Madam Speaker, I have listened to the debate today. I have spoken on this issue many times, have participated in the debate, have examined and cross-examined witnesses. Having the information before me as a member of parliament, I really do welcome this debate today. Primarily, I welcome this debate for very selfish reasons.
This debate will be on the record, further debates will be on the record and past debates on this issue are on the record. There has been a lot of reference to what has been said, what has not been said, who has said what, when and where. I implore members of parliament and the listening public to see for themselves. They do not have to take my word for what has been said. Look in the records. Check Hansard . Look at the record of the committee. See who said what, where and when.
All one has to do is look at the records to see what has been said by the members for Prince George—Peace River, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Skeena and Calgary Southwest, and by the Leader of the Official Opposition, have said. They have repeatedly said in the House that the treaty will lead to a fishery based on race, that it will take away the rights of women, that it will affect the constitution of Canada and that it will somehow change the charter of rights and freedoms so that it will not apply to this group. Those statements are patently false.
If anyone wants to listen to the Reform wrecking ball approach to public policy debate, then they should check the record. The record stands. The written word is there for anyone in the country to check.
There have been a number of mistruths said in the House. I want to make a statement about mistruths. I was thinking about this earlier while watching the debate. A mistruth is not necessarily a mistruth if the speaker does not know any different or any better.
If a member of parliament has not done his or her homework, it could be said that her or she has been delinquent in his or her duty as a member of parliament. However, if that member of parliament has done his or her duty as a member of parliament and does know the difference and does know how this treaty applies, and that member stands and deliberately leads the public in a mistruth, then that member is delinquent in his or her duty as a member of parliament. There is a dramatic difference.
Let us talk about this treaty as it applies to Canadians and as it applies to the Nisga'a. Some time ago we entered into a treaty process in Canada in good faith with all parties coming to the table. We allowed first nations to sit down with the provinces and federal government and negotiate the best possible treaty we could work out.
I support this treaty for very selfish reasons. I support it because of the things it addresses, the inequalities and inadequacies of the old Indian Act, which on a good day is a colonial piece of legislation and on a bad day is definitely a racist piece of legislation. What this treaty does for the Nisga'a is it takes them out from under the umbrella of the Indian Act. It forever takes away the right of the Indian Act to govern the Nisga'a.
The Nisga'a will govern themselves. They will govern themselves in a municipal style of government with some rights that are quasi-provincial and some rights that are quasi-federal. I have listened to Reform members of parliament talk about how these changes will have a detrimental effect on the good people of British Columbia and on the Nisga'a themselves.
All anyone has to do is read the Nisga'a final agreement. It is not a secret document. It is a public document. It is there for any and every Canadian who would care to take the time to read it.
I can certainly attest to the fact that I am one Canadian who has read the NFA. It takes a little wading through. Starting at the beginning one asks a lot of questions before getting to the end. However, there is not one question arising from reading that document that cannot be answered.
What it takes is someone who can read the document with an open mind, who can see into the future of the country and can accept some of the basic rules and laws that we all accept as Canadians. We would hope that some day those rules, laws and regulations would be applied to all of us.
The information can be checked off. The Reform Party has stood repeatedly and said there is something wrong with the process. I cannot attest as a new member of parliament to everything that went on in the past regarding the debate of the treaty. I can attest to what has happened since I have been involved as the Progressive Conservative Party critic on this issue.
Certainly we all know, and it is a matter of record, that there was debate in the British Columbia legislature. I have heard two different numbers; one is 116 hours and the other is 120 hours. It should be duly placed on the record that debate in this House on the average for a piece of legislation that is fairly hotly contested may be eight or ten hours, but more often it will probably average five or six hours. We had 116 or, Madam Speaker, if you prefer, 120 hours of debate in British Columbia and somehow that debate was not adequate. It was insufficient. It is kind of like the old adage when one is on a job working. If the first break is not sufficient, thou shalt have a second break of equal length. That is not quite how it works.
We had honest debate and fair debate. Everyone who wanted to speak on this issue had opportunity to speak. The debate collapsed after 120 hours, as it rightfully should.
The motion today is about referendum, about the fact that the majority of Canadians should establish laws and should judge laws for the minority. It is never good, ever in any way, shape or form, to have the majority continually be in charge and make laws that apply always to the minority. If we go to referendum that is exactly what happens.
There has been a referendum. It has gone through democratic debate in the province of British Columbia. It has gone through democratic debate and is continuing to go through democratic debate in the Parliament of Canada.
We have heard many witnesses before committee and we will continue to hear them. I think some 64 witnesses in total will appear before committee.
This process has been a very long process and continues to get longer. As part of that process, there are extremely legitimate views and opinions that deserve and need to be heard. However, let us stop for a second and let us take a handful of the opinions that have been put forth.
One of those ideas and opinions just minutes ago was the fact that we are not going to have fee simple land management. Quite honestly, I have spoken about land ownership until I am blue in the face talking about it. Clearly stated in the NFA is that the Nisga'a will own their property fee simple. We cannot make it any plainer than that.
On the day that this treaty is approved some of the lands that the Nisga'a hold will be fee simple to the Nisga'a government. Some of the lands will transfer fee simple to individuals. The rest of the lands that are owned now without any property ownership system at all can in the future be turned into fee simple and can be held fee simple by the Nisga'a government the same as any municipality holds its property fee simple. It is the same as the province of Nova Scotia where I come from. It holds its crown based property. To allude to it any differently is to mislead the public.
We have debunked the myth of secrecy of negotiation. We have debunked the myth of fee simple land ownership. Let us go back to referendum. Does B.C. have a right to vote but not the rest of Canada? Does Canada have a right to vote but not B.C.? Who decides? Referendums in our constitution are there and can be used for items that change the constitution. That is another myth of this treaty. This does not change the Constitution of Canada. It is affected by the Constitution of Canada and protected by the Constitution of Canada but it does not change the Constitution of Canada.
We can say it a million times, but if individuals have their fingers in their ears they will not hear it. It is important, as long as we are debating the motion, to talk about the real issues, the substantive issues, the issues that concern Canadians and all of those issues which concern Canadians.
I have heard time and time again the official opposition saying that it is not against the treaty process, that it supports the treaty process. Well, this is the treaty process. This is the negotiated process entered into in good faith by three parties that came up with the negotiated solution. Some people gave up items during the debate and the negotiations and some people gained some. It is like any negotiated process, a process of give and take. At the end of it, we reached the best possible agreement we could reach to the advantage of all three parties. That is what we have today with the Nisga'a final agreement. We have the best possible solution reached by people working in good faith.
Individual members of parliament may not like that. They may want to vote against it for some obscure reason that I have not been able to identify. If that is the case, they have every right to stand and vote against it, and I support that. However, they should not stand and vote against it on the basis that we do not have fee simple land ownership. They should not stand and vote against it on the basis that the charter of rights and freedoms does not apply. They should not stand and vote against it because they say that the Constitution of Canada will not be effective. Those issues are very clearly laid out in the NFA and dealt with.
I have heard the numbers 14, 15 and 17 areas where the Nisga'a will have greater jurisdiction than the province of British Columbia or the federal government. Let us look at some of those areas. We are talking about areas of environmental regulations. We are talking about areas of family and children's services. This is not a giveaway of unprecedented proportion in Canadian history.
We have said to the Nisga'a that through negotiation they have the right to control family and children's services, which would ordinarily be a provincial right. However, when the members of parliament rail against that, they forget to mention that it very clearly states in the agreement that those rights and privileges have to be as good or exceed existing provincial regulations. Therefore the Nisga'a cannot be less protective of families and children than the Province of British Columbia. They can be more protective if they wish but they cannot be less protective. It is in the agreement.
I have said time and time again that members should read all of the Nisga'a final agreement. They should get their constitutional experts and they should ask for legal opinions. They should talk to the province of British Columbia. They should talk to all of them.
I have listened to the Reform debate on this until I am sick of it. We have an expression at home, and if anyone in the House is a hunter they will recognize it. When the debate has heated up and we have chest pounding, hair pulling, arm waving and squawking, it is like crows on a gut pile. That is exactly what it is like.
We have to get beyond this. We have to talk about the real issues in this treaty. There is a very serious question of overlap. The Gitanyow and the Gitksan are extremely troubled about overlap. Again, it is dealt with in the Nisga'a final agreement. It very clearly states within that agreement how the Nisga'a will deal with overlap. It does not exclude a final settlement coming down in favour of the Gitksan or the Gitanyow, but what it does include is that if the the Nisga'a lose territory because of future land claim settlements, they will be given compensation of some form, either more land or dollars.
The process is there. It allows for arbitration. It allows for joint jurisdiction with other bands, the federal government or the provincial government in some areas. Surely we have reached a stage in the evolution of the political life of the country and the provinces and territories that make it up, that we can embrace this type of legislation.
Surely we have reached the point in the country where we can look at legislation for what it is worth to the nation and not be against it for what it is worth for a political party. Those are entirely the wrong reasons to be against something.
They should take the politics out of this and talk about the treaty. They should deal with the question of overlap. It is dealt with in the NFA. They should make recommendations if they want to make recommendations, but they should not burn the barn down because they are not happy with the fact that they are not making a good living. They should not just destroy it. They should step away from this wrecking ball approach to public policy debate. They should be constructive by looking at the issues one at a time and deal with them.
We went to British Columbia on committee and I welcomed the opportunity to go there. It was an interesting process in B.C. I have been out there several times so I feel very much at home in British Columbia. I talked to a lot of people on the street and a number of shopkeepers. Maybe these non-scientific polls that were done are a reality, but that was not the opinion I got on the streets in B.C. It was not even close to the opinion.
Unfortunately, the hearings were marred by some protesters. Anyone has the right to protest and that is one of the great things in this nation. However, no one has the right to interfere with involved, informative and insightful debate.
There are many issues and certainly one is the referendum issue. Do we in Canada want to establish public policy with a referendum every time we turn around? Referendums are generally espoused and advanced by people who have already lost the debate. They took part in the process and they have lost the debate so they want one more kick at the can. That is the referendum mentality.
It is unfortunate that we run out of time in the House. Part of that, as I understand it, is because the Reform Party and the Bloc in 1993 really did not do their job as the opposition and allowed debate to be cut off after six or eight hours.
