Bill C-6 (Historical)

Specific Claims Resolution Act

An Act to establish the Canadian Centre for the Independent Resolution of First Nations Specific Claims to provide for the filing, negotiation and resolution of specific claims and to make related amendments to other Acts

Specific Claims Resolutions Act

[Stan Dromisky, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Atikokan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I said that the other place had proposed an amendment to allow witnesses to be brought in. This was seen as a necessary power for the tribunal to have since information vital to assist in the resolution of claims may not be readily available to the parties.

This power would allow the tribunal to compel non-parties to produce witnesses and/or documents which may be necessary for complete understanding of the claim. Parties may be more willing to use the claims resolution centre with this amendment since they will be able to seek orders to obtain information that may not have been readily available to them, other than through a discovery process through the judicial system.

However, the judicial system has limitations. A judge might have said in some past year that this document is not available to the general public, or there may be some impediment put in place which prevents an original document from being presented to a tribunal of this nature. This is a very important power, we might say, that is going to be designated to this body that is being advocated in Bill C-6.

Canada has a long tradition of independence by appointed persons and strikes balance in appointments by considering regional representation, gender, experience and skill. The other place has proposed an amendment to guarantee that first nations can make representation to the minister before a final recommendation is made for all appointments required by clause 5 and subclauses 20(1) and 41(1) of the legislation, such as, for instance, the chief executive officer, commissioner and adjudicator positions. Although the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has already committed to seeking first nations input during the appointment process, this amendment would set out this commitment in the legislation.

I first would like to tell members that there is no limit to the number of first nations people that could be appointed to the commission and tribunal. It is quite possible that through a process which will be inherent within the model a first nations person could readily become the chairman of one body or chairman of the other. That is quite possible.

This amendment will address the concern of many first nations as well as the Assembly of First Nations, which appeared before committees of both the House and the other place, namely, that there was no guarantee of first nations involvement in appointments set out in the legislation.

The other place has proposed an amendment to ensure that first nations will have an opportunity to make representation during the three to five year review of the claims resolution centre. Some people are saying that is too long, but it is going to take time. We know that when something new is introduced it takes time for individuals to adjust. We can look how at long it has taken the opposition to adjust to an effective model of governance.

We should not talk about the time factor here, except that it is absolutely essential that this time limit be there in order for opportunities to grow, to learn, to develop and to accept the kinds of feedback, responses and input that will be absolutely essential for making future decisions and recommendations for adjustments and amendments to the bill in the years to come.

My time is up. I would like to speak for another hour or two, but I do not have the time so I am quite willing to stop right now.

[Stan Dromisky, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Atikokan, ON]

I will just continue for a few more minutes because I know members are very interested in what I have to say. They are all chomping at the bit there and I can see the enthusiasm. I am putting members through a very zestful experience right now and that is why there is so much enthusiastic behaviour on the other side of the floor.

I will continue by telling members that the credibility of both the proposed centre and the federal legislative process, while at the same time balancing the need for fiscal responsibility expected of the government, is what we are hoping will be achieved in this new model.

The increased limit would not change the tribunal's role in the centre. It would simply permit a modest increase in the number of claims which would be permitted access to the tribunal decision making authority. The centre would still operate within a manageable fiscal framework with a limited annual settlement budget.

In discussions on Bill C-6, first nations and independent witnesses have expressed concerns that the claims resolution centre would not have the power to compel the attendance of witnesses or the production of documents, while the current Indian specific claims commission, which the claim resolution centre would replace, does have these powers. The other place has proposed an amendment precisely to allow the assembling of witnesses and documents.

The proposed amendment would allow any party, as well as a commissioner, to apply to the tribunal for an order compelling the attendance of witnesses before the commission or the production of documents to the commission.

This is not a demand or a power that is going to be given for the calling of witnesses only from the government machinery, but also for witnesses from industry. It could be that witnesses would have to be called in from the general private sector or from the community. It could be municipal leaders. It could be agents of various institutions. It could be agents of various industrial complexes.

[Stan Dromisky, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Atikokan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was talking about the benefits of the settlement of specific claims. In the first nations people, as I just finished saying, there is a tremendous number of endeavours taking place now. There is an expansion of the industrial park, with industries going into it, including a sawmill, and plans are being made right now for a power generating station. As well, other establishments have been there for quite some time. There were agreements between the private sector and the first nations people so that everybody could benefit.

One of the most outstanding things, as far as I as a past educator am concerned, is the fact that many of the companies that have settled there and are planning to settle there have introduced and will be introducing schemes, plans and strategies for the education, development and enhancement of the backgrounds and the skills and so forth of first nations people so they will have the opportunity to work in these establishments in the various industries. To me that is a very definite positive achievement in this type of specific claims settlement. It will continue because we all benefit, not only economically but socially.

I am very pleased because of the interaction that will take place between the people of the first nations who work side by side with other people from the community in solving problems and creating something that they are all extremely proud of. They are proud that they can work together and proud because they are from the first nations and from the city of Thunder Bay and are achieving something that was impossible to achieve for nearly 100 years in my community.

I am very pleased and very proud of the industrialists, private enterprise, the chief executive officers and the first nations leaders in my community who managed to bring about a settlement of this specific claim to everyone's benefit.

To continue with my presentation, I said that the model would consist of a commission division and a tribunal division that would help to facilitate negotiated settlements. The commission division, where we anticipate that most of the work would occur, would have the authority to apply a full range of dispute resolution processes regardless of the size of the claim. It would not matter if it were just an island with five acres or if we were talking about 14,000 acres. It would not make any difference. It would deal with any claim that is specific as well as comprehensive, regardless of size.

The tribunal division would be making binding last recourse decisions on the validity and compensation for claims value up to the claim limit. We know that currently it is proposed to be $10 million where negotiations have been successful. That is the cap being recommended at the present time. That is an amendment being proposed by the other place for the House of Commons to deal with.

The commission and tribunal would be distinct divisions to prevent undue influence and bias. The centre would be overseen by a chief executive officer whose responsibility would be to manage the day to day administration of the two divisions. When Bill C-6 was first tabled, the financial jurisdiction of the tribunal division of the centre was set at $7 million. Throughout processes in the House and in the other place this financial jurisdiction has been an area of concern and contention for first nations, naturally. The other place has proposed an amendment that would increase the financial authority of the tribunal from $7 million to $10 million per claim.

My hon. colleague in the opposition said just a few minutes ago that he was surprised it was settled at $10 million. He was advocating that it should be $25 million at least. However, this amendment is essential in securing first nations acceptance of the proposed process and in assuring them of the credibility of the centre and of Canada's commitment to settling specific claims.

This change will demonstrate to first nations and to other critics of the bill that the parliamentary process can respond to key issues of concern, thereby enhancing the credibility of both the proposed centre and the federal legislative process while at the same time balancing the need for the fiscal responsibility expected of the government.

What does that really mean? It sounds like legal goop, jargonese and political rhetoric, but it is really saying to the people that we must have a process and a model in operation so that people begin to understand clearly that what is being done is being done for their benefit and for the benefit of all, and trust will grow and develop as time goes on.

There is no doubt about it. With my experience with first nations people for over 30 years, I can honestly say, and I do not think anybody in the House would challenge me, that there is a lack of trust in many of the processes we have, incorporated and implemented by governments of past years up to the present time. They do not nurture any sense of trust or, to a great degree, belief in any attempt by any bureaucrat, by any servant of the government, in their interrelationship and in their daily endeavours to, let us say, achieve some form of response to the claims that people are putting in and the kinds of problems first nations people might have. It is quite possible that in general that level of trust is pretty low at the present time.

However, changes are taking place, and I am hoping that in the years to come, through the model we are introducing in this bill, trust will be generated. It may be very difficult to generate it in the more senior citizens of the first nations communities. However, as the youngsters come through and become involved in the process, as time goes on they will be able to perceive, understand and come to some conclusion that only by working together through a viable and effective model can we generate the kind of trust that is absolutely essential to bring forth a resolution to many of the problems that exist in many first nations communities.

Do I still have a few minutes, Mr. Speaker?

Specific Claims Resolution Act

[Reed Elley, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have their hearts in the right place, but often they do not follow through with legislation that in the long run will do what they say it will do.

Timelines for resolution are absent in Bill C-6. There is no question that can be used as a serious disadvantage for land claims being settled over time. We need a dispute resolution system that will bring closure to these claims. Native people and non-native people also are often left on the hook so to speak in terms of settling claims.

In my riding there are nine native bands. About four or five of them are involved at various stages in the B.C. land claims process. As long as there is no timeline to this, there simply will not be a resolution to it. It is a flaw in the bill and it will not bring certainty and satisfaction to our aboriginal people.

[Maurice Vellacott, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has served the Canadian Alliance with distinction in the past and will probably play an important role in the future with the new conservative party. The member has served as the senior critic in matters dealing with aboriginal affairs. He has a real heart for aboriginal people and a heart for justice being served. He has had the privilege of knowing aboriginal people on a fairly close basis because he has some adopted first nations children.

What is my hon. colleague's take on the absence of timelines in Bill C-6? It would allow the government to stall and stonewall for an indefinite period of time without any reasons. That is the way the bill is set up. Why would the government do this? What could happen since there are no timelines in the bill?

The member knows from his own experience with his family and with colleagues and with all the other scenarios of life that timelines are necessary if we are expected to get some recourse and make some progress. I would appreciate my colleague's response to that.

[Reed Elley, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in the debate today on Bill C-6. I am sorry we have to do it under the threat of time allocation but I will try to take the time to share with colleagues my concern for the bill and my general concern for aboriginal people across the country.

I am sure that most hon. colleagues in the House realize that my concern for aboriginal people is simply not academic. Over a long number of years, particularly in our fostering ministry with children, my wife and I have been involved with aboriginal children for a long time. Indeed, three aboriginal children are part of my family.

I have a 24 year old son, a very fine young man attending Malaspina University-College, who is member of the Ahousaht Band, a first nation on the west coast of Vancouver Island. I also have two daughters, one who will soon be 19 and one who is 17. Both of them are very beautiful young ladies and are members of the Blood and the Siksika Nations in Alberta.

My concern for aboriginal peoples is simply not just the words on paper. It is something that we have lived with and been concerned about for a long time. I am concerned enough about bills like this to make sure that when they are presented to the House of Commons and to our native peoples across Canada that they are done right. I have a lot of concern about Bill C-6 because I do not think it has been done right.

I rise today to speak on the government's bill to create the Canadian centre for the independent resolution of first nations specific claims.

As we all know, the original purpose of the bill was to create an independent institution to provide for the filing, negotiation and resolution of specific claims. Let me state unequivocally that the Canadian Alliance fully supports the speedy resolution of claims. It is unfortunate, however, that Bill C-6 will not, in our view, speed up the resolution of claims, particularly the larger, more costly ones.

Try as he might, and as he might say otherwise, the Prime Minister will have an everlasting legacy over his treatment of the aboriginal people of Canada. I believe that he has had his heart in the right place. He has tried to get it right but it is just unfortunate that aboriginal Canadians continue to pay the price for him getting it wrong.

This has been going on for a good long time. In 1969, when the present Prime Minister was the minister of Indian affairs, he had the opportunity to set in motion something that would have been good for aboriginal people in consultation with aboriginal people right across Canada that quite possibly would have not brought us to the point where we are today in the lives of many aboriginal Canadians. If he had done it right 30-some years ago we would not be in the place that we are today. For the over 30 years that the Liberals have been having a go at this, they have simply had the lives of aboriginal people in the palms of their hands.

Are aboriginal people today better or worse off? I must say that from my experience with our aboriginal peoples across Canada, aboriginal Canadians are still the poorest, most undereducated group of people in all of Canada. Their on reserve unemployment rates rank as high as 80% to 90%. The drug and alcohol abuse is heartbreaking and the imprisonment and re-offending rate is higher than any other group in Canada.

There is the result of the Liberal legacy and, unfortunately, to Canadians and, in particular, to aboriginal Canadians, it is an infamous one.

With regard to this particular bill and the amendments that are being debated, I find it very interesting that the Senate has recognized nearly all the main problems with this bill that the Canadian Alliance brought forward during the previous debates here in the House of Commons. It is unfortunate that the Senate amendments, although slight improvements to the bill, do not go far enough in resolving the inadequacies of it. It is for that reason that I and my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance are opposed to the amendments as well as the bill itself.

I want to remind all members of the House that the Canadian Alliance policy is clear with regard to the settling of aboriginal claims. We state in our policy book:

Our position in land claims negotiations will be to ensure respect for existing private property rights, affordable and conclusive settlement of all claims, and an open and transparent process involving all stakeholders.

I am on record in the past and will say so again today that aboriginal Canadians will not be able to move forward as individuals or as an autonomous group in our society until the outstanding claims are settled conclusively and with some finality.

Frankly, I believe that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Indian Affairs are living in a world that has simply passed them by. They refuse to acknowledge that their past attempts to resolve the many outstanding issues have all failed and yet they continue to repeat the same mistakes over and over again in their dealings with aboriginal Canadians. Fresh approaches and renewed attitudes are needed in order to see any substantial change for the better for aboriginal Canadians.

That does not mean a top down bureaucracy enforcing laws upon aboriginal Canadians. It means an entirely consultative approach with aboriginal Canadians, where together there will be work done to make this work for them.

The new claims resolution centre will not operate as an independent body. The commissioners and adjudicators will not be representative of all stakeholders, as they will be appointed by the Prime Minister. Aboriginal and non-aboriginal people alike are truly suspicious of the Prime Minister's motives, particularly when it comes to impartiality, patronage and conflict of interest issues. I have every reason to believe that this will continue at this new centre and negate any legitimacy in its final decisions.

As I understand the process involved under this bill, the centre would consist of a commission and a tribunal. In turn the claims process will proceed through three stages: First, the intake and preparatory stage where the first nation submits its claim to the commission, arranges research funding and notifies interested parties of the claim.

Second, the validity stage where the Crown decides whether or not to accept the claim. If the Crown refuses the claim, the first nation can ask for dispute resolution led by the commission. If that fails, the first nation can ask the commission to refer the claim to the tribunal to decide on its validity.

Third, the negotiation stage. When a claim is accepted by the Crown or deemed valid by the tribunal it enters a commission led negotiation. If negotiations fail, the first nation can ask the commission to refer the claim to the tribunal for a binding decision on cash compensation to a maximum of $7 million.

I have several concerns regarding this bill. First, although the centre has been slated to be in Ottawa, there appears to have been no consideration where the most cost effective location for the centre will be.

I am pleased to note that the Auditor General of Canada will audit the financial accounts of the centre annually and a report of the audit will be made to the centre and the minister. Although there is a time lag for the reporting mechanism of the centre to the minister and a further time lag of the minister tabling the relevant documents in the House of Commons, there is the appearance of some transparency.

However what does concern me is that the minister will not be presenting the quarterly reports from the centre to Parliament. I believe this is wrong and that they should be tabled, thus keeping parliamentarians fully apprised of the centre's financial well-being. Surely we do not want to have another billion dollar gun registry boondoggle on our hands.

Regarding the efficiency of the process, the government needs to re-examine its approach to defining access to the proposed claim centre. If it is to be more efficient, the minister needs to determine how to allow more access for legitimate claims.

If the review and tribunal process is truly to be convenient to all the parties involved, it should be held at a time and a place convenient to all the parties concerned. Currently only the convenience of the panel has been considered, certainly not the needs of aboriginal people.

Perhaps the clause that causes me the most concern is clause 77. This clause reads:

The Governor in Council may make regulations (a) adding to Part 2 of the schedule the name of any agreement related to aboriginal self-government; and (b) prescribing anything that may, under this Act, be prescribed.

Once again this appears to be a loophole that allows the government to fill in the blanks after the bill has already passed under the watchful eye of Parliament. Although the Prime Minister talks the talk about parliamentary democracy, he is often unable to walk the walk. Legislation should not be something that can be added to arbitrarily after the fact. This clause should certainly be deleted.

Who is standing up for the taxpayer in this process? Based on the information that has been provided to me, I believe the bill will actually discourage the use of the less expensive alternative dispute mechanisms. Taxpayers pay far too much already. Encouraging and in some cases forcing the use of the court system only adds to the tax burden of all Canadians.

In conclusion, let me state again that the Canadian Alliance supports the fair and expeditious resolution of claims in a manner that benefits relations between aboriginal Canadians, the federal government and every other Canadian. We do not believe the bill will achieve that goal. The bill really creates a two tier claims system. It may expedite smaller cash claims at the expense of larger claims and claims for land.

Again the federal government has got it all wrong with the timing. Under this draft of the bill, first nations cannot file claims based on events that occurred within the 15 years immediately preceding the filing of a claim. We need to stop and think about that for a moment. Aboriginal people need to know what that means for them as a nation. It means that a first nation can be denied its treaty rights for 15 whole years without recourse. In a democracy is that fair? Of course not. Aboriginal Canadians have been waiting for the settlement of their treaty rights and claims for years and years. This bill will only add to that kind of burden.

Clearly the bill will raise false hope and open the floodgates for more claims that first nations have held back. The centre risks being overwhelmed by cases, just like the Liberal gun registry, resulting in an even larger backlog and ultimately higher costs. It is money that could be spent on aboriginal health, aboriginal education and aboriginal housing. That is simply not fair.

In the past three decades, 30 years, the government has settled only 230 claims. There are 500 claims still waiting to be heard and first nations representatives tell us they expect up to 1,000 more claims to be filed. At the current rate it will take almost 200 years to deal with all of these claims. If one were an aboriginal person in this country hearing that kind of figure, how would one feel?

In 1993 the Liberal red book promised an independent claims commission jointly appointed by first nations and the Government of Canada. How many times have we heard of the promises in the 1993 Liberal red book? There was the GST, the ethics commissioner, and now an independent claims commission that was supposed to include aboriginal peoples in the founding and establishment of it. Bill C-6 clearly breaks that promise by concentrating the power to make appointments in the Prime Minister's office. Shame.

At this time, as far as I am concerned and as far as the Canadian Alliance is concerned, Bill C-6 should be scrapped and rewritten. There are too many fundamental flaws in it and the bill should not be ratified.

I ask all members of the House who truly want to see the legitimate aspirations of aboriginal Canadians move forward to take a good look at the bill and vote against it. It is a bill based not on clear thinking and the rights of aboriginals, but on political expediency. We need to give real hope to aboriginal Canadians. Bill C-6 simply does not achieve this goal.

[Gérard Binet, Liberal, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his question.

With respect to the bills concerning aboriginal people, we have put in a great deal of effort in recent months to try to find solutions. It is not an easy job, when there are 630 communities and therefore 630 chiefs, to find solutions that please everyone.

Nevertheless, this government is making efforts to find solutions that are truly fair for the future, to help the aboriginal communities, which are in need of help. Not all of these communities need help. We are told that more than 50% of them are doing very well.

For those that are not doing as well, these bills have been drafted accordingly. As we know, the purpose of Bill C-6 is to save on the huge amounts spent on legal fees. This money would be better spent more equitably for first nations.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all of us I thank the member for his very excellent speech. He covered most of the more important points of the bill. He has been a very valuable member of committee. He mentioned the number of hours the committee spent, not only dealing with Bill C-6 but also dealing with the other bills that will be before the House.

With his intense interest in this, I certainly see today, from the quality of his speech, that he will continue to be a very valuable member of our committee that works on these bills.

[Gérard Binet, Liberal, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate on Bill C-6, the Specific Claims Resolution Act. This bill is one of the ways the government proposes to provide the first nations with the necessary tools for self-governance, so they can fully participate in life in Canada.

The Specific Claims Resolution Act is part of the government's overall strategy to institute a new specific claims resolution process that is more effective than the current process.

Our colleagues on the other side of the House have submitted a series of significant amendments to Bill C-6, in direct response to the concerns of first nations and in order to improve this bill. These amendments should, in turn, help the first nations have confidence in the new Canadian Centre for the Independent Resolution of First Nations Specific Claims, to be established under this bill.

With regard to the proposal currently under consideration, it has been said that the current specific claims resolution process could be more effective and, as a result, long costly court cases could be avoided. We must invest in the essential issues affecting aboriginals instead of in costly court cases.

Under the current claims resolution process, only a few claims could be resolved each year. The current list of claims is growing daily, in excess of those resolved.

This bill had the full participation of the first nations. There was a joint task force, which presented recommendations on the need to establish an independent entity responsible for claims resolution. As the minister indicated this morning, the fact that this bill is being considered today proves that the initiatives of this joint task force have been largely successful.

Originally, the bill limited the tribunal to settlements under $7 million for claims resolved in the proposed system. After numerous consultations and presentations before the Senate committee, an amendment was moved to increase this ceiling to $10 million.

This new ceiling is realistic. This amendment responds to the concerns of first nations. As we said, this increased amount would apply to most of the claims currently before the Government of Canada.

We know that some say there should be no limits at all. Again, there are many spending priorities, and our budget is not unlimited. We much live within our means and according to our financial obligations.

Another important element from first nations that we heard in the Senate hearings was the concerns regarding the appointment process for the chief executive officer, the commissioners and adjudicators of the proposed new body.

We now have an amendment that would give first nations a greater opportunity to make representations with respect to appointments and to be more actively involved in the review process. There is also a proposal to confirm post-employment conflict of interest rules.

Much work has already gone into drafting this bill, and there have been many studies, including three separate reviews by committees of Parliament, and more than 50 hours of debate.

It has been a long road to get here. As a government, we pledged to have a system in place to resolve first nations claims in a way that would be accountable, transparent and impartial, that would level the playing field for negotiation and resolve claims more quickly and effectively, to provide aboriginal people with enhanced opportunities for economic development in a climate of certainty.

This bill enables us to leave behind an outdated process and take a new direction that will provide first nations with a more fair, effective and equitable tool.

Time has now come to act on this.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question, asking whether I see any differences. The difference between a bill like Bill C-6 and the report of the Erasmus-Dussault commission is that they are worlds apart. It is the exact opposite of what the Erasmus-Dussault commission wanted.

Moreover, that is why, when the commission's report was made public, the minister of the day hurried to shelve it. It has been gathering dust ever since. Nevertheless, it cost I do not know how many tens of millions of dollars. It was a royal commission that worked for a number of years.

But they decided to continue with the same type of bills as the one before us today, Bill C-6, and the one we will see soon, Bill C-19. They do not trust the aboriginal peoples. They know what is best for the first nations; they will keep them in their place, and make decisions for them. Nothing has changed.

This bill is the direct descendant of everything that has happened in the last 200 years. The issue will never be settled until the government has respect for the first nations, until the government sits down to negotiate, nation to nation, with clear terms of reference. Commissions and committees are not going to settle the fundamental issue.

The bill before us, as it now stands, is incompatible with the Erasmus-Dussault report.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of my hon. colleague, who for a long time handled the first nations file and followed its evolution.

He was there when the royal commission on aboriginal peoples tabled its report. With his knowledge of the file, and in order to illustrate our point of view to those listening, I would appreciate it if he could draw a comparison of sorts between what was proposed by the royal commission on aboriginal peoples, that is the Erasmus-Dussault commission, the spirit with which a self-government process was to be put in motion, and what is proposed now with Bill C-6 on specific claims, the infamous Bill C-7 on governance and Bill C-19. Does he see any differences and, if so, where?

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak on Bill C-6 today.

As I said earlier, I was the critic for Indian affairs for seven years, before being assigned to national defence. I will start by greeting all my aboriginal friends across Canada and Quebec. I want them to know that these seven years were an absolutely extraordinary experience.

I greatly enjoy discovering new cultures. I think that being the critic for aboriginal affairs is the best of all because one gets to reach out to new cultures.

Earlier, several members mentioned that there are more than 600 aboriginal communities. The Erasmus-Dussault commission identified approximately 60 across Canada. The aboriginal issue is definitely one full of adventure, because we are discovering not only one new culture but several new cultures, depending on the nations or communities we visit.

My time among aboriginal people has left an enduring impression on me. I remember being invited by the Assembly of First Nations of the Yukon in 1994, when we resolved the issue of land claims and self-government. I remember that trip in particular because my daughter was with me, and we were welcomed so warmly. These people are open-minded and they take great pride in showing us their land. I remember going fishing on the Yukon River and being taken to a mountain from which we could see the midnight sun. These memories will be with me forever.

I also intervened in the whale hunting issue on the west coast, and Vancouver Island in particular. At the time, the ministry responsible for Indian affairs in British Columbia had taken action and said it would be allowing whales to be caught for use as a traditional food source.

The same is true for the Chilcotin people, whom I visited in British Columbia. They gave me a tour of claimed land. Incidentally, aboriginal claims have consistently been diluted when the deadline draws near. Back in those days, I was told that 125% of British Columbia was claimed because of something called overlaps. If we look at the settlement concerning the land of the Nisga'a, which I also visited many times, the Nisga'a settled for 7% of all their claims.

Thus, I have had many wonderful experiences, and some that were less pleasant, as well. I think you were with me, Mr. Speaker, when we went to Pikangikum in northern Ontario, where we saw some very sad scenes. The village was so isolated, so abandoned and alone. It had so little. It was so negative an environment that within one year, I believe, there had been about 20 suicides among the young people.

I recall some emotional moments when we talked with the parents. They did not have a cemetery: the burial ground was next to their house. They took us to see their children's graves. On one cross there was a hockey stick and helmet, and next to it, a little girl's rosary beads. It was absolutely devastating. One needs to have children to comprehend the enormous despair felt by the entire community of Pikangikum which, in some ways, reflects what is happening in Canada.

There are many problems in most parts of Canada. I can name some of them. I think it began with the arrival of the Europeans. We have to face the fact that these people were here before us. what happened was that they were so welcoming—just as I see today when I go to the reserves—that they said to the Europeans, “We are prepared to welcome you. We have a lot of land here, and we will share it with you.”

Little by little, the aboriginal mentality, which remained unchanged, came up against the mentality of the white people, who had a kind of predisposition to conquer and take over as much land as possible. That is when the aboriginal communities began to pull back, as I see it, not because they wanted to, but because the white people forced them to.

We can look at the numbered treaties; there are ten or so in Canada, in various provinces.

The white people never respected these treaties. These were ad hoc treaties signed by a general and an aboriginal chief. The white people quickly forgot about them. It is sad. At times, I am ashamed of what was done.

Members should read the Erasmus-Dussault report, which cost tens of millions of dollars. In chapter after chapter, the report gives historical data proving that the aboriginals were shoved aside. They were told they would be taken care of and put on reserves. Today, they have been abandoned. The reserves are experiencing numerous problems. There is also an obvious funding problem.

What happened over time? We have examples. There were residential schools, which attempted to cleanse the students of their aboriginal culture and languages, which are so beautiful and so increasingly rare today. Some twenty remain in use. These languages will soon be called dead languages. However, they are extraordinary languages that should be saved and promoted for our international heritage.

All this to say that the residential schools were an attempt to break a generation. The great leaders of the aboriginal movement, such as Matthew Coon Come, experienced the residential schools. Today, everyone agrees that, at the very least, we must apologize for these schools. I am not convinced that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has apologized. He recognized that there was a problem. However, he has not yet apologized because, naturally, when an apology is made, there are legal consequences with regard to compensation. Perhaps the government is guarding against this.

What I have seen since I arrived in Parliament is no different from the conquest of aboriginal lands by the early Europeans. Since I became a member of the House of Commons, I have witnessed the continued decline of the aboriginals. As parliamentarians, we have responsibilities. We know that the federal government has almost exclusive jurisdiction in this area.

There is, however, also the other power: the judiciary. I have often said to my colleagues in caucus that, when one looks at the Supreme Court of Canada decisions, they are nearly 100 to 1 in favour of the aboriginal people. The Supreme Court has brought down decisions on all manner of topics: fisheries, hunting, forests, and aboriginal entitlement has been advanced considerably by the courts. Yet Parliament is quick to claim the Supreme Court victory as its own, in the case of the one decision that is in its favour, and to bring in legislation to ensure the Supreme Court decision is respected. But for the 100 or more decisions in favour of the aboriginal people, these are quickly put into file 13 and forgotten. This is absolutely deplorable, and is more or less what is happening here.

There are major problems on the reserves. I have already referred to the residential schools. That may be a thing of the past, but there are other problems. Would we in white society accept children being told they cannot go to on to post-secondary education next year because there is no money to send them there? Yet that happens on the reserves, and is absolutely unacceptable.

When I was Indian Affairs critic, we made representations year after year in an attempt to remedy the situation. It remains unchanged. There are still children on the reserves who have graduated from secondary school and are being told that, because one group of students has already been sent out, they will have to wait for another year for their turn at post-secondary education.

Then there is the housing problem, with three and four generations under one roof, sometimes. The federal government is incapable of coming up with the money to build houses, as it was supposed to under the social contract of the day. That was what the social contract was: we will take care of you. And look how they are being taken care of.

There are problems with drugs, alcohol, housing, education, and health. There is everything negative imaginable. In my opinion, our attitude with respect to first nations is a disgrace to Canada.

What is happening today with Bill C-6 and the new specific claims commission? As far as I am concerned, we have been working to change this for a long time. The minister listened to people who appeared before the standing committee, but he is completely ignoring what they said.

Everyone, the primary stakeholders, those who will have to live with the bad system, have said, “This cannot be done. It will not work”.

To start with, who will appoint members to the commission? The governor in council. Once again, it is the white man who has decided, “We know what you need and what will help you. We will give this to you, no matter what you say”. It is a little like saying, “We know what is good for you, we want what is good for you and we will give you what is good for you”. In the end, it is not what is good for them, but what is good for us that is the priority.

The governor in council appoints members to the commission. Do the first nations have a say in whether a given member is a good choice?

We have been denouncing partisanship in the commissions for a long time, and it is no different whether we are talking about immigration or the First Nations Specific Claims Commission. Let us talk about Elijah Harper, who lost his seat in the House of Commons when he was defeated by the member for Churchill. He left and was appointed to the commission. He is a Liberal and he was appointed to the commission.

What should we expect? More partisanship? People appointed on the recommendation of the minister will have the mandate to decide the future of the poor aboriginals who are not able to take charge of themselves? That is what Bill C-6 currently before this House is all about.

Moreover, the bill sets a $7 million limit on claims. Think of how much money was made with aboriginal land since Confederation. That is incredible.

Recently, in British Columbia, I saw the multinational paper companies scramble, because there were land claims, to take all the natural resources out before the commission completed its work. The government is complicit in the sense that it is saying, “It will take time. There are claims. A claims commission will be established in British Columbia”.

In the meantime, the multinational paper companies are having a field day, clear cutting part of British Columbia. When all is said and done, the government will say, “We have reached an agreement with the aboriginal people. Here are the beautiful resources we are giving you”. But there will be no resources left.

This is what I have been witnessing during the past ten years. This bill is similar. While half the province is being clear cut in spite of a land claim that the government is unable to settle, anyone who goes to the commission will be told, “If your claim exceeds $10 million, we cannot help you. Have it settled by regular courts. See you again in 20 years, when a decision is made”.

Aboriginal people know that claims often end up before the Supreme Court before the government settles. Once the Supreme Court has made a decision—as I said earlier, decisions are nearly 100 to 1 in favour of the aboriginal people—there is nothing left for them.

It is totally demoralizing to see a bill like the one before the House today, which basically follows this pattern. Any claim over $10 million is excluded. Then, the commission makes recommendations to the minister on whether the claims should be dealt with. And if they are not happy, the aboriginal people can always go before the courts.

All these people are appointed by the governor in council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. There are no aboriginal people in cabinet, yet they are the ones who will suffer the consequences of the decision made today. If find this frankly revolting.

And yet I once thought I had some aboriginal blood. At one time in my career as Indian Affairs critic I asked myself why I felt so strongly about this cause. So I had my family tree done and I finally discovered that I do have aboriginal ancestors, but it goes back ten generations. So, I cannot really say I have any aboriginal blood.

However, I have always been a person who defends justice. I have a problem accepting that the people who were here before us, people whose rights have been recognized by the courts, are being told today just what they have always been told, “We will take care of you”.

We have a Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development who is today's updated equivalent of the Indian agent who used to be on every reserve. In the past, on every reserve, when someone wanted to change a pole, permission had to be obtained from the Indian agent.

It is still somewhat like that today. There is no longer an Indian agent on every reserve, but there is one, here in Ottawa, sitting in the seat of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

Today, these people have to beg. When there are cuts or freezes in the budget of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, it is the children of Kanesatake or the children of the Chilcotin who will be told, “You will not be going to school this year because there is no money for you. You will live together with four generations under the same roof in Pikangikum and you will stay like that, because there is no money to build houses for you”.

There is no money, and yet these amazing surpluses keep appearing in Ottawa, and there are even some they are trying to hide.

In fact, we saw the statement of the Minister of Finance yesterday. The surplus will not be as significant as we thought, but at year end, it will likely be two or three times greater than he estimated. In the meantime, he will have ignored the real needs of aboriginals, which come under federal jurisdiction. The federal government must stop interfering in areas under provincial jurisdiction, demonstrate competency in its own areas and give the aboriginals what they need.

Do they need money? Probably. However, they have a greater need for respect; the money will follow. If the federal government respected the aboriginals, it would sign treaties with them and, for once, it would respect them. It has not done this for the past 200 years.

Today, the Indians' representative, meaning the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, has introduced a bill that is inconsistent with the needs of the aboriginals in general, with the needs of communities in general and the needs of everyone who appeared. This morning I asked the question, because I am not on the committee and the witnesses told me that it was true. Many people appeared before the committee to voice their opposition to this bill.

However, the government is ignoring them and is creating its own structure and its own commission. The government is saying, “I know what is good for you; I am going to give it to you, and if it is not consistent with what is good for me, I am going to give you a bit less because what matters is what is good for me”.

The aboriginals will be caught in the same dynamic they have been in for the past 200 years. It is not just each reserve; there are also the courts. The Assembly of First Nations met in Vancouver and all the chiefs said that this bill makes no sense.

What is the government doing? First, it is gagging us so it can ram this bill through. Who will be stuck then? It certainly will not be the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. From on high, he will appoint the commission members, set the rules and decide what is in order and what is not. Then he will consult the governor in council and impose his regulations on the aboriginals, who always lose out.

I am sorry if I am being a bit hard on the government, but from my seven years of close contact with these people, I have learned a lot. I know that the first nations opened up their lands to others because they consider that the earth belongs to everyone. It is not their way to go to a notary and draw up a deed for a piece of land 50 by 60 feet, for instance. They are prepared to offer open-hearted hospitality to newcomers and have always done so.

Today, they are looking for compensation because we can see the situation they have been put in over the past 200 years. Their position is a totally hopeless one, completely dependent on the federal government and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Yet, their original societies were highly sophisticated and highly developed. When the Europeans arrived, they decided that this was not how things were going to be done here, and they imposed their model, the European way of doing things, saying, “We will impose our model, will draw up contracts—treaties as they were called at the time—and because these people have no way of defending themselves, we will just get around those contacts and continue our inexorable move toward total domination of the aboriginal people”. That is what is happening here.

Fortunately, in my opinion, the approach used in Quebec is a different one. Cree Grand Chief Ted Moses has said so as well. He is pretty well fed up with the federal government. In his opinion, the Government of Quebec is doing its job, and this is true. The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement has been a model for negotiating agreements. The Nisga'a used it as a model. All of the main aboriginal nations have watched what was going on with the James Bay Cree, yet the government seems to be indicating that it wants nothing to do with all that.

This is a very unusual situation. The Government of Quebec has even indicated its intention to bring the James Bay agreement up to date, even if it is already the best in Canada. So when I see the minister turning up here with a bill that no one on the aboriginal side wants, when I see the government cutting off debate on the issue because it wants to adjourn Parliament, when I see it wanting to force its wishes on the aboriginal people, I find this totally unacceptable and I am happy that my party's position is to vote against Bill C-6. I want my aboriginal friends to know we will not let them down.

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of Bill C-6. I am in support of this proposal specifically because the effectiveness of this new act will take us a step closer to resolving historic grievances involving land claim disputes between first nations and the Government of Canada.

The application of Canada's specific claims policy has had a significant measure of success, but despite these successes, the current system, while resolving claims, cannot cope in the expeditious manner that both the Government of Canada and first nations need to see. We have to do better.

That is why the government, on behalf of all Canadians, must move forward to bring closure to the climate of adversarial, litigious debate that has marked negotiation of land claims for far too long. As a nation, we must settle the backlog of outstanding claims and have in place a new system that will effectively resolve claims.

Through Bill C-6, the government proposes to establish a process that is more independent, a process that is fair and impartial, and a process that is transparent.

For far too long, first nations peoples have held that the existing process lacks fairness and transparency in the areas of research and assessment. They maintain that it does not provide a level playing field for negotiations and that it lacks independence, impartiality and accountability. Those are all things that people in this House and in our country expect.

The lack of confidence in the fairness of the process expressed by first nations peoples means that first nations are reluctant to accept negative decisions about the validity of their claims. Costly court actions causing further delays are the result. In this atmosphere, enhanced partnership and economic development can hardly be expected to flourish.

Under the proposed legislation before the House, the centre would establish in law neutral and at arm's length claim facilitation and adjudication bodies. Transparency would be enhanced. Funding to first nations peoples to participate in the specific claims process would be removed from the minister's jurisdiction. The existing structure would be simplified and there would be a greater rigour brought to the process.

In other words, there would be, for the first time, an effective alternative to litigating specific claims in the courts through active promotion of negotiated settlements and authority to render binding decisions as a last resort.

I think it is important to note that hand in hand with fairness goes accountability. As a government, the Government of Canada must be accountable to first nations and to other Canadians to ensure that they have in place a land claims settlement system that is fair, effective and efficient. This proposal that is before the House contains extensive accountability provisions to help achieve those ends.

What are those provisions? They include: annual audits by the Auditor General; annual reports tabled in Parliament and made available to first nations and public scrutiny; quarterly reports on compensation; and a requirement for a full review between three and five years of the coming into force of the bill.

These are important measures that will really make a difference in enhancing accountability, but how did we arrive at this point? We did not arrive at this point in isolation from first nations' opinions. In fact, in 1996, the federal government and the Assembly of First Nations established the joint first nations-Canada task force on specific claims. This event in 1996 marked the beginning of consultations on the creation of an independent claims body. The legislation we see before us in this House is based on the work of the joint task force.

As this proposal now before us made its way through the parliamentary process, the government heard a number of concerns about the legislation from first nations. Most recently, the Senate committee repeatedly heard the concern about the jurisdictional authority placed on the tribunal. As the minister had originally proposed, this legislation set the jurisdictional limit of the tribunal at $7 million on awards for claims resolved under the new system. Following extensive consultations and presentations before the Senate committee, an amendment was proposed to increase the tribunal authority's limit to $10 million.

The minister assures me that he is confident this new ceiling is a realistic one and is one that meets the needs of the first nations peoples and their concerns as raised in the process. As we have heard, most of the claims currently before the Government of Canada could be dispensed with under this new increased amount.

Another important element from first nations witnesses concerned the appointment process for this new centre. I am pleased to say that the government has listened to these concerns and has proposed an amendment that would give first nations a greater opportunity to make representations with respect to appointments and to be more actively involved in the review process. The minister also proposes to confirm post-employment conflict of interest rules, something that I know is very important to members of the House.

A key aspect of this proposed legislation that has provided comfort across the consultation board is the provision for alternate dispute resolution processes to keep the parties at the table. Under the proposed act, the new commission's overarching role would be to facilitate the resolution of negotiated settlements with authority to apply a full range of alternative dispute resolution processes: facilitation, mediation, non-binding arbitration, and binding arbitration with the consent of the parties. All claims, regardless of size, complexity or value, would have access to these processes through the commission.

In conclusion, a lot of effort has been directed toward the bill by committees of the House and the other place, by first nations witnesses, by bureaucrats in the department of the minister, and by the minister's office and the parliamentary secretary, to ensure that we have in place a process that would help to resolve first nations claims in a way that is accountable, transparent and impartial. The intent behind this proposal is to level the playing field for negotiation and, frankly, to resolve claims more effectively and efficiently. Surely that is in everyone's interest.

This new process will allow aboriginal people in Canada to take advantage of economic opportunities and I think it will lead to a more prosperous life for all of us as full participants in this great nation of ours.

I thank the House for its attention. I thank all members for supporting the bill.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has it wrong again. Neither I, my party nor anyone on this side of the House are against the process of resolving the claims. We are against the government's ill will and its lack of understanding that it has put into Bill C-6 to resolve the issues.

As I indicated, the process is not independent and it is not fair. It will not be done in a timely manner. The backlog will continue. The member should look at this issue again. All of us in this chamber have a moral responsibility to deal with the claims in a timely and fair manner.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have the advantage of having been the Indian Affairs critic for my party for seven years. There is one thing that has always struck me: the matter of consultation. I recall several bills where we called witnesses after second reading, when we asked aboriginal people to come and give us their views.

I always found that the government heeded this consultation very little, and did not pay much attention to the representations made. One might say that the government had a preconceived idea in mind when it introduced a bill. Everything was organized in advance, everything was prepared. Regardless of what the aboriginal leaders had to say, or the aboriginal people themselves or their chiefs, the government went ahead and decided to pass its legislation, attaching no importance to the consultation.

From what I hear about Bill C-6, it seems that is more or less what happened. There were numerous representations. Many people were consulted. Now the government is saying, “Well, we listened to you, but now we are going to do as we please”. That is the impression I have about the bill before us.

I would like to ask my colleague, who has just given an excellent presentation, if he does not somewhat share my opinion that the government has once again missed its chance to listen to those who are the directly concerned by this bill, that is the aboriginal people themselves? Once again, we are involved in a debate on a bill that has been presented after consultation, but the consultation will not be heeded. They want to impose this bill, ignoring not only the opinion of the first nations people, but also the opinion of all opposition parties in the House of Commons.

I would like to know whether my colleague shares my impression that there has been a lack of consultation or that the consultation that did take place is being ignored, as far as Bill C-6 is concerned?