Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to initiate the final stage in the House of passing Bill C-107 into law. It is a day which I am pleased has come at last.
I am grateful for the non-partisan approach taken by parties opposite on this bill. The history of the British Columbia Treaty Commission has been one of partnership among people of diverse political stripes, and I am glad that spirit has continued in the House.
The tone set in this debate reflects and reinforces all of those who across the years and across party lines have joined hands in a common cause. That cause is simple: to bring justice to aboriginal peoples and certainty to British Columbia.
During the course of debate on the bill we have heard the historical incidents which have made the legislation necessary. We have seen that only a handful of First Nations in British Columbia ever signed treaties with the crown. As a result, 124 years after becoming a province, the key questions of aboriginal title over land and resources remain unresolved, and the majority of British Columbia remains subject to outstanding aboriginal land claims. With those claims come uncertainty and confusion.
We have also seen the historic step taken by the Government of British Columbia in 1990 to agree to the negotiation of treaties and the subsequent establishment of a task force to make recommendations on the process and mandate for treaty negotiations. We have heard of the key recommendation of that task force: the creation of an arm's length B.C. Treaty Commission.
Since its creation in 1992 the commission has received statements of intent to negotiate from 47 First Nations, representing over 70 per cent of First Nations in British Columbia. Clearly there was a need for this type of process, a need now being met.
Today we honour the commitment made by our predecessors to establish the commission in legislation. However, the bill is about more than just creating a certain status for the commission. It is about creating opportunity for all British Columbians.
Because the failure to deal with these issues has greatly limited opportunity in B.C., the uncertainty over ownership of land and resources has exacted a high cost. Uncertainty has meant lost investment.
The Price Waterhouse study, referenced in second reading debate, prepared in 1990 estimated that $1 billion in investment in the forestry and mining sectors had not occurred because of unresolved land claims. Three hundred jobs had not been created
and $125 million in capital investments had not been made. Since the time of that study the price has continued to be paid year in and year out. It is a price we can no longer afford and it is a price we will no longer have to pay.
Settling land and resource issues will create an environment for investment and increased local economic activity. Therefore I commend members from all sides of the House for their support of the legislation. Certainty will be good news for the forest worker and the miner. Certainty will mean an expanded tax base, as the infusion of settlement funds stimulates economic activity and creates jobs. Certainty will mean lower social costs associated with poverty and unemployment in aboriginal communities. It will mean an end of conflict and litigation and the beginning of co-operation and negotiation.
The mandate of the B.C. Treaty Commission is straightforward. It is to facilitate, not negotiate, modern day treaties. Its main functions are to assess the readiness of parties to negotiate, allocate negotiation funding to aboriginal groups, assist parties to obtain dispute resolution services and monitor and report on the status of negotiations.
Because these negotiations will affect all British Columbians, we have established a province-wide consultation process so that all interests will still be heard.
This consultation process, as I indicated at an earlier stage of debate, operates at two levels. The first is a 31-member treaty negotiation advisory commission, which brings together the perspectives of municipalities, business, labour, fishing, wildlife, forestry and environmental groups to the treaty making process.
The second level brings the diverse interests of the various regions of B.C. to bear on the land claims process. Regional advisory committees are being struck in each treaty negotiation area so that local voices may be heard. These committees work directly with federal and provincial negotiating teams.
As land claims issues are resolved, the land base and access to resources they provide will establish a foundation on which aboriginal peoples can build self-sufficient communities. The growth of strong, self-reliant, economically vibrant aboriginal communities strengthens us all because it will bring positive economic spillover into non-aboriginal communities.
For too long the aboriginal peoples of British Columbia have been denied both their rights from the past and their hopes for the future. For too long we have denied ourselves the contributions they can make. With the rights and obligations clearly defined by treaties, all British Columbians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, will be able to get on with realizing the potential of their province and expanding their opportunities for advancement.
On August 10 our government released its approach on the inherent right of aboriginal self-government and presented the principles which will guide the negotiations. In the case of British Columbia, the policy provides that negotiations on self-government will take place at the same table as discussions on land and resources. In other words, the process and structures already in place for treaty negotiations will also be used to negotiate self-government issues.
These two sets of discussions, self-government on one hand and land and resources use on the other, complement each other perfectly. Treaties will clarify and define the issues and self-government will establish the authority to manage them.
What this means is that for the first time the parties will be able to have all of their issues dealt with at one table, under one set of negotiations. This will be more cost effective, as it eliminates overlap and duplication and permits a much more comprehensive approach.
I spoke earlier of the high cost associated with leaving these issues in British Columbia unresolved. If the price is high for the general population, for aboriginal peoples it has been yet higher. For aboriginal peoples it has meant great hardship and grinding poverty. It has meant generations of frustration, of dreams deferred and promises unkept. It has meant a quality of life few of us can imagine and none of us should accept.
Some of those conditions are appalling. Diseases such as hepatitis and tuberculosis, virtually eradicated in the non-aboriginal population, persist in aboriginal communities. Death by fire is three and a half times the non-aboriginal level because of unsafe housing and the lack of proper sanitation. Aboriginal peoples are more than three times as likely to die a violent death and about twice as likely to die before the age of 65. The suicide rate among aboriginal peoples is 50 per cent higher than non-aboriginal peoples. That difference is even more pronounced in the 15 to 25 age group.
This country simply cannot afford to lose another generation of aboriginal peoples able and willing to make their contributions. We cannot afford to continue to condemn aboriginal peoples to lesser lives in a lesser land.
I do not mean to suggest that all of this will be magically solved with the passing of this legislation, but it will constitute a true beginning. It will take us off the rutted road of confrontation and litigation. It will send a signal to all parties that this is how we resolve problems in this country.
This legislation does several things. It ends uncertainty. It honours our obligations. It creates hope for tomorrow. It also does something else, something even more important. It confirms
negotiation over confrontation, consultation over litigation. It stands as a vivid reminder of what can be achieved by men and women of understanding. It is an eloquent reminder that progress is possible, that persistence prevails. It is a testament to the simple fact that more can be achieved by joining hands than by shaking fists.
This must always be our approach, but it is an approach which is by no means automatic. It is one we must work to adopt. That is why legislation such as this is so important. It creates a process and a forum for negotiation.
If we fail to demonstrate our resolve to negotiate, we leave the field and the resolution to those with little regard for the law to those who seek solutions through less democratic and less peaceful means.
We should not underestimate the historic qualities as well as the substantive importance of this bill. To all of those who have fought so hard for so long to see it through, I offer my admiration and appreciation. I again want to thank this House for its wisdom and its support.
