Madam Speaker, it is definitely not a pleasure to be addressing the bill tonight. Bills such as this one are not about self-government. They are about special rights for special people. They are about different strokes for different folks. They are about rules for one set of people without any consideration for another group of people.
Last September the auditor general in a section of his report to parliament dealt with the ongoing treaty process in the country. He noted that non-native neighbours were ignored. He said:
Settled claims can affect non-parties to the settlement—we found indications that little opportunity had been provided for their input on decisions on the allocation of land and other provisions in settlement agreements.
He also stated in his report that government must represent all Canadians and said:
In pursuing its objective, the government needs to fairly represent all Canadians, who are ultimately bound by the agreements reached.... Comprehensive land claim settlements are modern treaties that are significant not only to Aboriginal communities but to all Canadians.
The auditor general observed that the government must represent all Canadians in the treaty making process. By extension it is fair to say that the same should apply to the bill that is before us. The government must recognize that the bill is not made simply for the people it purports to cover. It will also impact on the neighbours of those people. That is one part which bothers me.
Another aspect bothers me which I want to mention right off the top. It puts the whole issue into perspective. It is a story in the fishing industry which occurred within the past year. Last spring after the herring fishery two constituents of mine were returning home to Delta. They were approached on the ferry by an aboriginal Canadian who said “I heard you talking and I believe you guys are commercial fishermen”. They said yes, that they were. He said he used to be an a licence salmon fisherman. In other words he had a licence that allowed him to fish in the all-Canadian commercial fishery but when the government introduced a separate native commercial fishery they let their licences go and now they were fishing in the Musqueam fishery and were not happy with that.
He sat down to talk with these fellows and explain his unhappiness. He said that he had a licence which he held at the discretion of the chief. The way it worked was as long as he was getting along well with the chief he could fish but if they had a falling out he would be off the list.
When he held the commercial salmon licence given to him by the minister he held it with some certainty. There was comfort in knowing it could only be taken away from him if he broke the law. The way it is now he held his licence at the discretion of the chief. If he were dating the chief's daughter and they had a falling out, he would be off the list and would not fish.
He does not like that situation. There are a number of them on the Musqueam reserve who want to see an end to the separate native commercial fishery. We engaged them in negotiations. We negotiated with members of the Musqueam band and the Tsawwassen band to see if there was a way we could level the playing field and bring it back to what it was prior to 1992. The native people were eager participants in this discussion.
We met on the Tsawwassen reserve in a meeting room with a group of non-aboriginal and aboriginal fishermen to discuss the issue. We devised a way, knowing what government revenues were available, whereby we would have asked the government to put aside $12 million to buy licences for native people so they could re-enter the all-Canadian fishery. They were happy to fish on an equal footing again with the rest of us.
The negotiations went well. Unfortunately when it went back to the Musqueam band, the people we call the double dippers, the native people who still held commercial licences to fish in the all-Canadian fishery and who were participating in the native only commercial fishery, put the kibosh to it and it ended.
That was unfortunate but it showed that although people in that community had received a special right, one for which they did not have to pay and where there was no licence fee involved for them to participate in that native only commercial fishery, they wanted out of it. Somehow a sense of fairness was lost. They felt their rights were not being protected. When we get right down to it, that is what it is all about.
I could go through the details and could talk about the expropriation principles as others have. Maybe I will come back to them. However, another point is worth mentioning tonight in this debate. It has to do with the rights of native people. My friend across the way mentioned the Nisga'a treaty. He said that all the Reform guys wanted to do was talk about it, that they were uptight about the Nisga'a treaty, and that they wanted to create uncertainty or discontent in these kinds of issues because they wanted to push their position on the Nisga'a treaty.
I will talk about that treaty in the sense of fairness and how the rights of people are protected in these circumstances. My colleagues talked about the fact that if the bill were passed native women could lose their property rights. If the bill goes through, their chances of appealing it through the court system would not be very great.
For example, in relation to the Nisga'a treaty both the federal and provincial governments have stated time and again that the charter of rights and freedoms will continue to apply. Our view is that in a legal challenge that may not be the case. It will apply in the case of Bill C-49 in terms of the rights we are talking about here.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms defined in it, subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. There is a limit on our rights under the charter, but it is simply those rights that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. If we look at how the charter deals with the rights section for native people, it comes at it a little differently.
It states:
The guarantee of this charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal people of Canada including—any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.
There is a constraint already built into the rights and freedoms that these people enjoy and that constraint is built into the charter.
How is that interpreted by the provincial government? I want to read one quick paragraph from the factum of the attorney general of British Columbia in the Delgamuukw case:
Most aboriginal rights, including the aboriginal title, are in the nature of a shield that can be invoked by the aboriginal community or its members against unjustified infringement by provincial or federal laws; however what really distinguishes the right of self-government is that it can be invoked as a “sword” by an aboriginal community or one of its members to enforce compliance by the members with an aboriginal custom, practice or tradition relating to their internal affairs.
Therein is the limitation on property rights for women in this bill. I think this bill should be rejected on that basis alone.
