though they will be subject to all Nisga'a laws and regulations.

It is hard to believe that any government in the late 20th century would sign a treaty so grounded in race and special privilege. It is hardly a wonder that British Columbians have been denied the right to vote on this treaty in a referendum.

The impact of Nisga'a does not end at the British Columbia border. Discussions relating to the reinterpretation of treaty 8 in my province of Alberta have already begun. The Nisga'a agreement will be an important precedent for bands seeking to enhance the agreements they made a century ago and which in light of Nisga'a are now modest in comparison.

Although Reform is the only party opposing this treaty in parliament, the debate crosses party lines.

The proponents of the race based approach are the federal Liberals, the Tories and the NDP. They have found it impossible to resist the pressure and inertia generated by the land claims industry in Canada. Even in the face of conflict and division that these policies have so obviously created, they simply do not break with the failed policies of the past.

I am surprised and disappointed at the Bloc Quebecois' support for this agreement. I also find it strange that the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to allowing the people of British Columbia to hold a referendum on an agreement that is as important historically and constitutionally as this one.

Their position perplexes me. How can they support a referendum on the sovereignty of Quebec, but be opposed to a referendum on an agreement that will set precedents for other agreements in Canada and even in Quebec, and even jeopardize their own sovereignist agenda?

The opponents of this race based approach recognize that we simply have no choice but to chart a new course. Both Reformers and provincial Liberals in B.C. oppose the Nisga'a treaty. In 1982 former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau stated:

We do not think that there are different categories of Canadians. We believe that all Canadians should be equal and it would be desirable to attempt to define rights in a way which does not distinguish between ethnic groups.

We agree with this fundamental principle and believe that if we are to ensure future ethnic peace in Canada, parliament must say no to the Nisga'a treaty.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues as we bring to a conclusion the debate on this very important bill which is long overdue. As I listened to the opposition, it appeared to me that it would not matter how many more days or weeks we debated this bill, I do not think the official opposition could be convinced of the importance and value of passing this legislation. I agree with my minister, with my colleagues on this side of the House and the other parties that this must be done. Bill C-9 must become a law of the land.

My riding is in northern Ontario. Possibly after the minister himself who also represents a northern Ontario riding, I believe my riding has the second greatest number of first nations communities, approximately 25. This does not make me any expert on first nations affairs but it does give me some insight into representing first nations communities with regard to the importance of taking this very important step forward.

In Ontario, as in most provinces, we have treaties with our first nations which provide some framework for negotiating issues of concern in relationships between the federal government, in some cases the provincial government, and our first nations communities. Unfortunately this is not the case in British Columbia for different and valid historical reasons, but that does not mean we cannot find the basis for a treaty today.

As we struggle to interpret treaties of 100 or 150 years ago in today's context, this treaty itself will not be the silver bullet to answer all future problems. Like the treaties in the rest of Canada, it will provide an important framework and foundation upon which to allow our first nations communities to move forward.

I would like to address the allegation being made by the Reform Party that the Nisga'a treaty will form a template for all other agreements in British Columbia. The Nisga'a treaty was not carelessly negotiated and it bears no resemblance to the hodgepodge of poorly conceived and often counterproductive amendments which the Reform Party has put before the House today for our consideration.

The Nisga'a treaty is the result of more than 20 years of intensely adversarial negotiations. The treaty represents a delicate balance of interests and reflects the compromises and trade offs made by all parties through years of these difficult negotiations.

Canadians can be proud of the hardworking individuals who gave their hearts and souls to hammer out the Nisga'a treaty. Negotiators representing the governments of Canada, British Columbia and the Nisga'a Tribal Council deserve enormous praise for their patience and perseverance during the long years of negotiations. Their determination to find a just and lasting solution to the Nisga'a claim has resulted in a landmark settlement that stands as an example of reconciliation and equity.

Much has been learned from this treaty. We have wrestled with some of the most contentious issues surrounding aboriginal self-government and implementation of the inherent right. We have found ways to finally do away with the antiquated Indian Act, replacing its provisions with progressive measures that enable the Nisga'a people to manage their own affairs. Perhaps equally important, we have come to a new understanding of how aboriginal and other governments in Canada can co-exist and bring benefits to all residents living on and adjacent to first nations lands.

This treaty stands as a symbol of how Canadians work things out in a collaborative and honourable manner. It further proves that Canadians can act as peacemakers around the world because they can indeed act as peacemakers at home.

We must acknowledge however that the Nisga'a treaty represents only one step in a much larger process. While this treaty finally and fully addresses the longstanding claims of the Nisga'a first nation, it cannot serve as the standard form to be used in drafting all other treaties.

There has been an assumption on the part of some that the Nisga'a treaty somehow serves as a template for the more than 50 others being negotiated in British Columbia and as a template for other treaty negotiations in Canada. It is important for Canadians to understand that this is simply not possible and for a number of fairly obvious reasons.

First among them is the fact that a one size fits all model could never work. Individual first nations are just that, individual. The James Bay Cree of northern Quebec are as distinct from the Inuit of Nunavut, as they are from the Nisga'a in the Nass Valley. Each first nation has its own unique history, culture and customs, geography, language and political structures.

An equally crucial consideration is location. The issues that must be negotiated in a rural setting are often very different from those in an urban area. Hunting or forestry issues may not be especially relevant to a suburban setting while matters such as ensuring a harmonious relationship with other local governments will deserve greater emphasis.

Most important is the fact that the treaty process revolves around fair negotiation, not unilateral imposition. By their very nature treaties involve give and take. Every fair agreement must strike a reasonable balance between diverse and competing interests in accordance with local circumstances.

Having said that, there is clearly a case to be made for learning from Nisga'a treaty experience. One of the most valuable lessons is that treaties provide a reasonable way to resolve our differences peacefully and productively by working together for the common good.

In British Columbia the absence of treaties has historically resulted in confrontation and lost economic opportunities for aboriginal people and other citizens. This treaty proves that we can resolve those problems through negotiation rather than litigation.

There are also practical reasons to apply lessons learned to the Nisga'a negotiation process. Few people other than the negotiators themselves can fully appreciate the incredibly long hours and years of work that went into drafting the careful, detailed and precise language in this agreement. Much of the time was spent by each of the parties developing their respective positions. From Canada's perspective this entailed extensive third party consultations as well as careful legal and policy analysis. Having gone through this time consuming and costly exercise and having achieved a sound understanding of the issues being addressed, it makes sense for us to build on this knowledge in future negotiations.

There are also advantages to adopting elements from one treaty when they are applicable province-wide. One of the most significant is consistency.

Of particular significance within that framework is the benefit of certainty over land and resource ownership and use, which is critical to providing stability for the business community. This in turn encourages investments that lead to increased job opportunities for all people living in and around the affected areas.

Perhaps the most convincing reason to borrow best practices is that it makes sense. It speeds up the treaty making process. My hon. colleagues need to appreciate that it can take years to reach a final settlement. This painfully slow process comes at a significant cost for the first nations directly affected and prolongs economic uncertainty within the entire region.

I emphasize that this treaty is not a template, but it will serve as a useful example for other negotiations.

Ratifying the Nisga'a final agreement will enable us to achieve all of the objectives that are good for the country, good for the province and good for the first nation community itself. Bill C-9 is clearly legislation that the House should support and the Nisga'a treaty is clearly the right agreement for the Nisga'a people and for the residents of northwestern British Columbia.

I urge all members, including those in the loyal opposition who might consider changing their minds, to support this legislation.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, we are debating today report stage of Bill C-9, the Nisga'a land agreement. Last year, after years of closed door debates, talks and consultations, the Nisga'a agreement was signed, but the people of British Columbia had no input, nor were they given any opportunity for input. I think that denial of democracy is one of the main reasons the Reform Party is against the agreement.

My colleague from Wentworth—Burlington gave a very good speech. It was a speech from the heart. It was not one that was simply cranked out in the back rooms and sent over to him to be delivered. This was a speech that he had researched and he spoke from the heart, without notes I noticed. He gave a very good speech.

However, I find it rather ironic that his government has moved closure on this bill every time it has come before the House. If it had not moved closure, other members of his caucus would have been able to speak and we would have been able to debate the question. I naively thought that was how the House should work. It should operate in a manner in which we can have divergent points of view and debate them. We should be able to use our persuasive powers on the government and the government should be able to persuade us that perhaps we are not right and do not have the proper point of view.

In this case I think we have the proper point of view. I refer to the member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys. He spoke about the Reform Party being like General Custer. General Custer was massacred. We are not being massacred; we are simply pointing out what is wrong with this agreement. The only possible way that we could compare members of the Reform Party with General Custer is that we stand alone. Reformers are the only ones who have said that this agreement needs to be rejigged or looked at again. We have also said that it needs to go before the people of British Columbia in the form of a referendum. However, the government, taking a page from of its cousins in British Columbia, the B.C. NDP caucus, has decided that no matter what stage this bill comes before the House it will impose closure and ram it through before Christmas. I do not think that is the way things should be done in this place.

Government members on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development admitted that the only reason they went on the road with the committee was because of pressure brought to bear on them by the Reform Party. I find it appalling that the government would say that it is not in its best interests or it is not one of its priorities to take the standing committee to the people this agreement affects the most, but to do it only because it was embarrassed or forced into it by the official opposition.

Whether we are on that side of the House voting for the bill, in one of the three opposition parties voting for the bill, or in the Reform Party, which intends to vote against the bill, we have to agree that this will have a lot more effect on Canada than simply on the residents of British Columbia. It has a lot more to do with Canada than simply how it will affect the residents of British Columbia. It will affect the people of British Columbia. There is no question about that. However, it will affect everyone else in Canada as well.

We all know that there are at least 50 more of these deals to be negotiated in the province of British Columbia alone, and many more across Canada. I heard from members opposite that they do not think this agreement will be held up as a template for other agreements. I think that anyone who believes that has their head in the sand.

Why is it that every time this comes up we cannot even debate it? The Reform Party carries the debate for the entire day. Occasionally we touch a nerve and a member of one of the other parties will jump up and grace us with some thoughtful and insightful points, as in the case of my colleague from Wentworth—Burlington. Other than that, we have people coming in from that side of the House with predetermined notes which they simply recite. I guess that is allowable in this place, but it is hardly debate. Something that is as groundbreaking as this, something that is as precedent setting as this deserves a lot more debate than we have been giving it. Where are the people? Where are the debaters?

When I go to the schools in my riding I tell them that things are settled in the House of Commons by good, spirited debate, with speeches that are well thought out and well researched. When the students come here they find that is not always the case. They find that the government has a majority. We cannot expect the government to be hamstrung by a handful of people who want to completely derail its agenda, but debate should take place and it has not taken place in this case. That is a terrible travesty.

One of the things that we have said we do not like about this deal is that it sets a precedent by which all other agreements will be measured and argued. Therefore, we have to make sure we get this one right. This one above all has to be right. It has to be one that we can live with and that our children's children can live with, one that actually empowers native people and gives them freedom. I do not think, from what I have seen of this bill, that it accomplishes those things.

A couple of summers ago, on one of the Indian reserves in my riding, a group of people had a sit-in in an administration building. Their problem was that they were not being dealt with fairly. They said there was bias in how things were done by their band council. If they were in the in group, they were in; but if they were in the out group, they would never be in. They also said that huge amounts of money were not being accounted for. They wanted to have something done about it.

The member for Wild Rose, I and other members brought those problems to the House. We asked the former minister of Indian affairs if she would cause a forensic audit to be done that would either prove that the people who were making the claims were right or prove that the council had acted properly. The minister said “No. This is strictly their business. This is entirely up to them”.

There was no recourse for those people at that time. We think that there should be some sort of recourse in here for people who have complaints. My colleague for Wild Rose talked about—