Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to discuss an issue that is overall a very crucial issue at this time in Canada's history with respect to our relationship with aboriginal people.
I want to pick up on a statement made by the hon. member who moved this motion. He said “all politics are local”. In his statements dealing with Bill C-402 he referred to hours and hours of work in preparing this consultation with Indian affairs officials and Indian Act experts. However, I beg to hear from him whether there were any consultations with first nations people. Were there consultations with the first nations people of Canada?
When one is dealing with this act, it is of national scope. It goes from coast to coast to coast. If there is a local issue which is impacting on the national perspective, it is time to open the books and look at a major overhaul of an act that may be archaic.
As the hon. member for the Bloc mentioned, I believe the royal commission on Canada's aboriginal peoples tried to address the need to modernize our relationship with aboriginal peoples.
At this time I would have to say that I am opposed to the bill, but would welcome a new dialogue for us to start a new relationship with the first nations of this country. They are waiting for this. They have been calling on the government and on all Canadians for this dialogue.
I must highlight the fact that a nation to nation treaty was written with Canada's aboriginal nations. It was not the first nations which allowed anybody to take hold of this land for whatever reason.
When the treaty was written it was in the context of the British nation on behalf of the crown seeking to use and occupy lands to build a new nation, but the first nations held obligations to the federal government.
Provincial jurisdiction is very suspect when it comes to first nations people because the fiduciary responsibilities fall under the nation to nation treaty with the federal government. The hon. member is on the right track in asking the House to change these laws.
The royal commission also considered creating a provincial jurisdiction across this nation, a chequerboard province of all first nations, so that they could govern themselves. There could have been a model for self-governance. This is something that was not brought out in the recommendations, but the dialogue was there.
As well, territorial governments have not been taken into account. Nunavut will be created on April 1, 1999. The Northwest Territories will reissue itself and reorganize its governance, as will Yukon. Someday these territories might have full provincial jurisdiction.
Where are the present landlord and tenant issues concerning the territories? I believe they fall with the northern affairs minister. I beg to see some response to that in the northern jurisdictions because we have to look at this as a national issue.
A major change happened recently with Bill C-49. Fourteen first nations were included, in a very consultative manner, to deal with land management. However, the bill did not consider the issue of residential, agricultural or business leases in these first nations.
First nations governments are saying that they should be able to address tribunals, that they should have a means for dealing with and appealing decisions on jurisdictional issues, such as a business jurisdiction being changed to residential, especially for the people who presently hold leases. This whole topic opens up a major concern.
At this time I have to tell the hon. member that I cannot support his motion, although I acknowledge that the House of Commons needs to address the Indian Act in consultation with all first nations of this country.
The new millennium would be a fine opportunity for us to provide a good example to the world. There is a human rights conference being celebrated right now in Edmonton. A lot of aboriginal people feel that their human rights have been infringed through the development of this country, with respect to land use and their education, cultural and spiritual life. All of these things have infringed on their way of life. Let us address these issues in an open way, with open and respectful dialogue. Then we can build a nation that will be good for our children and for future generations.