Madam Speaker, for the people who are watching the debate, I think it is appropriate that I read the motion so it can be clearly understood. The motion states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the federal government should conduct a province wide referendum in British Columbia on the Nisga'a Final Agreement prior to the consideration of any further stages of Bill C-9, an act to give effect to the Nisga'a Final Agreement.
I do not think that is too much to ask, as my eloquent colleague has stated. A referendum is the desire of the people of British Columbia because of the social implications and the long term implications that this Nisga'a agreement will have on the province of British Columbia and all of the people who live in the province of British Columbia, native and non-native.
British Columbians are concerned. They are concerned about the long term financial commitment. They are concerned about the responsibilities. They are concerned about the template. There are 50-plus agreements yet to be settled. They claim over 100% of the territory of the province of British Columbia. Of course the people of British Columbia are concerned that all of the issues need to be be clearly understood.
It is very clear to me from comments made by hon. colleagues from around the country that there is not a clear understanding of what are the implications of the Nisga'a agreement for the people of British Columbia. There are people who support it and there are people who do not support it. All the people of British Columbia are asking is that they be allowed to express their position on this agreement.
During the negotiations that took place over a period of about 10 years the people of British Columbia were excluded because the negotiations were held behind closed doors. There was not an opportunity for the citizens of British Columbia to take part in the process.
When the agreement in principle was made public a couple of years ago, the people of British Columbia asked to take part in that discussion. They asked that there be a referendum. They asked that there be a public consultation process. That was denied them. It was a very controlled exercise in government manipulation, both from a provincial level and from a federal level, manipulating an agreement through the system without being held accountable to the people of British Columbia.
It is not just non-natives who are concerned. There are a lot of natives within the Nisga'a community, the Gitksan and other communities who are concerned because of the way the agreement is written.
All that we have asked is for the government to lay open the agreement to the people of British Columbia and let them respond.
It is interesting that the government in turn tries to tell the House and Canadians who are listening that it is the Reform Party which wants this. Let me assure the House that it is not the Reform Party, it is the people of British Columbia.
Months ago, before the heat of the Musqueam issue and the other issues came up, such as the Marshall decision, I asked them about the Nisga'a agreement and how they wanted it to be handled. I asked if they wanted to have a provincial referendum and 78.66% said yes.
Since other issues have surfaced and this debate has drawn more public attention, an official poll was taken. It was a recognized poll done through the proper means, not a householder poll. Some people would like to say that my householder polls are not legal or official.
I noticed the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans sitting here a minute ago. In his riding this poll showed that 92.21% of the people opposed the Nisga'a treaty. It will be interesting to see if he is going to respect his job to represent the people who elected him to sit in this House and show his opposition, or if he will do as he is told and support the government.
When we have tried to address this issue with the minister of aboriginal affairs, his responses have been, at the most, in contempt of the people of British Columbia. When I asked him whether a majority of members from British Columbia showing that they did not support the government would be an indication to him that the people of British Columbia, who we represent, did not support the government on this issue, and would he recognize that and withdraw the bill, he made some derogatory comment, which seems to be his normal course.
This is the same man who after the supreme court Marshall decision announced to the country that it applied to logging, minerals and offshore oil and gas reserve. When the supreme court subsequently announced that its decision did not apply to any commodity other than the eel fishery, it said that it would have been nice if people had actually read its judgment before making all sorts of pronouncements about its implication. We would have thought that the minister would have been one of those persons who would have read the court's decision to clearly understand it, or at least have had somebody else read it to him if he was not capable of reading it himself.
It is this kind of contempt that the government has shown to the people of British Columbia, who are asking for nothing more or nothing less than the people of Newfoundland when it asked for a referendum on Term 17, a very serious issue that challenged their social structure and would have changed the way they lived with each other.
The people of British Columbia understand the ramification that this agreement will have on them in years to come. All we are asking is for British Columbians to have the opportunity to go to the polls and mark an X as to whether or not they can support the government's position. All they are asking for is to exercise their democratic right to involve themselves in the governance of our country.
It is very clear from the attitude and actions of the government that it does not respect democracy. It does not respect the will of the people. It does not think Canadians have any right to participate in the debate and in the decisions that are made on their behalf.
We hear ministers and government officials saying that they are in the House of Commons to represent them. We then hear that they do not recognize that representation. Even though the majority of the members of parliament from British Columbia will not support the Nisga'a agreement and the government, it will merrily win support with the majority that it holds from Ontario. The 101-plus members on the government side will make a decision for the people of British Columbia whether they like it or not.
It is interesting how some things never change in the country. It expresses the need for government members and all parliamentarians to really look inside themselves as to why they are here. If they are only here to support a position by a leader or by a dogma, and if they are not here to represent the people who elected them to be their voice in the House of Commons, then they should look inside themselves to see if they really belong here. We are in this place to represent the people who do not have the ability to speak out and who are now being denied the ability to even make a decision and vote on the Nisga'a agreement. They send us to speak on their behalf.
It upsets the people in the House that we speak on behalf of our constituents or that we challenge the sections in this agreement that are not right and are not clear. They do not seem to accept the fact that we want accountability in the spending of taxpayers' dollars. I cannot be here in this place except to give my commitment to the people I represent to speak on their behalf and to make sure their voices are heard in this debate.
I ask the other members in the House to look beyond their party line and to consider what the people of British Columbia are asking for, which is the chance to place their voice in this discussion.
