House of Commons Hansard #237 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was treaty.
Business Of The HouseOral Question Period
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
I must remind the hon. member that I have already made the point that traditionally it is his privilege to address the Thursday question. Today we have made a few exceptions. I hope the hon. member understands that this is not the usual procedure.
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.
Val Meredith Reform South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC
Madam Speaker, I am privileged to stand today to try to bring some clarification to the Nisga'a final agreement which the government has already endorsed. I am afraid that the government will take the same route that the provincial NDP government took to limit debate and move time allocation or closure on this debate when it reaches the House in the fall.
It distresses me that there seems to be an unwillingness on the part of governments, both in British Columbia and here in Ottawa, to look at this agreement with an open eye, to really look at the document and try to answer some very serious questions that the people of British Columbia have and that the people of Canada should have.
The concern that we have in British Columbia is that the precedent setting Nisga'a final agreement will have ramifications across the country and Canadians should be aware of what those ramifications might be.
Already in Alberta we have Treaty 8. There is talk about re-opening that treaty. Treaties which have been agreed to and have been in place for a good number of years may be changed because of the final agreement that has been settled with the Nisga'a people.
What is also a concern from British Columbians' point of view is that the Nisga'a agreement will be a template for 60 other treaties that are under negotiation. However, we should understand that those 60 agreements which are being negotiated now do not represent the total number of aboriginal communities trying to reach agreement. There are a good number of aboriginal communities. The first nation in my riding is not taking part in the treaty negotiations because it does not believe that it is a process which it wants to follow. We are not talking about 60 treaty agreements, we are talking about many more.
While this treaty has yet to be ratified by the House, which would put it into the position of being considered under section 35 of the constitution, there are already four law suits pending.
People can say it is just the non-aboriginal people who are concerned. No, it is not. The Gitanyow band from up north has a court case against the Nisga'a and against this treaty because the Nisga'a have seized up to 84% of its traditional territory in the Nass Valley. Eighty-four per cent of the land that is claimed by another first nation is being absorbed in this agreement.
A leader of the Gitanyow has stated that they are concerned that the Nisga'a were never required to prove the extent of their title to resolve the overlaps in land claims. They feel it is a violation of aboriginal law and federal policy.
According to one individual, it is not right to sacrifice the land entitlement of one nation to obtain a treaty with another nation.
It is not just non-aboriginals, it is aboriginals themselves who have taken the Nisga'a to court to resolve some of the issues that are not clear and to try to resolve some of the conflicts which this agreement has already established.
We feel very strongly in the Reform Party that we must settle some of the things which are not clear, the uncertainties, through the courts on this agreement before the House ratifies it. How can we ratify an agreement when there are four lawsuits before the courts concerning its legality and the land it entails? How can we possibly ratify this agreement with those four cases before the courts?
One reason we brought this motion to the House today for debate is because there are so many constitutional and legal issues that must be clarified.
We have heard over the past number of months when we have raised this issue in the House the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development claim that the Nisga'a government will be subject to the charter of rights and freedoms.
I want to read directly from the Nisga'a final agreement, which states that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to Nisga'a government in respect of all matters within its authority, bearing in mind the free and democratic nature of Nisga'a government as set out in this agreement.
If this agreement is going to recognize the charter of rights, why does it include “bearing in mind the free and democratic nature of Nisga'a government as set out in this agreement”? Why does it not just say that the charter of rights and freedoms applies to Nisga'a government?
I would suggest that the reason is quite simple. It is that the government is wanting to leave the ambiguity in the agreement so that the courts understand clearly that they are expected to treat the Nisga'a people differently and not to apply the charter of rights as it would apply to any other Canadian. I can think of no other reason than to force the courts to treat the Nisga'a people differently under the charter of rights.
I had many experiences in my previous life of aboriginal communities taking on responsibility for themselves. I was an observer of 11 aboriginal communities in northern Alberta taking on the responsibility under the Lesser Slave Lake Indian Regional Council to provide education, welfare and social services to their people and to co-operate to provide good regional government for their people. However, it was never done with constitutional protection. It was never done by forming another level of government. They were very successful over a large number of years in providing these services without the need to form another level of government.
In British Columbia we have seen a number of cases where aboriginal communities have achieved more authority in running their programs and their communities, but they have not shown a good degree of responsibility. I refer to the Musqueam Band and the Semiahmoo Band. In both cases they were not fair in their treatment of non-aboriginal individuals within their communities.
The Musqueam Band has raised rents extraordinarily, out of reason. One individual got a bill for $73,000 for 18 months' rent from the Musqueam Band. Although their rents skyrocketed, the actual value of the land and their property plummeted. It now has no value at all.
All of this is because of an attitude of an aboriginal people who are being supported by provincial and federal governments which allow them to completely disregard fairness and equity for non-aboriginals.
It also happened in my own community where there were nine non-aboriginal residents who lost their homes. They lost those homes after 40 or 50 years with absolutely no compensation. They were evicted. I would question if that would be allowed to happen if it was a white Anglo-Saxon male making the decision.
There are too many questions left unanswered in this final Nisga'a agreement. The uncertainty of the legal status of the Nisga'a treaty and the Nisga'a government must be resolved in the courts before the agreement is ratified here in the House. Nobody can predict what the courts' reaction and decisions will be.
I would suggest to the House that when the Prime Minister helped to introduce the charter of rights and freedoms many years ago he never for a moment contemplated that pedophiles would have a legal right to child pornography. I do not think we can leave uncertainty and ambiguity in our agreement. We cannot ratify this agreement. We must be more certain of what it means and what its ramifications will be across the country. I would like to think that parliamentarians and Canadian people as a whole have a right to know what the legal ramifications will be before parliament ratifies this agreement.
David Iftody LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her interventions and interest in this issue. I would like to point out a couple of inaccuracies in her observations and her comments and then ask a question.
First, she mentioned the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en and Gitanyow first nations in terms of infringement. These problems were anticipated many years ago and are included in paragraph 33 of the agreement. I draw to her attention where it says that nothing in this agreement will derogate from any of the existing rights of other aboriginal people. The answer to her comments and concerns is no.
Second, it is not a constitutional document in the sense that the Manitoba act became part of the Constitution of Canada. She is misreading section 35 which recognizes existing aboriginal rights in Canada. It therefore follows that there is no need for a constitutional amendment. If the parties want to change the agreement, as it is discussed and contemplated in paragraphs 37 and 38, the Government of Canada can do so through an order in council. It is absolutely not true and it is fuzzy thinking to suggest to the House that there is a need for a constitutional amendment.
In terms of the process of the legal case, Justice Campbell of the B.C. supreme court, one of her own leading justices, has properly stated that this treaty should be debated in the House of Commons and parliament before any judicial activism is allowed to proceed.
Again we point out the contradictions of the Reform Party. On one the hand the member raised the question of child pornography and it wanted to usurp the courts and have it done in parliament. Now that has changed. It wants to utilize the courts and bypass parliament.
If I could reasonably satisfy her by using the reasonable man or woman test and convince some of her constituents in South Surrey that it is not a document that necessitates a constitutional amendment, and that the charter does apply as it specifically says in the agreement, would she do the proper thing and represent her constituents by standing in her place and supporting the deal during debate in the fall when the document comes to the House?
Val Meredith Reform South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member across the way for some of his comments. He probably does not know, because it is not customary for his side of the floor, that on a regular basis I communicate with my constituents and ask them what they feel about legislation. I have asked them about the Nisga'a agreement and I will ask them again when it comes before the House. I honour their suggestions and their directions.
When we talk about it not being a constitutional amendment, that is up for debate. Some people feel that it is not a direct constitutional amendment that we are looking for but that it will indirectly become part of the constitution and will not be able to be changed by an order of council.
The hon. member is colouring the image when he suggests that the government can change the agreement whenever it feels like it with an order of council. That is not so. It will take the agreement of all three parties for any changes to be made. As with the Canada-Quebec accord and with immigration, it is often impossible to get the agreement of two parties to change an agreement when one party would lose a lot of its benefits because of the change.
The hon. member says that the charter of rights will apply. Why is that addendum added to the application of the charter of rights if it does not mean anything? If it is there it means something. If it does not mean anything then it should not be there.
I think the people of British Columbia and the people of Canada are asking for clarity. They want to know exactly what it means. It is quite different taking something to the supreme court or to the courts for clarification prior to legislating than it is to have courts making decisions because of the ambiguity and the grey areas left in legislation by the government of the day.
Leon Benoit Reform Lakeland, AB
Madam Speaker, so far in the debate we have heard Reform members talk about some important issues in a substantive way: the constitutionality of the Nisga'a agreement, the four lawsuits being pressed to try to stop the agreement from going ahead, and many other substantive issues.
On the other hand, as I have listened to the debate I have heard members of the governing party and of the New Democratic Party pretty much spend their time attacking Reform and not answering the questions put after they finished their debate. I am quite shocked at the level of debate from these two parties in particular.
The Liberals are pretty much focused on imputing the motives of the Reform Party in terms of our stand on the agreement and on the motion today. We have heard the Liberals present a lot of emotional, feel good rhetoric but not much in terms of substance. We have seen the New Democratic Party members seemingly bent on protecting the undemocratic process of their provincial colleagues in British Columbia, and I am concerned about that.
I am surprised and bewildered by what I have heard from the Liberals and the New Democrats. The government thinks it can deal with a problem of inequality by enshrining further inequality. To me it seems unfathomable to try to deal with inequality by enshrining in law another inequality. Yet that is what the agreement will do in several ways if it goes ahead.
The potential inequality when it comes to the division of property in the case of a divorce is one big problem with this piece of legislation. It is troubling to think they believe we can deal with inequalities by enshrining others. I am also concerned about that.
I will refer to an aboriginal task force process and report in which I was involved in my constituency over the past year or year and a half. The aboriginal task force was established with me as chair for the purpose of hearing from grassroots aboriginal people the things that were most troubling them about the way their governments were working.
From those people I obtained nine recommendations. There were many more I could have put in the report, but I wanted it to be something that would be read by the minister. To her credit she met with the task force and heard what we had to say. These nine recommendations were from the people who were saying that these things caused the greatest problems in their everyday lives. These were their recommendations to the Indian affairs minister which they thought would help improve their lives.
I will go through these nine recommendations very quickly and ask whether they are dealt with in the Nisga'a agreement, whether the problems that were expressed and the recommendations for solving them are dealt with in the Nisga'a agreement. In that way we could evaluate how successful the agreement has been in answering the concerns of grassroots aboriginal people.
I will start by explaining a little about the process very quickly. It was a three stage process. The first stage was private consultation where none of the information that was given to me would be repeated. It was done in strictest confidence unless there was agreement from the person who made the statements.
The second stage was the questionnaire which was sent out to all the reserves and the towns near reserves in the constituency.
The third stage of the consultation process was public meetings where some of the key issues in the earlier part of the process were discussed in a public manner. About 70 aboriginal people attended one of the public meetings in St. Paul. We had an excellent discussion on some key issues.
I will go through the recommendations and comment very quickly on whether the Nisga'a deal includes them. The first recommendation is in the area of financial accountability. It states that the government must enforce more comprehensive and transparent financial reporting by band and settlement administrators. This information must be freely available to all members and the general public. That recommendation was getting at the lack or gaps in financial accountability, the most commonly expressed concern of the people involved in the process.
Does the Nisga'a agreement ensure that there will be comprehensive and transparent financial reporting and that it will be made available to the public? It does not. The first recommendation has not been dealt with in the agreement.
The second recommendation of the aboriginal task force states that to ensure sound financial management on reserves and settlements the government must provide better financial management support for aboriginal councillors and administrators.
The recommendation is saying that leadership needs some help in doing a better job of managing. It is a complementary point to the first one but focusing on what kind of help can be offered. One person said:
Problems on reserves are the outgrowth of a system which at one time prevented people from leaving reserves, and at one time starved them.
This was stated by George Forsyth, the administrator of the Onion Lake Band. He went on to say:
You can't go from a system where people were watched over every minute to one where they are totally on their own, and expect perfect accountability. The evolutionary process should have gone from control to help. But there has been no preparation to provide an infrastructure for accountability.
Does the Nisga'a agreement deal with this concern and with this recommendation? It does not.
The third recommendation, again on fiscal accountability, states that the government together with councillors and administrators must ensure there is effective, regular and ongoing consultation of band and settlement members. In other words get the people most affected by the government, the people on the reserves, involved on a regular basis so there is openness and transparency about what is going on.
Does the Nisga'a agreement deal with this? It does not. We saw some things that were actually quite shocking, including one member of a band at one public meeting saying that the band on that reserve had not called a meeting in seven years. That is a problem. There is nothing in this agreement that will ensure there will be ongoing and open consultation when it comes to fiscal accountability.
Another member said that the solution may be to require band meetings where people approve and forecast the budget. What an idea. What a concept. A budget would actually be approved in advance. It makes sense. There is nothing to ensure that in this agreement that will be dealt with.
The fourth recommendation is on democratic accountability, a huge concern on the part of the people the Lakeland aboriginal task force heard from. The government must establish an arm's length body or an ombudsman or agency to hear and act on the confidential concerns of aboriginal Canadians.
The recommendation is getting at something that was heard from participants quite often. When things just are not going right members feel they have no one to go to. They cannot go to the council because that is where the problem is coming from. There should be an available independent ombudsman to give the people a call or have them come in to deal with the problem.
The fifth area of accountability was in terms of having fair elections. Again what in this agreement would ensure fair elections?
In conclusion, clearly the concerns that were expressed by the aboriginal task force members are not dealt with in the Nisga'a agreement. That leads me to wonder whether things will be better for the Nisga'a people and I believe they will not be.
John Bryden Liberal Wentworth—Burlington, ON
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the concerns expressed by my colleague opposite. However, I would submit to him that the actual place where systems of accountability and election and propriety, shall we say, should exist should be in the legislation, not in the treaty.
I suggest that the initiative coming from the Reform Party on the question before the House is premature. I think his questions are more relevant to the legislation that will come before us in six months, or perhaps to different legislation entirely. I cite for example the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act. These are elements of legislation that should address the kind of problems that he is mentioning.
Leon Benoit Reform Lakeland, AB
Madam Speaker, the hon. member has expressed a couple of more concerns about the way things are handled now. I think he would be the first to acknowledge that there is no indication whatsoever that the Nisga'a agreement will help deal with those concerns. Things will not be made better as a result of the Nisga'a agreement.
I fully agree with the member. True, maybe I have strayed slightly from the actual motion today, but I was dealing very directly with the problems with the Nisga'a agreement. How at the grassroots level, at an everyday life level will things be better for aboriginal people as a result of this agreement? I do not see any indication that this agreement will ensure that at all.
David Iftody LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Madam Speaker, on that point I would refer the member again to chapter 1, article 13, in terms of all the federal and provincial laws that are not enumerated, those 14 areas enumerated in the agreement, those laws will continue to apply to the aboriginal people of the Nass Valley as they do today.
I would also like to point out to the member that he is wrong in terms of the equality provisions. We have said this many times in the House in answering questions from members across the way that section 15 of the charter of rights and freedoms guarantees those rights both to men and to women.
Also, in contemplating the drafting of the charter of rights and freedoms women's groups were concerned it was not clear enough. Section 28 says that the rights of women and men apply equally in the charter. Still further, section 35(4) was put in by the lobby group for the aboriginal women in 1981-82 at the amending conference to provide those guarantees. There are those guarantees and the member is wrong.
I think it is a good thing that the member has toured and has visited some reserves as some of the other members of his caucus have also done in the past couple of years. They must be commended for that. However, I would ask him to come up to the Nass Valley. If he would like, I would act as a conduit and an instrument to bring him to meet the Nisga'a people. He could tour the area and meet and speak with them, perhaps in more detail than his colleague from Skeena would. Perhaps he could educate the rest of his caucus on what he found. I trust the member's concerns would be eased and he would be comforted by that. Would he take the challenge and come up to visit the Nisga'a this summer?
Leon Benoit Reform Lakeland, AB
Madam Speaker, I would really love to do that. It is a great invitation and if I possibly can, I will take the member up on that.
I must remind him though that I have about 30,000 aboriginal people in my constituency. I have been on reserves. I know the conditions. I have heard from these people through the aboriginal task force process and every day of every week in my office. They need help. Things are not going well on their reserves. The leadership is not accountable. The money is not getting to the people for whom it is intended. My first responsibility is to those people and that is where I will focus.
In terms of the inequality issue, I have an interesting letter from Jack Gosnell the president of the Nisga'a Tribal Council. This letter was in response to the letter from the Reform Party member for Okanagan—Shuswap.
In the letter the question that was being answered was how will you protect the property rights other Canadian women enjoy in the event of marital breakdown? That is a concern I have. The answer is very short. I will give just a short quote from Mr. Gosnell: “The nature of the property interest to be held by Nisga'a individuals in their residential property has not yet been determined”. This was from Mr. Gosnell himself. How can the member opposite say that he can ensure that equality rights will be protected?
Nancy Karetak-Lindell Liberal Nunavut, NU
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in my place today to respond to the motion by the hon. member for Skeena. I will be sharing my time with the member for Wentworth—Burlington.
I am pleased because I can use this opportunity to correct misinformation put forward by the hon. member who clearly does not understand what the Nisga'a final agreement is about.
I want to take this opportunity to remind him of the reasons that Canada has signed this treaty with British Columbia and the Nisga'a people. With the ratification of the Nisga'a treaty, Canada will at last be able to turn the page on one of the less admirable chapters in our country's history. We will finally conclude the unfinished business of treaty making with the Nisga'a people, a process that has dragged on since the time of Queen Victoria.
I remind my hon. colleagues that treaties are not new to this country. In fact, this year marks the 100th anniversary of treaty 8. However, while treaties were negotiated with many other first nations, most of the aboriginal peoples of British Columbia did not sign treaties with the colonial governments. With the exception of treaty 8 which extends into northeastern B.C. and the 14 Douglas treaties on the southern tip of Vancouver Island, the majority of first nations in the province have never had their claims to their lands and resources addressed, nor have they abandoned their belief in their right to determine their own destiny.
From our earliest days as a nation, the Nisga'a people have fought valiantly to have those rights recognized and withheld. Six years after the province of British Columbia entered Confederation, the Nisga'a chiefs began their quest for a negotiated settlement of their land claim and sought a treaty that acknowledged the Nisga'a people's right to self-government.
From 1887 when they first went to Victoria demanding recognition of aboriginal title, to 1913 when the Nisga'a sent a petition to the Privy Council in London to resolve the land question, to 1973 when the Supreme Court of Canada recognized the prior existence of aboriginal rights to lands and resources, six generations of Nisga'a people have patiently waited for their claim to be addressed. As we stand at the threshold of a new millennium, we must ensure that the seventh generation not only sees the hopes and dreams of the elders fulfilled, we must be sure they reap the benefits of rights so long denied.
It is only fitting as Canada closes the books on the 20th century that we embark on a new relationship with the Nisga'a and indeed all aboriginal people. A relationship built on trust, mutual respect and reconciliation. A relationship that acknowledges the mistakes and makes amends for past wrongs. A relationship that recognizes that we will only move forward as a nation when we all move forward together. That ultimately is what the Nisga'a final agreement is all about. It is a crucial step on the path to a better future.
With the ratification of this agreement a new chapter will be written in Canada's history of which our children and our grandchildren can be proud. We will enter a new era of government to government relations that finally and forevermore uphold the rights of the Nisga'a people to govern their own affairs on their own lands.
I want to make it clear that we are talking about a government based on rights, not race as some might have us believe.
The landmark supreme court ruling of 1973, commonly referred to as the Calder case, determined that aboriginal title existed as a legal right. That historic legal decision led to the recognition and affirmation of treaty rights, both historical and contemporary, as well as aboriginal title under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
Treaty rights and aboriginal title are part of the highest law in the land. Those rights have been confirmed again and again by the courts.
The most recent ruling, the Delgamuukw case, reinforces the necessity of reconciling the relationship of aboriginal people through negotiated arrangements. Delgamuukw understood the doctrine of aboriginal rights stems from one simple fact: when Europeans arrived in North America, aboriginal people were already here living in communities on the land and participating in distinctive cultures as they have for centuries. The undeniable and irreversible reality is that aboriginal peoples' prior presence gives them status and rights as the original inhabitants of this country.
The government formally affirmed the inherent right of aboriginal peoples to self-government as an existing aboriginal right. The Nisga'a final agreement reflects the commitment to a new treaty relationship and the negotiation of a fair and lasting solution to the longstanding land claim of the Nisga'a people.
The key word here is fair. This negotiated agreement balances the interests of all parties and provides significant economic benefits to the Nisga'a and their neighbours. The final agreement identifies how federal, provincial and Nisga'a laws will coexist and complement each other. It establishes a blueprint for peaceful and respectful relations that will govern the lives of all people living within Nisga'a lands.
I can assure the House that more than ideals are at stake. The rights of all citizens living within Nisga'a lands will be protected and promoted. Everyone living there will continue to enjoy the same rights and freedoms under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Everyone will continue to be subject to the Criminal Code of Canada. Federal and provincial laws that are in force for all residents of British Columbia will also apply to every resident living in the settlement area. Surely no one could ask for an arrangement that is more fair and better balanced than that.
It is equally essential to understand that the Nisga'a treaty will be suitable for the Nisga'a nation people but not necessarily for any other first nation. This is a one of a kind treaty that reflects the unique needs and interests of the Nisga'a. It reconciles modern Canadian realities with the traditional aspirations of the Nisga'a people alone.
The Nisga'a final agreement, completed after years of negotiations and extensive consultations, sets out clearly for all to see the rights of the Nisga'a that are protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. In addition to establishing a land based and financial settlement, it provides the Nisga'a self-government powers over matters integral to their culture, internal to their community and essential for the operation of their government. It sets out their powers to protect and promote the Nisga'a language and culture and to safeguard heritage sites. It enables them to provide schools, health care centres, roads, sewer systems and other infrastructure on a standard comparable to communities elsewhere in northwestern B.C.
The treaty will also contain provisions to regulate the Nisga'a fishery, manage wildlife allocation, forestry and environmental matters on Nisga'a land. The Nisga'a will use, develop and manage these lands and resources to create wealth, wealth that will stay in B.C. and be invested locally in goods and services.
The Nisga'a treaty will be the first modern day treaty in British Columbia. It is finally time to get on with the treaty business in that province. Treaties have been negotiated with first nations almost everywhere else in Canada from the time Europeans first began to settle the country. Treaties are part of our history, of how we became a country.
The days of discussion and negotiation are over. After more than a century of waiting for justice the time has come to honour the rights of the Nisga'a people. In doing so we will renew the federation based on the full inclusion of Nisga'a people. Therefore I urge the House to vote against the motion.
Werner Schmidt Reform Kelowna, BC
Madam Speaker, the hon. member opposite used the word all in a number of comments she made. There was one instance that particularly peaked my curiosity. If I remember correctly she said something to the effect that everyone living on Nisga'a land would be protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Could the hon. member define the word all or the word everyone in this instance? Does the right of everyone under the charter of rights and freedoms include the right to vote for a Nisga'a council of people who are not Nisga'a but are resident on Nisga'a lands?
Nancy Karetak-Lindell Liberal Nunavut, NU
Madam Speaker, I have to use my own land claims agreement as an example. We have concluded our land claims agreement. As a Nunavut beneficiary I can vote on issues that deal with Nunavut land claims, but people who are not part of the Nunavut land claims are not able to vote. The land claims agreement is for specific Nunavut beneficiaries.
When we deal with Canadian law, with municipalities and with the territorial government, everyone can vote. It depends on area. As an aboriginal in title I can vote for certain things that deal with me as an aboriginal in the Nunavut land claims agreement.
Werner Schmidt Reform Kelowna, BC
Madam Speaker, my question was not about voting on any thing. The question was specific. May a resident of Nisga'a lands who is not a Nisga'a vote for a council member to govern the land?
Nancy Karetak-Lindell Liberal Nunavut, NU
Madam Speaker, because I am dealing with my own land claims as my example I think they would have the same rules in voting for their band council as we do for our municipal councils.
When people talk about not having rights in dealing with aboriginal issues, they sometimes give us credit that we have different rights beyond Canadian law. I remind the hon. member that we are still Canadians and we are still bound by Canadian laws. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to every Canadian.
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Nunavut for raising one point with which most Canadians have a very easy time agreeing. The Nisga'a final agreement is turning a page on a chapter of our history that most Canadians would rather put well in our past.
As we get closer to the reality of aboriginal self-government, right wing extremist groups all across western Canada are escalating their campaign to try to put any semblance of self-government to bed.
Is the hon. member for Nunavut aware that the anti-Indian movement in British Columbia called B.C. FIRE was actually put together by a Reform Party member's staffer, a person who worked on the Hill for the Reform Party, on a salary from the party or from the government, really? He quit his job here to go to British Columbia to set up what they call B.C. FIRE, which is the anti-Indian movement in British Columbia, working full time to squash any deals like the Nisga'a deal. Was the hon. member aware of that fact?
Nancy Karetak-Lindell Liberal Nunavut, NU
Madam Speaker, no, I was not aware of that, but it saddens me to hear about such incidents. We tend to forget what role aboriginal people played in our history when Europeans first came to the country.
Because we live in a very difficult environment in my area, I can honestly say that if it was not for the help of the people there it would have been more devastating for people moving to this new country.
As tempting as it is to say when the shoe is on the other foot, we tend to forget other things but we remember when the shoe is on this foot.
John Bryden Liberal Wentworth—Burlington, ON
Madam Speaker, I must say it is an honour to follow the member for Nunavut, because I think her remarks are very appropriate to the debate today. I hope some of my remarks will complement what she has said.
Let me begin first by pointing out that the motion before the House is in my view very premature, because what it does is raise questions about the Nisga'a treaty when in fact what this parliament is all about is legislation.
The normal process is for a government to enter into a treaty, either a treaty with an aboriginal people or a treaty with a foreign state, and for parliament to examine the text of that treaty and ratify it in legislation.
We really cannot address the concerns being raised by the Reform Party members until this House actually has the legislation before it. Then I am certainly prepared to look at some of the concerns that have been raised.
I should preface my remarks also by saying that I am not one who believes that radicalism, as mentioned by the member from the New Democratic Party, is what is motivating my colleagues in the Reform Party. I have had quite a bit of experience on the aboriginal affairs committee and I can assure the House that members on both sides of the committee room, those on the government side and those on the opposition side, share a genuine concern for the welfare of aboriginals across the country.
My problem with the motion today, though, is not simply that it is premature on the Nisga'a issue. It is that I think genuinely the members of the Reform Party, in their search for solutions to the problems that they see that are very evident in some of the aboriginal communities in their ridings, are addressing the wrong portion of the problem.
I am one who, I have to admit, two years ago approached the question of aboriginal self-government with a lot of trepidation; but I have come to the conclusion, particularly after my time on the aboriginal affairs committee in which we saw hundreds of witnesses, that aboriginal self-government is a very meaningful way to go, shall we say.
I think we have heard many times today about what the courts say about treaty rights and that kind of thing. I am not one who really believes that it should be the courts that determine what is the spirit of this country. I prefer to approach the constitution and the charter of rights for the special provision for aboriginals to try to fathom the reasoning of my predecessors in according these special rights to the aboriginal peoples.
I have come to the conclusion, and it was not very hard I have to say, that indeed this country is composed of three great founding peoples. Certainly we have heard many times from the Bloc Quebecois that one of those founding peoples were those who spoke French and indeed settled New France.
Another of the founding peoples were certainly the English who came in mainly via the 13 colonies and later settled the interior of Canada.
The other founding people were the aboriginals. I do not think any of us should ever forget that there would be no French speaking Canadians nor English speaking Canadians were it not for the fact that the aboriginals taught our ancestors how to live in the wilderness.
It is that sense of those people who are still with us and are such an important part of us. It was their connection with the wilderness, to the physical spirit of Canada, that has earned them a special place in our society that is reflected in the constitution.
That special place as reflected in the constitution has to do with territory. The reason the constitution talks about treaties and the reason why we talk about a treaty with the Nisga'a is that in order to express the cultural and historical connection of the various aboriginal nations with the territory, with Canada, with the wilderness, we have to describe it in terms of where they live and where indeed they still live.
I remind the House that it is Canada's aboriginal people who choose to live on the frontiers of our country, who choose to be the custodians of our wilderness. Even though I am an urban Canadian, regardless of whether I am French speaking or English speaking or a naturalized Canadian, it is an important part of me to know that there is someone who is looking after and feeling the forest, if you will, feeling the lakes and feeling the sunsets in a way I can never do.
I submit it is that incredible role of the aboriginal peoples, regardless of whether they are in the Arctic, in western Canada, in northern Canada or wherever, that is the great contribution they have to us.
There are problems. I think there are terrible problems in the interpretation of the constitution and the spirit of our relationship with the aboriginal people in legislation that has come since the charter of rights. I refer very specifically to what was called Bill C-31, which was passed into law in 1985.
In order to address a problem with aboriginal women who lost status when they left reserves, when they married off reserves, has created I think a problem that should be the real focus of the opposition in this kind of debate, and that is the problem of defining aboriginals strictly by race and not by their connection to the wilderness or their connection to their own culture or their language.
When that law was passed, within five years between 1985 and 1991, I think 98,000 new aboriginals were created. Some of these aboriginals were created in my own community. They were created out of people who had no connection, no memory and no thought of any connection to an actual band or piece of territory or wilderness. They were no different from anyone else in my community and yet because they got Indian status suddenly they were awarded privileges: medical care, education and all kinds of privileges that were not accorded to other Canadians.
Now we have some sort of archaic mechanism whereby the Indian status is given to people, subject to an arcane questionnaire in which they demonstrate that somewhere along the line, maybe four or five generations back, they are related to an aboriginal.
I submit that is very wrong and it is also very costly. The government has not done a study since 1991, but in 1991 it was clear just in non-insured health benefits alone it was costing $122 million to service these Canadians who were suddenly status Indians with no connection to the wilderness or to their own culture.
We now have a crisis at hand because what has occurred is that the supreme court has ruled now that all aboriginals who have status can now come back to the reserves or whatever band they claim to have a connection with and vote in the elections. That distorts everything.
We have a situation out there where we have the people who choose to live on the reserves, who choose to live in the wilderness, to be custodians of the game and to look after the environment. They are responsible. We now have a situation where people with no connection can come back and have the same rights to shoot the game, take the fish and vote in band elections. I suggest that this is a major threat to aboriginal culture and identity. This is where the debate ought to be: The idea, the principle of going out to the land and finding a people like the Nisga'a and telling them that they have stayed on their land, stayed in their forests, stayed in their mountains and have looked after their mountains for generations. The only way we can give them recognition for what they have done, and ensure that they will continue to do it, is to have a treaty. We certainly want to make sure that the treaty protects the rights of all Canadians and protects the people living in the community. It is ultimately the right way to go.
We have to go back and look at the legislation that created the so-called C-31ers, who in fact are drawing money away for no good purpose. Many of the C-31ers are university educated and have jobs. Some of them are actually working for the civil service and yet their children can have free schooling and special benefits. This draws away from our ability to help those aboriginals who really deserve help because they are doing something special for the country, those aboriginals who have decided to stay in the wilderness.
I see I am out of time. I appreciate the opportunity to make these remarks even though the motion itself does not approach the real concerns.
Darrel Stinson Reform Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Madam Speaker, I have to agree in regards to Bill C-31. It has created quite a mess.
However, let us go on to the Nisga'a agreement. Part of what the member said pertains to some of this. Six thousand Nisga'a people were entitled to vote but only 2,376 were eligible to vote. A lot of Nisga'a out there were not allowed to vote. This has now created a problem where they are now taking their own Nisga'a people to court over this.
I would like the hon. member, the whole House and everybody out there who is listening, to understand that the B.C. Liberals are also taking this to court. For anyone to say that it is only the Reform Party that has a problem with this, I want everybody to understand that the B.C. Liberals also have a problem with this.
Let us have a look at the neighbouring bands which have said—and I am sure the hon. member for Nunavut will understand this—that through this process they have now started court cases stating that their land is being stolen from them by the Nisga'a. These questions are all before the courts and still not answered but the government is still willing to bring this bill before the House.
What the member is telling me is that it is okay to take from here to give to there without due process of law.
John Bryden Liberal Wentworth—Burlington, ON
Madam Speaker, I am not sure exactly what the question is.
Ultimately this parliament does decide, and that is actually one of the reasons I also have faults with the motion as it stands, because it makes an appeal to the supreme court, asking the supreme court basically for permission to write the legislation, when in fact we do know that if the legislation, when it does go through, is in contravention of the constitution, it will very soon be struck down.
However, in the end, whenever we try to establish something for someone, we are going to have some people who will object. All I can say is that the real fault here is not with the constitution, and I do not think it is going to be with the principle of the Nisga'a agreement or aboriginal self-government. The real fault is with these other bits of legislation like Bill C-31. I think it really needs to be revisited.
Ethel Blondin-Andrew LiberalSecretary of State (Children and Youth)
Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the government and the minister for the work they have done on the Nisga'a agreement. I also want to congratulate the people in the Nisga'a territory who have spent their whole life determined to complete this agreement. I think they deserve a great deal of respect and gratitude.
I just want to raise the issue of Bill C-31 in relationship to the comments my hon. colleague made. It is a very complicated process. We could have 13 categories of Indian people under different pieces of statutes and legislation. The system was a man made designed. It has its flaws in as much as there is the problem of those people who may have status who perhaps do not warrant it. However, we do not know that. I do not know that, because I have processed many applications.
I was adopted when I was nine years old. I lost my status. My grandfather signed treaty 11 as a chief. I lost my status because I was adopted by a non-treaty family, non-status. It took me a long time to get my status back.
There are many people out there. I want to know what the opinion is of my colleague on those people out there who I know are aboriginal, who have the background and whose parents were perhaps out trapping, hunting or visiting the nets, who are not registered. It is just a technical issue. They were de-Indianized or de-aboriginalized because they were not there to register. For that very simple fact, what happens to those people?
John Bryden Liberal Wentworth—Burlington, ON
Madam Speaker, Bill C-31 was expected to restore Indian status to about 10,000. It has not given Indian status to around 120,000 or 130,000.
I do not quarrel for a minute with the original intention of Bill C-31, but unfortunately, like so many good things, it has created a different kind of monster that, in my view, as an outsider of the aboriginal community, is doing terrible damage to the aboriginal community.
I also point out that in communities such as Winnipeg, where there are so many urban aboriginals, we have people in poverty and some of them being treated differently simply because of their race. It is the wrong thing to do. We need to revisit it and still maintain the original intention, but it still needs a fix.
Werner Schmidt Reform Kelowna, BC
Madam Speaker, I am thrilled to hear some of the comments the hon. member opposite made congratulating the Nisga'a people for the work they have done.
I also want to pay special tribute to the hon. member who spoke just a minute ago. I found myself very much in sympathy with lifting the level of debate to issues that go beyond some of what I would like to call the stuff of the treaty. I think the issue is far deeper and far more significant than that. I recognize that the hon. member has also recognized that and is coming to grips with it.
I also need to make a point and put on the record my utter and complete disassociation from what I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre suggested, that somehow I or my colleagues are associated with B.C. FIRE. Let it be absolutely clear that we are not associated or in any way connected with it.
He also referred to a particular gentleman who may have at one time worked for an MP. It should also be known that he is not working for an MP and that there is absolutely no way that I or any of my colleagues, to the best of my knowledge, are in any way associated with that particular organization. I really want to underscore that because my heart goes out to the way in which the aboriginal people in Canada have been treated.
The hon. member for Western Arctic spoke from her heart and I really appreciate that. I have met a number of aboriginal people and they have not had a treaty. The Nisga'a people have not had a treaty. It is good that they do have a treaty. They have negotiated for many years and they have negotiated well. In fact, I think they have negotiated a little bit too well in some areas, but that is another issue.
I want to lift this beyond the complicating factors: that the boundaries are in dispute; that there are three bands that want the same land; that the B.C. Legislature made a mockery of the democratic process by cutting the debate; and, that there is uncertainty about the constitutional implications. I do not want to get into that too much because I do not think that is the primary issue here. I agree with the hon. secretary when he says that constitutional amendments are probably not required. That may well be the case. I think the issue is the implications of the provisions in the constitution and the provisions in the treaty itself. That is not clear right now. It is before the courts at the moment.
I really want to focus on two issues: democracy and citizenship. The first issue is about democracy and the business of accountability. I am going to put democracy or democratic accountability close together. It seems to me that there are four characteristics of a democracy.
The first principle of a good democratic organization is that there must be the substance of a genuine control of the leadership by those who are governed. That means that there has to be representation and the representation is selected by election and not by heredity. This is a very interesting concept.
I think it was way back in 1215 when the Magna Carta was passed and where King John, I think it was, was denied his divine right to be king. There has been nothing in our democratic process since that time that would suggest that we have the right to be somewhere simply because of a certain heredity in terms of the way we want to govern ourselves. The whole democracy of our country today rests on the fact of one person, one vote.
The other part of that is that we are equal. We are different. Madam Speaker, you and I are different. I am different from any other member of the House, but before the law of this land and for the constitution that governs us in our noble institution here, we are equal. I think that is desirable.
The second principle is that there must be a clear and accurate information flow so that on matters of public importance we know what is going on. Let us take, for example, the issue of the conflict in Kosovo right now. We need accurate and complete information in order to make good decisions about that.
The third principle is that there must be regular opportunities to vote on who shall lead us. That does happen in the House and that needs to happen. People will argue that those three principles are indeed contained in the treaty, and I am not going to argue that they are not. However, I will come to grips with the fourth principle, which is that we must have the ability for a free vote.
I would suggest that there is a particular difficulty in this treaty because we are dealing with a very small government with very large powers. The Nisga'a Council will have very large powers but will have difficulty providing an honest free vote.
I want to quote an analysis that was done by Gordon Gibson. I want to get into some detail here:
Small governments with large powers may acquire the ability to control citizens rather than vice versa...Top down control is easier in small situations. This is a worldwide phenomenon, totally independent of culture.
The proposed Nisga'a government, a small one, would have very large powers. What are they? Because most cash resources in the economy will flow through the Nisga'a government by virtue of the terms of the treaty, people will be uncommonly dependent upon and beholden to that government. The dependence will not merely be for municipal type services, but also for matters of intense and immediate importance to the individuals concerned; matters such as housing, social assistance and even employment.
The Nisga'a state will control so many things. Health and education will presumably be available to all, but higher education and extraordinary health measures will be rationed and discretionary, as they always are. There will be strong and obvious incentives for citizens of this government to go along with those in power in order to get on with their lives.
The problem of democratic accountability is escalated because the Nisga'a government will largely be using other people's money through federal and provincial transfers flowing through the Nisga'a state. Is this in any way an aspersion on the Nisga'a? It is not. When local taxpayers pay the bills, they have a powerful incentive to control their governments, and that applies to all of us as well as it does to anyone else. When bills are paid by outsiders instead, the locally governed have every incentive to conspire with the local government to extract maximum gain from external sources rather than prudently use the available resources.
Madam Speaker, you know as well as most people that people manage their own money a little more carefully than they manage money which belongs to others. Sometimes that is not the case, but usually it is.
Tom Flanagan from the University of Calgary stated this very well when he said: “Just as you shouldn't have taxation without representation, nor are you likely to get good representation without full taxation”. It works both ways. So much for democratic accountability. I have just touched the surface on the whole question of democracy.
I want to briefly discuss the issue of citizenship. Citizenship under the Nisga'a treaty is determined on a hereditary basis, not on the basis of residence. Voting is on that basis. Only Nisga'a citizens may vote. It is a birth right which allows them to vote under this treaty. That does not exist anywhere else in Canada. In Canada it is determined upon where people reside. That is a fundamental principle.
Now we have a situation where there are Nisga'a who reside on Nisga'a land and Nisga'a who reside off Nisga'a land. Both of these groups have the right to vote. However, those who reside off the land can only vote for three councillors, yet there are 30. There is disproportionate representation for those who are off the land and those who are on the land. In effect it creates two classes of Nisga'a citizens.
That is not all it does. There are other rights and privileges given on the basis of the constitution to the Nisga'a people that are not given to other Canadians. We have three classes of citizens. We have two classes of Nisga'a and then there is a difference between all Nisga'a people and other Canadians. We should be equal before the law. We should not create separate citizenship questions.
This is just the beginning. I encourage the House to give very serious debate to these issues. They are at the root of and are the fundamental basis of what needs to happen in terms of giving all people in Canada the right to vote, the right to be represented equally and responsibly, and the right to be in control of their own affairs.
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Madam Speaker, the hon. member began his remarks by trying to distance himself from B.C. FIRE, the hate movement or the anti-Indian movement in B.C.
In an interview on CBC television, journalist Carol Off was interviewing Mel Smith, the author of Our Home or Native Land?: What Government's Aboriginal Policy is Doing to Canada . That is the book which has become the bible for the B.C. anti-Indian movement and is often quoted by the Reform Party. In fact, the Reform Party hired Mel Smith to head up its Indian task force hearings.
Ms. Off said: “In fact, a lot of FIRE organizers have Reform connections. Brian Richardson is running for the Reform Party in the next federal election (the 1997 election). Greg Hollingsworth was on the payroll of the Reform Party until he left to start B.C. FIRE. Georgeanne Sanders, who was an activist in the Okanagan and who was active in B.C. FIRE, is a member of the Reform Party. So are Marcia Gilbert and Judy Kilgour both prominent members in the anti-Indian movement in the Okanagan. Preston Manning only announced Reform's Indian policy last month, but yet it bears a striking resemblance to the policy of B.C. FIRE”.
Carol Off is a credible journalist with the CBC. She found in her own research example after example of direct links to the hate movement, the people who are promoting hatred in British Columbia. I am not saying it is the Reform Party that is promoting hatred; I am saying it is intricately linked with the people who are promoting hatred. We all know it is a lot easier to promote hatred than it is to promote tolerance.
Werner Schmidt Reform Kelowna, BC
Madam Speaker, I regret both the tone of voice and the content of what the hon. member has just said. There may indeed be people within the Reform Party who have contacts. I did not say that in my opening remarks.
We have freedom in this country; freedom to speak and freedom to associate. I was speaking very personally. I want it to be abundantly clear that I am not in any way associated with the FIRE movement. I have no intentions of becoming associated with that movement. I make it abundantly clear as well that we are not here as the Reform Party, either as individuals or as a party, to in any way stand in the way of an amicable settlement of the question of land claims and the self-governance which aboriginal people in Canada want. We want that as much as anyone else.
We are very concerned that Canada be a united nation and that it provide rights, privileges and equality for all of its citizens. We are deeply concerned that if we should countenance the development of issues and of decisions that might be made, which in their implications and in their future adaptation, application and interpretation may lead to the creation, as I pointed out, of three or four different classes of Canadian citizens, that will begin to create the kind of conflict that we have just witnessed in central Asia.
This is the deep concern that I have. It does not help to point fingers at individuals who may have been indiscreet in some of their remarks. I appeal to the member for Winnipeg Centre and to all members that we are here to try to build solid relationships of co-operation where we can together build a strong nation, a strong community where we can develop freedom from fear, where we can help one another and indeed get to the point where we can actually love one another. I extend that to my hon. colleague as well.