Mr. Speaker, it would be very helpful if the member was not so silly.
House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2019, with 30% of the vote.
Aboriginal Affairs November 22nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, it would be very helpful if the member was not so silly.
Aboriginal Affairs November 22nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I would first like to find out something from the Reform Party members. When they held their townhall meetings, did they ask the people if they understood that the charter applies to the Nisga'a people? I understand they did not. They have been telling the people that it does not.
Did they tell them that the rights of Nisga'a women are unprotected? I understand that is what they have been telling them.
Did they tell them that the treaty provides for taxation without representation? I understand they have been when in fact that is not the case.
They keep telling people in British Columbia that the Nisga'a treaty is part of the Indian Act. In fact, it is not. If they are not going to tell British Columbians what is really in the treaty, what is the point of having this debate?
Aboriginal Affairs November 22nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I just got back from visiting British Columbia on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. One of the things I noticed was that the Reformers tried their hardest. I have never seen them work so hard. In a huge metropolitan city like Vancouver, they managed to get a whole 200 people out to say that they were opposed to the Nisga'a deal. When I was in the labour movement, I could do that with one phone call and I would get 500 people out. These people cannot get more than 200 people out in a big city like that. I think that means that the people in British Columbia and Vancouver support the Nisga'a deal.
Aboriginal Affairs November 22nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, is that not interesting? This particular issue that the member talked about is only 1,000 kilometres away from where the Nass Valley is. Is it not amazing that these people are going to start fearmongering?
Mr. Speaker, I will tell you what we will do. The first thing the Reform Party needs to do is to go back to the riding, take the Nisga'a treaty itself to an open house and say “Here is the Nisga'a treaty. Let us read paragraph by paragraph and then we'll start having discussions on what the treaty really says” versus this myth treaty that it has been promoting in British Columbia.
Aboriginal Affairs November 22nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, as it is difficult to explain to members across the way, let me try one more time.
This particular piece of legislation was debated in 34 communities in British Columbia. The legislature in Victoria had the longest debate in its history on the Nisga'a treaty.
We are now in the process of debating it in the House, but what do these members want to do? They want to have a vote in B.C. in order to get out of telling us what their policy would be on aboriginal government, on treaties and on the relationship with other Canadians.
Aboriginal Affairs November 22nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I can understand why the Leader of the Opposition and this member want to talk process. Up to now, we still do not know what the Reform Party's position is on aboriginal rights, aboriginal treaties and things of that nature. I have asked for this for a number of weeks now as we have had this debate.
There are some people in the country who believe that if the Reform Party were ever fortunate enough to lead the country that it would take section 35 out of the constitution.
I want this leader and this member to tell the House and Canadians what their party will do if they change the constitution as it relates to aboriginal affairs.
Aboriginal Affairs November 22nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, let me make it very clear that the government's position is that we take our responsibility very seriously in the House. That is why we were elected, to make choices and decisions for Canadians. We will not take the easy way out by going to referendum every time we have to make a policy for the people of Canada.
Let me say something else to the hon. member. This particular party represents less than 9% of Canadians in the polling just done in the last few weeks. Why is it that we somehow have to accept what it would like Canadians to do and what it would like us to do when the other 91% of Canadians say the government's—
Aboriginal Affairs November 22nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I want to read a little referendum that just took place last week in the riding of the member for Skeena.
There was a race for mayor and, as I understand it, the mayor was very much in favour of the Nisga'a deal. There were 3,500 votes cast and Mr. Jack Talstra got 2,056 of them, and he is big supporter of the agreement.
Supply November 22nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, that is the exact point we have been trying to make. The abilities of “Gathering Strength” to change the relationship between the Government of Canada and treaty relationships are in order to get out from under the Indian Act. That is what the Nisga'a agreement does.
The hon. member keeps using examples of first nations that are under the Indian Act. That is the point. The Nisga'a people will be outside the Indian Act. They will have property rights. They will be under the charter. All those things are not allowed by the Indian Act.
I just want to give the House one small point because it is very important to the whole debate. The whole debate so far has revolved around process. I hope that leader will somewhere down the line tell us what is his aboriginal policy.
He spoke the other day for two whole hours and danced around like he was doing a pirouette over and over again. He told us about one aboriginal woman, whom he seemed to have met some time in his travels, in two speeches in the House. It is time for him to tell us what his party really believes in.
Supply November 22nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, that is a fair and appropriate question as it relates to the difference between this party and the party opposite. I did not run as a member of parliament, and I do not think any of the members on this side did, to take the easy way out whenever there is an issue that needs to be dealt with. Whenever there is a difficult issue of accountability and responsibility, they may as well just put a little computer where the Leader of the Opposition is and have a referendum every time we have a policy decision to make.
My point of view, and I hope the Leader of the Opposition is listening, is that I take my responsibility very seriously. The public at large voted for all members to come into the House of Commons in a democratic fashion, obviously, with the abilities and the rights to do the work that is necessary to make the country work for the betterment of everyone.
When I stand here I represent the people of Kenora—Rainy River. I am not afraid to stand up in front of people in Kenora—Rainy River and tell them that I support the Nisga'a agreement and that I will be supporting it when it comes to the House for a vote. That is the way our democratic process works.
If the member wants to change it he can continue to espouse that, and that is why he is at 9% in the national polls. People do not accept his argument. Maybe he should get off that.
There is another issue. The member continues to say to the people of British Columbia that the reason we need a referendum is that there is a constitutional change. In fact that is wrong, wrong, wrong. He continues to say it. I understand the reason Reformers stick to process. I would if I were them because so far in this debate I have not been able to get out of the Leader of the Opposition what he would do if he were the Government of Canada as it relates to aboriginal people's rights in section 35.
I have been waiting now for weeks to ask that leader to give me some assurance that he will tell us before the debate is over, if his party were ever to form the government, what it would do relating to aboriginal rights and the kinds of agreements we need to sign for reconciliation of our historic differences.