Narratives and Embedded PoliticsHistorical Narratives in Parliamentary Discourse on Aboriginal Treaty Rights in Canada

Lisa Philips Valentine and Allan K. McDougallThe University of Western Ontario

valentin@uwo.ca akmcdll@uwo.ca

This paper examines the hotly-contested ratification of a treaty between the state of Canada and theNisga=a First Nation, an aboriginal community located on the west coast of Canada in province ofBritish Columbia. Ratification required the approval of both Houses in the Canadian Parliament, theelected House of Commons and the appointed Senate. In our analysis of the ideological contextsurrounding the debates on the Nisga=a Final Agreement, we found significant differences between thetwo Houses, in large part due to the differing structural contexts of the fora. The House of Commons, asa representative assembly, is dominated by political parties and ideological positioning. In the relationalsparring of the political parties, the arguments are constructed antithetically, invoking values orprocedural nuances to bolster partisan positions before the media and attentive public. As debate movesto the Senate, the House of Commons provides the dialectical foundation from which the Senators, whoare political appointees until age 75, construct a synthesis that may include transcendent visions orhegemonic transformations. This synthesis allows structural, or at least rhetorical, remedy forantagonistic constructions developed in the politically partisan House of Commons.

This paper focuses on the use of historical narratives during the debates on the ratification of the Nisga=aFinal Agreement (Bill C-9) in the Parliament of Canada in the period between October 1999 and April2000. Prior to its reading in the House of Commons, the treaty had been approved by the Nisga=a tribe,the government of British Columbia and the executive branch of the federal government as representedby the Department of Indian Affairs. The Parliamentary debates comprised the last stage, its ratificationby the Canadian state. In this paper, we introduce the institutional context within which the debatesoccurred and then analyze the different types of historical narratives evoked in Parliamentary discourse.

Canada is a federal state. Under section 91 of the Constitution, the federal government has responsibilityfor >Indians and lands reserved for Indians=. The provinces, on the other hand, have constitutionalresponsibility for public lands and municipal governments within their borders. Following a SupremeCourt of Canada decision in 1973, the Calder case ([1973] S.C. R. 313), suggesting that there might beaboriginal rights in areas where treaties had not been concluded, the federal government entered aprocess of land claims negotiations with First Nations (Amerindian) communities across the country.The process has been very expensive for both sides and the negotiations have been protracted.

The Nisga=a community is located in north-central British Columbia on the pacific coast of Canada. The

province of British Columbia is predominantly English speaking and, outside of major urban centers inits southwestern corner, it is sparsely settled and dominated by large extractive natural resourceindustries of which mining and forestry corporations are the most significant. Politically the province isdivided between a socialist tendency in the middle and lower classes in the major urban center ofVancouver and an individualistic, frontier ethos in the rural portions of the province.

The Nisga=a community has fought persistently in the Canadian courts to claim and defend its aboriginaltitle to tribal lands which it argued were never surrendered by treaty to the Canadian state. Asgovernment legislated in the areas of lumbering and fishing, and as it sold Crown land, lands that hadbeen deemed to be under crown control, the Nisga=a reacted to defend their resources and way of life.The Nisga=a Treaty, negotiated over a period of twenty years, was innovative in the context of theCanadian system of government. Its provisions affected municipal institutions, local taxation powersand resource use. Those provisions included a Nisga=a legislative capacity over members of the tribe andover natural resource use on tribal lands. It also ended the detailed application of the Indian Act to thetribe. The Indian Act was federal legislation which consolidated legal control and oversight of >Indiansand lands reserved for Indians= with governmental accounting powers and oversight of band governance.Its constraints have been a major source of tension between First Nations and the government from itsimplementation in 1876. Alternatively, the Indian Act also insulated First Nations peoples from theeconomic forces of the free enterprise economy.

The Nisga=a, who had led the challenge in the Calder case, entered into negotiations with the federalgovernment to define their rights under law shortly after the 1973 decision. As the negotiations evolved,the province of British Columbia joined in. The result was a complex process which eventuallyculminated in an agreement that was endorsed by the Nisga=a community in a referendum. Thegovernment of British Columbia endorsed the agreement by legislative instrument after a protracted debate that was procedurally ended by the provincial government after 120 hours. In accordance withthe provisions of the Indian Act, the federal department of Indian Affairs, which was responsible for theadministration of the Indian Act, then gave the settlement its blessing before it was presented to theParliament of Canada for ratification.

In the House of Commons, the elected House of Parliament, the agreement was presented as governmentpolicy by the majority Liberal government. The Official Opposition, or second largest block of membersin the House, was the Reform Party (reorganized in March 2000 as the >Canadian Alliance= Party). Itdrew its support almost exclusively from western Canada including rural British Columbia. The ReformParty platform staunchly supported the free enterprise system and advocated individual rights in contrastto group rights. Individual rights include the values of equality, in the present, and the rejection ofaffirmative action initiatives or legal recognition of communal distinctiveness.

The third largest party in the House of Commons was the Bloc Québécois. Like Reform, its power baseis regional, grounded in nationalist, francophone Quebec. The Bloc=s mission is to present and defendQuebec=s interests in Ottawa, the federal capital. As a French Canadian nationalist party, the Bloc hasargued for the distinctiveness of Quebec in the Canadian federation, with especial attention paid toQuebec=s French language and heritage. In Quebec, a nationalist and separatist agenda is assumed andunderstood by all the political actors in the province. This distinction is important when one addressesissues involving the First Nations. In the 1970s and 1980s, the Cree peoples forced the Quebecprovincial government to negotiate an extensive and complex land claim before the courts would let theprovince proceed with a vast hydro development on Cree land on the shores of James Bay. In BritishColumbia, the Nisga=a claim was one of a number of aboriginal claims rocking the status quo in thatprovince. Constructions pitting >equality= against >distinctiveness= found throughout the Nisga=a debateswere rooted in the meta-discourses arising out of the chronic differences between an English statist(Reform) and a French nationalist (Bloc Québécois) agenda. This conflict in meta-discourses is centralto understanding the form that the debates took on the Nisga=a Treaty.

The Parliamentary traditions of the United Kingdom form the base for the Canadian rules of procedurein parliamentary discourse. Those rules have deviated somewhat from British practice over the last fiftyyears but only in the details so that when one analyzes Canadian Parliamentary discourse, its constraintsare found to be similar to those in other British-based Parliamentary proceedings. The federalParliament is officially bilingual in English and French; all debates are published fully in bothlanguages, with notations as to the original language used. The order of participation is set by party size,so that the majority party, in this case the Liberal Party, speaks first, and cabinet ministers are privilegedas speakers for the government. Party discipline is enforced so that deviation from party positions ispenalized. The Reform Party, as the second largest party, spoke second and was privileged in debate andquestion periods. However, after the opening round of questions, the Speaker of the House has thediscretion to select members to speak as they catch the Speaker=s attention. The Bloc, as the third largestparty, was recognized after the Reform party and thus was not as visible in the record as the two largerparties.

The debate on the Nisga=a Treaty is unique in a number of ways. The federal Liberal government waspresenting a treaty settlement agreed to by the ruling New Democratic Party of British Columbia andnegotiated in part by it federal predecessor, the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. The OfficialOpposition, the Reform Party, took a >level five= stance against the Nisga=a Final Agreement Bill and itmarshaled all of its substantial resources to fight against its passing. The federal Reformers= oppositionto ratification of the treaty was so vehement that it included a filibuster in the House. The governingLiberals countered with the imposition of time limits on debate in the House. The Reform Partyresponded by moving a series of 471 amendments that were voted down in a marathon 40-hour session,which began on 7 December 1999. Once the bill was passed in the House of Commons, it moved on to

Senate where it was introduced on 14 December 1999 and finally passed on 13 April 2000.

In their opening arguments following the second reading of the Nisga=a Final Agreement Bill in theHouse of Commons, leaders of each of the recognized parties (Liberal, Reform, Bloc Québécois,Progressive Conservative and New Democratic Party) presented the positions that would be arguedthroughout the debates in the House of Commons.1 The basic party positions as presented in the openingstatements are outlined below.

Liberal Party (Government) arguments: * The Treaty Is a Canadian National Achievement *The Treaty Will Settle Past Grievances of the Nisga=a against Canada *The Treaty Benefits All Canadian Citizens: Rights and Benefits for All *The Treaty Is Consistent with, and Subsumed by, Canadian Government and Laws

Reform Party (Official Opposition) arguments: * The Treaty Has Negative Ramifications for all Canadians * The Treaty Does Not Support Equality of all Canadians in Law * Defects in the Current System:

1. Special Statuses Are Granted2. Undemocratic and Unaccountable Governments 3. Socialist Economics, especially Collective Ownership and excessive Governmental Regulation

Bloc Québécois arguments: * Quebecers Desire Distinct Status * Quebecers Desire Self-government * Quebecers Have a National Identity (as >One of Two Founding Nations in Canada=) *An Agreement Is Between the Nation, a Single Province and Canada (precluding interference by other provinces) *Because Quebecers Share Nationalist Goals, They Understand and Support the Nisga=a Agreement

Progressive Conservative Party arguments: * The Treaty Fits within the Canadian State *The Treaty Allows for Inherent Right of Aboriginal Self-Government *The Treaty Is Negotiated

New Democratic Party arguments: * The Treaty Is about Fundamental Rights within the Constitutional Framework *The Treaty Has Support from Business, Labour, Working People and Faith Leaders * The Treaty Will Redress Social Grievances

The Liberals assumed that the constitution, legal system and procedural requirements all supported asimple ratification vote. The three parties (Nisga=a Nation, Province of British Columbia and FederalGovernment) had agreed and the Bill represented the conclusion and affirmation of a completed process.The government position was echoed by the Progressive Conservative Party although the latter

emphasized the uniqueness of the First Nations and their treaty rights more heavily. The Reform Party,on the other hand, invoked constitutional issues and their ideal of >equality under the law= to challengethe recognition of any community as >special=. The proposed Nisga=a Final Agreement challenged theintegrity of the Reform=s >individual-state= based constitution, both since the Nisga=a government wouldnot parallel existing local structures and the Nisga=a would not have the exact rights of other individualsin Canada. The emphasis on collective rights by the other parties led to considerable cross-communication. The Liberals, Conservatives and NDP countered that the Agreement fell under theConstitution and that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would apply to the Nisga=a. They thendismissed the Reform concerns as fabrications. This ideological conflict over the individual-group-staterelationship extended to conflict over democratic processes and legitimacy. What population, Nisga=a,British Columbian, Canadian should ratify the treaty? Could governments decide or must it be decidedby >the people=? Should Parliament be bound by a referendum in British Columbia? In Canada? TheReform pressed for either; the other parties favored the traditional ratification process.

Given the Bloc=s preoccupation with the eventual separation of Quebec from the Canadian federation,they shifted to support provincial and Nisga=a self-determination, downplaying the role of the federalgovernment and especially the opportunity for other provincial governments to interfere. This wasmanifested in repeated assertions of solidarity with the Nisga=a on the issue of distinctiveness. TheBloc=s attacks then shifted to the intolerant >Reform-oriented= English population in British Columbiaand their rudeness towards >non-English= communities and this appeared in first-person narratives frommembers of the Bloc that participated in the Parliamentary committee hearings in British Columbia.

13 December 1999, Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): [Translation]

The agreement in principle and the historic bill were presented. After second reading, we travelled to British Columbia. We went to Terrace, Prince George, Smithers, Victoria and Vancouver. I will admit that it was a bit of a shock to Bloc Québécois members. The hon. member for Manicouagan was also with me.

Of course, we asked for interpretation services. The witnesses who spoke in support of aboriginals and aboriginal people themselves were treated shoddily at the hearings. Bloc Québécois members were stunned whenever they were asked to Aspeak white@. This was very shameful.

I do not want to make any generalization, but I think those who said that are best described as Arednecks@. My feeling is that these people came out to treat the Nisga'a, the aboriginals and French speaking people in a malevolent way. However, after speaking with many people in Terrace, Victoria and Vancouver, I am convinced that these rednecks were a very small minority.

I raised these incidents with Phil Fontaine, the first nations chief, when he made his presentation on the Nisga'a. His response was AYou were told to Aspeak white@ during one or two days, while this is the attitude we have been confronted with all our lives. How do you feel when you are being treated like that?@

Party narratives in the House of Commons

For this paper, we have examined narratives from each of the parties. Given the constraints of theParliamentary debates, most discourses fit argumentative frameworks within which fully-developednarratives are relatively rare. In our examination of the House debates, we found sustained narratives ofall types in only about six percent of the interchanges surrounding the Nisga=a Final Agreement. Welocated four main types of narratives: narratives of the history of the Nisga=a Treaty Agreement;contemporary, first person narratives centered around the MPs experiences during the ParliamentaryCommittee hearings held in British Columbia; >personal history in Canada= narratives; and >stories=.These narratives were typically embedded in more general political argumentation and were used toillustrate and elaborate specific political agendas or they were used as a means of discrediting otherparties= arguments.

First-person narratives about the British Columbia hearings

Narratives of the history of the Nisga'a Treaty Agreement, the focus of the analysis to be addressed inmore detail later, were found most frequently in the first few weeks of the debates. These narrativeswere later replaced by the first person narratives about member's experiences in the Parliamentaryhearings held in British Columbia to solicit the views of local publics. The narrative presented earlier byMr. Claude Bachand is an illustration of this type of narrative by a member of the Bloc Québécois; wepresent another example from a Reform member,Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich-Gulf Islands) from 22 November 1999.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to a few of the comments made by the Bloc member, much to my absolute disbelief. I would like to tell the House the exact truth of what happened. I was at that meeting in Victoria with the committee listening to the witnesses.

The member stated that the Reform Party was blocking, preventing, or stopping the witnesses from speaking. The truth be known that every single witness on that list when I was there got their entire allotted time and more time.

He left us with the notion that he heard words spoken, such as Bosnia an

d Chechnya. He put that in the context that the Reform Party was this or that. What he is not telling the House is that it was aboriginal people from the Nass Valley who used those words. These were the words of aboriginal witnesses from the Nass Valley who testified before the committee, their words and nobody else's. The House should take note of that. That is the absolute gospel truth.

He also used the words Aa paternalistic motion@. Imagine that, a paternalistic motion. Can anyone imagine that a vote is paternalistic? Y

Personal history in Canada narratives

The <personal history in Canada' narratives were presented most often by Reform memb

ers, typically to argue against special and/or communal rights for Aboriginal peoples.

Personal history narrative 1: 1 November 1999, Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.):

Y When our ancestors came to this country I do not think there was anyone who did not recognize that the aboriginal people were the first people here. That is an absolute given. Did they have the use of the land? Of course they did. They had the use of the land before we got here. ...A lot of us came from other areas. My ancestors came from Scotland, a land that was taken away by the English. Does that mean I should put in a land claim there? Some of my ancestors came from France, from the religious wars, from the Protestant side that were driven out of France. I am going to France for a vacation this year. Do I look up to see where my ancestors came from and put in a land claim there? Of course not. We simply have to treat people on the basis of equality in the country; equal opportunity for everybody involved.

Personal history narrative 2: 1 November 1999, Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress HillsCGrasslands,Ref.):

Y It is time to put aside historical divisions and bind up the wounds of injustice fromanother century. The fact that some of our European ancestors felt free to treat Indians asan inconvenient life form to be displaced in the name of progress does not make meguilty of anything. I did not participate. Nor is the fact that some IndiansCnot the Nisga'aby the wayCkilled some white people, who pressed them beyond endurance, a matter ofconsequence for the 21st century. This is the new age. We cannot continue to wear thescars of the past.

My ancestors arrived in North America hundreds of years ago. Does that entitle me tomore rights and privileges than first or second generation Canadians? I think not. Theancestors of the Nisga'a reached this continent thousands of years ago. Does that meanthey should be treated differently from the rest of us?I submit that it does not. We must remember that the Nisga'a do not have an existing treaty to set them apart from other Canadians, but the government is deliberately proposing to create a different status.

When presented by members of parties other than Reform, the personal history in Canada narrativeswere used to show sympathy towards and empathy with the Nisga'a First Nation in its struggles tonegotiate the treaty.

Personal history narrative 3: 26 October 1999, Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Children and Youth), Lib.):

I was a young girl when I was first struck by the power and the conviction of the Nisga'a people. It was a turning point in my mind that aboriginal people are not a powerless, homeless, lawless and without leadership people. I felt that power, in the words of Frank Calder, a great Nisga'a leader and great Canadian leader.

Personal history narrative 4:13 December 1999, Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):

The opportunity to speak is fast evaporating. However, I would like to suggest that it has been known since the very beginning by non-Nisga'a that this was an injustice done to the Nisga'a people. Let me refer to my own family history.

My grandfather, born in 1880, was a small boy at the time of the 1887 arrival in Victoria of the Tsimsean and the Nisga'a people who came to plead for the land. Later, when I was much his age, he told me based on his experiences and his time in northern British Columbia of that injustice. At that time, when I was a small boy, he persuaded meCan easy jobCthat in fact there was an injustice to right. I must say how proud I am after all this time that I am here in the House with the privilege of being the last speaker in this debate as the senior minister for British Columbia, pointing out that we will now right that injustice done all those years ago.

Stories

The final narrative type was what the speakers themselves called <stories'. These na

rratives were typically embedded in more general political argumentation and were used to illustrate and elaborate specific political agendas or they were used as a means of evaluating other parties' arguments. Of all the types of narratives, the stories differed most dramatically from each other in both content and structure. The examples below were chosen for their relative brevity.

Story 1: 26 October 1999 [Translation], Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ):

The Leader of the Opposition has just told us about the woman who came out of the woods to conquer the work force. The Reform Party's attitude, its intransigence on the aboriginal issue, the immigrant issue, are what will perhaps make it the only one voting against bills of such scope addressing aboriginals, immigrants and so on.

I too have a story for the Leader of the Opposition. When I was a little boy of nine or ten, I was not an army cadet, but my friends were. I remember that they had a review every year. We all lined the streets to see the cadets all march past together. I clearly remember being there with my mother watching the parade pass by. The neighbour, whose son was in the parade, exclaimed AMy goodness, look at that. My son is the only one in step@. I looked at my mother, who smiled, and I realized she was thinking the same thing I was: her boy was probably the only one out of step.

It is more or less the same thing with Reform. They are pretty much the only ones not in step as far as the aboriginal question is concerned, probably because of their excessive intransigence with respect to bills relating to aboriginal people and immigrants. So I felt it was important to start off with that little story.

Story 2: 22 November 1999, Mr. Philip Mayfield (CaribooCChilcotin, Ref.):

... How important are property rights? I will tell a story or two from my own personalexperience. The first story begins probably before I was born.

I remember a friend of my father's who was a resident on one of the reserves near ourhome. His mother had a piece of property. Traditionally she had owned it. She had triedunsuccessfully to get title to it. His mother died. I will not use names because thesepeople are still living and still do not have the power to protect themselves. This manwanted to own his mother's property. I remember, as a friend of my father's, they woulddiscuss how this might be accomplished. I lost track of this story, but interestinglyenough this man was one of the first constituents to come to see me in my office after Iwas elected as a member of parliament. It was a great reunion. I had not seen him for a

long time.

He said AI am here for a reason. Do you know that property of my mother's?@ He showedme all the papers of all the applications, rejections and the difficulty he had in getting themoney. Finally it all came together and he got title to that property. After that he includedit in the reserve lands. The reason he came to see me was to see if there was some way hecould get control of his property again because now the band owned it and the bandwould not let him use his own property for which he had worked so many years to gettitle to.

In my mind this relates pointedly to the need for property rights for individuals. Bandmembers should be able to own their property, use it as they wish, buy it, sell it,mortgage it and take full advantage of it for themselves. Unfortunately this piece ofproperty is still beyond the grasp of my father's old friend, but he is still working at it.

Story 3: 2 December 1999, Mr. Jim Hart (OkanaganCCoquihalla, Ref.):

I have an interesting story to tell the House. Some seven years ago, my first trip toOttawa before I was elected, I got on the phone to make the flight arrangements. Iremember distinctly talking to the customer service representative of the airlines. Sheasked me where I was calling from and I told her that I was in the Okanagan Valley. Sheasked me where I wanted to go and I said that I was going to Ottawa. After looking onher computer screen she said that I could not get there from where I was. Although shemade that comment tongue-in-cheek, and it was kind of humourous at the time and stillis, that is the way a lot of British Columbians feel. Ottawa is so far away and sodisjointed from the way we feel in the province of British Columbia that we simplycannot get through to the people here, in particular the Liberal federal government.

Narrative histories of the Nisga'a Final Agreement

Our primary analysis focuses on the narratives presenting the history of the Nisga=a Final Agreement.Each of the narratives examined here was presented within the same context in the House of Commons;was in the same time period, from 26 October to 13 December 1999; addressed the same issue, thesecond and third readings of Bill C-9; and shared the same constraints on Parliamentary discoursewherein the members were recognized by the Speaker of the House and spoke as representatives of aparty. The matching of contexts places the differences between the narratives in particularly sharp relief.For this analysis, we compared the most elaborated and representative versions of the histories of theNisga=a Treaty Agreement from members of each party. While there are individual differences in stylebetween speakers of a given party, the fairest comparison seemed to be between the fullest, andpotentially most similar, narratives. Not all speakers presented narratives in their speeches and only afew ventured >stories=. We selected only the narrative portions of a single turn at talk (a single >speech=from the House floor) and have elided the non-narrative materials, typically >debate= or >argumentative=

discourse, that did not display chronological or narrative sequencing. (The representative narratives intheir fullest forms are given in Appendix 1.) After a close comparison of the historical narratives, wefound that the members superimposed their own parties= histories and agendas onto their Nisga=aAgreement narratives. We will illustrate each in turn.

The Liberal narrative was represented by Mr. Andrew Telegdi, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister ofCitizenship and Immigration, in a speech given on 1 November 1999. Telegdi began his narrative byoutlining actions toward First Nations by the governments in power from 1850 through 1999. Highlightsof his narrative included a discussion of British Columbia as the >last part of Canada to be colonized=,the beginning of governance in the area under the Hudson=s Bay company, British Columbia=s formationduring the gold rush in 1858 and the end of treaty-making in B.C. in the 1860s. In a move to create asomewhat different type of narrative, Telegdi punctuated his speech with the meta-narrative statement,>Rather than speak to the Nisga'a final agreement in Canada's historical treaty-making and policydevelopment context, I want to speak to the Nisga'a people's living memory of this experience=.Following that statement, he immediately outlined British Columbia=s joining confederation, the entry ofthe first surveyor into the Nass Valley in the 1870s and his rejection by the Nisga=a people. Thenarrative continued, pinpointing Nisga'a demands for recognition of aboriginal title in the 1880s, theirrejection and, the work of the land committee of the Nisga=a people to assert their claims from the 1890sthrough the 1960s. In his discussion of the 1884 law banning the potlatch, Telegdi became mosteloquent beginning with a rhetorical question and ending with an embedded narrative of Nisga=aresistance.

How did we as Canadians respond? We amended the Indian Act to make it illegal for Indians toraise money to advance land claims. We also made it illegal for lawyers to be hired by Indiansfor that purpose. The legislation stayed on the books until 1951. The Nisga'a land committeewent underground and worked through other organizations, including the Native Brotherhoodto advance their cause. Whenever a federal government official tried to attend any meetingsthat discussed land questions, most groups would launch into hymns in order to cover up theirillegal activity. To this day, Onward Christian Soldiers is the battle hymn of the NativeBrotherhood of British Columbia, North America's oldest Indian organization.

He then returned to his narrative; in 1968 Chief Frank Calder took the issue to court and gained at leasta recognition of aboriginal claims. The history continued with (Liberal) Prime Minister Trudeau=sannouncement in 1973 of the comprehensive land claims policy. The narrative then jumped to 1991 andBritish Columbia=s task force to review aboriginal claims and finally to its ratifications by the Nisga=aNation, by British Columbia and by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in May1999. Ultimately, Telegdi's history was of >Canada=s history of treaty-making and policy development=with the Liberal government shown to be holding up its end of the bargain in dealing with the Nisga=aclaim.

The narrative given by Reform Party member Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena), dated 22 November 1999 was

prefaced by an introduction that, in several respects, mirrored the Liberal party narrative:Y I will give the House a bit of background as to what has happened up to this point in time. Ithas often been said that the Nisga'a leaders for more than 100 years have tried to get a treatywith Canada and with British Columbia. That is in fact the case. There is a lot ofdocumentation which shows that the Nisga'a leaders have tried since before Confederation tohave the Government of Canada, and prior to that the Government of Britain, enter into atreaty. They were steadfastly refused for more than 100 years.

It is also true that in 1973, with the Calder decision of the Supreme Court of Canada being asplit decision, the Government of Canada became alarmed that the Nisga'a had come close towinning a land claim case in court. At that point the government decided that it would enterinto negotiations.

However, after calling into question the motivation of the government in dealing with this claim,the narrative moved to a discussion of why British Columbia refused to enter into treaties after ithad joined Confederation. The details outlined by Scott put issues of compensation and resourcesfor the claims directly into the lap of the federal government.

British Columbia refused to join the discussions regarding treaties, taking the positionthat Canada was rightfully the body to be negotiating with the Nisga'a and if Canadarequired land or resources to complete those negotiations Canada would have to comeback to British Columbia and make arrangements to compensate, to buy the land and theresources to be conveyed.

Scott continued his narrative about the place of British Columbia in the negotiations in 1991, distancinghimself and his party from the >provincial government at that point=. He then named what he considered>the first major flaw in the process that has led us to the great problem we have today=, the secrecy of thefinal steps which led to the agreement between the federal government and the Nisga=a negotiators andwhich kept >the public of British Columbia= out of the negotiations. The narrative then turned to theplace of the Reform Party in making those negotiations public in 1994-95 and the subsequent publicconsultations held in British Columbia. Scott=s obvious displeasure with both the agreement and theprocess is evident in his inclusion of narrative elements including references to both the cost ofpromoting the agreement and the ratification process in the British Columbia legislature.

When the final agreement was released the provincial government spent $8 million ofB.C. taxpayers' money in an effort to sell the agreement. In a highly emotional appeal itroutinely belittled again anybody who questioned the agreement, and it routinelyindicated that this was a good deal and it would not change one word of the agreement.We then saw the ratification process take place in the legislature of British Columbiawhere debate was cut off after less than half of the agreement was debated.

Scott=s narrative concluded, repeating a first person narrative from a Liberal member about the role theReform Party played to get members of Parliament to travel to British Columbia as a part of the federalratification process.

The narrative by Bloc Québécois member, Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean) was presented on 26October 1999, the first day of debates. Like the Liberal and Reform members, the Bloc's narrative of thehistory began by invoking the 100 years of Nisga'a involvement. However, in keeping with the Quebecnationalist agenda of the Bloc Québécois, Bachand's narrative attributed a nationalist agenda to theNisga'a. The <Nisga'a's problem', according to Bachand, was <to attain greater independence'. Indeed,according to the Bloc member, <As long ago as 1880, they were making representations to theParliament of Canada, saying AWe would like to have greater control over our future@.' The Bloc'shistory of the Nisga'a Agreement skipped then to the Calder case 1973, cited by both the Liberal andReform members, but he focused on the fact that the Calder ruling <forced the federal government torecognize that it would have to negotiate with the Nisga'a.' The narrative highlighted the tripartite natureof the agreements with the Nisga'a, the federal government and the province evoking the Québécoisnationalist concerns to keep the other provinces from interfering in the Québécois goal of beingrecognized as a distinctive society with a unique place in Canada. The mention of the Nisga'areferendum in which <61% of those eligible to vote in the referendum were in favour of the treaty'pointed to a direct parallel with the Québéc Referendum held in 1995. The Nisga'a's pride as a peopleand their struggle for independence and final victory following democratic and legal proceedings werecompared explicitly to the aspirations of the Quebec people. The narrative incorporated the quest of theBloc as it endorsed the agreement with the Nisga'a.

In the NDP narrative given on 26 October, 1999, Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and HighlandValleys) followed the New Democratic Party line, which fosters a social agenda, emphasizing socialinjustice and its remedy. The introduction focused on the social drama of the early years of the quest forthe agreement:

Way back in 1887 the Nisga'a people paddled their canoes from the northern part ofBritish Columbia to what is now known as Victoria. They asked the government for theopportunity to negotiate some kind of a settlement and they were rebuffed. They weretold to leave, that the officials could not be bothered with that. After paddling more than1,000 kilometres down to Victoria, they had to paddle more than 1,000 kilometres backhome empty handed.

Riis's narrative presented the pre-European Nisga'a people as living what the New Democratic Partymight view as the ideal society:

They were a very highly sophisticated society, self-sustaining and self-reliant. They wereself-sufficient and self-governing. They were prosperous and entrepreneurial. It was a

dynamic society.

The narrative continued with a long discussion of the atrocities that the European settlers imposed onthe Nisga'a people that included ethnic cleansing, forced relocations and residential schools. The focuson social, rather than financial and political, issues, is a typical marker of the New Democratic Partypolitical agenda. As in the Bloc narrative, voices were imputed, although in this case, Riis gave voice tothe <European population' rather than to the Nisga'a:

... in British Columbia [t]here were no treaties signed for all intents and purposes. TheEuropean population basically came in and told the native people they were going to liveon a little crummy piece of land while they would take all the rest. Obviously theaboriginal people did not like that but the Europeans said that it was too bad because thatwas the way it was. [emphasis added]

And later:

Can anyone listening and watching television today imagine what it must have been likein those thousands and thousands of aboriginal families to have someone with a Europeanbackground, who looked maybe like me, come in and say AI am taking your childrenaway from you for the next 10 months and putting them in a residential school wherethey will not be able to ever speak their language?@

The final group, the Progressive Conservative Party, was remarkable for its lack of narratives. Therewere only three narrative sections in Conservative discourse in all of the proceedings on the Nisga'aFinal Agreement bill, all of which were only three sentences in length. However, the brevity of theConservative narratives speaks volumes. The Conservative Party formed the government during crucialphases of the negotiations but the Liberal government was now taking credit for the result. Thenarratives affirmed the treaty process but had little to say that might alienate potential allies in theReform Party on other social policy issues. The truncated narrative presented by Mr. Peter MacKay(Pictou - Antigonish - Guysborough)on 26 October 1999 is given in its entirety:

... The Nisga'a people have roamed over the land of North America since the mists ofantiquity. The Nisga'a final agreement was ratified only this year, but the history of thesepeople goes back for generations and centuries. The Nisga'a people approved thisagreement, as did the provincial government of British Columbia, when Bill 51completed the legislative process in April of this year.

In the Senate

The Opposition voices in the House of Commons were Reform followed by the Bloc, but in the Senate,where there have been no members appointed from either the Reform Party or the Bloc Québécois, theOfficial Opposition is the Progressive Conservative Party. That is an important point as the levels ofopposition in the House of Commons and the Senate on Bill C-9 were very different, as were thearguments against the bill. The upper House of the Canadian Parliament is filled by Senators appointedby the Governor General on the advice of the Prime Minister. In October 2000, at the close of the 36thParliament, there were a total of 96 Senators with nine positions unfilled. Of those in Senate during theNisga=a Final Agreement debates, 55 Senators were listed as Liberals, 36 as Progressive Conservativemembers, and five as Independents.

Senator Austin from British Columbia, the Liberal Party's House leader, opened the debate. His speechbegan with a detailed outline of the history of the Nisga=a treaty settlement since 1887 when a group ofNisga=a chiefs traveled to the British Columbia legislature >to seek recognition of aboriginal title, atreaty settlement and a measure of self-government= (Senate Debates, 16 December 1999:1530).Austin=s history was similar to those given by Liberal members in the House of Commons; it walkedthrough the major hurdles and milestones in that journey to the current Nisga=a Final Agreement andconcluded with a broad review of the debates in the House of Commons. After this opening speech, thedebates in the Senate evolved. The Reform issues of >race-based rights= and >equality under the law= thathad been argued in the House of Commons debates were transformed by the Senators into issues of>paramountcy and concurrent powers= under the constitution (Sen. Gerald-A. Beaudoin) and overlappinggeographic claims by other First Nations in British Columbia. The narratives found in the Senatedebates were less discrete than those found in the Commons. That is, the narrative elements tended to beinterwoven with specific arguments and were illustrative of more local arguments than the narratives of,particularly, Reform Party members. A portion of a speech byHon. Gérald-A. Beaudoin given on 10 February 2000 (original in French, translated) is characteristic of these embedded narrative elements.

I must say right off that I willingly recognize the collective rights accorded the aboriginal peoples, who were in America long before us, long before the arrival of the Europeans and the great discoverers: John Cabot, Jacques Cartier, Samuel de Champlain and others. The Constitution of 1867 did not say enough about the aboriginal peoples. Fortunately, the Constitution Act of 1982 improved things with section 35, an excellent section. The Supreme Court gave very significant decisions on native peoples and will, I have no doubt, give many more. We must, therefore, continue to recognize the rights of the native peoples and to respect them.

The mentions of Cartier and de Chaplain identify Beaudoin as part of the French nationalist community. In the Senate, the narratives presented came from three identifiable groups whose associations were not

by party, but rather by region or ethnicity. These were francophone senators, Aboriginal senators, andsenators from the western provinces, particularly from the Prairies. In the House of Commons,francophone Members were more likely to present extended narratives, as illustrated by the number ofnarratives attributed to Mr. Claude Bachand (BQ). The same was true in the Senate, which probablyindicates more about rhetorical norms in French culture and language than it does about narrativestructuring in Parliament more generally.

Of the two Aboriginal senators who presented elaborated narratives, Hon. Aurelian Gill (Liberal,Quebec) and Hon. Thelma J. Chalifoux (Liberal, Alberta), Gill offered the most extended narrativesand on the most occasions. Sen. Gill speaks Montagnais, an Algonquian language of northern Quebec,although it is not clear whether that is his first or a second language. French is the second language ofmost Innu communities including Sen. Gill=s home community, Mashteuiatsh, Quebec. Senator Gillstrongly supported Bill C-9, and in one speech on 8 February 2000 he drew parallels between theNisga=a and his own community=s efforts for self-government, reminiscent of Bachand in the House ofCommons. The first instance in which Gill explicitly made this shift from Nisga'a to Innu experiencefollowed his only code switch from French into Innu which consisted of a single word. >In the Innulanguage, we would call the Nisga'a >kanikantet=, or scouts. Their path is well marked. If we make gooduse of it, their accomplishment will open up better horizons for us= (translation from SenateProceedings). Sen. Gill's speech was one of the few given in either House that presented the perspectiveof an Aboriginal community within Canada.2

Throughout this speech, Senator Gill switched between reference to the Nisga=a or th

e Nisga=a Agreement (rarely, >their claim=) and the first person plural (we/us/our).

This strategy showed a level of identification that needed less specification than that used by Mr. Bachand of the Bloc who prefaced many of his statements about the Nisga=a and the Agreement with the overt subject, >Quebecers= or >the Bloc Québécois=.

Below is an example of the type of narrative found in Senator Gill=s speech (transl

ated from the French). (Another extended narrative by Senator Gill is found in Appendix 2.)

The Nisga'a Nation, like so many other First Nations, played a large role in these efforts to turn back the tide, to show that we could not hope to survive and certainly not to develop if we were denied access to our ancestral lands and resources. The Nisga'a used the legal system to breathe new life into their age-old claims.

In the relatively non-partisan Senate, Senator Gill was uniquely positioned to make the speech. Neither a member of the French nor English communities, his voice, from the margins but with the authority of his own expertise and habitus and position as

a senator, could transcend the earlier partisan debate.

The final group of narrators, the senators from western provinces, took one of two narrative approaches. The first was illustrated by Sen. Austin who gave a history of the negotiations and treaty from the governing Liberal's perspective. (See also Senator Grafstein's narrative in Appendix 2.) Those senators more closely aligned with a conservative (or Reform) laissez-faire approach to government, presented narratives that were reminiscent of Reform in the House of Commons in both content and style. This is illustrated by the following excerpt from a speech with interwoven narratives given by Senator Tkachuk (Progressive Conservative, Saskatchewan) on 12 April 2000:

... Who was here first? I do not know who was here first. I really do not. The FirstNations say they were here first. They even say the Inuit came after them, but we reallydo not know that for sure either. The First Nations say they were here first, and so theyget a set of rights. Then we have the Inuit, and they get a set of rights. Then, of course,along came the French. They came to Quebec 500 years ago. They have a set of rights.They have special rights, too. They want language rights. We are developing layers ofrights based on race and ethnicity.

That is what my grandfather, a 15-year-old Ukrainian who ran away from Ukraine,thought he was trying to run away from. We know the problems that rights based on raceand ethnicity have caused over there, and we all see it. Our peacekeepers are still tryingto deal with those problems. The beauty of this country, at least as my grandparents toldme, was that we were all here and we would all be equal. We would all be the same andwe would all be governed by the same laws.

Honourable senators, we have not yet had this debate in our discussion of the Nisga'a bill.We will have layered rights in this country.

The situation of the Cree is interesting because they are not indigenous to the Prairies.They came from Ontario and Quebec with guns, and they cleaned out the people whowere indigenous to the Prairies. We have all those issues, too. Do we bring back theBloods and say that they were on the Prairies first and chase the Cree back to Ontario andQuebec? That way of thinking has no end.

Here we find both a very truncated history of Aboriginal people in Canada intertwined with the familiar<personal history in Canada' to argue against the Nisga'a Final Agreement.

Conclusion

The Nisga=a Final Agreement was ratified eventually. The partisan constructions in the House remainedintact and the Liberals, Canadian Alliance Party (formerly, the Reform Party) and the Bloc Québécoiswere returned as the three largest parties in the election of November 2000. The partisan constructionsof the political parties, enforced through party discipline, permitted little evolution in the ideologicalstances of the participants in the House of Commons. The Reform and Bloc Québécois defined theissues to be argued through their predominance in questioning. In the Senate, the structure of thenarratives was somewhat less constrained and the issues in the debate were reconstructed around themessuch as orders of government and paramountcy, rather than along the more partisan issues of theCommons, as the debate evolved.

The institutional context had a significant impact on the orientation of narratives in the partisan Houseof Commons. Members wove their personal and party agendas into the narratives and applied them tothe subject at hand, the Nisga'a Final Agreement Bill. The constructions of the narratives accentuatedthose aspects of the specific history of Bill C-9 that paralleled and endorsed the agendas of each party.Personal narratives embedded in broader narratives usually invoked moral judgements on others. In theSenate, narrative types were fused and intermingled with discussions of constitutional law and theCharter of Rights and Freedoms. The result was a less partisan and dogmatic vision of the issues.Speakers such as Gill were able to use that flexibility to harness the treaty to illustrate future paths forthe country. However, the richness of the Senate debates is lost to all but the few who actually followthem. The public is most interested in the political spectacle (Edelman 1988) in the elected House and itis these narratives and discourses that move beyond the pages of Hansard to enter the gossipsurrounding partisan politics.

The study of narrative in both Houses offers important insights into the habitus of each Parliamentaryspeaker and the dogma of the parties. In the House of Commons, an examination of the consistency ofthe narratives over time and their more important variations opens insights into the unstated agendas ofeach party and, on careful analysis, the debates allow an active observer to locate and even anticipatechanges in the configurations of discourses of ideology and identity. The study of narrative in theSenate, on the other hand, provides an investigation into the visions of members from different regionsand communities. Those constructions are often fertile fields for partisan politicians as they search fornew alternatives for dogmatic packages.

Appendix 1: Party narratives in the House of Commons: History of the Nisga=a Final Agreement

Liberals

1 November 1999 Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak on Bill C-9, the Nisga'a final agreement. The Nisga'a treaty is a symbol and its historicaltimeline is one we must acknowledge here today and we must understand in order for all of us to move forward.

British Columbia was the last part of Canada to be colonized. One hundred and fifty years ago the Hudson's Bay Companyestablished a proprietorial colony on Vancouver Island. In exchange for all natural resources of that territory, it had toestablish a simple infrastructure and governance system.

When the gold rush began, the colony of British Columbia was formed in 1858 with Governor James Douglas at the helm. Itwas then that a small attempt to sign treaties began. The areas where the Hudson's Bay Company did business were where thesmall colonial treaties were signed: at Fort Victoria, at the coal mines in Nanaimo and Fort Rupert, and the Fort Langleytrading post. Fourteen small treaties in all, for a few blankets I might add.

Unfortunately the old colonial documents show a disagreement of who should pay for the cost of making treaties, and by the1860s treaty-making was halted. If only Governor Douglas was to know how long the debate of who was to pay what wouldcontinue.

Rather than speak to the Nisga'a final agreement in Canada's historical treaty-making and policy development context, I wantto speak to the Nisga'a people's living memory of this experience.

When B.C. joined confederation in 1871, article 13 of the Terms of Union stated that the federal government would assumeresponsibility for Indians and lands reserved for Indians. British Columbia agreed to provide lands for reserves and theGovernment of B.C. considered the land question to be resolved.

However, the Nisga'a did not, nor did they know that their lands and rights had been dispersed by a third party.

When the first surveyor entered the Nass Valley in the 1870s to gazette today's Nisga'a reserves, he was met by thegrandfather of Frank Calder. The surveyor O'Reily was told to leave and that this was not his territory.

Within a decade of that encounter, the first of many delegations of hereditary chiefs travelled to Victoria to demand of thepremier settlement of this land question. They demanded recognition of their title and affirmed the ownership of their territorysince before the time of the flood. They journeyed home unsuccessful; the government of the day considered the landquestion resolved. The chiefs who had a direct link to each of their territories since time immemorial thought the landquestion had just begun.

In 1890, the first land committee was formed with its first members: the grandfather, great-grandfather andgreat-great-grandfathers of today's Nisga'a negotiating team.

Shortly after the turn of the 19th century, the land committee of the Nisga'a petitioned the privy council in England seeking toresolve the land question. Again their efforts were not successful.

All the time the communities of the Nisga'a raised money, penny by penny, to send representatives to the variousgovernments, to hire lawyers to argue their cause. Over a century and a quarter of bake sales, raffles and donations havebrought Bill C-9 to the Chamber today.

By 1884, the central organizing unit of aboriginal people in Canada was outlawed. The potlatch ordered the governance,religion and economy of the peoples for thousands of years and with the stroke of a pen the covenant between the Nisga'a andthe creator was made illegal. As well as the loss of their land, the very social, governance and religious structures of theNisga'a feast houses were legislated away by our government not to be repealed until 1951.

The original land committee saw the death of many of its members over the next century only to be replaced by their chieftainheirs, their sons and their nephews. The Nisga'a final agreement has been a cost to the Nisga'a people of generations ofnegotiators who dedicated their entire lives to their struggle.

No other time in Canada's history can we trace the lineage of active participants in a cause to direct lines for 130 years. Thisis not a modern treaty. This is a modern solution to a very old outstanding debt. The Nisga'a continued to lead the youngprovince's aboriginal leaders, and in the early part of the 20th century were part of the allied tribes. The allied tribes united thediverse cultural tribes and nations of British Columbia into one goal, the land question. Chiefs from more than 50 languagesassembled in an unprecedented way to peacefully question the legality of the land and its ownership. People of warring tribes,different cultures and customs joined peacefully in one overwhelming cause, the land question.

How did we as Canadians respond? We amended the Indian Act to make it illegal for Indians to raise money to advance landclaims. We also made it illegal for lawyers to be hired by Indians for that purpose.

The legislation stayed on the books until 1951. Did that stop the Nisga'a? No, it did not. The Nisga'a land committee wentunderground and worked through other organizations, including the Native Brotherhood to advance their cause. Whenever afederal government official tried to attend any meetings that discussed land questions, most groups would launch into hymnsin order to cover up their illegal activity. To this day, Onward Christian Soldiers is the battle hymn of the Native Brotherhoodof British Columbia, North America's oldest Indian organization.

When the legislation was repealed, the Nisga'a land committee resumed in public. In 1968, Chief Frank Calder led the Nisga'atribal council on the land question to court. The council's lawyer was young Thomas Berger. Mr. Berger articled with ThomasHerley, underground legal counsel for the Native Brotherhood of British Columbia.

The delegation of people who stood on the steps of the Supreme Court of Canada to represent their people in the final stagewere the third and fourth generation of those who posed before legislatures and courts to have their photos taken to recordmomentous occasions. Many of those who stood on the steps of the Supreme Court of Canada and later in Prime MinisterTrudeau's office have since passed over and have been replaced by younger generations.

The Nisga'a chief negotiator, Chief Joe Gosnell's late father, Elijah and late brother, Chief James Gosnell, were both on thosesteps.

After a lengthy deliberation, the supreme court was evenly split on the decision for the Calder case, with one judge voting ona technicality of whether or not the Nisga'a could actually sue the government. Even though the decision was not a clearvictory, aboriginal title was recognized and Prime Minister Trudeau reversed his policy on the land question. In 1973 heannounced the comprehensive land claims policy.

Three years later, in 1976, Canada entered into a bilateral negotiation with the Nisga'a tribal council. British Columbiacontinued to deny that any aboriginal title still existed there, insisting that colonial legislation had dealt with it. However, onthe heels of the Delgamuukw case and under the conditions of staying the Meares Island case, the provincial governmentre-examined its stand on the land question.

In July 1991, the task force to review aboriginal claims in British Columbia released its report. It contained 19recommendations on how to negotiate the settlement of the land question in B.C.

On August 4, 1998, a canoe with Chief Frank Calder in it, grandson of Arthur Calder who met the first surveyor, was carriedinto the great feast hall. This canoe symbolized the many journeys the Nisga'a people made from the 1870s to the 1990s topeacefully assert their title to a land they had held since time immemorial. The journey was not just physical for the Nisga'a, itwas spiritual and, at times when it buried the generations that had travelled in that symbolic canoe, it was transforming.

On November 9, 1998, members of the Nisga'a Nation ratified the final agreement through a ratification vote and on April 22,1999, British Columbia passed the legislation it introduced to ratify the agreement. The British Columbia legislation wasgiven royal assent on April 16, 1999. The final agreement was signed by the Nisga'a and the Government of British Columbiaon April 27, 1999 and by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on May 4, 1999.

Reform Party

22 November 1999 Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.):

... I will give the House a bit of background as to what has happened up to this point in time. It has often been said that theNisga'a leaders for more than 100 years have tried to get a treaty with Canada and with British Columbia. That is in fact thecase. There is a lot of documentation which shows that the Nisga'a leaders have tried since before Confederation to have theGovernment of Canada, and prior to that the Government of Britain, enter into a treaty. They were steadfastly refused formore than 100 years.

It is also true that in 1973, with the Calder decision of the Supreme Court of Canada being a split decision, the Government ofCanada became alarmed that the Nisga'a had come close to winning a land claim case in court. At that point the governmentdecided that it would enter into negotiations.

British Columbia refused on the basis that in 1871 when it joined Confederation the terms of that union, which was called theact of union, expressly provided that the federal government would be responsible for all existing and future obligations toaboriginal people, except for the narrow requirement of the province of British Columbia to set aside lands known as reservelands and to have those registered with the land title office and conveyed to the federal government, which B.C. did. BritishColumbia has about 1,600 such reserve lands that were registered between 1871 and 1926 when the federal governmentultimately passed legislation which recognized that B.C. had lived up to its full obligations under the terms of the union.

British Columbia refused to join the discussions regarding treaties, taking the position that Canada was rightfully the body tobe negotiating with the Nisga'a and if Canada required land or resources to complete those negotiations Canada would have tocome back to British Columbia and make arrangements to compensate, to buy the land and the resources to be conveyed.

In 1991, however, there was a change taking place in British Columbia. The provincial government at that point said it wouldsit down as a party to the negotiations. It also indicated that it would be prepared to put land on the table as a provincialgovernment on behalf of the people of British Columbia to resolve the outstanding claims. What it also did, the first majorflaw in the process that has led us to the great problem we have today, was that it signed a secrecy agreement with the federalgovernment and the Nisga'a negotiators wherein it said that it would be party to negotiations that would take place behindclosed doors. The negotiators were all bound by the secrecy agreement not to discuss anything outside the negotiating room.The public of British Columbia for many years was not even aware that these negotiations were taking place and certainlyhad no idea of the ramifications of the negotiations.

In 1994-95 the Reform Party of Canada found out that these negotiations were taking place. It held a series of public meetingsand tried to bring to the attention of the public that this was taking place. It also tried to create some kind of a mechanism forpublic input. The negotiators for the federal and provincial governments fought the Reform Party of Canada tooth and nail.They did not want to have anything to do with it.

In 1996 an agreement in principle was announced. It was released publicly. At that point the provincial government decided itwould have its standing committee on aboriginal affairs travel the province of British Columbia to consult with the public. Iattended several of those meetings and I have the minutes of proceedings of all of those meetings. People who showed up tovoice concern or express any kind of opposition to any of the principles or any of the facets of the agreement in principlewere routinely belittled and their character and motives were called into question. The provincial members, dominated byNDP MLAs, took the position that people who questioned the wisdom of the agreement in principle were not just wrong butwere somehow lesser people; evil people, if I can use that term.

The final agreement was released publicly last year. We note that in the final agreement there was no substantive change fromthe agreement in principle, so all the committee work that was done by the B.C. standing committee was obviously just a bigPR exercise so the government could say it had consulted with people when in fact it had not.

When the final agreement was released the provincial government spent $8 million of B.C. taxpayers' money in an effort tosell the agreement. In a highly emotional appeal it routinely belittled again anybody who questioned the agreement, and itroutinely indicated that this was a good deal and it would not change one word of the agreement.

We then saw the ratification process take place in the legislature of British Columbia where debate was cut off after less thanhalf of the agreement was debated. Even though the provincial government had promised British Columbians a full debate onthe treaty, it guillotined the debate after less than half the treaty was actually debated.

Then we have the federal ratification process. We will recall that the minister of Indian affairs signed the treaty in June of thisyear, before the legislation or the agreement had even been introduced in parliament. Again we see a perverted process. Wenow have the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development travelling to British Columbia because,as one Liberal member who was in Terrace last week said: AWe are only in B.C. because of a tactic by the Reform Party tohijack parliament. In fact we came here on the white knuckle route. I have not been on a train yet. I have been on every othermode of transportation. This little song and dance is costing the taxpayers $500,000 directly by the Reform Party@. He saidthat the only reason he was there was because of a tactic of the Reform Party.

In other words, the only reason the Liberal members came to British Columbia, and they made it very plain to thepeople who were testifying before the committee, which was a stacked committee, was because they were forcedinto it. They had no real intention of listening to British ColumbiansY.

Bloc Québécois

26 October 1999 [Translation] Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ):

YI would also like to explain the democratic and peaceful process engaged in by the Nisga'a, for this situation has beencontinuing for over 100 years as the Nisga'a have tried to solve the problem, to attain greater independence. As long ago as1880, they were making representations to the Parliament of Canada, saying AWe would like to have greater control over ourfuture@. Things took a long time to get moving. During the 1970s there started to be some slight recognition of aboriginal titleand ancestral rights.

I met Mr. Calder, a great Canadian and a great Nisga'a in the Speaker's office. In 1973, he was the first to succeed in makingany progress toward recognition of ancestral and aboriginal rights. He is a great Canadian, a great Nisga'a, and he wasresponsible for the great step forward in case law and the philosophy of the courts with respect to the recognition of ancestralrights.

In 1973, there was the Calder ruling and, during the negotiations, this was what forced the federal government to recognizethat it would have to negotiate with the Nisga'a. In fact, I have been, and am still, critical of the government for alwayslagging behind the courts. It is time it showed a bit more leadership and resolved certain native problems for once and for all.But it is still reacting to supreme court decisions, the Marshall ruling being the most recent example. It was the same with the Calder ruling. It was not until 1976, a few years after the decision was handed down, that thegovernment said it would begin negotiating with the Nisga'a. Since these are tripartite agreements, it tried to get BritishColumbia to take part. In 1990, this province joined the negotiations. Finally, in 1996, an agreement in principle was signedand, in August 1998, a final agreement was reached.

That having been done, parliamentary steps had to be taken. These too were tripartite. The Nisga'a were the first to cast theirvote: 61% of those eligible to vote in the referendum were in favour of the treaty. Those who want to dismiss the treaty out ofhand, without knowing anything about the more than 100 years of history behind it, without knowing the recent history, whenpeople have been pushing for this for thirty some years, which is how long negotiations have been going on, and when thishas all been worked out between three parties, chose perhaps to ignore this or are simply unaware.

This is why I think it is important that the rules of democracy and parliament be respected.

New Democratic Party

26 October 1999 Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, NDP)

Y Way back in 1887 the Nisga'a people paddled their canoes from the northern part of British Columbia to what is nowknown as Victoria. They asked the government for the opportunity to negotiate some kind of a settlement and they wererebuffed. They were told to leave, that the officials could not be bothered with that. After paddling more than 1,000kilometres down to Victoria, they had to paddle more than 1,000 kilometres back home empty handed. YTo put this in some context, let us go back a few years to before the Europeans came to that part of British Columbia on thenorthwest coast. The Nisga'a people were there. That well established society had been there not for generations but for thousands of years. For thousands of years the Nisga'a people have lived in the Nass Valley andthe surrounding area. They were a very highly sophisticated society, self-sustaining and self-reliant. They were self-sufficientand self-governing. They were prosperous and entrepreneurial. It was a dynamic society.

Europeans then appeared on the scene. I say with some hesitancy and with some reluctance, that a form of ethnic cleansingtook place. At that time there were somewhere in the neighbourhood of 30,000 Nisga'a people. After a very short period oftime that number was down to 800 individuals, the result of illness and all sorts of inappropriate behaviour on behalf of theEuropean population. The Europeans set out to essentially exterminate the Nisga'a people. We call it ethnic cleansing today.They were almost successful.

Thankfully we can now say that there are 6,000 Nisga'a people in the area and they are making a major comeback. Thislegislation and this treaty is a major step forward in reversing this very negative process which took place over the lastnumber of years. Y

People say that they just want everybody to be treated equally, in other words, treated the same. It is clear when we look atour history first nations people were not treated the same as others. They were not treated equally.

When my ancestors first came from Norway many years ago, they were eligible to homestead on 160 acres of land virtuallyfor free. They did and they built the family farm and it is still in our family today. They had that right.

Did Indian people have the right to do that? Could they go out and buy 160 acres of land? The answer is no. They were noteven able to hire a lawyer to advance their cause for what they called their treaty rights. They were unable to hire a lawyer. Itwas actually against the law for them to do so.

Could they, living on a reservation, go to the bank and get some money to start up a business and so on? No. Could theyvote? The right to vote in a general election is a fundamental right in our society. It is embarrassing to say this but it was 1960before aboriginal people had the right to vote in our country.

To say that everyone has been treated equally over the years could not be further from the truth. First nations people havebeen treated very shoddily.

I mentioned a form of ethnic cleansing that took place in the western part of our country. I suppose the best example of ethniccleansing is in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador where first nations were completely eliminated. Not a singleperson was left from those early cultures. There is a lot of catching up to do. One thing this bill and this treaty moves ustoward in my judgment is that it will bring some stability and certainty to the decision making in that part of BritishColumbia. It is not going to be the answer. There is still a long way to go and much negotiation to complete. However, it isthe beginning of bringing certainty to the landscape. Y

Yes, there is a treaty process in British Columbia. As an aside, some people have asked why we are concentrating so much onBritish Columbia. As the European population came in contact with aboriginal peoples from the east coast, through thecentral part of Canada and out toward the west, they negotiated treaties with the native people. The understanding was thatwith these treaties certain rights would go to the aboriginal people and certain rights to the newcomers.

However, that did not take place in British Columbia. There were no treaties signed for all intents and purposes. TheEuropean population basically came in and told the native people they were going to live on a little crummy piece of landwhile they would take all the rest. Obviously the aboriginal people did not like that but the Europeans said that it was too badbecause that was the way it was.

We had all sorts of forced relocation. People were taken from their traditional territory and their traditional lands and toldwhere to live. Rest assured that although today those lands might be well located, in those days they were always thecrummiest pieces of property, the most remote, swampiest and rockiest places that the others did not want. That is where thefirst nations people ended up. We forced them onto those lands.

I heard an awful lot about the great treatment the first nations people have experienced, of all the things they have received and about how we should all be treated equally. If there is one aspect of growing up in recent times as a first nations people it was that period of time when, in the best interest of our churches primarily, they decided that children should not be part of first nations families, that the children should be taken out of the families, by force in many cases, and put into residential schools to get rid of their aboriginal, traditional and cultural ways and to drop their language.

Can anyone listening and watching television today imagine what it must have been like in those thousands and thousands ofaboriginal families to have someone with a European background, who looked maybe like me, come in and say AI am takingyour children away from you for the next 10 months and putting them in a residential school where they will not be able toever speak their language?@

Year after year those children grew up with no parents. Not only did they grow up with no parents, they developed noparenting skills. The parents were devastated and the children were devastated. This went on time and time again.

Progressive Conservatives

26 October 1999 Mr. Peter MacKay (PictouCAntigonishCGuysborough, PC)

YThe Nisga'a people have roamed over the land of North America since the mists of antiquity. The Nisga'a final agreementwas ratified only this year, but the history of these people goes back for generations and centuries. The Nisga'a peopleapproved this agreement, as did the provincial government of British Columbia, when Bill 51 completed the legislativeprocess in April of this year.Appendix 2: Senate narratives 10 February 2000, Hon. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein:

Honourable senators, rarely can we in the Senate say that the legislation we are considering will have a profound impact on Canada and is of historic consequence; or, that the legislation marks a historic evolution, a turning point in the transformation of the very nature of our sovereign state. Such is the case of Bill C-9, legislation to implement the Nisga'a Final Agreement.

The treatment of aboriginals - or better stated, the mistreatment of aboriginals - predates Confederation and started from the first so-called discovery and, later on, occupation by European states of lands that came to be known as Canada, which in itself originates from an aboriginal word, "Kanata", meaning "meeting place".

Who in this chamber and who in Canada can deny that one of the most miserable and distressing chapters in the history of North America and South America has been our treatment of aboriginals. The federal government, proudly aided and abetted by the established churches of the day, legislated the Indian Act over 100 years ago, which incorporated European-style notions of racial discrimination by establishing bloodlines as a point of definition in the Indian Act. This proved to be both racist and exclusionary. The Father of Confederation, Sir John A. Macdonald, hoped that the so-called "Indians", the so-called "Red Man", would assimilate by these policies using isolation and then assimilation.

The churches, their missionary zeal and their schools were part of the problem. They have yet to fully atone for their collective efforts to take aboriginal children away from their parents to residential schools for the noble purpose of education, only to abuse them and seek to cleanse them of their aboriginal heritage. The thinking of the Department of Indian Affairs was no different, backed by the

power and prestige of the federal government and its provincial counterparts, all instigated by avaricious settlers and entrepreneurs.

For decades, the treatment of aboriginals went from bad to worse. Even the rights of citizenship were denied aboriginals. In the 1960s, the federal government, through the Hawthorn-Tremblay commission, defined the problem essentially in economic terms and recommended economic empowerment for the aboriginals, as quickly as possible, in order to provide equality of treatment to all aboriginals as citizens.

In 1969, the government white paper presented during the tenure of the current Prime Minister, who was then minister of Indian and northern affairs, opened a new chapter calling for both equal treatment and affirmative action. The active search for a modern solution was on. It became an active part of the public discourse.

In 1982, the Charter of Rights propelled the public debate even further. Sections 25 and 35 recognized undefined aboriginal rights and aboriginal treaties. This was only just; it was only right.

Too few Canadians recall that Canada was saved from absorption by the United States in the War of 1812. It was the great Indian leader Tecumseh and his confederacy, siding with British and Canadian soldiers, who turned back the American invasion of Upper Canada. It was along the Thames River, not far from my birthplace in London, Ontario, where Tecumseh died in battle against the American invaders. Tecumseh rode north, from American lands to Canadian lands, to join the fight against the Americans here because he was promised fair treatment for aboriginal treaty claims and aspirations better than those offered or practised by the Americans.

Canada owes a deep social and historic debt to aboriginals; hence, the desire for economic and political justice. The establishment of the new Territory of Nunavut last year was a step in that direction.

6 April 2000 [Translation], Hon. Aurélien Gill:

On the loss of sovereign powers, need I remind you that the First Nations are the first experts on the matter? Originally, we abandoned sovereign powers in order to share with the newcomer a world that, until then, was ours alone. Our historic realism, our flexibility and our creativity were royally had, because the Canadian treaties were not respected, as we all know. Nobody can lecture us on the abuse of sovereignty, but we might be able to give a few lectures on our dreams for sharing. ...

The history of British Columbia is short. Until 1970, the province's positions on First Nations' lands and rights were very harsh and consequently unfair. The Nisga'a, among other nations, were humiliated and rebuffed at some infamous meetings. In the old days, they were denied access to the provincial legislature, their claims were ridiculed and they were publicly called "primitive". The province long resisted the very idea of treaties and it traditionally argued over every acre of land given to the Indians as part of federal reserves under the Indian Act.

So, the step that we could now take is a giant one and is entirely to British Columbia's credit. It corrects a historic flaw and has a great historic impact. But history is not our forte, our society has more rights than it has memory. Some raise the argument of uncertainty while fearing the worse for our grandchildren, who will have to live with these fundamental changes.

I heard that comment. As I said, I smiled. Are we not the grandchildren of those who drafted the Indian Act? Are we not the grandchildren of those who bequeathed us this national disgrace, namely the plight of First Nations in this country?

Who are they to ask for a perfect, pure and watertight agreement, a sure treaty, an act void of any flaws, risks or grey areas? Do you think that the Fathers of Confederation were pure and perfect when they designed Canada, in 1867? Remember the concept of Canada as two nations.

The first confederation had a minor flaw in that it buried the First Nations. Was it a perfect law? ...

... Governments have always cloaked our rights in words and pressure. We should remember. We should tell ourselves over and over that these words must be put into effect. Around 1830, during the dispute between the Cherokee Confederation and the State of Georgia in the United States, Justice Marshall ruled that the Cherokee, like all the other First Nations identified, were a domestic nation with whom an international type treaty, or treaties, must be negotiated.

In this same country, under Presidents Jackson and Monroe, serious consideration was given to creating a confederation of aboriginal states within the American nation. Barely were these fine intentions and principles uttered than the Cherokee, along with the Creek-Seminole, the Choctaw and the Chikasaw were driven out of their ancestral lands in Georgia into inhumane conditions in Oklahoma, to the great disgrace of the nation. These fine words having been uttered around about 1830, the Americans would spend the next 60 years engaging in war, fraud and all manner of wrongdoing in order to erase the existence of the First Nations from the now American territory.

[English]

Canada was certainly less violent in its history. However, its policies toward us have rarely, if ever, reflected its principles. That is why we have traditionally been betrayed. It is time to move from words to action - and generous action, too. If our rights exist, power must be shared, and it is as a founding First Nation that we belong to Canada.

Endnotes:

1.The database for this paper came from Hansard posted on the Parliamentary web sitemaintained by the Canadian Government. Because of the complexity of the issues involved inthe Nisga=a Final Agreement, the debates were extraordinarily long: the Hansard, whencombined with the proceeding of the Senates, produced over 1000 pages on this bill alone. Theanalyses found in this paper come from a careful study of all the debates on the Nisga=a FinalAgreement Bill as found in Hansard and the Proceedings of the Senate.

2.Gill's discussion of the problems of nationalism versus nationism was very direct and insightfuland clearly emerged from and transcended the two primary discursive fields opened by Reformand the Bloc in the House of Commons. However, this discourse is not strictly narrative.

Law alone is not enough. ... The Canadian identity is a work in progress. Eventoday. History has shown that people have always wanted to reduce this identityto a sort of homogeneity that does not exist. When it comes to cultural diversity,Canada must leave behind its apathy. Imagination is called for. We must get rid ofold Loyalist colonial tendencies and fleur de lys nationalism. No, Canada isneither English nor French. Biculturalism is an irrelevant concept which only

serves to inflame old grudges that unfortunately still exist. If an original Canadianculture finally surfaces one day, it will be a synthesis of the best features of thevarious identities and cultures that have been a part of this country's existence forover 500 years. (8 February 2000, in translation)