Mr. Speaker, I live in one of those large northern ridings where there are many reserves and Metis settlements.
I am very concerned about the precedent the government is setting with this overly generous settlement. I support the concept of self-sufficiency and self-reliance inherent in the successful land claim settlement process. In no way do I argue with the principle.
However I encourage the government to dismantle the department of Indian affairs and let the people involved conduct their own affairs. This approach develops responsibility and places decision-making in the hands of those most directly involved.
Let us deal with the magnitude of the settlement. Seventeen hundred and fifty-five people will be receiving a financial package of $130 million, including interest. The land being handed over is equivalent to eight square miles per person.
I will put this into perspective. When my forefathers came to Canada in 1869, over 100 years ago, they received 210 acres of farmland in the Muskoka Lakes area for a family of nine people. By comparison each person, not each family, receives a settlement of 5,120 acres. With this kind of generosity I do not think there is any doubt how these 1,755 people will be voting in the future.
My own farm operation in northwestern Alberta, one that my wife and I have built up over 30 years, involves 1,280 acres, two sections of farmland. Compare this to eight sections per person in the settlement. I know a lot of farmers who would not mind finding out that their land was being claimed as a settlement and getting a payout under this generous rate.
Let us not forget that the original treaty agreement called for each person to receive just 120 acres, about 5,000 acres less than is now being proposed.
In addition to the more than generous settlement of land and money, the people involved will still enjoy their aboriginal status and still have access to all present and future aboriginal programs, as well as access to resource development.
My colleagues have spoken about the very great potential for resource development in the area. The agreement allows the Sahtu to have shared resource revenue resulting from development, something which most Canadians do not enjoy.
In conclusion, it is clear that the government is setting a very bad precedent, one it will be pressured into meeting in future claims. We all know a lot of land claim settlements need to be resolved in the future. I think this one is a very bad precedent indeed. It comes at a time when our country is staggering under a burdensome debt. We cannot afford this kind of settlement.
I suggest we send the bill back to the drawing board. The government can do better. It must do better.