Jane Stewart

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, let us understand that the house of parliament can amend the enabling legislation. We have always introduced signed agreements. We introduced signed agreements for the Gwich'in. We introduced a signed agreement for the Nunavut land claims agreement, for the Sahtu Dene and Metis agreements, and for the umbrella final agreement for the Council of Yukon First Nations. Why would we do it any differently for the Nisga'a agreement?

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member is suggesting is that the right of this House to consider a negotiated agreement and have full authority to accept or reject it is somehow not significant. I feel quite differently about that.

If the hon. member looks at history, the policy of Canada has always been to introduce to the House a signed agreement for full debate and consideration by parliament. Parliament can choose to accept or reject it and we will be bound by that decision.

On this side of the House we know that writing treaties in British Columbia is the right thing to do. We know that the treaty that we have with the Nisga'a is fair, affordable and right.

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, here again the Reform Party shows its lack of credibility as it relates to understanding the treaty.

Through negotiations we have found ways and means to reconcile the interests of all parties. The Constitution applies. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies. The Criminal Code applies.

The Reform Party would do well to actually read the treaty so that its questions could be taken seriously.

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear to me that the Reform Party needs some lessons in history. It is clear to me that the Reform Party needs to take some time to understand how Canada was built.

In our Constitution, the highest law in our land, we recognize and protect aboriginal interests. Section 35 identifies aboriginal rights as not being better rights than ours but being different by virtue of the fact that they were here first. The challenge we have as Canadians is to find ways and means in modern Canada to reflect those rights in a real and substantial way.

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I share the view that we should complete our scoping out exercise. We have begun that with the Cree and we will include the province of Quebec in those undertakings.

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 4th, 1999]

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as I have already indicated, we are doing that. We have had scoping out discussions. In fact, it was on March 29 that we talked with the Cree to scope out the issues around their concerns.

As I said, we will continue to include the province of Quebec and we will find a reconciliation to this issue.

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in settling land claims we ensure that the rights of other interests will be considered and overlap issues will be undertaken to be negotiated.

In this case the Cree have taken us to court as of February and there are issues that obviously I will not discuss.

I would say, however, that we have had scoping out discussions with the Cree. We are keeping the province of Quebec informed and we will work together to resolve these issues.

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Reform Party continue to show their lack of credibility on the issue of treaty writing in Canada.

First and foremost, they do not understand our Constitution, our Constitution that protects aboriginal rights in the country.

Second, I must point out again that the hon. member for Skeena has yet to go and discuss the Nisga'a treaty with the Nisga'a themselves.

In addition, I point out that the city of Terrace where the hon. member lives has proclaimed the week of April 25 as Nisga'a appreciation week.

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition should be embarrassed by these questions.

Since 1989 when that party has had a representation in the House, there have been no less than four and now five treaties presented for consideration. In every case there was a signed treaty delivered to parliament to debate fully and to decide whether to accept or reject.

They belittle the parliamentary process by asking such inane questions.