Mr. Speaker, we are here talking about the creation of a treaty implementation commissioner. Here is some background. I was the chief councillor of the Haisla Nation Council for six years, and prior to that, I was a councillor for eight years. During that eight-year period, I was treaty chairman under the B.C. treaty process; I was negotiating the treaty, so I read all the announcements over the last 20 years, went to all the meetings and read all the reports and the different positions being created to address very simple issues.
For those who do not understand the treaty and how it has evolved, the treaty is basically a formal agreement signed between B.C., Canada and first nations, and has evolved to formalize aboriginal rights and title, and underneath that, case law that established, in the courts of B.C. and Canada, reconciliation. That term is used loosely all over Canada, especially by politicians, for everything under the sun, but when we look at case law, we see that “reconciliation” has a meaning: It is how to marry aboriginal rights and title interests with Crown interests, meaning legislation and regulations.
Under undefined rights and title, which is what we are finding in cases like that of Cowichan, for example, it is complicated, I will admit, but a treaty defines rights and title in a very prescriptive manner, including implementation. There are implementation provisions in modern-day treaties. Why would we create another position, another level of bureaucracy, when implementation is already spelled out in the modern-day treaties?
I have heard the awakening speeches from the Liberal members that talk about social issues tied with economic development issues, which is great. I am glad they have finally woken up to that reality, especially in first nations regions, because we have been talking about that for the better part of 20 years. Before the 2004 court case came along, first nations really did not have a seat at the table. It was the Haida court case of 2004 that defined the role of the Crown in dealing meaningfully with aboriginal rights and title interests, even if it had not been proven. By the way, the Haisla first nation, where I come from, intervened in that court case.
The Haida court case turned things around for my band. We went from being one of the poorest first nations communities in B.C. to being one of the wealthiest and most successful. More importantly, we resolved poverty and unemployment. All those social issues, including the violence of poverty, started to go away. I am incredibly proud of that. In fact I would love to see some type of report done on that. My band is not talking about the social issues that many other first nations are talking about anymore, just because we engaged in the economic fabric of Canada and B.C.
However, it is the politics that have held us back, the legislation created in places like this and in Victoria that many people do not understand and do not follow. I do not blame them, especially today. They are out there trying to make life more affordable and trying to find a job, especially our young people, who are reaching higher levels of unemployment. They have their own issues.
I believe that part of my job is to describe what is happening here in terms of legislation, and to describe how it affects the individual, which is extremely hard. A lot of people think, “Implementation of treaty is such a great thing. They are going to create a commissioner.” Well, a commissioner has no authority. What the commissioner would do is take the decades of complaints from first nations, formulate them into a report and give it to government.
Then, if government repeats its past behaviour, it will ignore the report or come up with some type of word-salad speech, just for the perception that it is actually doing something, when really, first nations leaders are coming to the table in good faith, not only to resolve their issues but also to sign a treaty. They are moving from a place of undefined aboriginal rights and title that requires consultation, and they think they are moving into an arena where they are going to be treated as an equal partner to Canada and B.C.
The Nisga'a Nation, in my region, has had a treaty for over 20 years. Its members were the first to complain of the tanker ban that restricted their economic future. They are a treaty partner of Canada, but Canada did it anyway. To be clear, the Nisga'a were not supporting the transport of oil; they just thought that the treaty outlined specific roles and responsibilities between their treaty nation and the Government of Canada. That is all they wanted. They expected more, because the provisions of the treaty said so.
For treaty bands, unless they are gifted with location as an asset, it is really tough to implement a loan by themselves without an economic base. For some treaty bands that are close to urban centres, an economic base is not that much of a problem, especially if land values are high, such as in Vancouver. However, for remote bands that sign on to a treaty, there are provisions in the treaty where, at some point, they are going to have to get off government funding.
The whole point of signing on to a treaty is to formalize an agreement between Canada and B.C., but also to get away from Indian Act funding. Everybody talks about dependence. Well, for the most part, the Indian Act is irrelevant; nobody is going to enforce those archaic provisions, but the funding agreements still hold first nations dependent on government funding.
Treaty bands get government funding as well, but there are provisions where they have to develop their own source of revenue, which is really hard to do. If we think about a typical band with maybe 800 people on reserve and 800 off reserve, its funding agreement probably amounts to $7 million or $8 million a year; I have been away from council for quite a while, so I am not quite sure, but the provisions of the treaty expect them to replace that funding and be independent of government funding.
There are also extra costs, because Indian Act funding is formulated in such a way that first nations do not really get the entire cost covered by Indian Act funding. If they need $100, the Indian Act will provide $70, and they have to figure out the rest. That goes for water, sewers, administration and health, so first nations are continuously trying to make up the difference.
By the way, under the Indian Act, if a first nation produces a deficit, it will get punished. There will be clawbacks, by a cessation of programs, for example. However, here is the thing: In certain funding agreements under the Indian Act, if a first nation produces a surplus and it is not entirely under the criteria of what government expects, it also gets punished. First nations cannot win under the Indian Act agreement, so it is no wonder they are trying to find a way out, whether that is by leveraging their aboriginal title to be engaged in economy to create their own source of revenue, or by signing a treaty. Either way, first nations leaders are still trying to resolve one central thing: How do they resolve poverty and all the violence that accompanies it?
This is not new. I became treaty chairman in 2003. I used to go to the summit meetings in Vancouver, in Musqueam. They were talking about this back then, not only in terms of implementing a signed treaty but actually in terms of the provisions that we were negotiating at the time. I do not see how a commissioner would change this, when it would be just another office to pass the message on to government that “hey, government, you are not doing your job”, which is what it boils down to.
Liberal members have been getting up and talking about a new era of partnership and building an economy to combat Trump's tariffs. Why, then, have they opposed economic development for the last 10 years? Why did they create Bill C-69? Why did they create Bill C-48? We have already heard energy experts saying that we cannot be an energy superpower without oil and gas, that our dependence as a country on the United States, taking our own gas at a discount, is not only going to limit our ability to diversify our economy but will also limit us in becoming an energy superpower.
First nations are already there; we have been there for the last 20 years. If we look at the Haida court case of 2004, we see there is a specific clause that says there is an economic component of rights and title that must be respected. That is in relation to the land.
First nations get it. They have to make a trade-off, and they have been willing to make that trade-off. They have a specific parcel of land, and in their past practices it might have been subject to ceremonial purpose, food gathering, hunting or fishing. They get it, but they are also looking at the ravages of poverty, especially on reserve, and even, for that matter, off reserve, so first nations have been pushing for economic development in all sectors as much as they could. Who stops them? The Liberal government stops them with its legislation.
I already outlined the Nisga'a Treaty, with the government's partner that has a higher level than just consultation of aboriginal rights and title because it has defined rights and title. The first nation signed a constitutionally protected document with Canada and B.C. that said that the Nisga'a Nation is a partner of Canada and B.C. The leaders did it not just for the glory of signing a treaty; they thought they could build a better future for their people, and they are doing a great job.
At the same time, every modern-day treaty agrees to abide by the laws of B.C. and Canada. This is called the paramountcy of laws. They are agreeing to that, meaning that if someone goes onto treaty territory of a modern-day treaty, they are not going to come into a brand new country with the old set of laws regarding speeding or crimes. They trade their undefined rights and title for that because they want to be a partner.
Most first nations leaders see that the issues we are facing as aboriginals are the same issues all Canadians are facing right now. We are in this together. Like a judge said, let us face it: None of us are going anywhere. First nations want better medical services just like everybody else. They want better highways and better schools. Treaty bands are subject to taxation. They do not want higher taxes, and if they do submit taxes, they want to see those taxes being used responsibly, just like non-aboriginals in Canada do.
Therefore, somehow the new-found idea of partnership with the first nations in economic development for Canada, coming from the Liberals, sounds disingenuous given the past 10 years, but it is more important than ever. It is more important because as we go into a limited economy stifled by legislation and regulations, combined with unmanageable deficits with no plan to pay off the debt, Canada is going down a dangerous road. I can say, as an aboriginal coming off reserve, that I cannot believe there are not more people talking about this.
Other countries have proven what happens when decisions are based entirely on politics. We think the cost of living is bad now, but if we go to a place like Venezuela, which bases its entire system on politics, it is now selling its resources for pennies on the dollar. People there need a wheelbarrow of cash just to buy a loaf of bread.
Governance is serious stuff, and I do get the politics. I understand it, but if we keep making political decisions and not thinking about the present day and future of our country, Canadians will pay for that for decades, for generations.
We are talking about treaty implementation. When I was a treaty negotiator and a chief councillor, it was made clear to me that decisions are to be made based on seven generations in the future. We did not have the luxury of spinning the truth, or at least I did not. Maybe I did have the opportunity, but I did not go down that road.
Yes, a lot of my policy decisions were not liked, but I was doing what I did for a reason. There were issues I wanted to resolve. I also wanted to leave a better place for my descendants. It turns out that LNG Canada was a good decision, even though politicians rejected it. For decades, the B.C. NDP made outrageous claims about why LNG was bad. They were saying that if LNG was approved, Victoria would be under water. The Liberals said that there was no business case for LNG and told that to Germany.
Meanwhile, we were waving from over here, saying, “Hey, wait a minute. We have LNG in Canada, in our territory.” We had Chevron, which was chased out. That was a $30-billion project. It was chased out. There were 18 projects in B.C., and all but three left.
The Liberal government is talking the reverse side of it now, saying that we need an economy, we need LNG and maybe we will become an energy superpower, but it is not going to talk about how it will do that. The government says that it will build oil pipelines but that it is not going to build oil pipelines. All this mixed messaging, wordsmithing and truth spinning is going to hurt Canadians.
This existential crisis that Trump created is not an opportunity for more politicking. It is a time to think about us as a country. Where did we come from? It is a pretty messy picture when one talks about where we came from in terms of aboriginal interests. I acknowledge the past and understand the wrongdoings, but I learned a long time ago that it is better to build a future. It is easy to tear down.
The Liberals have already torn down our economy by saying no to oil tankers on the west coast of B.C., even though there are tankers coming down the west coast of British Columbia on a daily basis from Alaska to Washington state. There is no mention of that. By the way, Washington state will refine some of the oil it gets from Alberta into gas, diesel and jet fuel and sell it back to Canada for incredible profits.
The United States has become an energy superpower for exporting oil and gas for domestic purposes and export. Where do they get a large part of their supply? They get it from Canada, at a discount. Treaty first nations are there; they have been begging for the government to stop ignoring them. All we are saying to the government is to do its job and not create another level of bureaucracy for a message to come from the commissioner to the government to tell it to do its job. First nations want to build Canada, just as everybody else does. Canada should just do its job.
