Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saluting the Nisga'a who are listening to today's debate in the House, particularly Grand Chief Gosnell, to whom I spoke yesterday.
I will not dwell too long on the content of the agreement, because next fall we will have time to take an indepth look at it.
In today's debate on a motion on which we will be voting, it is important to focus instead on the democratic process. Was the democratic process legal and legitimate? My comments will primarily focus on that.
This process, which probably began in 1880, has been a long one. In 1996, I heard Mr. Gosnell say that the canoe had finally arrived, when the agreement in principle was signed. I think a few strokes of the paddle were still necessary.
Today, we also have to do some paddling with the Nisga'a, precisely to allow them to reach the land that they have been trying to take possession of for over 100 years.
This was a courageous democratic course. These people have also been very peaceful. They have always wanted to reach that land through negotiation. They have been very courageous and persevering and, today, they need a helping hand. Naturally, we in the Bloc Quebecois are fully prepared to give them such a hand.
In 1880, the chiefs began to say “We have been living on these lands forever”. For almost a century, they made representations to assume ownership of these lands. The Calder decision, in 1973, brought about many changes. It was agreed that there were probably some aboriginal titles that should be recognized.
I had the great privilege of meeting Mr. Calder here, a few years ago. I was able to see what an extraordinary person he is. He is a Nisga'a and he has done a lot to further the cause of his people.
Finally, in 1976 the federal government began the negotiation process. It was only in 1990 that the government of British Columbia got involved in the negotiations. The agreement in principle was finally reached in 1996. At this point Joe Gosnell said “Finally, the canoe has come in”. However, he did not count on the Reform Party, which, in my opinion, is blasting the Nisga'a canoe with cannon fire. They really do not want this canoe to reach its destination.
Looking at the procedure to be followed with this treaty before us, which was definitively signed in August 1998, in order for it to be enforceable, the three parties must follow very specific steps. A referendum is to be held among the Nisga'a. The treaty must be signed by a member of the provincial cabinet and be ratified by the British Columbia legislature. It must then be signed by a member of the federal cabinet and ratified by the House of Commons.
I would like to take a moment to look at the result of the referendum the Nisga'a held on November 10, 1998: 1,451 Nisga'a voted in support of this definitive agreement; 558 voted against; 356 did not vote, and 11 ballots were spoiled. That means 61% of the eligible voters supported the treaty, and 23% did not. I would remind the hon. members that, as in any good democracy, the rule was 50% plus one.
For the Nisga'a, the job is over. Seventy per cent of those who voted supported it. It is important to know that not only was the action quite legal, but it was also quite legitimate.
British Columbia's requirement has also been fulfilled. A member of cabinet signed the agreement on behalf of the provincial government of British Columbia. The British Columbia legislature voted in favour of it. At the federal level as well, a member of Cabinet signed the treaty, as we will recall, last week. The Reformers made a big issue over of it.
I note that, in legal terms, so long as the bill has not been passed, the treaty cannot come into force. So even though a minister has signed it, the treaty cannot come into force until the underlying issue has been resolved in this House.
As regards the Reform Party's motion, no one will be surprised when I say that the Bloc Quebecois will oppose it. Referring a matter to the supreme court involves one in it. Not too long ago, the Minister of Justice made a reference to the supreme court in order to prevent the democratic, legal and legitimate action of the people of Quebec. The Minister of Justice did the same thing in a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada, asking for guidelines as to whether 50% plus one would be enough, for instance. There were several issues.
We see exactly the same attitude in this motion to refer the matter to the supreme court in order to foil a democratic action by the Nisga'a people. Naturally, we cannot agree with such a motion.
The motion also refers to delaying tactics. They want another postponement in order to stir things up even more in British Columbia and attempt to sink the famous Nisga'a canoe.
We are also opposed because we think this is a red herring. The motion refers to the Musqueam and Kamloops bands, but these bands do not come under the treaty signed with the Nisga'a. The Reform Party undoubtedly wants to use these examples to derail the treaty, but I think they are separate issues.
I urge the Reform Party to follow my lead. I am going to visit British Columbia this summer and check out the Musqueam band. My colleague tells me to come. I do not know whether it is in his riding, but I would be delighted to meet not only the band council but also the people who are facing substantial tax hikes.
But this is not a good enough reason to scrap the treaty signed with the Nisga'a. It is not fair to use examples of things that are not working well in certain places, in British Columbia or elsewhere in Canada, as an excuse for now scrapping the treaty with the Nisga'a. This is another reason the Bloc Quebecois cannot support the motion.
Nor do we agree that a constitutional amendment is required. A number of legal experts have commented on this. There is one I would like to cite, for the record. I am referring to Mr. Hogg, of York University, who says, and I quote:
As a matter of policy, in my opinion, it would be undesirable to hold a referendum every time a treaty is entered into with aboriginal people. These treaties are intended to provide clarity and certainty to aboriginal rights that have been held by aboriginal people since before European settlement. The treaties are long complicated documents reflecting years of negotiation and much compromise on both sides. It would be very difficult to communicate all the issues in a balanced way in a province-wide referendum campaign.
If a referendum were held and the treaty was defeated, the problem of achieving clarity and certainty would not go away. The aboriginal people would have to use the courts to vindicate their rights to land, resources and self-government. The Supreme Court of Canada said in the Delgamuukw case that it was willing to do that, but that it was better for governments to reach negotiated agreements with aboriginal people. I agree with the Court.
It is therefore very clear. Once the court route is taken, there will be no end to the appeals to postpone this type of treaty. The democratic progress of the Nisga'a can no more be thwarted than can the democratic progress of the people of Quebec.
Democratic action to liberate peoples cannot be blocked by the courts, any more than by armies or, I would even argue, by parliaments.
To achieve greater autonomy is a basic desire of any people, and I find that the Quebec people and the Nisga'a people are very similar in this.
I wish to tell the Nisga'a, and those who are watching us today, that the Bloc Quebecois is going to support this undertaking for complete freedom of this people, so that they may in future be masters of their own destiny and no longer have to depend on legislatures and courts to settle their fundamental issues.
I wish to tell Joe Gosnell and the Nisga'a people that they must continue their demands to paddle their own canoe, and that the Bloc Quebecois intends to give them a hand in this, so that they may, once and for all, take possession of the lands that have always been theirs.