Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to see that no Liberals have left. There are so few, we would hardly even notice.
In speaking to the supply day motion, I will begin by pointing out that in a court of law both sides have their experts and so to say that one opinion or two opinions represents what is right or not right in a particular case really needs adjudication. That is the whole entire point.
I attended a conference just last week on the Delgamuukw decision. The only certainty that arose out of that conference was that certainty is the one thing that is not available from the Delgamuukw decision.
Experts, while not a dime a dozen are in fact very expensive. However, they are certainly not in short supply.
The supply day motion wants the Liberal government to ask the question, prior to ratification, whether the supremacy of the Government of Canada will still be in force after the treaty is ratified. We are asking if it constitutes an amendment to the Constitution? We want to know what it does does to individual rights? We are simply asking for judicial clarification and that we hold the agreement in abeyance until that time. That is not so terribly much. It is about the bare minimum that should be available to people.
The Liberals have maintained a rather cozy relationship with aboriginal leadership and that relationship has not always been to the benefit of individual Indians.
One of the things I found out, and I have not been here all that long, is that in the 1950s Indians could not sell the fruit of their labour and retain the proceeds. Grain, for instance, had to be sold and the money was returned to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It was spent, of course, by the leadership. Therefore, evolution is not always a negative process. They now have that right but prior to that, with the agreement of chiefs and the department of Indian affairs, that was denied to them.
Just recently, section 77(1) of the Indian Act was struck down. That is the section of the Indian Act that forbade band members who did not ordinarily reside on a reserve the right to vote in band elections.
Guess who fought alongside the chiefs and councils to deny them that right? It was the department of Indian affairs. It had intervened to deny non-resident band members the right to participate in the election of the government of their reserves. It was a denial of democracy.
On the Nisga'a land there are many members who do not live on the reserve. We wonder, would those people have voted for this had they been there, or were their rights denied that way?
Bill C-31 Indians who have, until now, been denied a voice in shaping the policies that govern reserves, of which they are a part, have finally got a voice in the government, in the way moneys are handled, in the facilities, program administration and all of these types of things. They finally have a voice but they were denied that voice because they were not a part of the group that resided on the reserve. We are saying that we need these types of questions answered in the Nisga'a case.
Mobility rights were denied by that section. It had the effect of impinging on the mobility rights of Indians by requiring them to maintain residency on a particular reserve in order to exercise their rights as band members.
I point out as well that the auditor general is critical of Indian affairs' mismanagement of taxpayer funds directed to band administered programs. He cites lack of legislative authority, lack of reporting mechanisms and characterizes it as dump and run as only a couple of instances. We might ask who is responsible for this. The Liberal government is responsible.
Liberals may feel their motives are above question. They may ask themselves if their motives were good, and they may feel their motives were excellent. They may feel that their integrity in the process was above question. They may ask themselves if they did this with full integrity and will believe they have, although I find that we question it. However, it is their ability to negotiate and implement a modern treaty that is definitely questionable and the Nisga'a treaty is just one example of that.
I would like to point members to the auditor general's recent comments. Chapter 14 of the auditor general's report on Indian and northern affairs, comprehensive land claims in section 14.16 states:
Although the Parliament of Canada has jurisdiction in matters relating to Indians and land reserve for Indians, co-operation in settling claims is needed from the territorial and provincial governments with respect to certain lands that fall under their jurisdiction.
While it is admitted that the federal government has the agreement of the current B.C. government, it is clear that there is no such agreement with the next Government of British Columbia. Should the government not have negotiated a treaty that had all party support, one where when the next government is elected it is not seeking to overturn it by court action, which it is already trying to do, one that enjoys broad popular support and there are no regrets. It seems to me that would be an important issue to have been addressed prior to the signing of the Nisga'a treaty.
The Nisga'a final agreement fails to create or address private property rights for Nisga'a people. I think that is very important. For about 130 years, Canada's governments have denied individual Indians the right to own private property on reserve lands. They have been subjected to a collectivist approach to land holding that has termed traditional. However, I would like to take issue with that statement.
Prior to settlement by the colonial powers, the Indian people had a variety of societies within the boundaries of what is now Canada. There were nomadic tribes on the prairies for whom the idea of ownership of land would have no meaning. These were people for whom land as such would have no value. They moved about with the seasons following the game which they depended on for their livelihood.
Consequently, ownership of articles that could be relocated were really the only kind that had value to them. I would like to list a few. their dwellings were mobile. Their horses were absolutely essential because the buffalo moved about. If we look at their drawings and paintings from that period we see that is what they related to. We do not see landscapes in their paintings. I think that demonstrates a point. No one would even steal land, let alone buy it because no one owned any land as it had no intrinsic value to a nomadic people. It was useful only insofar as it could sustain them when it was necessary. Neither communal nor fee simple ownership is traditional to such a people. The important thing was use.
In other areas of Canada, Indians remained in one place due to the relatively hospitable weather, the ongoing abundance of game and the fact that some crops could be raised. It was a different type of society. These conditions allowed for the creation of societies in which people built permanent houses and communities.
It would be safe to say that these people were not interested in communal ownership of their homes. That is important. Simply because they did not have a Torrens land title system in place and issue paper titles to their property does not mean to say they had no concept of ownership of property.
The whole principle behind a title or a deed system is that it simply documents ownership and may indicate extent, or to put it in other terms, size, shape and location of property. To say that a collectivist approach works there speaks against the reality of the day.
As I stated earlier, the reserve system of allotting land to Indians is based on the principle of communal ownership which I believe is not based on actual historical facts. It was created for the purpose of creating sanctuaries from encroachment by settlers to ensure a land base for Indians and their dependants. That was certainly an important and necessary action the Canadian government took.
Traditional activities such as hunting, fishing and gathering country food were seen as major activities which would occur on reserves with a view to preserving traditional lifestyles in what was at the time a primarily agricultural and resource based economy. That a different vision now exists in the context of a modern society based not on traditional but on modern commercial activities calls for a different approach to land holding.
Holding land in common concentrates not only economic power in the hands of a few or of an elite, but political power as well. Many rank and file Indians are beginning to speak out on the issue of the abuse of power and conflict of interest, cronyism and lack of accountability on reserves where land is held in common.
There is no denying that ownership of land has been an effective tool in the creation and distribution of wealth in Canada but only for those to whom it is available. For the Liberal government to perpetuate the collective communal approach while refusing to admit any other approach that might recognize an individual band member's right or desire to hold a portion of the land in fee simple is a major weakness not only in the Nisga'a treaty but in the ongoing policy of the government.
For the Nisga'a final agreement to be held up as a model for future B.C. treaties while ignoring this fundamental flaw is to perpetuate an ongoing injustice visited upon all Indians who desire something more out of life. To be lumped into a communal system with no means of breaking out and experiencing the same freedom and opportunities afforded other citizens of Canada is a miscarriage of justice in my view.
The House should refuse to deal with this treaty. It should send it back for revision on a number of issues which my colleagues and myself are highlighting today.
