Mr. Speaker, I am pleased again to speak to Bill C-79.
I attended the news conference when the minister introduced this legislation. I was not impressed then and I now have had the chance to study the bill and I am still not impressed.
I listened with interest to the minister's concluding remarks. He talked about the need to destroy the wall. Yes, there probably is a
wall there called the Indian Act. The only way it will be destroyed is to repeal the Indian Act.
However, I do not think that is a good analogy. I think this is a pit. It is a pit that we have put the aboriginal people into and they cannot get out. Now we are providing another pit, we are giving them a choice between two pits by introducing Bill C-79.
After the minister spoke at the news conference, Assembly of First Nations Chief Ovid Mercredi spoke on behalf of 500 Indian bands which oppose this legislation. He said "we do not like Indian act No. 1, why should we like Indian act No. 2?". He was referring to this. He referred to the Indian Act as a cage. He said "why should we be happy because the government says `look at the new cage we made for you?"'
The minister of Indian affairs promised to amend the Indian Act. Bill C-79 is not an amendment to the Indian Act. It is an act that allows Indian bands to opt out of the current Indian Act and into a new one.
Specifically, Bill C-79 removes the need for ministerial approval for the sale of agricultural products and certain artefacts. It is not clear whether they can also bypass the Canadian Wheat Board, which we were debating earlier this morning. The question should be answered as to whether they would have to comply with the regulations of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Additional bylaw making powers are conferred on band councils. Fines levied for violation of the Indian Act, the regulations or band bylaws are increased to $5,000 and are payable directly to band councils. None of this revenue needs to be accounted for nor does it have any effect on the amount of tax dollars flowing into the community. Again, we need an answer. We need to know why this is so.
Bill C-79 allows bands to create a voluntary ticketing scheme in order to expedite law enforcement.
Also by virtue of Bill C-79 the minister, rather than the governor in council, is given the opportunity to set aside elections. The term of office for a chief and council is extended from two to three years. This will not make many of the native people I know who are living under anti-democratic band councils very happy.
The minister is authorized to enter into agreements with band councils for educational purposes. It seems this is already happening. Is the minister simply putting into legislation what is already happening today, legitimizing it?
The minister's authority for road construction and repair is removed in Bill C-79. However, the bill does not say who will be responsible and liable for public safety on these roads and bridges under band control. There are a lot of unanswered questions.
Bands are now given the authority to manage natural resources on band held land. However, the revenue flowing from these resources is once again unaccounted for. Nor will this revenue reduce the amount of grants and contributions flowing from the federal government. The fundamental relationship between crown and aboriginal peoples is not changed.
Bill C-79 includes a non-derogation clause. Aboriginal treaty rights remain protected under section 35 of the Constitution. Nothing in Bill C-79 affects taxation, Indian registration, band membership or the protection of reserve lands. Bill C-79 is like its cousin, Bill C-75.
First Nations land management which was introduced December 10, 1996 creates two categories of bands with special status for those who opt into Bill C-79.
Bill C-79 does not meet our party's litmus test for equality, financial accountability or democratic accountability at the band level. Those are the three tests we measure legislation with.
Bill C-79 is the first bill introduced by the minister that is not an initiative of the previous Tory administration. Bill C-79 does not fulfil the minister's promise to amend the Indian Act. Bill C-79 stands on its own. It is not an amendment to the present Indian Act.
Bill C-79 was rushed to fulfil a promise and respond to the royal commission on aboriginal peoples. Review by justice officials is suspect because changes were being made until the evening before it was tabled.
The Assembly of First Nations claims that only 100 of the 600 First Nations support Bill C-79. Bill C-79 does not bring democratic equality, and raises serious concerns with powers granted to chiefs and councillors.
Bill C-79 does not bring financial accountability and reduces the minister's scrutiny. The auditor general is still excluded from auditing band books, just like he is excluded from scrutinizing the Canadian Wheat Board.
Bill C-79 will probably be constitutionally challenged as a consequence of this opting in provision. It will create a bureaucratic nightmare and a field day for lawyers and consultants. That is a major concern of ours.
Like Bill C-75, it lets the minister off the hook and allows him to wash his hands rather than take on those elements of the Indian Act that warrant amendments and/or repeal.
Canadians, both native and non-native, were looking for leadership and vision. They got neither. Why is the minister afraid of giving equality a try? Here are some of the crucial steps we need to take toward equality. When I talk about equality, it does not mean assimilation.
The Indian Act must be repealed and replaced with legislation that will move us closer to true equality. Maybe we should call it
the equality for Indians act. We need to agree on a definition of self-government, something that has not happened.
The majority of Canadians, including grassroots Indian people, will support aboriginal self-government as long as the federal government's relationship with Indian reserves is similar to the relationship between provinces and municipalities. Most of Canada's aboriginal people-there are about 500,000 of them-already live in municipalities under provincial jurisdiction. The federal government retains responsibility for about 350,000 treaty Indians currently living on reserves or crown land across Canada.
Treaty Indians deserve the same rights and freedoms and should share the same duties and responsibilities enjoyed by the tens of millions of municipal residents across the entire country.
For self-government to work, Canadian law, including the charter of rights and freedoms, must apply equally to aboriginal people and Indian governments. We cannot have two systems.
Local Indian governments will never be truly democratic nor financially accountable until and unless a normal local government to taxpayer relationship is established. The federal government must make treaty entitlements payable in part directly to individual treaty Indians living on reserves. The local band administration could then establish a local tax system to pay for local services. Government payments for welfare and housing could easily be transferred in this manner. All treaty entitlements and benefits should be considered a taxable benefit in accordance with the Income Tax Act.
Every treaty Indian should pay income taxes, excise taxes and the GST, just like every other Canadian. Every treaty Indian entitled to compensation benefits or services promised by a treaty should have the choice of receiving those entitlements directly from the federal government or through local Indian governments and should be able to exercise this option at any time.
Both the federal government and the Indians should fully honour the commitments they made to each other in the treaties. Land claim settlements should be negotiated publicly. They should outline specific terms. They should be final. They should conclude within a specific timeframe and they should be affordable to Canada and the provinces. All reserve or settlement lands should remain part of a sovereign Canada.
There should be public discourse on the value and extent of all land claims. That should be the first step in addressing Indian land claims. For the equality alternative to work, every treaty Indian entitled to land under the formula articulated in each treaty should have the choice of taking personal possession of the property or having the land held in common and administered by the local Indian government.
Any treaty Indian who wishes to permanently move off the reserve should have the option to negotiate with the government a personal compensation package to help with the transition to a new job and a new life living off the reserve. The compensation should constitute a fair exchange for treaty entitlements.
Bill C-79 creates two classes of natives. It will make the equality and accountability issues worse, not better. Like Bill C-75, it will become a bureaucratic and constitutional nightmare, further dividing natives and non-natives, creating a money pit for lawyers and consultants. The best thing we could do is to let Bill C-79 die on the Order Paper.