Bill C-62 (Historical)

Yale First Nation Final Agreement Act

An Act to give effect to the Yale First Nation Final Agreement and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment gives effect to the Yale First Nation Final Agreement. It also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend His Excellency the Governor General in the Senate chamber, His Excellency was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to certain bills:

C-321, An Act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act (library materials)—Chapter 10, 2013.

C-37, An Act to amend the Criminal Code—Chapter 11, 2013.

C-383, An Act to amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act and the International River Improvements Act—Chapter 12, 2013.

S-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code—Chapter 13, 2013.

C-47, An Act to enact the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act and the Northwest Territories Surface Rights Board Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts —Chapter 14, 2013.

C-309, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (concealment of identity)—Chapter 15, 2013.

C-43, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act—Chapter 16, 2013.

S-213, An Act respecting a national day of remembrance to honour Canadian veterans of the Korean War—Chapter 17, 2013.

C-42, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 18, 2013.

S-209, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (prize fights)—Chapter 19, 2013.

S-2, An Act respecting family homes situated on First Nation reserves and matrimonial interests or rights in or to structures and lands situated on those reserves—Chapter 20, 2013.

S-8, An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands—Chapter 21, 2013.

C-63, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2014—Chapter 22, 2013.

C-64, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2014—Chapter 23, 2013.

C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 24, 2013.

C-62, An Act to give effect to the Yale First Nation Final Agreement and to make consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 25, 2013.

S-14, An Act to amend the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act—Chapter 26, 2013.

S-17, An Act to implement conventions, protocols, agreements and a supplementary convention, concluded between Canada and Namibia, Serbia, Poland, Hong Kong, Luxembourg and Switzerland, for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes—Chapter 27, 2013.

S-15, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, 2001—Chapter 28, 2013.

It being 4:24 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, September 16, 2013, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 4:24 p.m.)

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this time last week, I said that I hoped to have a substantial list of accomplishments to report to the House. Indeed, I do.

In just the last five days, thanks to a lot of members of Parliament who have been here sitting late at night, working until past midnight, we have accomplished a lot. Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1, the important job-creating bill, which was the cornerstone of our government's spring agenda, passed at third reading. Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act, passed at third reading. Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, passed at third reading. Bill C-62, the Yale First Nation final agreement act, was reported back from committee and was passed at report stage and passed at third reading. Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act, was reported back from committee. Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act, was reported back from committee this morning with amendments from all three parties. Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act, has been passed at committee, and I understand that the House should get a report soon. Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, passed at second reading. Bill S-17, the tax conventions implementation act, 2013, passed at second reading. Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act, passed at second reading. Bill S-6, the first nations elections act, has been debated at second reading. Bill C-61, the offshore health and safety act, has been debated at second reading. Bill S-16, the tackling contraband tobacco act, has been debated at second reading. Finally, Bill C-65, the respect for communities act, was also debated at second reading.

On the private members' business front, one bill passed at third reading and another at second reading. Of course, that reflects the unprecedented success of private members advancing their ideas and proposals through Parliament under this government, something that is a record under this Parliament. This includes 21 bills put forward by members of the Conservative caucus that have been passed by the House. Twelve of those have already received royal assent or are awaiting the next ceremony. Never before have we seen so many members of Parliament successfully advance so many causes of great importance to them. Never in Canadian history have individual MPs had so much input into changing Canada's laws through their own private members' bills in any session of Parliament as has happened under this government.

Hard-working members of Parliament are reporting the results of their spring labours in our committee rooms. Since last week, we have got substantive reports from the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Standing Committee on Health, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

We are now into the home stretch of the spring sitting. Since I would like to give priority to any bills which come back from committee, I expect that the business for the coming days may need to be juggled as we endeavour to do that.

I will continue to make constructive proposals to my colleagues for the orderly management of House business. For example, last night, I was able to bring forward a reasonable proposal for today's business, a proposal that had the backing of four of the five political parties that elected MPs. Unfortunately, one party objected, despite the very generous provision made for it with respect to the number of speakers it specifically told us it wanted to have. Nonetheless, I would like to thank those who did work constructively toward it.

I would point out that the night before, I made a similar offer, again, based on our efforts to accommodate the needs of all the parties.

Today we will complete second reading of Bill S-16, the tackling contraband tobacco act. Then we will start second reading of Bill C-57, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act.

Tomorrow morning we will start report stage of Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act. Following question period, we will return to the second reading debate on Bill S-6, the first nations elections act.

On Monday, before question period, we will start report stage and hopefully third reading of Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act. After question period Monday, we will return to Bill C-49, followed by Bill C-65, the respect for communities act.

On Tuesday, we will also continue any unfinished business from Friday and Monday. We could also start report stage, and ideally, third reading of Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act that day.

Wednesday, after tidying up what is left over from Tuesday, we will take up any additional bills that might be reported from committee. I understand that we could get reports from the hard-working finance and environment committees on Bill S-17 and Bill S-15 respectively.

Thereafter, the House could finish the four outstanding second-reading debates on the order paper: Bill C-57; Bill C-61; Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act; and Bill S-13, the port state measures agreement implementation act.

I am looking forward to several more productive days as we get things done for Canadians here in Ottawa.

Yale First Nation Final Agreement Act

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations with respect to Bill C-62, an act to give effect to the Yale First Nation Final Agreement and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Before I propose the motion, I want to thank the official opposition and all members of this House who have been working in co-operation to move expeditiously in advancing this legislation to implement the Yale final agreement.

I move:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practices of this House, Bill C-62, An Act to give effect to the Yale First Nation Final Agreement and to make consequential amendments to other Acts be deemed concurred in at the report stage and deemed read a third time and passed.

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, entitled “Bill C-62, An Act to give effect to the Yale First Nation Final Agreement and to make consequential amendments to other Acts”.

The committee has studied this bill and has decided to report this bill back to the House, without amendments.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I do want to start by reviewing what our House has accomplished over the preceding five days since I last answered the Thursday question.

Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, was passed at third reading. Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act, was passed at third reading. Bill C-63 and Bill C-64, the appropriations laws, passed at all stages last night as part of the last supply day of the spring cycle.

Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, has been debated some more at third reading. Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1, was passed at report stage. Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act, was passed at report stage, was debated at third reading, and debate will continue.

Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act, was passed at second reading. Bill C-56, combating counterfeit products act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-17, the tax conventions implementation act, 2013, was debated at second reading.

On Bill C-62, the Yale First Nation final agreement act, we adopted a ways and means motion, introduced the bill, passed it at second reading and it has since passed at committee. I anticipate we will be getting a report from the committee shortly.

Bill S-16, the tackling contraband tobacco act, was given first reading yesterday after arriving from the Senate. Bill C-65, the respect for communities act, was introduced this morning.

Substantive reports from four standing committees were adopted by the House.

On the private members' business front, the House witnessed three bills getting third reading, one being passed at report stage, two being reported back from committee and one was just passed at second reading and sent to a committee.

Last night was the replenishment of private members' business, with 15 hon. members bringing forward their ideas, which I am sure we will vigorously debate.

The House will continue to deliver results for Canadians over the next week. Today, we will finish the third reading debate on Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act. Then we will turn our collective attention to Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, at second reading, followed by Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, at third reading.

Tomorrow we will have the third reading debate on Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1. The final vote on this very important job creation and economic growth bill will be on Monday after question period.

Before we rise for the weekend, we hope to start second reading debate on Bill C-61, the offshore health and safety act.

On Monday, we will complete the debates on Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, and Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act.

Today and next week, I would like to see us tackle the bills left on the order paper, with priority going to any bills coming back from committee.

As for the sequencing of the debates, I am certainly open to hearing the constructive proposals of my opposition counterparts on passing Bill S-6, the First Nations Elections Act, at second reading; Bill S-10, the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, at second reading; Bill S-12, the Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act, at second reading; Bill S-13, the Port State Measures Agreement Implementation Act, at second reading; Bill S-16, at second reading; Bill S-17, at second reading; Bill C-57, the Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, at second reading; Bill C-61, at second reading; and Bill C-65, at second reading.

Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to having another list of accomplishments to share with you, and all honourable members, this time next Thursday.

Suffice it to say, we are being productive, hard-working and orderly in delivering on the commitments we have made to Canadians.

There having been discussions among the parties that it will receive unanimous consent, I would like to propose a motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of this House, the member for Peace River be now permitted to table the Report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development in relation to Bill C-62, An Act to give effect to the Yale First Nation Final Agreement and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

[Chief Norman Hope, Chief, Chief Negotiator, Yale First Nation]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, members of Parliament, support staff, and other parliamentarians, thank you for this opportunity to speak to you at committee. I'd like to thank you all for taking the time to study Bill C-62, the Yale First Nation treaty bill. It's been 17 years in the making, a long and expensive negotiation with Canada and British Columbia through the B.C. Treaty Commission process.

We have dealt with many difficult issues over the negotiation, but with good faith and honest negotiations. At no time did any one party attempt to make a slick deal of any sort. There was respect for negotiators around the table.

At one time we called our treaty a fish treaty because we depend so much on the fishery resource. We always have. It's a big part of our life. But we found that we can't rely totally on the fish anymore. Times are changing. We worked on this treaty with the young people in mind. Therefore, I call it “the treaty for the youth”. They are the ones who will have to implement this over the next number of years, should it be approved, and they will have to live with it. We have many very capable young people growing up, coming to work in our office and other places in the community. They're very capable. I'm confident that when the time comes to implement this treaty and carry on from there, they will be able to do it.

Treaties are about land, power, and money. Certainly the land is the key issue here. We have to have water with land. We hope to harness some of that water for hydro power in the future. Other resources on the land are the timber resource, gold and other precious metals, gravel, and of course wildlife, and fish in the Fraser River. These are very important to us and the future of our people.

As for the power part of this treaty, we are working towards building our self-government. We have a constitution that has been ratified by the people of Yale First Nation. The young people I talked about will have an opportunity to build this government from the ground up. They'll have a constitution that they actually took part in to follow on all the issues that we had to deal with.

The Yale First Nation government will not have a lot of duties, but they are important to us. The government will govern our land. They will govern the fishery resource, along with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We will decide who can fish and where they can fish within the Yale area. I'm talking about the Yale people, nobody else. We can't suggest for a minute that we will tell anybody where they can fish, only the Yale people.

Of course we'll work with the federal government, DFO, the fisheries. The government will create a membership act on who the Yale people will be, or are. The Indian Act will disappear. I will certainly be relieved. After 34 years of being chief I found that doing business through the Department of Indian Affairs is quite slow and restricted. Self-government is great. I think it's good for us. We'll finally be able to look after ourselves.

As for the money, there's not a lot of money involved in this treaty. As I said, it's been a long, expensive negotiation and we do have a large loan to repay, but I'm looking forward to the economic development part of the settlement.

We would really like to provide some jobs in the outlying area, not only for the Yale First Nation people, but for our neighbours, the non-first nation people. We look forward to joint venturing with the businesses in the communities in the outlying area. Certainly, the implementation dollars will help us get set up to work with our new responsibilities. The fiscal finance agreement will be outside the treaty.

I would like to say a few things about our neighbours in the towns of Yale and Hope, and the outlying area, the Fraser Valley Regional District. We've met many times with these groups, and they have supported the Yale treaty since day one. We have a very close relationship with the regional district, area B, and the mayor of Hope, and the small community of Yale. We work closely with them. We grew up with them, and we expect good things in the future working side by side with them.

As for the first nation neighbours, we've spent a fair amount of time dealing with them. To the north of us are the Spuzzum and Nlaka'pamux nations. We have a very close relationship with them. They're very much like us. The formation of the land is very similar. They're in the Fraser Canyon. We'll continue to get along with them. We've always had an understanding of a boundary between Yale and Spuzzum, which we call Five Mile Creek. That's always been understood. We saw no need to put it in writing, and we haven't, at least to this date. It's clearly understood that there's a boundary between Yale First Nation and the Spuzzum Indian band. They are not in the treaty process.

To the west of us, up towards Harrison Lake, we have the In-SHUCK-ch people, our neighbours. We have trails up and over the hills that come out at Harrison Lake. We've met with the In-SHUCK-ch people many times, and we've determined that we do not have overlap concerns with any of the many Indian bands of the In-SHUCK-ch.

We've also met with the Chehalis, who are up in that same direction. The Chehalis are a separate nation. They're not Stó:lo people. They're a unique group of people. We've met with them and we have agreed that yes, we do have some shared territory, but they have said they do not want to hold up the process while we make up some sort of an agreement. We will at some point make an agreement in writing on how we will share the territory between Yale and Chehalis. As the crow flies, it's not really that far.

At the moment, with the Chehalis group, we have a handshake type of agreement. We've agreed that the Chehalis people may come up and camp on our land and fish in the Fraser River. In return, they have agreed that the Yale people can go over towards Chehalis and hunt and gather plants and pick blueberries. That is a really good historical agreement, at this point a handshake, but we will put it in writing. This is the type of arrangement we would like to do with all our neighbours.

We have the Spuzzum to the north. We have the In-SHUCK-ch and the Chehalis to the west. To the south of us are the Stó:lo people.

The closest Stó:lo Indian band would be the Union Bar Indian band. It is a very small community. They have a river frontage like we do. They have found that they're having the same problems that the Yale are having. Many neighbours are encroaching on their land and fishing in the Fraser River. They have some really good fishing places. They have some good land to camp on. They have streams to get water from. It's a nice territory, but they have the same problems we have.

I have not been able to talk to Chief Andy Alex of the Union Bar Indian band at length about this issue, although he said he'll talk, and these are his words, “at the appropriate time”. That has yet to happen, but I look forward to the day.

As for the other Stó:lo Indian bands, over the last 17 years we've attempted to meet with them. In many cases we were successful in getting a meeting, but they would not deal with the issue at hand. They wanted to negotiate with me and the Yale First Nation for our territory. Well, our territory wasn't on the table. What I was agreeable to do was to work out some sort of an arrangement for the Stó:lo people to come up and camp on our land and fish in the Fraser River. That's what I'd like to have discussed, but they would not deal with that. They wanted to negotiate some of the Yale land away from us. That certainly was not on the table.

We went through that for many years. As we concluded the negotiation of the treaty, the federal government arranged for a mediator, Vince Ready. He's a very well-known mediator. We agreed to this. For a year we attended mediation sessions to make an arrangement so that the Stó:lo people could come on our land, camp and fish, and enjoy the territory, but they had other ideas. They wanted to add on to the Yale treaty some provisions for the Stó:lo to come on our land. That was not on the table either. We would never.... It's impossible. It doesn't make sense. They wanted to add some Stó:lo clauses in the Yale treaty. That wasn't agreeable to Yale.

We found that the mediation was going nowhere. We were not agreeing on anything that would help us get along in the future. Myself, I came to the conclusion that I should be talking to the grassroots people. They're the ones on the ground. They're the ones who would be camping on our land and fishing in the river, not the grand chiefs. I don't believe the grand chiefs could have done an agreement with Yale. How could they bind 10,000 people to an agreement? I think it would be difficult. Anyway, it didn't go anywhere. The mediations stopped.

We hope to get on with concluding this treaty.

I am looking forward to questions regarding the Stó:lo in the next part.

I would like our negotiator Rob Reiter to say a couple of words about the treaty.

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's good to be on Algonquin land this early in the morning.

I wish to thank you for giving me this opportunity to appear before you and talk about Bill C-62, An Act to give effect to the Yale First Nation Final Agreement.

This bill is the final step in the ratification of the Yale First Nation Final Agreement. It crystallizes nearly 20 years of negotiations, consultations, compromises, accommodations and creative solutions. This agreement represents the aspirations of the Yale First Nation people for future generations. It contains the blueprint for self governance within, and protected by, the Constitution of Canada and will provide a future free of the constraints of the Indian Act.

The bill before the House contains a number of key elements, some of which I would like to highlight today.

Yale First Nation will receive a capital transfer of $10.7 million; $2.2 million to promote economic development; one-time funding of $1.4 million and annual funding of $1.25 million to implement the agreement. Yale First Nation will receive an addition of 1,749 hectares of provincial crown land to its existing 217 hectares of reserve lands. It will control these lands by using its law-making authorities set out in the final agreement.

Yale First Nation members will have the right to harvest fish in accordance with agreed-upon allocations set out in the final agreement for food, social and ceremonial purposes in a designated area of the Fraser River. The commercial fishery is set out in a harvest agreement, which does not form part of the final agreement. It provides for fishing licenses to be issued to the Yale First Nation by Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

Mr. Chair, some neighbouring first nations have raised concerns regarding this agreement. I will now outline the steps that have been taken to address those concerns.

Sixty-nine first nation bands and related organizations claim asserted territories that intersect with the Yale First Nation's asserted territory. In January 2008, Canada and B.C. jointly invited each one of them to review what was then the Yale First Nation agreement in principle and convey any concerns regarding potential impacts the agreement might have had on their claimed interest. The vast majority of these bands and organizations have not raised any specific concerns with the Yale First Nation final agreement.

For those who did raise concerns, consultation meetings were conducted. During the course of these consultations, several accommodations were made, including within the final agreement itself. A brief summary of those would be as follows. Concerns were raised by the chief of the Chehalis band regarding a harvest area that included the eastern shoreline of Harrison Lake. With the support of Chief Hope, the Yale First Nation harvest area was adjusted to exclude the shoreline.

Next, Spuzzum band members expressed concerns during their consultation meetings regarding the access to a provincial crown land area, Frozen Lakes, which was offered as part of the land package that would eventually become Yale First Nation land. Yale First Nation agreed to add treaty language identifying these lands as open to the public.

Finally, during consultation with the Stó:lo Xwexwilmexw Treaty Association and the Stó:lo Tribal Council, we heard that their claim to aboriginal rights to access fishing and cultural sites in areas that will form Yale First Nation lands could be negatively impacted by the Yale First Nation final agreement.

Further, they strongly advocated that they required unfettered access to those lands and suggested that we remove all Yale First Nation reserves north of the town of Yale from Yale First Nation lands.

Regarding the timing of consultations with Stó:lo, Canada and B.C. shared the draft final agreement with Stó:lo in April 2009 and with the remaining overlap groups in July 2009. Throughout the remainder of that year, Canada and B.C. negotiated additional treaty provisions regarding access to Yale treaty lands in an effort to balance Stó:lo concerns with Yale's interest in concluding a treaty.

After meeting with Stó:lo to explain the changes made, the revised final agreement was shared with all 69 first nation entities in January 2012. The final agreement was initialled in February 2012.

A number of accommodations have been made.

The final agreement was amended to include a unique access provision to allow “reasonable public access” to Yale First Nation lands. When concerns were raised by the Stó:lo that the grounds for reasonable access might be too subjective, the parties agreed to a further change. This included the addition in the final agreement of objective criteria by which to consider access requests.

To address a Stó:lo concern regarding the scope of access that would be considered, the parties agreed to include in the final agreement first nation traditional purposes as a basis for the exercise of reasonable access.

Finally, the Yale First Nation proposed a long-term binding agreement with the Stó:lo that details an inclusive process to identify individuals and sites where access would be agreed upon, thus allowing those individuals access and use of Yale First Nation lands without requiring them to request access. The proposed agreement also includes a dispute resolution provision. As I understand it, this offer is still available to the Stó:lo.

Finally, Mr. Chair, I would like to respond briefly to a bill amendment proposal made by the Stó:lo representative at this committee earlier this week. The proposal would place a new requirement on Yale and Stó:lo to conclude a common understanding regarding a very significant portion of Yale treaty settlement lands before those lands could form part of the treaty.

The Yale-Stó:lo disagreement has been ongoing for decades, and I have, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, no reason to conclude that it will be resolved shortly. In fact, as you all know, I'm sure, the independent mediator appointed to seek a resolution confirmed this.

The Stó:lo proposal would also cover an area where a number of current and long-standing Yale reserves are located. It is not at all clear how the proposal could address the uncertainty created by such lands, including: current Yale reserves having a conditional status; who would own and manage the lands; and how long it might take before any actual certainty in the area could be achieved.

Mr. Chair, this fundamental and substantive change to Bill C-62 would require the B.C. government and Yale to rewrite a five-year agreement, causing a delay of years.

The chief commissioner of the British Columbia Treaty Commission has identified how the B.C. treaty process is intended to work and that overlapping claims cannot result in a veto by one first nation over another first nation's effort to move ahead with a modern treaty, and improve the life of their members.

Yale has incurred loan debts over 20 years of good faith negotiations and should have the opportunity to benefit from its negotiated treaty. It is time, I suggest, to move forward, not backward, and to help create greater opportunities for the Yale First Nation and others who live and work in the surrounding area.

The Government of Canada, the Government of British Columbia, and the Yale First Nation remain willing to continue the consultation process, at least up to the effective date of the final agreement in 2015.

We are willing to receive any new information not previously considered and to continue to engage with the overlapping first nations to seek a neutrally satisfactory solution.

But Mr. Chair, this agreement is about reconciliation with the Yale First Nation. It will bring certainty to the Yale First Nation's rights and titles, and it will provide greater opportunities for the local economy, to the benefit of all Canadian citizens, First Nation or otherwise, who live in the area. It is the foundation for rebuilding a relationship and supports the realization of a better future for the Yale First Nation.

I ask that my colleagues join with me in support of this vital demonstration of our government's commitment, and the commitment of all Canadians, to completing the unfinished business of settling treaties in British Columbia.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Colleagues, I'll call this meeting to order. This is the 78th meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. Today pursuant to order of reference of Thursday, June 6, 2013, we are referring to Bill C-62, An Act to give effect to the Yale First Nation Final Agreement and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Today, first up, we have the minister.

We want to thank you, Minister, for being here and for being willing to be our first witness this morning. We'll turn it over to you and then we'll have some questions for you, as we usually do.

Yale First Nation Final Agreement Act

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, June 4, Bill C-62, An Act to give effect to the Yale First Nation Final Agreement and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, is deemed read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased rise this evening to speak to Bill C-62, the Yale First Nation Final Agreement Act, which concerns the Yale First Nation in British Columbia.

Almost 40 years ago now, the governments of Quebec and Canada signed an important agreement with the Cree and Inuit nations: the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. This was the first major modern-day agreement negotiated in Quebec and Canada. Signed in 1975, it laid the foundation for the social, economic and administrative organization of a significant part of Quebec's aboriginal population.

The agreement covered all aspects of the lives of the Cree and Inuit people, who received 10,400 km² in land holdings. Quebec also gave them exclusive hunting, fishing and trapping rights on category II lands and on all of the territory covered by the agreement.

The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement paved the way for collaborative agreements in Canada, such as the Yale First Nation Final Agreement. Quebec decided to take a different approach to its dealings with aboriginal people in the 1970s.

The Bloc Québécois recognizes aboriginal peoples as distinct peoples entitled to the culture, language, customs and traditions that are key to the development of their identity. In so doing, it is respecting the direction taken by René Lévesque, a staunch defender of aboriginal peoples, who made Quebec the first nation in the Americas to recognize the aboriginal nations in its midst.

The Bloc Québécois believes that the future does not lie in pointless opposition, but rather in constructive partnerships that respect the legitimate interests of all parties. The Bloc Québécois's political position allows it to move the current debate forward, generate new ideas and provide a broad outline for what could be the renewal of the relationship between the first nations and Quebeckers. The Bloc Québécois stands behind aboriginal peoples in their quest for justice and the recognition of their rights.

For example, we believe that the entire first nations education system is underfunded. A 2% cap on increases in federal funding for education in aboriginal communities has been in place since 1996. Yet, given the rise in the cost of living and the tremendous growth in the first nations population, an annual increase of 6.2% is needed. That is not currently happening.

That is why the Bloc Québécois had the courage to introduce Bill C-599 during the previous Parliament. This bill had to do with the implementation of a first nations education funding plan, and its goal was to force the government to increase education funding for aboriginals and to develop a long-term funding plan.

Young people represent hope and the future of the first nations. We must focus on education and academic success, essential assets that must be seen as investments that will pave the way to the future.

The future does not lie in pointless opposition, but rather in constructive partnerships that respect the legitimate interests of all parties. The Bloc Québécois recognizes that aboriginal peoples make a significant contribution to Quebec society. This contribution is made possible because of the wealth of culture and knowledge of the aboriginal peoples.

The Bloc Québécois supports protecting these fundamental aspects of the collective identity of aboriginal peoples, as well as maintaining their languages. With regard to future relations between the government and aboriginal peoples, we feel it is important to support a more comprehensive approach that recognizes the aspirations of aboriginal peoples and favours negotiating agreements nation to nation.

The Bloc Québécois is in favour of sending the bill on the Yale First Nation Final Agreement to be studied in committee, since it was the result of respectful negotiations with the Government of Canada, the Government of British Columbia and the Yale First Nation. In addition, this agreement will enable the Yale First Nation to exercise self-government over its land, resources and members.

Respect is what allows us to build sustainable connections between peoples.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with some concern that I rise today to speak to Bill C-62, the Yale First Nation Final Agreement act.

Resolving outstanding issues of first nations' rights through the negotiation implementation of treaties has important benefits for both first nations and non-first nations communities, not the least of which is a solid legal basis for future economic development. It also reflects the modern commitment to move forward in a spirit of partnership, respect and the co-operation for mutual benefit that characterized our original relationship. Two hundred and fifty years ago the royal proclamation laid out how the richness of this land would be fairly shared. Unfortunately, for many that vision has yet to be realized.

To put it simply, the process for settling first nations land claims is needlessly slow and burdensome for first nations seeking fair settlements to outstanding grievances. The comprehensive claims or modern treaties deal with the unfinished business of treaty making in Canada, where first nations rights have not been dealt with by historical treaties or other legal means. Bill C-62 deals with the ratification of such a modern treaty.

To date, the government has signed 24 comprehensive claims agreements with first nations in Canada, and two self-government agreements. Most of these agreements were signed under Liberal governments.

As of September 2012, there were still 93 active self-government and comprehensive land claim negotiation tables across the country. The frequent delays and increased costs associated with federal negotiators having to constantly return to Ottawa to revise unnecessarily narrow negotiating mandates is grinding the process to a standstill.

Federal negotiators simply do not have the sufficient flexibility and authority to engage in open, genuine and interest-based negotiations with first nations. This must change if we are to make significant further progress. On average, it takes 15 years to reach a final agreement. In September 2012, the government acknowledged its approach was not working by announcing a new “results-based approach” to self-government negotiations. However, the government has yet to publicly describe the details of this new approach.

There are grave concerns that the government is planning to use this new approach to simply withdraw from certain negotiations and pursue only those it believes will be settled in a manner agreeable to the government. In fact, the government seems now to be pursuing a take-it-or-leave-it approach with first nations, suggesting that if they are not willing to accept the government's final offer, they can pursue the matter through the courts.

This approach is fundamentally misguided and will not only be more expensive for the government in the long run, it will cost both first nations and the Canadian economy in terms of potential economic development and better paying jobs for first nations and non-first nations alike.

In terms of this agreement, although the Yale First Nation, and provincial and federal governments have been able to come together, there are still concerns that the narrow Department of Justice “strength of claim” analysis contributed to this final agreement failing to resolve disputed overlapping territory.

The Yale First Nation entered into tripartite negotiations with the federal and British Columbia governments for the settlement of their comprehensive land claim in 1994.

This modern treaty has been negotiated in good faith over almost 20 years through the B.C. treaty process and agreed to by the governments of Canada and British Columbia and the people of the Yale First Nation. The final agreement has already been ratified in March 2011, by members of the Yale First Nation with 68% support and in June 2011, by the British Columbia Legislative Assembly.

It deals with Yale First Nation's rights and responsibilities in areas such as governance, culture and heritage, natural resources, community infrastructure, financing and environmental protection. It will provide the Yale First Nation with full settlement of aboriginal rights and title and provides a modern framework for Canada, British Columbia and the Yale First Nation to move forward toward a more prosperous common future.

However, it is important to note that the Stó:lõ Nation and the Stó:lõ Tribal Council have expressed great concern with this agreement. They claim that the Yale treaty violates Stó:lõ rights and contend that they will no longer be able to engage in traditional practices that would require passage over Yale territory.

While this agreement fails to resolve all outstanding overlapping claims, we recognize that according to current practice this does not preclude ratifying the treaty. According to the Government of Canada comprehensive claims policy, “Ideally, competing Aboriginal claims over a territory should be resolved before reaching an AIP, but this is not a compulsory requirement”.

Although, according to section 2.4, the final agreement deals with aboriginal rights and title with respect to the Yale First Nation only, and does not affect the rights of other aboriginal peoples, it is regrettable that the parties were unable to resolve their differences before this final stage of the process.

Liberals hope that the Yale and Stó:lõ first nations will resolve any outstanding overlapping claims through ongoing good faith negotiations and can resolve their differences in the spirit of co-operation and respect. However, the issue of overlapping claims and current deficiencies in how we address those claims is a matter with far broader implications than this specific agreement.

We must develop a better process to facilitate first nations resolving disputes on overlapping claims as part of the treaty process. While we recognize that it is for first nations to resolve these issues, we must be ready and willing to provide assistance where warranted and requested.

In addition, the Liberal Party urges the government to respond to the requests of the British Columbia Treaty Commission as well as the recent recommendations of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples to provide the Commission with any necessary resources that would enable it to help first nations resolve their overlapping claims disputes.

The Liberal Party believes that this is essential to the success of the treaty process in British Columbia.

Further, the failure of the government to develop a coherent approach to implementing treaties not only undermines new treaty negotiations but has led to great frustration from first nations under the 70 historical treaties.

Recently, National Chief Shawn Atleo reflected that frustration when he said:

Treaty regions have been signalling for far too long the need for high-level discussions on Treaty implementation. They want to see the establishment of a process for them to sit down with their Treaty partner, the Crown in right of Canada, to implement the Treaties according to their true spirit and intent, as the Indigenous Nations understand them.

The right to self-determination and self-government must mean something real and tangible for first nations across Canada.

As Bill C-62 meets the current rules, we will be supporting the bill, but we implore the government to get on with the letter as sent from the BC Treaty Commission, with its four recommendations, and to fix this problem.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as you are well aware, I am rising to speak to Bill C-62, An Act to give effect to the Yale First Nation Final Agreement and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. The bill we are debating is the final step in the ratification process. This is the bringing into force of the Yale First Nation Final Agreement.

This has been a very long process. In fact, the Yale First Nation was formally accepted into the British Columbia treaty process on April 26, 1994. In 1996, the BC Treaty Commission declared the Yale First Nation treaty table ready to begin negotiations on February 8, 1996, and the provincial bill received royal assent on June 2, 2011. Of course, it has taken two years for Canada to bring the bill forward for debate. Unfortunately, we are debating it at nearly midnight in June, when surely we could have been talking about this bill many months ago.

The minister outlined some of the key provisions in the bill. I am not going to cover that same ground. I need to declare that New Democrats will be supporting this bill, and I look forward to considering this bill at committee shortly.

There are a couple of issues that I think are going to present ongoing challenges. One of the issues that continues to not be resolved both in the Yale treaty and the B.C. treaty process is the issue of overlap.

One of the background papers provided to the aboriginal affairs committee members noted that the Supreme Court, in a variety of court decisions, has indicated that the Crown has an obligation to consult with, and where appropriate, to accommodate the interests of first nations claiming aboriginal rights and title over areas subject to a treaty or final agreement.

The paper went on to indicate that it is desirable to have first nations resolve overlap issues among themselves. Canada and British Columbia have continued to encourage Yale First Nation efforts to discuss or resolve any shared territory issues with neighbouring first nations. In fact, there is certainly a dispute over shared territory with the Sto:lo Nation. As a result of some of the discussions that were going back and forth, the Yale First Nation Final Agreement was amended to allow reasonable public access to Yale First Nation land, by request, for non-commercial recreational purposes, such as hunting, fishing and other recreational activities. Such requests cannot be unreasonably refused by Yale First Nation.

As a measure of that, Yale First Nation Chief Robert Hope has entered into five written access protocols with Sto:lo individuals and has indicated that he is willing to do so with individual fishers or first nations bands to clarify and streamline the process for seeking access to fishing and cultural sites. There are non-exhaustive objective criteria for the refusal of access under the reasonable access provision. However, that measure has not been satisfactory to Sto:lo.

The challenge of the issue of overlap and shared territories is a critical one that must be dealt with, as well as implementation. There is an implementation plan in the agreement, and one would hope that this implementation plan goes more smoothly than other implementation plans with other land claims agreements, as the Land Claims Agreements Coalition will note.

With regard to the overlap, I want to touch on a couple of points. One goes back to the mission statement of the BC Treaty Commission. On January 28, 1991, representatives of the governments of Canada, British Columbia and the First Nations Summit put their signatures to the report of the British Columbia Claims Task Force. It made a number of recommendations, and one was that first nations resolve issues related to overlapping traditional territories among themselves. The analysis in the task force report as it relates to this recommendation is that first nations must discuss overlaps with neighbouring first nations preparing for negotiations, a process for resolving overlaps should be in place before a treaty is concluded, and the BC Treaty Commission can provide advice on dispute resolution and services.

We heard from the BC Treaty Commission in a pre-study in anticipation of this bill coming forward. Chief commissioner Sophie Pierre indicated that, in her view, best efforts had been made by all parties in the dispute over shared territories. Her strong recommendation was that the House adopt Bill C-62.

I also want to refer to the Lornie report from November 3, 2011, with regard to recommendations on shared territory dispute avoidance and resolution. The reason I am raising this issue is I want to encourage the government to look for opportunities to put together a better mechanism so we do not have final agreements coming before the House with unresolved issues around shared territories.

I can point to other agreements like the Tsawwassen agreement, in which there still was unresolved issues by the time we came to the House to debate Tsawwassen. It did pass, but there were issues with the Sencot'en Alliance, Penelakut and Cowichan peoples around some of the fishing rights.

With regard to the Lornie report, it recommended that there should be provided resources to support effective dispute resolution and resolution options for all first nations affected by potential conflicts relating to shared territories and overlap issues arising out of treaties, whether or not those first nations were participating in the B.C. treaty process.

There were a number of examples pointed out in the Lornie report of how these overlap issues were not getting resolved and how it was creating challenges within communities. The Lornie report went on to indicate that some overlap disputes appeared to be virtually irreconcilable through discussions and a few first nations had resorted to the courts to attempt to protect their interests. It said that the courts system, however, was expensive and time consuming and typically delivered either an all or nothing outcome, or sent the parties back to negotiate an agreement.

I do not think it is in the best interests of the nations involved in these disputes or the communities at large to have these unresolved issues going forward as we enter into final agreements.

Mrs. Jean Teillet, chief negotiator and legal counsel of the Sto:lo Nation, did indicate that in the past the government had provided a road map forward. She cited a number of cases. One was the Tlicho in the Northwest Territories, just north of Great Slave Lake, which borders on Nunavut, borders on Saulteau territory and on the bottom it borders on a people called the Akaitcho people.

I was in the House when the Tlicho agreement came forward. Because the government had taken a leadership role in working and setting some parameters for Tlicho to move forward on resolving the issues around the shared territories and the overlaps, by the time the agreement came to the House, we were able to pass that agreement at all stages because there were no issues around disputes over that shared territory.

This was one example that was provided. There were a number of others, including the 1975 agreement with James Bay and the Northern Quebec agreement, where there were islands in James Bay that were hotly in dispute.

Ms. Teillet indicated that the government, working with the first nations that were negotiating, was carving out those islands. They were pulled out of the agreement and then the govenrment said that it would give them all the rest of the agreement, it would sign it, but it would take this disputed area out of the agreement for now, it would give them the whole agreement, then it would come back when they had solved that overlap problem and it would figure out how to put it back in their treaty.

She also talked about the Nunavik agreement signed in 2006 and the Nunavut agreement in 1993.

Therefore, there are a number of examples where there have been either the resources or the parameters put in place to encourage the nations involved to sort out those overlapped and shared territory disputes before the final agreement is signed. It is unfortunate that we do not have that kind of agreement before us in the House today.

However, having said that, the Yale First Nations negotiated a treaty in good faith. It went through the B.C. Treaty Commission process and met the various stages that had been outlined that nations in British Columbia agreed to back in 1991. Therefore, what we have before us is a treaty negotiated in good faith that the New Democrats will support.

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, 233 hectares of Yale First Nation land known as Frozen Lakes will be accessible to the public for temporary non-commercial and recreational purposes, such as hunting and fishing.

With respect to the land, I should also point out that the parties sought to accommodate the interests of several neighbouring first nation communities whose traditional territories overlap with Yale First Nation's land.

To be precise, the agreement makes it possible for the public, including members of other first nations, to request access to Yale First Nation lands in order to fish, hunt and carry out other recreational activities as well as first nations traditional activities.

This unique provision also sets out that these requests must all be considered by the Yale First Nation and may only be refused on reasonable grounds.

The third key area of this agreement is access to and control over natural resources. In other words, all Yale First Nation land, that is, all 2,000 hectares of treaty settlement land, would be fee simple or private land subject to provincial and federal laws. Yale First Nation would control mineral rights on its land. Yale First Nation would own any forest on its land, and Yale First Nation community members would enjoy the right to fish and harvest wildlife and migratory birds for non-commercial purposes on its land. In addition, members of Yale First Nation would have the right to gather plants for food, social and ceremonial purposes and to harvest natural resources in provincial parks within Yale's defined harvest area, with the exception of the protected area, the Yale Garry Oak Ecological Reserve.

The final agreement would also make it possible for Yale First Nation to exercise control over water reserves, subject to federal and provincial laws, and to derive hydroelectric power from designated waterways on Yale First Nation Land.

The fourth key area of this agreement covers fishing. In fact, a harvest agreement that is separate from but related to the final agreement provides for fishing licences to be issued to Yale First Nation by Fisheries and Oceans Canada. The term of this harvest agreement is 25 years, and Yale First Nation can renew it every 15 years after the initial term expires. The terms and conditions of commercial licences issued to Yale will be comparable to those of licences issued to other commercial fishers.

Those are the key provisions of the Yale First Nation Final Agreement, the agreement that Bill C-62 will enshrine in Canadian law. Clearly this bill will empower the Yale First Nation to make its own decisions and become more vibrant, prosperous and self-reliant.

For these reasons, I ask honourable members to adopt Bill C-62. In doing so, we will build a stronger Canada for all of us.

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

moved that Bill C-62, An Act to give effect to the Yale First Nation Final Agreement and to make consequential amendments to other Acts be read a second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to lead off our discussion of Bill C-62, the Yale First Nation Final Agreement Act.

On April 11, 2013, I had the privilege to be in Vancouver to sign the Yale First Nation Final Agreement along with Chief Robert Hope of Yale First Nation and the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation for the Province of British Columbia.

The final agreement brings certainty to the ownership and use of lands and resources in the area. It creates opportunities for the Yale First Nation and provides predictability for continued development and growth in the province. The introduction of this legislation marks the culmination of almost 20 years of discussion to reach a comprehensive treaty and bring about the bill in front of us tonight.

Now this was no small feat. Before I go any further I want to take a few moments to thank those who made it possible for us to be in a position to consider Bill C-62.

I want to thank the First Nation and the negotiators for their tireless efforts. I also want to thank the chief commissioner of the BC Treaty Commission, Sophie Pierre, as well as Premier Clark and Minister Chong for standing firmly behind the B.C. treaty process.

Most of all, I want to thank the men and women of Yale First Nation for their staunch support of the final agreement. For, in the end, this agreement and this bill are about them, their families and the future of their community.

No one deserves more credit for this final agreement than Yale First Nation Chief Robert Hope. Simply put, we are here today discussing Bill C-62 because of the vision and steadfast commitment of Chief Robert Hope. We must also credit his father, the late Chief Lawrence Hope, whose practical wisdom and quiet strength guided negotiators and continues to do so even after his passing.

I strongly believe that this agreement provides the people of Yale First Nation with a strong foundation on which to build a stable, accountable government and an economically prosperous, culturally vibrant community.

If any member of this House was in doubt of its merit, I am sure that my brief description of the five key areas of the agreement will convince them.

The first of these key areas is its financial components. As part of this comprehensive treaty, Yale First Nation will receive a capital transfer of $10.7 million. The community will also receive $2 million to promote economic development. Canada will also provide Yale First Nation with a one-time funding of $1.4 million and annual funding of some $1.25 million to implement the agreement and provide key programs and services.

The second key area of the agreement is land. As a result of the final agreement, Yale First Nation will own and control nearly 2,000 hectares of treaty settlement land located within the Fraser Valley Regional District just north of the town of Hope.

In addition, 23 hectares of provincial land transferred to Yale First Nation will retain their designation as part of the agricultural land reserve. If any land designated as agricultural land reserve is added to Yale First Nation in the future, this land will also retain its designation as agricultural.

What is more, 233 hectares of Yale First Nation land known as Frozen Lakes will be accessible to the public.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do have a motion: that the committee initiate a study on the Yale First Nation agreement act, and that all testimony received under the study be deemed to have been received under the study of Bill C-62 once the bill will have been referred to the committee.