Debates of June 3rd, 1999

Supply

[The Deputy Speaker]

The amendment is in order. Debate is on the amendment.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to what my colleague from the Reform Party has had to say.

He has quoted some interesting statistics, including the fact that public opinion in British Columbia seemed to be against it.

I have two questions for my colleague. Are the Reform MPs not acting somewhat as agitators, conditioning public opinion in their respective ridings to believe that the treaty and coming legislation on the Nisga'a are terrible things?

In the many press clippings from British Columbia I have read, I have not seen one single positive comment from a Reform member on the Nisga'a treaty.

I also heard my colleague say that the people of British Columbia had objections, that the Reform Party represented these people very well and that he was very representative.

Can he draw a parallel with Canadians' voting intentions concerning the Reform Party, with only 9% of people now indicating that they would vote for his party? Is this not proof that the Reform Party is quite simply barking up the wrong tree as far as aboriginal issues go?

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe we have been filling the role of agitators, as the member put it. I would challenge the hon. NDP member from Kamloops to talk to the people in his riding about this particular treaty.

It is pretty universal throughout British Columbia, and especially strong in rural British Columbia, where people understand the issue of land claims, native self-government and all the problems inherent with the existing reserve system in Canada. People have some very strong opinions on this matter. They certainly do not take a back seat to anyone when it comes to expressing those opinions. All we have to do is tune in to some of the radio talk shows in British Columbia to hear those opinions expressed very strongly.

These opinions were certainly expressed strongly by the Liberal opposition in Victoria in the short amount of time they had to debate this legislation before the NDP government shut it down. The Liberal opposition, headed by Gordon Campbell, were very strong in denouncing the treaty and the way it had gone through the process.

There were a number of mini referendums conducted in different municipalities. I do not have all the details nor the time, but an overwhelming number of people in British Columbia are opposed to the treaty at this time.

[David Iftody, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief because I know my colleague from Manitoba would like to ask a question as well.

During the Charlottetown accord and the five point plan that the member for Skeena properly referred to, he is wrong again in his numbers. The Angus Reid polling throughout 1992 during the Charlottetown accord showed that the component of aboriginal peoples, that particular component of the Charlottetown accord, received the strongest support across Canada.

[An hon. member]

Wrong.

[David Iftody, Liberal, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is the truth.

If the member had 2,500 members in his riding, which he of course does, and in any particular town, would he, being a Reform Party member who has pledged and vowed publicly before the Canadian people to support them, oppose 2,500 of his own people under those circumstances as the member for Skeena now does?

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that it is often difficult to represent all the people in our ridings, especially on contentious issues. What we endeavour to do is identify the majority point of view, something that the Liberals never care to do.

I have always been appreciative of the fact that I was elected by two-thirds of the people who took the time to go and cast a ballot. That is the level of support I had in the last election when I came to the House. Very clearly the majority of those constituents are opposed to this treaty as it is presently put together. That is why I stand here and speak out against it.

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, after having the responsibility over the last two years of being Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, I have spent considerable time talking to British Columbians about the Nisga'a treaty. This is an extraordinarily important undertaking, not just for the Nisga'a, not just for the people of British Columbia, but indeed for all of Canada. It is critical. As the Reform Party points out, it is critical that we talk about the legitimate concerns and issues, the challenges and the support that exists for the Nisga'a treaty.

Typically as we have conversations about the treaty itself, the questions revolve around three particular areas. People ask why treaties. They want to understand the treaty process and why we are engaged in that. They ask why self-government and what particularly is in the Nisga'a treaty. I would like to briefly make comments on those three questions.

Why treaties? Let me say that it was not I as the minister of Indian affairs who came up with the notion of treaty writing. It was not the province of British Columbia, nor was it Joe Gosnell, the president of the Nisga'a council.

Treaties have long been part of the history of Canada. In fact they date back to 1763 when in the royal proclamation King George said that we had to find a fair and practical way of working with indigenous people in the colonies, in the Canadas. Fortunately chiefs and aboriginal people felt the same way. They wanted a fair and practical way of working together in the lands we now know to be Canada. Rather than conquests through war, they chose compromise through negotiation. Treaties have been written in Canada since that time.

History has continued. Indeed the obligations and responsibilities that have been set out in certain treaties across the country now find protection in our constitution. In section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 those treaty obligations and rights are protected. The constitution also protects future treaty rights that would be written, as anticipated, with first nations individually or severally over the course of time.

In writing treaties we are not changing the constitution. We are giving modern life to section 35 of the constitution. We are providing an opportunity for first nations who have not had that opportunity to be welcomed into Canada as citizens in the fullest sense under our laws.

When we talk about laws, that takes us to the second issue. Why self-government? Why are we taking this approach? What is it all about? Very clearly in those early days when Europeans sat at the negotiating table with first nations, with chiefs, they knew they were dealing with legitimate governance. George Vancouver when he entered Nisga'a lands was surprised to see Nisga'a living in two storey dwellings in a very complex society. There was governance and quite effective governance in first nations communities long before we ever arrived.

Over the course of time, I guess as we became the majority, we started to think differently. We started to think that we knew best. We started to take the approach that Ottawa should be making the decisions on behalf of first nations people. We started recognizing that decisions on behalf of aboriginal people should be made by the minister of Indian affairs.

Now we have the Indian Act. Surely to goodness the Reform Party does not agree that the Indian Act is the way we should build and can build a positive future for aboriginal people. It is not and it needs to be changed.

[An hon. member]

We should get rid of it.

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Right, let us get rid of it. How do we do that? We can do it by moving back to an original relationship based on the understanding that there should be community government for first nations people as there is for other Canadians. This is tremendously important to us. It gives us an opportunity to move forward together.

To talk about governance, Canadians understand governance. They want clarity of jurisdictions and authorities. They want to set tables where they can come together to resolve problems. Believe me, no one understands the Indian Act. No one accepts that the minister of Indian affairs should be approving the wills of aboriginal people and should be telling them how to use their lands. That is antiquated. It is wrong and we can do better. The Nisga'a treaty gives us an opportunity to do just that.

Let us turn to the Nisga'a treaty. What is in the treaty? It sets out very particular obligations and responsibilities that we have to the Nisga'a people and in turn that they will provide to us.

We will be providing them with 2,000 square kilometres of land which they will own not as reserves—and members want to change the reserve system—but as fee simple. As such on those lands the exemption from taxation will not apply. The Nisga'a will be paying provincial sales tax, provincial income tax, federal sales tax and federal income tax. Their corporations will be paying corporate tax. We are moving away from the old reserve system and modernizing our relationship in a very positive way.

There are other aspects, obligations and responsibilities that will be returned to the Nisga'a. They will have authority to manage their resources such as timber, fisheries and wildlife. They will be able to make decisions about those resources and use them more effectively than they have ever been able to before. This makes sense. It is set out in the treaty clearly. People can read it and understand the relationship.

When we talk about governance, it is set out in the treaty. It is complex, perhaps too complex for the Reform Party, but it is set out there and it is explained. Fundamentally there are three categories of jurisdiction. Let us understand them.

First and foremost, federal laws will continue to apply, such as the constitution, the charter of rights and freedoms and the Criminal Code. In our enabling legislation be assured that we will confirm that the charter does apply to Nisga'a people. Those will exist.

Second, there is another category of legislation on province-like jurisdictions such as education and health that the Nisga'a will take jurisdiction for. Let me be clear that when that occurs, the Nisga'a must meet or beat provincial legislation, meet or beat. There is nothing to worry about. People will understand it. It will be clear.

Those citizens who are not Nisga'a members who live in the Nisga'a territory and receive services from the Nisga'a for education and health will have the right to stand for election to the education boards and the health boards. There is an appeal process that will allow them to fully participate in those areas. This is tremendously important to understand. The treaty sets that out. It makes it clear and it moves us ahead.

The third area of jurisdiction is associated with aspects fundamental to the Nisga'a themselves, their heritage, culture and language. There are no provincial or federal laws dealing with that and why would there be? We do not know how to protect their language, what the history and culture is, certainly not better than the Nisga'a. These are the areas where the Nisga'a will have jurisdiction to ensure that their history is strong and that it continues to vibrantly develop today and tomorrow.

We have worked very hard to negotiate this agreement. We have talked to the citizens of British Columbia about it. The AIP has been available for a number of years. Public meetings have been held. The communities in the Nass Valley are supportive and view this to be an important step in the modernization of our relationship.

We will have the opportunity to continue the debate here in this House, in parliament, where it should be, to discuss the details. I will continue to talk to British Columbians about their legitimate concerns and issues because they can be answered. The treaty provides those responses.

I want to say in conclusion that as we settle these outstanding obligations we do a number of things. We bring certainty to the lands. We bring an opportunity for communities to work more strongly together, for first nations to have the opportunity to build their own relationship with the private sector, with surrounding municipalities and to fully engage in this great country of ours.

We bring economic development into the province, into the Nass Valley and provide new opportunities for prosperity and development. Finally what we do is say to some first peoples in this country that Canada welcomes them. They want to be part of Canada. This is not about leaving our great country. This is about being part of it.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where to begin. The minister makes a very nice emotional appeal. This is what the minister always does when she is answering questions about the Nisga'a treaty. It is the emotional appeal. Is it not time that we resolved this? Is it not time that we formed a new relationship with aboriginal people? Is it not time that we put the dark history of our country behind us and got on with a new relationship?

Obviously everybody agrees with that but she is not answering the questions. She is not answering the constitutional questions. She is not answering the charter questions. She is not responding to our question with respect to section 25 of the charter being able to trump the individual rights of Nisga'a people. She is not responding to the challenge that has been raised in British Columbia that the government has violated sections 91 and 92 of the constitution.

I cannot for the life of me understand why the minister does not respond to the specifics. She only deals in the emotional appeal. That is all she is interested in.

I ask the minister why would this government be opposed to sending the agreement to the Supreme Court of Canada for a clarification on the constitutionality and the charter of rights? These are two very important issues. Why is she opposed to referring this to the supreme court in advance of ratification? What is another few months after 130 years to make sure that we have it right, to make sure that the charter rights of the Nisga'a people are not diminished and to make sure that this agreement actually conforms to the constitution? What is she afraid of?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on this side we believe we have an obligation to fulfill the statements in our constitution. The constitution protects treaty rights as they have been negotiated for first nations in the past and it protects the treaty rights that will be negotiated with first nations or groups of first nations into the future.

We have been to the courts on a number of occasions. They have said to us “Would you please take the responsibility and negotiate. You can keep coming back to us and we will tell you, yes, there are aboriginal rights in Canada, but it is only you that can sit at the table with first nations and exhaustively set those rights out, put them in a treaty and move on”.

That is exactly what we are doing. There is no constitutional issue here. What there is is an obligation on the part of Canada to fulfill the protection and identification of aboriginal rights as set out in section 35 of the constitution.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, would the minister agree that what we are seeing here today is the last death rattle of what boils down to a two year campaign on behalf of the Reform Party to try to discredit aboriginal leadership and on a much broader issue than just the Nisga'a deal to try to speak against the whole idea of self-government?

I have sat here and listened for almost two years to a day where time after time Reform members have tried to thread together isolated incidences of mismanagement on various reserves. They have tried to paint a broader picture that aboriginal people are neither able nor capable or should have any control over self-governance.

Some people think that by broadening rights to a larger group of people somehow diminishes their own rights. They have this concept of human rights as one finite pie and if one group takes too big a slice that somehow there is less of it to go around. This is the message we have been hearing over and over again.

Is the minister aware that the Reform Party has really been the spokesperson for the whole anti-Indian movement in western Canada where I live, the architects of the anti-Indian movement of western Canada, with connections that I would love to point out if I had more time?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of things I would like to say in response.

First and foremost, without question there are legitimate questions that people have about the Nisga'a treaty. Those questions need to be identified and responded to. We will continue to do that I know with the help of all other parties in the House with the exception of the Reform Party.

The other thing I would like to point out is that very often the Reform Party takes the approach in fact in everything it does, of identifying issues and problems. However it seems to be absolutely impossible for it to present alternatives, united or otherwise.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

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.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that the Bloquistes are speaking against this motion. They at least are being consistent and true to their beliefs, unlike certain members opposite.

I wonder what the hon. member's comment would be with respect to the creation of a mini-state within our state or what he feels Mr. Bouchard would say if he were to be accorded, on a silver platter, all of the possibilities of government, all of the areas of overriding power which are going to be granted to the Nisga'a in this treaty, such as fisheries, wildlife, the adoption of children, citizenship, culture and language, expropriation of lands, health services, family services and education.

Does the hon. member believe that if the province of Quebec were handed the same deal which this government is proposing to hand to the Nisga'a it would not only be happy but absolutely overjoyed?

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question and I am glad it has been raised.

The Nisga'a treaty is a modern treaty. The James Bay agreement paved the way for it. All that the hon. colleague has just said about the powers to be given to the aboriginal people, we already handed over in 1975, and then a few years later again with the Naskapi.

Of course, there are certain areas of jurisdiction which passed from a provincial or federal level to the aboriginal level. But it is all done through agreements, like the agreements that now exist between the three levels of government, the aboriginal government, the provincial government and the federal government.

The federal or provincial government decides what it will give to aboriginals and this is simply a recognition of their distinct approach or culture. Pan-Canadian or pan-provincial programs are not the way to satisfy these people, with their own particular approach to their culture, their health and their education.

For the information of my hon. colleague, we have already done this, and we see many similarities with the Nisga'a situation today. As I see it, the James Bay agreement was a groundbreaking model that people rely on today when drawing up modern treaties, which resemble it in many ways.

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

Mr. Speaker, there must have been an error in translation because I kept hearing the member opposite use the word liberate, as though the Nisga'a want to be liberated in the same sense that some sovereignists want to separate from the rest of Canada.

What the Nisga'a want in this treaty is to join. The treaty is all about giving the Nisga'a a sense of cultural unity with the rest of Canada at the same time as their culture is respected. This country is the creation of three great founding peoples: those who speak English, those who speak French and those who are of the aboriginal heritage who speak many languages. They were the ones who welcomed us and made it possible for the English and French speaking people to survive in the wilderness.

I suggest to the member opposite that he consider the Nisga'a in the sense of belonging to this country. I reject his premise that the Nisga'a need to be liberated. That is not the point at all.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell my colleague that there has been no interpretation error. I maintain that the Nisga'a, through their government—because there will be a Nisga'a government—are now going to be liberated from their previous great dependence on the federal government.

I urge the hon. member to read the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Aboriginal peoples everywhere are seeking liberation and self-government. They want to get off the reserves. They want control over their lives, and an end to Ottawa taking decisions on their behalf.

For me, and for Quebec, this is also a step towards liberation.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in reading the Reform motion before us today, the first thing that struck me in reading it was that the Reform Party is pursuing the exact same agenda as the B.C. Liberals.

What is that agenda? It is an agenda about dividing people. It is an agenda about creating fear and uncertainty. It is an agenda that actually sabotages the progress that is being made in bringing about an historic agreement with the Nisga'a people. It is an agenda that creates red herrings and smoke screens.

Let us be very clear. The Reform Party does not want clarification of this treaty by the supreme court. Reformers have the same access to legal opinions as any other member or political party. They do not want clarification. They want to destroy the democratic process that has been in place, to bring about a 111-year struggle, to finally have a modern day treaty with the Nisga'a people.

If Reform members are surprised by the strong response which all members of this House, other than themselves, have to this motion, it is not just because of the motion that is before us today, as my NDP colleague pointed out earlier, it is because day after day, week after week, month after month we have heard members of the Reform Party stand in this House and in public to undermine, attack and reinforce any negative examples they can find.

Is there any doubt that we would come to the conclusion that they have a political agenda? It is not about clarification or doing the right thing, but about undermining a democratic process and creating fear among people. I find that appalling. I have watched it in B.C. with the B.C. Liberals and now we are seeing it with the Reform Party, whose agenda is identical.

We are told that this is about clarification of legal questions, a very thoughtful approach. There are ample legal opinions available which tell us that section 35 of the constitution states that the treaty rights of aboriginal people have to be respected. We know that section 35 covers previous treaties and we know that it has provision and room to cover treaties in the future. It is very clear that the Nisga'a treaty is not something that constitutes a constitutional amendment. Legal opinions, including that of the dean of Osgoode Hall and many others, have very clearly outlined this, and the Reform Party knows this full well.

It is interesting to note the following in today's debate in looking at other positions the Reform Party has taken. Why is it that in this particular instance Reformers want to go to the supreme court, but in other instances, for example the child pornography issue, they were jumping up and down, saying that we could not go to the supreme court, that it was the powers of parliament and the action of parliament that counted? All of a sudden we have a double standard.

Why is it that members of the Reform Party challenge this, a domestic treaty which is clearly within the context and the legal confines of our constitution, the charter of rights and all of our laws, but when we have international treaties like the MAI or NAFTA, which do constitute a massive transfer of power from democratically elected governments to multinational corporations, there is silence? There is not a word. They are out there campaigning and upholding that kind of direction. It is no wonder there is a very strong response to this motion. This is an issue of credibility on which the Reform Party has no leg to stand on.

I listened to the debate earlier today and I heard the member for Skeena say that the charter of rights of Nisga'a people have been put in peril. I thought, what does that mean?

First, the member never spelled it out, so I do not know what he meant, but I thought it was quite a patronizing comment. We have the Nisga'a people who, through their duly elected representatives, have been full partners in a democratic process to bring together this treaty and we have a Reform Party member saying that it is the charter of rights of the Nisga'a people themselves that is in peril.

I think the hypocrisy and the patronizing attitude that has come forward from the Reform Party after so many months and years of campaigning against rights and self-government for aboriginal people is really something that is quite appalling.

Let us be very clear. The Nisga'a treaty does not create new constitutional rights for the Nisga'a or anyone else. No one's rights are affected. I would challenge the Reform Party to dispute that.

What will this treaty do? For the very first time important provincial laws will now apply to people who used to be exempt from them because they were governed by the federal Indian Act. This treaty does not create a racially based order of government. On the contrary, it moves us away from what has been a very dependent relationship.

The treaty provides powers within the constitution similar to the powers that a municipality may have. It is very clear that Nisga'a laws must conform to the charter of rights and freedoms and to federal and provincial standards.

Contrary again to what members of the Reform Party and the B.C. Liberals have been saying, non-Nisga'a who own land on Nisga'a territory will pay property taxes to the province and the Nisga'a can only tax their own people living on Nisga'a lands. The Nisga'a will pay federal and provincial income taxes and sales taxes. Let us get the record straight.

We also see in the motion that there is a reference made to labour standards and that somehow these are undermined. I thought that was a curious thing to be coming from the Reform Party. I did a little research. I have a letter from the B.C. Federation of Labour, dated April 21, 1999, from the then president, Kenneth Georgetti, who stated:

The Labour movement in B.C. endorses wholeheartedly the provisions respecting labour relations in the Nisga'a Agreement. All labour rights under federal and provincial law are maintained. This means that trade unions will continue to be able to organize on treaty settlement land.

More than that, D.C. Haggard, President of I.W.A Canada, stated:

Members of Parliament, and the general public, should be aware that the B.C. Federation of Labour met frequently with the Nisga'a during the period of intense negotiations. I attended many of those meetings.

He went on to state:

Since the laws and precedents under which those tribunals will make decisions remain unchanged, the B.C. labour movement, and I.W.A. Canada in particular, support those provisions and the proposed Treaty.

That comes from the labour movement itself.

We have to be very clear about this motion today. It is members of the Reform Party and the B.C. Liberals who are in cahoots on this, and on many other things I might add. If they get their way, what would happen? This is what we would have if we followed their agenda. We would have more economic uncertainty. We would be leaving land claim costs unresolved that amount to billions of dollars in investment and development. We would also have a situation where important land claims issues would be settled by the courts, with all kinds of wrangling, instead of through democratic, open, above-board negotiations where third party interests are recognized and where public hearings are held.

Again I refer to what Reform members said earlier today, that no one bothered to listen, that there was no consultation. They have to be joking. They should look at the record in B.C. There were thousands of public hearings, there was public debate, and committees of the legislature travelled around the province.

Let us be very clear. The Reform Party knows full well that the Nisga'a agreement is not a constitutional amendment. I urge the House to soundly reject this motion. Let us move forward on human rights, on reconciliation with first nations people and on settling land claims through goodwill, through negotiation; not through court battles, not through roadblocks. Let us move forward and let us reject this motion.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it takes some constraint to be able to express oneself after a speech like that, in the face of the attitude from the Liberals as well.

The member might be interested to know that later today I will be delivering a speech to show exactly how the labour movement in British Columbia, and indeed Bob White when he was retiring from the Canadian Labour Congress, completely, totally, utterly fouled up because they did not understand the implications of this act with respect to the whole issue of the union movement.

However, I want to ask one specific question. The member has chosen to continue to extend the myth that was created by the NDP in Victoria that this act is nothing more than extending powers similar to those of a municipality. If we were talking about the Sechelt agreement, that statement would be true.

Could the hon. member tell me which other municipality, if indeed that were true, has the ability to establish citizenship? Which other municipality has the ability to extend taxation without representation?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the member was restrained. I think that is something that the Reform Party is well known for, being restrained. Reform members are full of restraint.

It surprises me that the line that is being pedalled is that it is only members of the Reform Party who understand this agreement. It is not the Nisga'a people, it is not the NDP, it is not the Liberals, it is not the labour movement, it is not Bob White, it is only members of the Reform Party who have seen the problems, the alleged problems, of this agreement. We are all intelligent people. We can read these agreements. We can come to our own conclusions. I would again assert that the Reform Party has a different agenda.

In terms of myths being perpetuated, I would suggest that it is the Reform Party which is perpetuating myths about this agreement. The fact is that the laws that would be conferred under this agreement in no way violate the constitution, in no way violate provincial law. They have been agreed to through due process. They are within the context of the constitution. In fact the myth that there is taxation without representation is also false and totally incorrect. It is very clear that there will be taxes paid and, if it is non-Nisga'a on Nisga'a land, those taxes will go to the provincial government and the Nisga'a laws will apply to Nisga'a people.

[David Iftody, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member from British Columbia for that speech. I note how refreshing it is in this House of Commons to see somebody from British Columbia speaking clearly on this issue, as is my colleague from British Columbia who is sitting beside me now.

The people of British Columbia and those Canadians who have watched this debate over the last number of months have constantly heard members of the Reform Party referring to themselves as speaking for the people of British Columbia, which is absolutely false and untrue.

I know that the member has spoken well. There are many members of parliament from British Columbia who support this deal.

The hon. member began her statements by making some presumptions as to why the Reform Party is doing this. We have listened to this for some time. The member from Winnipeg made that point. What are the motivations behind the Reform Party in British Columbia in opposing this deal?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the agenda of the Reform Party is not really about dealing with substantive issues around self-government and modern day treaties. I think the Reform Party has an opportunity to play a very positive role in that regard. Reform members have an opportunity to be at the table.

However, as the member has suggested, I think there is a different agenda.

They understand there is uncertainty in what they do with many other issues, whether taxation, social programs or the income tax system. They play on that uncertainty and fear which divides people. They play on peoples' emotions and set people against each other. We have to stand up and say that we will not tolerate it.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Nisga'a treaty and to address the motion before us today.

I will make one prefacing remark on what the minister said, and I think we should all remember it. All debate is legitimate. All of us may not agree on debate in that we may have different points of view coming from different areas of the country, but all debate is legitimate. I welcome this debate even though I do not agree with everything that has been said today.

The motion deals with a number of issues affecting not only the Nisga'a treaty but also other tangential aspects that have been discussed in relation to the treaty, issues such as the Musqueam first nation in British Columbia, a subject I want to touch upon later.

I have had the opportunity to meet with members of the Nisga'a first nation on two occasions to discuss this treaty. It is my intention to travel to British Columbia this summer to look at the situation on the ground in B.C. and to speak not only to members of the Nisga'a Tribal Council but to Nisga'a members themselves and to the non-native population in and around the Nass Valley. I am hoping to have the opportunity to meet with all members in the area.

The Nisga'a treaty is the first modern day treaty to be signed in British Columbia and represents the end of a long process by which the Nisga'a people want to have their own land claim recognized. The treaty will provide the Nisga'a people with an opportunity to gain greater self-reliance and self-sufficiency. Moreover, it recognizes their inherent right to self-government.

The PC Party supports initiatives that advance these objectives. That is why we have supported legislation like Bill C-49, the First Nations Land Management Act. That bill will allow 14 first nations to take control over the management of resources on reserves. It removes them from the overbearing and restrictive requirements of the Indian Act, something that is taken even further in the Nisga'a treaty.

The Nisga'a treaty covers a wide range of issues since it will provide the Nisga'a people with not only 2,000 square kilometres of land but a Nisga'a only commercial fishery and salmon allocation, jurisdiction over the judicial system, a police force, and an environmental assessment and protection authority. At the same time the Nisga'a people will begin to pay taxes on a phased in approach over eight and twelve years.

The motion before us today specifically mentions the Musqueam first nation and the problem which has erupted between the tenants and the first nation regarding third party leases. This problem is obviously contentious and has been generating significant amounts of attention.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development I have had the opportunity to listen to the concerns of representatives of the Musqueam park tenants. Their problems are to a great extent due to the lease rates established in their lease agreement. This is the kind of problem that could occur anywhere in Canada and is not restricted to first nation agreements.

Anytime someone enters into a lease agreement it is important to understand the implications of the terms of that agreement. On the other hand, the Musqueam park tenants are now faced with significant financial obligations. Obviously no one wants to see the same situation repeated on Nisga'a land.

A dispute like the Musqueam one hurts all parties involved since the negative publicity decreases the value of the land. This is a problem for both the tenants and the landlord because it is a source of revenue for first nations to be able to lease land to third party members.

With the Nisga'a people facing unemployment levels of around 60%, I assume all options for revenue generation will be considered. In fact that is one of the advantages of the treaty not only for the Nisga'a people but for the surrounding communities. With a compensation package of $190 million there should be economic spinoffs for neighbouring communities as well as for the Nisga'a people.

Looking at specific aspects of the Nisga'a treaty, I have some concerns about things like the salmon allocation and the commercial fishery for the Nisga'a people. This was something I raised at the meeting with the Nisga'a people. I understand that they have a vested interest in ensuring that a sustainable and a healthy fishery exists. At the same time, however, I question the impact it will have on future treaties which will be negotiated in British Columbia and on the commercial fishing industry in general.

The Nisga'a treaty may not be a template for future treaties but it will nevertheless set a benchmark against which to compare agreements. The Sechelt first nation has recently reached another step toward its own final agreement and it is different in many aspects from the Nisga'a treaty.

There will be future treaties that will look at what the Nisga'a treaty has and has not accomplished and be negotiated based on that information. The impact this will have on the commercial fishery in British Columbia is something that will be determined some time in the future but should be considered now.

The motion suggests that the question of the Nisga'a treaty changing the constitution and therefore requiring a referendum in British Columbia should be addressed by the supreme court. While I do not have the legal background to address this issue and do it justice, I suggest that past events would point to other avenues.

Parliament has been criticized for giving greater power to the judiciary. It is interesting that the Reform Party in particular has been quick to state on a number of occasions that the judiciary is too involved in the shaping of public policy in the country. It has stated that judges should not legislate yet the motion today calls for a reference to the supreme court. Is this a double standard? It criticizes using the supreme court on issues of public policy yet when it is something it does not like it is quick to propose using the courts.

I conclude by saying that the Nisga'a treaty is a step in the right direction. The supreme court made it clear in the Delgamuukw decision that negotiated settlement is the way to proceed with land claims. This is an example of such a process, one that the Conservative government recognized in the 1980s when the process was ongoing.

It will be an interesting debate when the legislation for this treaty is introduced to parliament. I look forward to addressing it at that time.