House of Commons Hansard #15 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was treaty.
Myron Thompson Reform Wild Rose, AB
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to be obliging to the member who has asked for us to rise to our feet to respond. I would ask for unanimous consent, and I am sure they will not object because of his request, to have questions for five minutes.
Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
Is there agreement to have a question and comment period for five minutes?
Werner Schmidt Reform Kelowna, BC
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who just spoke suggested that perhaps the official opposition should thank the government for allowing the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to travel to British Columbia.
I suggest to the hon. member that the result of that particular decision having been made this morning through a motion actually came about because there was a very strong representation on the part of the official opposition. We asked why one committee like the Standing Committee on Finance could travel all around Canada, but another committee dealing with an equally significant issue involving not less than $1.3 billion is not allowed to travel. The hon. member should have said thanked the official opposition for making this possible because we have a balanced position in the House.
Now that we have set the perspective I think we should also recognize one of the fundamental issues grasping our young people and many of our constituents back home. I hear it virtually every Saturday that I go out to the Orchard Park shopping mall. They tell me that I am their representative. All those things are happening but last Saturday morning was most telling. It had to do with the Nisga'a treaty. They ask how they can trust the Parliament of Canada to do what they want done. I asked them what they meant and they indicated that they needed to have the Nisga'a treaty defeated. That is what they said; it was not one person who said that.
The hon. leader of the Liberal Party in British Columbia said that the surest way to shatter public trust and confidence in the treaty process was to limit debate on what treaties actually say and do. The federal government should be doing all it can to open up the treaty process. This is a dangerous step on the part of the federal government that will only further undermine public trust. That is serious stuff.
The hon. minister of Indian affairs asked members more than once in the House to read the treaty. I have. Many of us on this side of the House have read it. We support a lot of things in it, but there are some things in it that we seriously question. Our issue is not so much to defeat the treaty.
We need to come to a settlement, but not with all the clauses that are in there now. We need to make some changes. The intent of bringing about closure and of settling the land claims once and for all was a wonderful move. We should endorse that. In fact we do endorse it, but when it is based on a false premise it will not lead to the kind of conclusiveness that we have been told it should develop.
I would very carefully suggest that the government has demonstrated contempt for the people of Canada, particularly aboriginal people. It has been spiteful to the people of Canada by giving them a sense that we will finally settle the issue and we will not. That is dangerous.
Some people ask how we can say such a thing. Let me refer to a couple of clauses in the Nisga'a treaty. I am reading from chapter 16 on direct taxation and other taxation clauses. I wish the hon. member was here to hear this because he just made some serious allegations about it, saying we did not understand. Let him listen. On direct taxation it indicates:
Nisga'a Lisims government may make laws in respect of direct taxation of Nisga'a citizens on Nisga'a lands in order to raise revenue for Nisga'a Nation or Nisga'a village purposes.
The operative word is may, may make laws about that. Then the hon. minister of Indian affairs said that was not now. No, it is not now, but he did not apply it to that clause. He applied it to the next clause. Paragraph 3 reads:
From time to time Canada and British Columbia, together or separately, may negotiate with the Nisga'a Nation, and attempt to reach agreement on:
a. the extent, if any, to which Canada or British Columbia will provide to Nisga'a Lisims Government or a Nisga'a Village Government direct taxation authority over persons other than Nisga'a citizens, on Nisga'a Lands
In both cases the operative word is may. This has to be read in the context of what has happened with regard to other aboriginal treaties, land claims settlements and agreements in principle on self-government where the word may is also included and where the action that was taken was to levy taxes.
Then we should put that into the context of an earlier clause that existed in the Nisga'a treaty. I refer here to chapter 2, paragraph 35, which reads:
If Canada or British Columbia enters into a treaty or a land claims agreement, within the meaning of sections 25 and 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, with another aboriginal people, and that treaty or land claims agreement adversely affects Nisga'a section 35 rights as set out in this Agreement:
a. Canada or British Columbia, or both, as the case may be, will provide the Nisga'a Nation with additional or replacement rights or other appropriate remedies.
What does this mean? It is very obvious what it means. If there is another treaty with provisions that are more advantageous than those that exist in the Nisga'a treaty, the Nisga'a will get those very same advantages. Here we have a formula for a ratcheting up but not for a ratcheting down.
Where is the conclusiveness in a treaty that has those kinds of provisions in it? That is the difficulty. It is not the difficulty that they have the right to tax. It is the difficulty of doing this in an arbitrary kind of a way and suggesting that there will be the same kind of representation, the same kind of authority to non-Nisga'a as to Nisga'a when it comes to taxing authority and electing people to the group.
I will refer to a band which is not a Nisga'a band but has the right to tax. It also taxes people who are not members of that band. They must pay taxes, but do they have the right to vote for the people who sit on council? No. Do they have the right to discuss or to work with them? Yes, they can consult and negotiate, but since the council is independent it can make whatever decision it wants. Is that what democracy is all about? Is that what we want to do with this treaty? I submit no.
That is what we are talking about when it comes to equality. If we are to live under one government then let the law be equal for the people who are under that government. That is what we are talking about.
Members of the House are not the ones who will suffer the consequences of the treaty. Things will go on reasonably smoothly. Fourteen years from now is about the time the real impact of the treaty will come to be. At that time the final payment will be made as it is outlined in the treaty at a cost of somewhere between $1.3 billion and $1.5 billion. After that our children and our grandchildren who will replace us will find the full impact of the provisions of the treaty.
It is the inequality that is built into the treaty, the spite and the contempt the government has shown to the people. It said that it would give them permanence but it is the exact opposite. It will not give permanence. It will create a situation where one group of people will be pitted against another. Our children and grandchildren are the ones who will suffer from this.
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank you and I am very pleased to take part in this debate on the Nisga'a final agreement.
As mentioned by the Bloc Quebecois critic, the hon. member for Saint-Jean, we are looking forward to having a treaty such as the one proposed by the government adopted by the House within a reasonable timeframe.
Our position is of course totally different from that of the Reform Party, which certainly has the right to express its views in a democracy. However, we can only feel sorry for those who are looking for equity and equality and for those who have a sense of history when a position like the one put forward by the Reformers meets with a favourable response in this House.
Over the past number of years, several authorities have recognized that aboriginals do have rights.
I am thinking of course of the UN, which established a working group on native rights a few years ago. I am also thinking of the Erasmus-Dussault commission, of course.
We are talking about a nation obviously. A nation is a group of individuals who have control over a territory, and who share one vernacular language, the will to live together and a common history. Basically, these are the attributes of a nation.
Nobody can question the fact that the Nisga'a are a nation. Theirs is the nation which, under the proposed treaty, will be granted 1,992 square kilometres of land that they will manage on their own, in compliance with the Canadian charter, since we are dealing with the Canadian context, and in compliance with the criminal code.
Earlier, I heard a member say "We should worry about the Bloc Quebecois making connections with their plans for sovereignty-association". We do, but we also make a point of adding that we realize that the Nisga'a reality will stand part of the Canadian experience, while the coming into being of sovereignty-association will bring about a relationship of equality within a context which will obviously be different.
The most important thing with regard to the Nisga'a initiative, just as with the liberation of the Quebec people, is the respect of nations and the specificity of both partners. I would like to quote from one of the key passages of the Erasmus-Dussault report.
We will recall that the Erasmus-Dussault commission was chaired by a Quebec appeal court judge and lasted nearly three years. Through this commission, we were invited to recognize the right of the native peoples to self-government; a model was even put forward, which was different depending on whether it dealt with an urban or rural reality.
I would like to remind the House today, and especially our Reform colleagues, that the Erasmus-Dussault report said “Only nations have a right of self-determination. Only at the nation level will aboriginal people have the numbers necessary to exercise a broad governance mandate and to supply a large pool of expertise”.
If we are to lend any credence to the Erasmus-Dussault commission and if we want to make a connection with the treaty before us, we have to recognize that the Nisga'a are a nation and therefore have the right to be considered as such.
I think we also have to stress the fact that what we have here sets an interesting precedent, because if this treaty were to be implemented, the Nisga'a nation would no longer be subject to the Indian Act.
I was not always in the House when the Reform members addressed this issue, but whenever I was here, I was sorry to notice that they never talked about a very positive impact, which is the fact that we will be giving a nation the means to better control their development. The Erasmus-Dussault commission came to the same conclusion: “We have to put an end to the trusteeship system and ensure that the Nisga'a nations can truly develop by also putting an end to the rule of transfer payments”.
This is what is going to happen to the Nisga'a nation during the next 15 years. They will forego part of the transfer payments they are now entitled to, but, in return, they will gain new financial responsibilities.
I also want to remind the House that the Nisga'a nation will continue to define itself and be regulated, under the treaty, by the provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, and the Constitution Act, 1982, dealing with the prerogatives granted to native peoples.
I do not know how to put it more strongly. This is an interesting treaty because it puts an end to a trusteeship system and paves the way for a model that we, on this side of the House, could be tempted to export.
As hon. members are aware, all members of the Bloc Quebecois can stand up with pride and remember that we belong to a province, one that is to become a country one day, as members know. We belong to an order of political reality that was very quick to recognize the rights of its own first nations. It is interesting to look at the accomplishments of Quebec as far as the aboriginal reality is concerned.
I would like to share four elements of that reality, a reality that makes us all the more in favour of ratification of the Nisga'a treat, the object of very broad consensus.
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC
I have just now heard a rather inaudible, but certainly not very polite, exclamation from the Reform ranks, without any clarity to it whatsoever, as usual. If our Reform colleagues have something to say, I believe they should take the floor and do so. They could try to do it the way civilized people do, with a subject, a verb and an object.
That said, I would remind hon. members that all Bloc Quebecois members of parliament are extremely proud to support this treaty, because it indicates a path to be followed in the relations we will have to establish with the first nations. We take our inspiration from what the Government of Quebec, the René Lévesque government, did.
Among the four elements of fact we are pleased to remember, we in the Bloc Quebecois, is the fact that in Quebec a lot more land belongs exclusively to the aboriginal people than in the other provinces.
We would also point out that eight native languages are still spoken in Quebec, proportionally more, given the ratio of native people to the population of Quebec as a whole, than is the case outside Quebec.
We also want to say with pride that the French language charter accords the Amerindians and the Inuit the right to keep their language. This is a specific provision of the French language charter, and no member of the Bloc Quebecois or of the National Assembly would not want this provision to be an effective part of Bill 101. Perhaps the most important is that, in Quebec as in British Columbia and the maritime provinces, the title “Indian” and the title “aboriginal” exist, creating the legal basis for enshrining self-government for the aboriginal peoples.
Our colleague, the member for Saint-Jean, put it so eloquently. He is one of few of us who can claim considerable stability in his functions as critic, since, apart from a brief period of a few months, he has always been the Bloc Quebecois critic in these matters, hence his enlightened expertise.
We have listened to this expertise and will vote enthusiastically in favour of the bill the government has put before us, and we say in closing “Shame on the Reform Party”.
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join the debate.
This is a very proud moment. I could not be more proud than to be here to witness the imminent passing of the Nisga'a deal and to watch this first nation take its first courageous step toward true independence and cast off the shackles of what can only be described as 130 years of social tragedy, which is the Indian Act.
I find it ironic that the Reform Party, which I believe advocates more independence for aboriginal people, would like to see them stand alone, be proud and be masters of their own destiny, is speaking so vehemently against the Nisga'a deal which does in fact give the Nisga'a people just that leg up, just that very thing. The Nisga'a deal will allow this particular first nation to take that first courageous step toward true independence.
I am dumbfounded by some of the remarks I have heard from the Reform Party over the last couple of years about aboriginal people. It disappoints me to say the least. That is the most polite way I can say it. It really disappoints me to hear Canadians push myths about the deal to further their own goals.
One of the things I found galling was that Reform members compared the Nisga'a deal to apartheid in South Africa. The only explanation for such a ridiculous thing to say is that they have no idea what the apartheid regime in South Africa really was. My belief is that they do not really understand apartheid.
I did a little bit of research for their benefit. I went to the Library of Parliament and dug up some of the acts and bills that actually constituted the apartheid regime in South Africa. It contains 75 pages with probably 4 or 5 bills and a little outline of what each one was on each page. It was a well orchestrated and deliberate attempt to oppress a people, the majority black people in South Africa. There are things in the apartheid regime that are absolutely horrifying. I will not waste any time going through them because I think most people here know what true apartheid is.
It is absolutely intellectually dishonest to even imply that the Nisga'a deal has anything to do with apartheid. It trivializes the struggle of black South Africans as they liberated themselves from their white oppressors. We are seeing a similar thing here as this particular group of people betters their own destiny.
What makes me very happy about the Nisga'a deal is that we are seeing the death rattle of the Reform Party's two year campaign to try to discredit aboriginal people. For the two years that I have been here all I have heard is sniping, complaining and allegations of gross corruption and abuse of funds, trying to string together a bunch of isolated events into one argument that all aboriginal people are somehow either incompetent, corrupt or both. I am getting sick of hearing it.
I am celebrating the fact that pretty soon we will be able to have the vote and it will, I hope, shut the Reform Party up in that regard. It has been nothing but a campaign of abuse toward aboriginal people.
I lived in the Yukon for many years. I lived in quite close quarters with many aboriginal people. I lived for the better part of 10 years in the small community of Dawson city. I got to know and respect aboriginal culture. I was sensitized maybe to their issues because of that time spent. I have always been very keen. Even in high school, instead of taking French I took Cree. In retrospect, maybe I should have taken French because Cree does not help me too much in this place. Maybe that is why I find it more galling than most to have to sit here and listen to the tirades and inaccuracies trying to misrepresent what the Nisga'a deal is all about.
There are a series of myths that the Reform members have been hanging their hat on. Some are worse than others. The first thing they have been trying to say is that the Nisga'a treaty is race based. This is the same connection to the apartheid regime that they have been trying to sell. It is in fact justice based. It is the pursuit of social justice. It is the manifestation of the goodwill that most Canadians feel toward aboriginal people when we want to see them achieve true independence, which is what the Nisga'a deal will do for them.
A referendum in British Columbia is another thing the Reform Party has been calling for. There has been a great deal of consultation in British Columbia. Forty meetings have been held throughout British Columbia. The NDP government has been very careful to do in depth, comprehensive consultations. We have been all alone. When I say we I mean the NDP government has been left hung out to dry by the Liberal government. It could have moved on the Nisga'a deal months ago instead of letting this divisiveness boil in British Columbia as long as it has.
I am also disappointed that we have somehow been, through political mischief, forced to have five more public hearings in the province of British Columbia as the aboriginal affairs committee tours that province. It is pure political mischief. It will come to no good. It is the death rattle of the Reform Party as it tries to desperately cling to colonialism. What it really wants to do is entrench that model of Eurocentric colonialism that it is so comfortable with and from which it comes.
Many people do not know about an organization called B.C. FIRE. The Reform Party will probably also deny that it knows anything about it.
The irony is that a researcher for a Reform Party MP quit his job on the Hill two years ago and went to British Columbia. He set up what is called B.C. FIRE, the foundation for individual rights and equality, or some such thing. Really it is the anti-Indian movement of British Columbia.
The Reform Party is the political wing of the anti-Indian movement in British Columbia and it is atrocious. This particular individual, and I will not mention the name of the member of parliament he worked for but the member is still here, left his job here. Maybe he was dispatched. Maybe he was even sent to British Columbia by the Reform Party to set up the hate movement in British Columbia.
Diane Ablonczy Reform Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Surely there are some limits to the slurs that can be cast in debate in the House, and the imputing of motives. I would invite the Chair to ask the hon. member to keep his remarks on the topic and not on slurs of other members in the House.
Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
The hon. member has a point. I will ask the hon. member to try and use more judicious language in addressing the House.
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Madam Speaker, I would be happy to.
Let us stick to the facts. Maybe we should look at the actual record. I know what happened with the B.C. FIRE movement. I get its hate mail. Somehow I am on its hate mail list so I know a lot about that organization.
Let us stick to the facts. If we really want to know what the true attitude of the Reform Party is toward aboriginal people, it is very instructive to look at some of the things that have been said in the House.
Lee Morrison Reform Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member is continuing his tirade after being cautioned by the Chair. This is absolutely indefensible.
Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
I am sure that the member was just about to come back to the subject being discussed.
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Madam Speaker, I was simply going to make a point. Here is a quote from the member for Athabasca: “Just because we did not kill the Indians and have Indian wars does not mean we did not conquer these people. Is that not why they allowed themselves to be herded into little reserves in the most isolated, desolate, worthless parts of the country?” That is a revealing sentiment, is it not?
What about the former member for Capilano—Howe Sound, Herb Grubel. I think he is now on the board of directors at the Fraser Institute. What did he say about aboriginal people? He likened Indians living on reserves to people living on South Seas islands courtesy of a rich uncle. That gives some indication of what the Reform Party really thinks of aboriginal people.
Eric C. Lowther Reform Calgary Centre, AB
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are debating the Nisga'a agreement. The member continues to take the debate in a different direction. If he would like to offer his comments on the issue being debated today, great. However, I submit that he is on a whole different tangent.
Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
I will ask the hon. member to please speak only to Bill C-9.
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Madam Speaker, I would be happy to.
The Reform Party is always asking should parliament not be able to amend the treaty. This treaty was arrived at by three parties: the province of British Columbia, the Nisga'a themselves and parliament. Why should one group be able to override the wishes of the other two? That is no longer negotiations, that is dictating. Frankly, it would be fundamentally wrong for parliament to arbitrarily alter any clause of the agreement that was agreed to by the other party. I think that is an absolute non-starter.
The Reform Party is also concerned that this particular bill might create some kind of a precedent, that there will be other groups wanting the same deal. Nobody every meant the Nisga'a treaty to become—
Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired.
Diane Ablonczy Reform Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Madam Speaker, I cannot say how sad I am that on a subject which is very important to Canadians, especially aboriginal Canadians, members in the House would lower themselves to the debate we just heard. Canadians deserve better than that.
It is very unfortunate and I condemn the government for introducing closure on yet another key bill. This morning the government introduced a motion which will shut down the debate on the treaty at this stage by 6.30 p.m., in less than an hour. At the time the motion was introduced there had been less than 10 hours of debate on this enormous treaty, only four hours of which had been allotted to the official opposition, the only party bringing forward thoughtful arguments as to why there need to be changes to the treaty.
I remind hon. members and the government that there are 24 official opposition members representing British Columbia where this treaty will mostly take effect. Only 16 members of the official opposition have been permitted to speak.
The Liberal leader in British Columbia says this about the government move today: “The surest way to shatter public trust and confidence in the treaty process is to limit debate on what these treaties actually say and do”.
We are not talking about a trivial matter. We are talking about people's lives. We are talking about an enormous application of the resources of the country.
I quote from the financial statements of the Government of Canada, 1998-99, section 15(3)(iii), where it talks about aboriginal and comprehensive land claims: “Aboriginal claims with specific amounts totalling approximately $200,000 million”—that is $200 billion—“and comprehensive aboriginal land claims amounting to $742 million are known to the government. The government is aware of an additional 2,000 potential claims currently being researched by first nations. A reliable estimate of potential liability cannot be made at this time”.
This is not merely a matter of dollars and cents. It is a matter of people, fairness and equity. It is also a matter of being able to produce for this country the services, stability and economic prosperity that all of us, including aboriginal Canadians, need and want. This is not a small matter.
In the brief time that I have, I would like to address two issues that have been continually raised by members in the House with different conclusions. It is the matter of whether the charter of rights and freedoms applies to Nisga'a people under this treaty.
The Indian affairs minister was very categorical in his statement on the issue. He said in his speech on this matter: “The charter of rights of freedoms will continue to apply to the Nisga'a people”. I would like to think that that was the end of it. However, I invite Canadians to read the terms of the charter of rights itself. We need to judge rationally and logically, and not use wishful thinking and alarmist thinking. We need to look at the plain meaning of the words.
The Nisga'a treaty says that the entire Nisga'a agreement, including the self-government powers, are to be defined as aboriginal and treaty rights within the meaning of section 35 of the constitution.
Section 25 of the constitution requires the courts to give higher weighting to the section 35 aboriginal rights over charter rights. I will read section 25 and perhaps Canadians can try to make up their own minds as to whether or not there is a problem here: “The guarantee in this charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate”—that means cancel—“or derogate”—that means take away—from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights and freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada, including any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims, agreements or may be so acquired”.
In other words, the charter itself states that the guarantees of rights and freedoms in the charter will not take precedence over rights or freedoms that may be acquired by treaties.
What rights or freedoms have been acquired in this treaty which may not be subject to charter protection? There are quite a number of areas where Nisga'a governments have been given the right to make laws which will supersede or be not subject to federal or provincial laws, including the constitution. These areas include, in chapter 11, paragraph 34, page 166, Nisga'a government; Nisga'a village administration, paragraph 35, page 166; Nisga'a land, paragraph 44, pages 167 to 168; Nisga'a land title, paragraph 50, pages 169 to 170; use, possession and management of assets other than real property, chapter 11, paragraphs 53 and 54, page 170; child and family service, chapter 11, paragraph 89, page 174.
In each of these areas and many more which I did not read because of time, the treaty states that “in the event of an inconsistency or conflict between Nisga'a law under this paragraph in all of these areas and more, and a federal or provincial law, the Nisga'a law prevails to the extent of the inconsistency or conflict”.
The right to make these laws which supersede federal and provincial laws would clearly be, under section 25 of the charter of rights and freedoms, a right or freedom acquired by way of an agreement. Those rights cannot be taken away or cancelled by the rights and freedoms in the charter under section 35.
This is not a lot of reading for Canadians. I would invite them to look at sections 25 and 35 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and also chapter 11 of the Nisga'a agreement and the list of 14 areas where Nisga'a law will supersede any federal or provincial law.
I believe, and I put it to the House and to Canadians, that the minister and the government are simply not correct when they say that the charter of rights and freedoms will continue to apply to the Nisga'a treaty people. In at least 14 areas and possibly more, Nisga'a law will supersede the charter rights that are given to every other Canadian.
This is terribly important for Nisga'a women. Nothing in the Nisga'a treaty gives Nisga'a women the same protection as other Canadian women in the case of marriage breakdown. This is an area which has been horribly missed and underdefended by members opposite. Where is the minister responsible for the status of women? Is she railing about the need for equality of Nisga'a women in this treaty? She is nowhere to be found.
The government is always talking about equality for women and protecting women in society, but when it comes right down to it, it does very little to put its money where its mouth is. Why is it that the rights, freedoms and equality of Nisga'a women and aboriginal women have been completely neglected and abrogated by the government?
Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Mr. Speaker, because of the time allocation brought forward by the government I would like to thank my colleagues from other provinces for giving me an opportunity to speak. This is an issue that is very vital to the people of British Columbia. Certainly the people in my constituency of Kootenay-Columbia have made their voices well known to me. They have expressed very clearly to me that they are adamantly and fundamentally opposed to the treaty as written.
I agree with B.C. Liberal leader Gordon Campbell on the title of his news release today: “Closure on the Nisga'a debate, a reprehensible abuse of democracy”.
Many things have to be brought into this dialogue. Unfortunately it is a monologue as far as the Liberals and the other parties in the House are concerned. We are the only people who are bringing a dialogue portion to the debate.
I have in hand a very interesting document from the ministry of agriculture and food. It is a briefing note prepared by a bureaucrat in the B.C. government for none other than the agriculture minister, Corky Evans. Corky Evans is no ordinary minister. Corky Evans is trying for the leadership of the B.C. NDP.
This document was prepared for him by the ministry of agriculture when he was in debate with my colleague from Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan. It is very interesting that the document puts a lie to the argument that the treaty will not be a template. I heard earlier a Conservative, who perhaps was speaking out of ignorance, repeating the same line that the Liberals have been trying to say and that the NDP have been trying to say, that this is not a template. This document puts a lie to that argument. It states in part:
Impacts on current agriculture uses of Crown resources will result if the Nisga'a land selection model is repeated.
Further in the document it states:
The provinces believes it would be unfair and unjustifiable to negotiate future treaties that are significantly more or less beneficial to the First Nations than the Nisga'a treaty. This suggests the Nisga'a final agreement will serve as a guide for land and cash values.
This document was prepared for the NDP minister of agriculture, an aspiring leader of the provincial NDP, in which it says that the province believes it would be unfair and unjustifiable to negotiate future treaties that are significantly more or less beneficial to first nations than the Nisga'a treaty. This is a template. Any comment to the contrary is simply not factually accurate. This is a template in every way.
Further in terms of dislocation the document was very interesting in that it says in part:
There are likely to be significant localized disruptions to individual ranchers within close proximity to existing First Nations communities. In the Southern Okanagan there are over 1,000 farms with Crown tenures within 10 kilometres of existing Indian reserves. This buffer also contains 69% of the ALR.
The ALR for my friends across the House who might not realize it is the agriculture land reserve. This is the area where farmers and ranchers in British Columbia, the people who own that property, be whatever race or nation they belong to, are creating food for British Columbians, for Canadians and for export, 69%.
The briefing note prepared for the B.C. minister of agriculture by his department goes on further to state:
Former Premier Harcourt stated that the total land quantum to be transferred to first nations would be in the range of 5% of the total land base, an area larger than the total ALR”. This amount of land would likely consume the majority of crown ALR (approximately 2.5 million hectares).
These are facts supported by the document which I have brought to the House. If my friends on the other side want me to table the document for authenticity purposes, I would be happy to do so. These are facts which are simply never put into the public domain by the Liberals, by the NDP, by the Bloc or by the Conservatives because it does not suit their interest.
There is an issue of accountability to this entire process. When I came to the Chamber some six years ago I came possibly under the myth that we could stand to talk about issues directly and forcefully. That turned out to be a myth because of the labels other people in the House chose to throw in our direction, simply because we chose to put out the facts and to tell the truth.
As the member for Kootenay—Columbia I am approached by people who are card carrying aboriginal people or people living off reserve or non-status individuals. I take great pride that virtually to a person these people come up to me with a smile and shake my hand because my office and I have tried our level best to work with them against the Indian industry that is represented in my constituency.
Obviously I do not make many friends with the leadership, but I do make friends with the rank and file, the ordinary citizen of aboriginal descent. It is my responsibility to represent that person every bit as much as it is my responsibility to represent non-aboriginal people in my constituency. I do not take favours from anyone. I represent people and these people recognize that.
As a result we have been approached by a number of aboriginal people in my constituency who would like to get a number of their grievances out into the open. These are aboriginal people approaching me. With my colleague from Wild Rose we pulled together a forum conducted by me and the member for Wild Rose as chairpersons only. Virtually every comment made in that forum was by rank and file aboriginal people from the five nations represented in my constituency.
What a tale they told. They were prepared to stand up in the face of their government hierarchy on their reserves and tell it like it actually was. Where is the accountability? The accountability is in my constituency, and I suggest in all of the constituencies represented by Reform Party members, because we permit ordinary aboriginal people to say their piece. There must be accountability.
One recent disappointment occurred in the aboriginal file. I listened to the very thoughtful presentation of the Leader of the Opposition. I must say I was exceptionally proud of his speech because it was so thoughtful and well researched. He talked about breaking the old mould. Unfortunately the bright light in the Bloc that followed him stood and said that it was some more rhetoric.
Maybe there was a problem between French and English and he could not understand it, or he was not listening to the interpreter. However, the fact of the matter is that the Leader of the Opposition had the courage of conviction, intelligence and foresight to present a new idea, a new model. The Nisga'a agreement does nothing except represent a rehashing of the cud, going over and over the same ground.
There are many flaws in the Nisga'a treaty. Yet under the NDP government in Victoria members of parliament went through thoughtful clause by clause debate and looked at all the issues. They were shut off just over halfway through. Now we have ended up with the government, led by the House leader who with great glee turns around and shuts off debate after only four hours in this Chamber. It is absolutely shameful that the government would twist democracy in this way. There is no democracy in this Chamber.
If we are to come to a way of making sure, as my colleague from Calgary—Nose Hill said, that women are properly protected; if we are to make sure the people of the Nisga'a nation are properly protected; if we are to see that the rank and file people of that nation have all of the rights and privilege we enjoy, we must reject the treaty. It is the direction of myself and my colleagues in the Reform Party that we will do everything to reveal the treaty for the sham it is.
David Pratt Liberal Nepean—Carleton, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I stand today to respond to the Reform Party's comments regarding the Nisga'a treaty. Myths about the Nisga'a treaty are being foisted upon an unsuspecting Canadian public by some of our, shall I say, esteemed colleagues from the opposite side of the House. I am talking about the document entitled “Top 10 concerns with the Nisga'a final agreement” which has been made public in the last months. Today I will set the record straight once and for all. I will address all 10 points one by one.
The first myth relates to private property rights for Nisga'a people. Nisga'a lands will indeed be held in fee simple by the Nisga'a nation. That is one of the ways in which the Nisga'a will have the opportunity to preserve their culture. However, the Nisga'a also want to thrive economically. That is why the final agreement creates opportunities that will allow the Nisga'a to convey, transfer or dispose of interest in land, including fee simple parcels which could be owned by anyone. The Nisga'a treaty balances the desirability of protecting the unique Nisga'a culture while allowing the Nisga'a people an opportunity to realize the full economic potential of their assets.
The second Reform myth concerns the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Members of the House need to know that the charter of rights and freedoms applies to all government actions in Canada including the actions of the Nisga'a government. The Nisga'a final agreement specifically states that the charter applies to the Nisga'a government. Moreover, nothing in the treaty limits the application of the charter.
Nisga'a citizens will continue to enjoy the same protections of individual rights and freedoms as other Canadians. In fact, the current exemption of the Indian Act under the Canadian Human Rights Act will no longer apply to the Nisga'a since the Indian Act will no longer apply to the Nisga'a except for the purposes of determining who is an Indian.
How then can anyone rationalize that any Nisga'a person will have diminished rights under the charter? It is written plainly in the Nisga'a final agreement that this is not the case.
The third myth is that the Nisga'a final agreement permanently entrenches the same essential elements as the reserve system in a modern treaty. How much further from the truth can we get? In the words of Nisga'a Chief Joseph Gosnell, with this agreement the Nisga'a are negotiating their way into Canada, not out of it.
With this treaty no longer will there be Nisga'a reserves. No longer will the Minister for Indian Affairs and Northern Development control decision making in Nisga'a day to day operations.
The Nisga'a government must consult with all residents of Nisga'a lands who are significantly and directly affected by its decisions. The treaty provides for solid, democratic and financial accountability mechanisms. All Nisga'a people will have a strong voice in the way they are governed. They will have opportunities to vote, to run for office and to participate in government institutions.
The fourth Reform misrepresentation is that the Nisga'a agreement creates inequality, disenfranchising non-Nisga'a people and providing for a system of taxation without representation. The taxation chapter of the agreement clearly shows otherwise. The first provision in that chapter clearly spells out the Nisga'a taxation authority:
Nisga'a Government may make laws in respect of direct taxation—
Lee Morrison Reform Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think it would be in order if the hon. member would give credit where credit is due, to his speech writer.
Nisga'A Final Agreement ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
I know the hon. member like all hon. members knows that we do not read speeches in the House. We only make use of notes.
David Pratt Liberal Nepean—Carleton, ON
Mr. Speaker, I will take the hon. member's comments as a compliment. Let me quote again:
Nisga'a Government may make laws in respect of direct taxation of Nisga'a citizens on Nisga'a Lands in order to raise revenue for Nisga'a Nation or Nisga'a Village purposes.
Those who are not Nisga'a but who live on Nisga'a lands may receive services from the Nisga'a government, but that government does not have any authority under the treaty to collect taxes from them. Those who live on Nisga'a lands but who are not Nisga'a citizens will not be disenfranchised. They will continue to have the right to vote in federal, provincial and regional district elections and will also have the right to vote for and become elected members of those elected Nisga'a public institutions that may directly and significantly affect their interests. These may include such public institutions as school boards and health boards.
That is not all. The treaty also guarantees them a strong voice in decisions of the Nisga'a government that could directly and significantly affect them. They have the right to be consulted, which includes a full and fair consideration of their views. They will also have the same rights of appeal as Nisga'a citizens on these matters. Let us remember that the charter of rights and freedoms will continue to apply. Those are far stronger protections than those which currently exist under the Indian Act.
The fifth Reform myth is that the Nisga'a final agreement amends Canada's constitution through the back door, creating a third order of government. The Nisga'a final agreement does neither. Nisga'a rights will be well within the limits of our constitution. What we are doing through this agreement is setting out what those rights are. There is no need to amend the constitution in order to do this.
Our constitution was amended in 1982 to recognize and affirm the existing aboriginal rights of Canada's aboriginal people as well as their treaty rights. What we are doing is very consistent with the current constitutional framework.
The treaty does not make Nisga'a laws constitutionally paramount, as some Reform members have said. All federal and provincial laws will apply on Nisga'a lands. The Nisga'a government will have no exclusive law-making powers. Nisga'a laws will only prevail for matters that are internal to the Nisga'a themselves, integral to their way of life, essential to the operation of their government or where they must meet or exceed existing federal or provincial standards. Otherwise federal and provincial laws will prevail.
This is a concurrent model of law-making which does not alter the federal and provincial powers as set out in sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867. The courts have been clear that existing aboriginal and treaty rights are not absolute and do not prevail over the rest of the constitution.
Personally, I find the negative connotations associated with labelling the Nisga'a government as being ethnic or race based offensive.
Of course, the Nisga'a treaty has much to do with Nisga'a culture and heritage. Both are central to the agreement. Aboriginal peoples have unique rights because they were here before contact with white society. They have their own culture and their own customs. They have their social values and their own governments and institutions. These institutions are recognized and protected in Canadian as well as international law, including the Constitution Act, 1982 and our common law.
Through the practical self-government arrangements set out in the Nisga'a treaty, these unique rights are reconciled with the rights of other Canadians and the sovereignty of Canada. I do not know what kind of a country Reform members strive for, but in my Canada we do not have to stop being aboriginal to be Canadian. This agreement allows the Nisga'a to be Nisga'a and to remain as Canadians.
The sixth myth is that the Nisga'a final agreement will deter future economic development in British Columbia. This truly demonstrates the complete failure of the Reform Party to grasp the reality of the situation. Studies conducted by experts in the field have concluded the exact opposite. Fostering economic development is one of the principal achievements of this treaty.
A 1996 study by KPMG concluded that treaties in British Columbia will lead to increased annual incomes to British Columbia of between $200 million and $400 million, and an increase in employment of between 7,000 and 17,000 jobs.
Another study conducted by the respected Laurier Institution in 1998 indicated that treaty settlements will increase investment and economic activity in British Columbia.
Finally, a Grant Thornton study published in 1999 confirmed that all citizens of British Columbia stand to gain from the Nisga'a treaty and future treaties in that province. The report concluded that for every dollar spent on treaty settlements approximately $3 will be gained in economic benefits. The net financial benefit to British Columbia as a whole, the report said, is estimated to be between $3.8 billion and $4.7 billion.
The seventh Reform myth is that the Nisga'a final agreement involves huge costs and sets a precedent for massive payouts in future land claim settlements, the cumulative effect of which may be simply unaffordable. Here are the facts. The Nisga'a treaty is affordable. It is comparable to other treaties in Canada, as will be future treaties concluded in British Columbia. The one time cost of the Nisga'a treaty is estimated at $487 million in 1999 dollars. This includes estimates of land and resource values contributed by British Columbia and estimates of third party compensation.
Of these amounts the Nisga'a will receive $253 million in 1999 dollars paid over 15 years. Annual transfers to the Nisga'a through the fiscal financing agreement will provide programs and services which are comparable to those received by other residents of northwestern British Columbia.
The funding will be approximately $32.7 million annually and 90% of that funding is currently provided through existing government programs. Canada's share of the estimated cost will be $31.5 million. Through this agreement and the own source revenue agreement the Nisga'a have agreed to share in the costs of providing programs and services. Those arrangements are unprecedented and represent a major step forward of which we can all be proud.
Unfortunately my time is running out here and it looks as though I will not be able to rebut all the points contained in some of Reform Party propaganda on the subject, but I would be more than pleased to respond to questions and perhaps deal with some of the other points in my speech.