Mr. Speaker, I believe the Nisga'a treaty is the right thing to do for Canadians and for the Canadian government in recognition of the problems that have not been settled since the early settlements of Europeans in Canada. I quote from the Nisga'a chiefs who travelled to Victoria in 1887 and asked to settle this issue:
We are not opposed to the coming of the white people into our territory, provided that this be carried out justly and in accordance with the British principles embodied in the royal proclamation. If therefore as we expect the aboriginal rights which we claim should be established by the decision of His Majesty's Privy Council, we should be prepared to take a moderate and reasonable position.
What happened is the Nisga'a accepted the white European immigrants settling in Canada and British Columbia. They were asking for a treaty to set down their rights and different issues but they were denied.
It is right that we recognize what the constitution has set out and what we owe to the aboriginal people. This is a treaty not based on race but based on rights.
We always hear the Reform Party talk about this being a treaty based on race. It so happens that the rights we owe are to the aboriginals who are a race, yet the rights we are giving back to them are aboriginal rights. These rights are based on the fact that they were here first. They lived on this land and the Europeans came in and intruded on their land. They accepted them, yet their original rights were not recognized by the government at the time.
To me, it is the right thing to do. We might not be happy that we did not get everything we wanted in this treaty, but it is a negotiated treaty. It is a balanced treaty. That is the merit of negotiation. The natives, the aboriginals, the Nisga'a would like to have a lot more than is specified in this treaty, and we, representing Canadians, would like to have a lot more and have given much less. The merit of negotiation through so many years is that we have to come to a compromise. We have to come to a balance.
I support this treaty. I think it is right for the nation and for British Columbians to move forward so that we have certainty in the land. We can remove uncertainty so that investments can come back to British Columbians again. The aboriginals, the Nisga'a people can have the confidence to move onward and to be integrated into Canadian society.
The second thing I want to address is the legality of the agreement. The Reform Party always complains and challenges the constitutionality of this treaty. It has tried to challenge this. It has joined the B.C. Liberal Party to challenge this issue.
Mr. Speaker, before I continue, I would like to mention that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Pierrefonds—Dollard.
The Reform Party has challenged the constitutionality of this treaty yet it has already joined the B.C. Liberal Party to challenge it in the B.C. court. The judiciary has indicated that it would be more appropriate for the courts to consider questions relating to the constitutionality of the treaty where the full legislative record is available to the courts for consideration. It does not make sense for the Reform Party at this stage to ask us to refer this matter to the supreme court.
Members of the Reform Party always talk about the rule of law. They believe in the rule of law. They believe in the constitution. They believe in law and order. Yet they choose the decision of the supreme court as support. They believe in the rule of law, they believe in the supreme court. This is why they want to refer this issue to the supreme court. Very often they pick and choose what the supreme court decides. They pick and choose what the constitution specifies.
Let us talk about aboriginal rights. They are specified in the constitution. Reform Party members say we should treat everybody the same. Then what about these aboriginal rights that are different for aboriginals? They say to treat everybody the same, that on the Nisga'a issue the solution is to abolish the Indian Act and treat everybody the same, allow them to be Canadians and then everything will be fine.
With that position members of the Reform Party are denying the aboriginal rights of the Nisga'a. How can they say both at the same time? First they deny the Nisga'a rights by treating everybody the same. They are not the same. Aboriginal people have aboriginal rights. They have different rights than we have and which are guaranteed by the constitution. If they have different rights, then they cannot be treated the same. That is what the constitution says. If they support the supreme court decision, then they have to agree that we have to give the Nisga'a different rights.
The supreme court said not to go there for a ruling. It is going to be expensive; it has been proven to be expensive. It said that Government of Canada and the people of Canada should negotiate with the aboriginals to settle what the aboriginal rights are all about.
If Reform members believe in the supreme court, if they want to uphold the rule of law, then they should support this agreement. This is a negotiated treaty between the Government of Canada, the Government of British Columbia and the Nisga'a people.
A Reform member previously said that the NDP, because it is so low in the polls, does not represent the people of British Columbia. The NDP government is still the Government of British Columbia. The notion of saying that Canada or the province of B.C. is governed by polls is a tremendous insult to democracy in Canada.
If we were governed by polls, according to a recent poll the Reform Party only has about 30% support in B.C. and the Liberal Party of Canada has about 50%. Does that mean that the Reform members in this House do not represent the voice of B.C., but that seven members of the Liberal Party represent all British Columbians? There is some misrepresentation in that argument. There are approximately 30 members of the Reform Party who represent their ridings in B.C. and there are seven members of the Liberal Party who represent their ridings in B.C.
This is the right thing to do. We have to move forward. After 100 years of negotiation, after 100 years of troubles with the Nisga'a people, it is time for us to move on.
Reform complains that this treaty has some problems in that the charter does not apply, but the charter of rights does apply to the Nisga'a treaty.
Again Reformers are wrong when they say that this treaty does not give protection to women. The B.C. family relations act applies. They also said that trade unions would not be able to organize under this treaty. Once again they are wrong. The labour law of the province and of Canada would apply.
I urge all members of this House to support the Nisga'a treaty.