Mr. Speaker, it is great to be back in the House of Commons after a very busy summer at home in my riding of Langley Township—Fraser Heights and throughout British Columbia.
Like every member of the House, I am sure, I heard from many Canadians about their concerns about the state of Canada's economy, so I would like to start with this: Conservatives are focused on saving Canadians money. Liberals are all talk and no results. Liberals are costing Canadians more. They are out of touch, and Canadians are out of money. The Conservative plan, on the other hand, restores the promise of an affordable, safe and independent Canada. It will save people money. It will save Canadian jobs. It will keep people safe. It will fix immigration, and it will put Canada first, always.
As I was speaking with people throughout British Columbia, I also heard deep concerns about the economic uncertainty that has arisen under the Cowichan Tribes decision, which, for the first time in Canadian history, declared aboriginal title over fee simple lands. Somehow those two competing interests have to live with each other, and that brings me to the topic of the day: Bill C-10, an act respecting the commissioner for modern treaty implementation.
Let me start with this. Conservatives agree with the importance of modern treaties. Treaties are the way forward for Canada. Treaties create certainty. Treaties provide clarity. Treaties are better than endless litigation. Well-negotiated treaties can reconcile indigenous rights, support economic development and provide stable foundations for future generations. Canada continues to grapple with one of the unfinished chapters of Confederation, unresolved indigenous land claims, and nowhere is this more true than in British Columbia, my home province.
This summer, as chair of the Conservative Party task force on property rights, I travelled around British Columbia with colleagues, and we met with realtors, bankers, appraisers, ranchers, builders, business owners, indigenous leaders and ordinary Canadian homeowners. I wanted to hear their concerns following the British Columbia Supreme Court decision in the Cowichan Tribes case. As I said, for the first time in Canadian history, aboriginal title has now been declared over privately held lands. The judge in that court case said that the indefeasible title provisions of the British Columbia Land Title Act do not apply to aboriginal title when it is declared over private lands. This is a seismic shift in thinking about private ownership, about private lands.
This goes to the very foundation of our modern western economy. Whether one disagrees or agrees with the legal reasoning in that decision, there is no disputing that it has generated significant uncertainty across many sectors in Canada's economy. We heard concerns about mortgage lending and financing. We heard concerns about real estate valuation and investment. We heard concerns about investment decisions. We heard concerns about municipal tax bases and economic development.
One real estate property appraiser described the situation this way: He said that, historically, appraisers could rely on the indefeasibility provisions of the land title office to confirm the ownership and determine exactly what interest was being valued. However, after the Cowichan decision, appraisal firms are increasingly inserting disclaimers related to aboriginal title claims. They are putting it right into their report, saying that they assume there are no aboriginal title claims on the property. Well, that goes to the value of the property and undermines certainty. It undermines confidence in our economy.
Certainty matters. People buying homes need certainty. Businesses making investment decisions need certainty. Indigenous communities seeking economic development and opportunities also require certainty. Municipalities planning for the future need certainty. As one business leader at one of our round table meetings put it, if we have no certainty in Canada, we have no Canada. I would agree with that. We need to know where we are, going forward.
One of our meetings was in Victoria, British Columbia. My colleagues and I met with leaders from the Cowichan tribes, the plaintiffs in the litigation. We had a great meeting. We certainly did not agree on everything, but we agreed on one very important point: The treaty-making process in British Columbia has not adequately resolved these questions for either indigenous or non-indigenous communities. One of the chiefs made an observation that has stayed with me. She described the treaty-making process and the settlement of land claims as the unfinished work of Canada's Confederation, and I agree with that.
When British Columbia entered Confederation in 1871, Canada promised to connect the province to the rest of the country with a transcontinental railroad. As settlement expanded westward through Ontario and the Prairies, the federal government negotiated what we call today the numbered treaties, covering most of Ontario, all of the provinces, and even the northeastern section of British Columbia. These treaties facilitated settlement, established a relationship with indigenous communities, provided for certainty as the country grew, and facilitated development and even the railroad.
However, when Canada reached the Rocky Mountains, the process largely stopped. Apart from the Douglas treaties in the southern part of Vancouver Island around Victoria and Treaty 8 in the northeast, as I already mentioned, most of British Columbia was left outside the treaty system. The result is that British Columbia remains unique in Canada. Most of the province was never covered by historic treaties. This unresolved reality has shaped decades of litigation and important court cases, all of them originating in my home province: from the Calder decision to the Delgamuukw decision, the Tsilhqot'in decision and most recently the Cowichan decision.
Today, most of British Columbia's 204 identified first nations have unresolved claims. There are similar unresolved claims in other parts of Canada as well, such as in the Ottawa Valley, in the Maritimes and in some parts of Quebec, but British Columbia stands out as having a real lack of modern treaties. That is why we say modern treaties are so important. We support them.
Negotiated treaties are better than litigation. Clear treaties are better than uncertainty. Final settlements are better than decades of court battles. In fact, many of the constituents I heard from this summer reinforce that very point. The answer to uncertainty is not more uncertainty. The answer is clearer agreements: treaties that define rights, responsibilities and expectations.
That brings me to the topic of the day, Bill C-10. Many Canadians hearing about this legislation might reasonably assume that it is designed to accelerate treaty negotiations, settle outstanding claims or help complete the unfinished work of treaty making in Canada. Unfortunately, that is not what the bill would do. Bill C-10 would primarily create a new commissioner and a new institution to oversee the implementation of existing treaties. That work was already being done very effectively by the Office of the Auditor General, but the Liberal government simply chose to ignore those reports. How would this be different with the new treaty commissioner?
The problem is not that Canada is suffering from a shortage of commissioners. It is suffering from a shortage of action and results. The Liberals' response to many problems is to create a new office, another agency, another commissioner or another layer of bureaucracy. Permits are being held up, so they create a Major Projects Office. Housing is unaffordable, so they create another office, another bureaucracy for housing that is going to overlook the previous commissions that were not doing their job. If treaty implementation is falling behind, the Liberals say to create another commission.
I am saying that the appearance of action is not action itself. We already have the Auditor General's office for that work. The answer is to do the work. Reconciliation cannot be measured by how many commissions there are. It must be measured by outcomes. Canada needs a serious plan to complete the unfinished work of reconciliation and treaty making. Reconciliation and certainty are not competing goals; they are complementary goals. Indeed, the best treaties in history have advanced both. Unfortunately, Bill C-10 would do very little. We do not need more commissions. We need action.
