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 Tribunal Act

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

As my hon. colleague says, “They had enough of talk”.

It was not until about a month later that in fact the term “accord” was attached to what we all know was not a signed agreement. Thankfully, our government was elected and we have been able to move forward with some real tangible plans, not a dreamy panacea that would cure everything. That is the only approach that the Liberals have. They bring forward very glorious talk, but after 13 years they did nothing for aboriginal people.

If we look at some of the ideas that came out in the previous era, the good ones were set aside. I can comment on former minister Nault. The member of course knows minister Nault quite well. His great ideas were set aside. All the Liberals wanted was talk and that is all they came forward with at the last moment.

The member needs to talk to his caucus. On the subject at hand, Bill C-30, I guess the member has not spoken with his caucus. In fact, the whole caucus voted to completely endorse this bill. In clause by clause, every single element of this bill was endorsed unanimously by his party. Yet, he talks about the bill as if it is something he and his party do not support. That is wrong and I am not sure what cheap political points he is attempting to score here, but his party, like I said, has unanimously endorsed this bill.

On top of the deception related to the Kelowna press release that the member put on the record, I would also like to speak to some of the other misinformation he has put on the record. The $150 million associated with this bill is quite a significant amount. When we look back to Bill C-6, the bill that the former government tried to put before Canadians, it only had about $6 million associated with it for the settlement of claims. This legislation is a considerable improvement on the ability of government to actually settle some of these outstanding claims, in fact, a large number of them.

He thinks that the outstanding backlog will not be addressed. He should know that 50% of the outstanding specific claims are less than $3 million. In fact, the vast majority of them are a great deal below the $150 million mark. The $2.5 billion that we have extended to this important tribunal is going to take care of this massive backlog that is in place.

I want to ask the member a quick question. He was speaking earlier about how the tribunal would not be able to unilaterally remove parcels of land from the provinces and territories, including his own territory. Is he suggesting that this bill should now be modified at third reading so that the tribunal could unilaterally take parcels of land out of Yukon? I am not sure his voters back home would like that.

[Chief Phil Fontaine, National Chief, Assembly of First Nations]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We want to express our thanks to the committee for extending an invitation to the Assembly of First Nations to speak to this committee on a very important matter.

Before I proceed with my formal presentation I would like to extend a very warm welcome to the newest member of this committee, Mr. Clarke. It's good to see you.

On behalf of the Assembly of First Nations, I thank the chair and members of this committee for the invitation to appear before you.

As you know, the Assembly of First Nations is the national first nations organization, representing over 633 first nation communities in Canada. First nations leadership as well as the Assembly of First Nations leadership are democratically elected. Our organization derives its mandate and its instructions from the chiefs who meet in regular assembly gatherings. We represent all first nations people, whether they live on reserve or off, regardless of gender.

Throughout the novel process that led to the formation of Bill C-30, we were consistent and clear with the federal government on one important point: that while we would respect their political process and all that it entailed, the government must reciprocate and respect ours. It was in this spirit that I requested to appear at the end of your hearings. I wanted to ensure that all first nation representatives who wished to submit testimony before you could do so freely and unencumbered by the position taken by the Assembly of First Nations, particularly since we were directly involved in the development of Bill C-30.

If individual first nations have expressed a desire for amendments to the legislation, that is their prerogative. This should not be construed as dissent, but rather as democracy at work. The Assembly of First Nations fully respects the voices and opinions of chiefs and first nations peoples in every part of the country.

As I prepared for this presentation, I reflected on the long history of active engagement that we've had on this issue with successive governments. Throughout your deliberations I urge you to be mindful that the ultimate objective of Bill C-30 is to improve the specific claims resolution system in Canada. The current process is fraught with conflict of interest, inordinate delays. It lacks critical independence and is underfunded. All of this has resulted in an enormous backlog of over 1,000 unresolved claims. An effective system must be fair, independent, efficient, expeditious, and well resourced. While no system will ever be perfect, I suggest to you that Bill C-30, together with the political agreement, satisfies the elements of an effective system and will bring about much-needed change that we have worked many years to achieve.

Prior to the establishment of the Indian Specific Claims Commission in the early 1990s, the Assembly of First Nations had been active in trying to improve the federal system that deals with the resolution of specific claims. In 1996 Canada initiated a joint task force process. This process was effective in bringing together regional representatives to make recommendations with respect to the existing system, culminating in a proposal for the adoption of a model bill that would create an improved system based on key recommendations that included:

(1) The elimination of Canada's conflict of interest through an independent legislative mechanism;

(2) The establishment of a commission to facilitate negotiations;

(3) The establishment of a tribunal to resolve disputes in cases of failed negotiations with the authority to make binding decisions;

(4) Independent funding for first nations research and negotiations; and

(5) A joint review after five years, to include consideration of outstanding matters such as lawful obligations arising from aboriginal rights.

Unfortunately, the report that was issued in 1998 was never implemented. In the intervening period, we've seen other attempts to address problems with the current system, most notably the Specific Claims Resolution Act, Bill C-6, and subsequent attempts to improve that legislation.

In December 2006 the Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples released its report on specific claims, entitled Negotiation or Confrontation: It's Canada's Choice. This groundbreaking Senate report represented an important element in enabling the then Minister of Indian Affairs, the Honourable Jim Prentice, to advance significant reforms related to specific claims.

It must be stressed that the Assembly of First Nations was not involved in establishing the parameters of the plan to develop this legislation. We were, however, subsequently invited to participate in the announcement last June and to collaborate with Canada to jointly develop legislation based on the parameters set out in Justice at Last, Canada's proposal to reform the specific claims system.

While the process that ensued should be seen as a success in the context of this initiative, this success has not defined a new approach or relationship when it comes to law and policy development in other areas that are important to first nation communities and our citizens.

I want to talk a bit about the engagement with the Assembly of First Nations.

Bill C-30 represents a tremendous collaborative effort between first nations and the federal government at achieving agreement on the design, composition, and mandate of an independent specific claims tribunal. The successful elements of this mutual development were, first, that the legislative drafting process incorporated interests that had already been identified as critical to its success, mainly through work that had been conducted over many years, including the work of the 1998 joint task force report. From this standpoint, the main thrust of this initiative embodied a shared objective.

The second element was that a shared objective, the approach that was used to advance this initiative, involved constructive collaboration and cooperation. It included AFN representation at all levels and was guided by both a senior political forum and a senior technical committee.

We have always maintained that meaningful upfront engagement with first nations is more efficient and effective than unilateral top-down imposed processes. Bill C-30 and the political agreement are examples of this. In fact, despite the various proposals for amendments, the majority of witnesses who have appeared before you have admitted that this bill will improve the claims resolution system.

The Assembly of First Nations has extensive experience in facilitating first nation and crown discussions on law and policy change, which I note is distinct from federal legal obligations to consult with first nations on matters affecting our rights and interests.

It is clear through case law and through our clearly stated position that the Assembly of First Nations cannot serve as the crown's agent to conduct consultations, nor as a replacement for direct consultations with first nations. However, our proven track record in advocacy, communications, and analysis supports both the crown and first nations efforts to consult effectively.

This said, the AFN has never committed to undertake the government's responsibility to consult with first nations about Bill C-30. That remains a federal legal responsibility. Rather, we undertook to ensure that the perspective of first nations was central to the legislative drafting process and to help inform first nations, to engage our citizens in dialogue on the contents of the bill and the political agreement.

We have made every effort to live up to our obligations while respecting the federal government's repeated insistence on the confidentiality of the discussions. While respecting the concern with confidentiality, we did everything in our power to get information to our people. We provided updates to first nations people as often as we could during the process, again fully respecting the government's need for confidentiality.

Once the legislation was publicly available, we conducted an intensive national campaign to inform our people about this. We visited virtually every region in Canada in what was less than a two-week window of opportunity, and we mailed out a comprehensive summary of our accomplishments on the very day that the legislation became public.

First nations were calling for more information and engagement throughout our collaboration with the government, but we respected the conditions that had been placed on this process. We have honoured our commitment to confidentiality, no less than we expect the members of this committee to honour the right of first nations to appear before this committee and to propose amendments. This does not mean that things have gone wrong. Quite simply, it is an indication that things have gone right.

No legislation or public policy will ever address all the concerns or issues of the people it affects. However, by involving our people in this development and allowing the diverse first nations interests to be heard, the government will have utilized the ingredients for a more positive outcome.

It has been our experience--and this is borne out in the process resulting in the Specific Claims Tribunal Act--that joint policy and legislative development processes are the best means for reaching sustainable, accountable, and innovative development on issues that directly affect our people. We encourage the government, and indeed all parties in the House, to learn from the success of this process and to apply it to other policy areas in which our rights and interests are affected--for example, safe drinking water, the apology to first nation survivors of the Indian residential school experience, and the OAS draft declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples, to cite just three examples.

However, to date we have been unable to replicate the very successful collaborative process of Bill C-30 in other policy areas, such as matrimonial real property, the repeal of section 67 in the Canadian Human Rights Act, and the Fisheries Act renewal.

It is unfortunate and regrettable that as of yet we have not been able to forge an open, ongoing, reliable, stable relationship with the current government that meaningfully reflects and respects the government-to-government relationship between first nations and the government. We see this as a missed opportunity.

Admittedly, Bill C-30 has not addressed all the inadequacies of the specific claims policy or process. However, these inadequacies were to some degree non-negotiable, because they fell outside the legislative framework that was provided to us as set out in the Justice at Last mandate.

I am getting close to the end, Mr. Chair. Sorry.

The shortcomings of the federal mandate led to the creation of the political agreement. It is very important that this signed agreement and the commitments therein be implemented in the spirit in which they were entered into. The political agreement, along with subclause 41(1), which provides for a five-year legislative review and report process, are mechanisms by which the range of proposed amendments may be addressed.

It is very important to keep in mind that the ultimate objective of this initiative is to resolve and settle claims faster and more fairly than the current system will allow. We must end 60 years of unsuccessful attempts and look to create a system that will effectively reduce these debts that are bogging down both Canadian and first nations economies.

The bottom line is that a new, independent tribunal with powers that bind the parties to a maximum value of $150 million, in tandem with further commitments embodied in the companion political agreement, will indeed make a significant difference in improving the process and in expediting claims resolution. Therefore, it is very important to seize this historic opportunity to pass this legislation and to ensure that the federal government fully implements the undertakings and joint process outlined in the political agreement.

While first nations have proposed some thoughtful and potentially beneficial amendments, the Assembly of First Nations is prepared to accept Bill C-30 and the companion political agreement based on the significant improvements they embody. The corresponding commitment of this government is to live up to each and every undertaking it has made therein.

The Assembly of First Nations is fully committed to cooperative, collaborative, and constructive engagement, and we trust that the Government of Canada is as well. That is our true path to progress on this and the many other issues that require our collective energy and efforts.

I want to make one final comment here before I turn it back to you, Mr. Chairman. By the way, I really appreciate your giving me a bit of extra time.

When we began this process, including when I stood before the country with the Right Honourable Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the then Minister of Indian Affairs Jim Prentice, we gave a commitment that we would undertake a collaborative process with the government. We committed ourselves to this process. We wanted to achieve success. We wanted something that would be a vast improvement over what we have now. We gave our word. We never intended to retreat from our word, and there should have been no question about our commitment from any quarter. Our commitment was real. Our word was true, and this is what we brought to the process--no more.

Thank you.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain that my riding includes the region of Nunavik, not Nunavut. There is a difference between the two territories, and I would not like to take the place of my Liberal colleague who represents Nunavut.

If I read correctly, this bill applies only to specific claims, but what are specific claims, in lay terms?

We do not need to look very far to learn that they originated in old grievances made by the first nations. These grievances have to do with negotiations Canada is required to conduct under historic treaties or the way the country has managed the money or other property belonging to the first nations, including reserve lands.

It is true that, since 1973, the government has had a policy and a process whereby it settles these claims through negotiation rather than in court.

However, there have been calls for measures to settle these disputes not just since 1973, but since July 1947, when a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons made this recommendation:

That a Commission, in the nature of the Claims Commission, be set up with the least possible delay to inquire into the terms of the Indian treaties...and to appraise and settle in a just and equitable manner any claims or grievances arising thereunder.

It was not until 1961 that another joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons again recommended that a claims commission be set up and Prime Minister Diefenbaker's cabinet approved draft legislation to create a claims commission. However, as luck would have it, this draft legislation was never introduced, because of an election call.

Nevertheless, Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson introduced Bill C-130, entitled the Indian Claims Act, in the House of Commons on December 14, 1963. He was determined to keep up with the true Conservatives. However, even back then, the government neglected to consult with the first nations, and the bill was withdrawn to allow time for consultation.

Another bill with the same title was introduced on June 21, 1965. June 21: what a lovely date. I can hardly wait for it to arrive. All kidding aside, guess what happened: yes, the bill died on the order paper when an election was called.

It was not until 1973 that further action was taken, with the establishment of the specific claims policy I mentioned at the very beginning of my remarks, which has been in effect to this day.

In the meantime, a government report on the administrative process for resolving specific claims was indeed published in 1979, citing conflicting duties and recommending the creation of an independent body which would in all respects be a specialized tribunal.

During the same period of time, the Penner report, published in 1983, called for a quasi-judicial process for managing failed negotiations and the neutral facilitation of negotiated settlements.

In 1990, in a report entitled “Unfinished Business: An Agenda for All Canadians in the 1990's”, a standing committee of the House of Commons reiterated the need for an independent claims body. At the same time, a joint working group bringing together representatives of Canada and the first nations—things are getting better—was looking at creating a permanent, legislative entity with tribunal-like powers, and finally in January 1991, the government created the Indian Specific Claims Commission under the federal Inquiries Act .

This commission was only intended as an interim measure, until a permanent independent body with adjudicative powers could be created. The commission remains in existence today, but continues to have only non-binding powers to make recommendations.

By 1996, the need was ever more pressing. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, whose report is commonly known as the Erasmus-Dussault report, conducted extensive consultations with first nations people across the country and recommended an independent tribunal to replace the ISCC and concentrate on land and treaty issues.

In 1998, the efforts of a joint Canada-first nations working group eventually led to Bill C-6, specific claims legislation which, this time, received royal assent, in November 2003. That legislation would have provided binding decision-making powers, including on those compensation amounts, estimated at $10 million, which first nations deemed insufficient. They rejected that. This is yet another fine example of consultation.

Here we are now, in 2007, with Bill C-30, at a time when the political landscape has evolved somewhat, at least I hope so. To my knowledge, there are already particular conditions in Quebec, such as a specific first nations association with their own culture and needs. However, this government seems, deliberately or not, to have forgotten to consult those first nations. If we look at the timing of this bill, it is almost certain that we will have an election before it reaches third reading stage. In the end, this bill will only have served electoral purposes, as was the case with Kelowna, in 2005, with Bill C-130, in 1965, or with the Diefenbaker draft bill, in 1962.

In the explanatory notes that accompany this bill—and that were given to us by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development—it is mentioned that the new approach is based on a wealth of reports, studies and recommendations made by first nations in the past. I emphasize the expression “in the past”. I am prepared to believe that federal officials did consult a few first nations leaders, as they did in 1963 with Bill C-130, for which they had to go back again for another consultation, or in 2003 with Bill C-6, for which they consulted a few first nations leaders. I sense that we will have to hear many more dissatisfied witnesses, as was the case with Bills C-44 and C-21, which is now before us and regarding which the government merely changed the cover page, even though it is well aware of the fact that the various first nations associations are unhappy about it.

I feel a little sheepish for overestimating the Prime Minister's vision and desire for transparency, a transparency that is less relevant than that of Quebec's dark ages under Duplessis, whom he reminds me of, if only because he is so blindly obstinate.

Like my Bloc Québécois colleagues, I will nevertheless support this bill, which will speed up the resolution of specific claims of first nations, a process that has been criticized since the 1940s, as I just described. It would still have to receive royal assent before an election, and all the first nations must agree to it.

How many times in the past have we heard the elected members of this government announce the support of provincial premiers or ministers, organizations or union leaders, when it was completely untrue? As some people would say, credibility goes hand in hand with accountability, which the government seems to be seriously lacking.

I would like to take this opportunity to offer my condolences to the Whapmagoostui community and the family and friends of David Masty, a prominent Cree man who went missing in the waters of Hudson's Bay over the weekend. He was seen as an elder throughout northern Quebec. He was a longtime friend of mine for whom I had a lot of respect.

It goes without saying that we have some concerns about this bill, for example, the fact that a single judge will render a binding decision about a third party's responsibility for paying without that party even being involved in the judgment. Quebec assumes a great deal of responsibility towards first nations, so the other provinces and this government could be more vulnerable to this type of judgment. Could the judge unilaterally require a third party to pay 30% of a first nations claim? Once again, what about the government's fiduciary responsibility?

The Bloc Québécois recognizes that certain specific claims are a strictly federal responsibility. Various House committees have been recommending the establishment of this tribunal for more than 60 years, in order to resolve specific first nations claims, as mentioned at the beginning of my speech, with the expression of concern and regret over the fact that this government is, once again, ignoring Quebec's distinctiveness.

Given the current structure of the judicial appointment process, a contested process if ever there was one, it is worrisome to think that a decision by this tribunal could not be appealed, and this goes for Quebec as well as for first nations, even though the decision is subject to judicial oversight.

This approach will have consequences that first nations really need to consider carefully. No further legal action will be possible. The surrender of land rights will give a clear title to third parties who own the land, and the decisions of the tribunal will resolve, once and for all, all specific claims.

Given that a province, which does not attend a land claim ruling, has no obligation to compensate the first nation, it is possible that the first nation will use the federal decision to demand compensation from that province. What happens, then, to the federal fiduciary responsibility?

The Bloc Québécois has always supported aboriginal peoples in their quest for justice and recognition of their rights. We recognize that the 11 first nations of Quebec are nations in their own right. We recognize that they are distinct peoples with the right to their own culture, language, customs and traditions as well as the right to direct the development of their own identity.

For this reason, aboriginal peoples must have the tools to develop their own identity, namely the right to self-government and the recognition of their rights. The right to self-determination was recognized by the Bloc Québécois in 1993 in its manifeste du Forum paritaire Québécois-Autochtones, in the future country of Quebec where we will also be masters of our own culture and vision for the future.

Like my Bloc Québécois colleagues, I reiterate my support for this bill, which will speed up resolution of the specific claims of the first nations that have been ongoing for 70 years. However, this is contingent upon my not discovering along the way, as is the case with many other declarations, that the declaration is as false as the consultation of first nations.

Naturally we will have the opportunity to examine the bill in the standing committee. I have the privilege of being a member of that committee where we can observe the childish antics of the members of this government, who have demonstrated a chronic inability to accept other people's ideas.

That is perhaps why they continue to call themselves the new government. There are too many issues that have failed to advance. It is like a plumber who has not understood that something other than water may pass through a pipe. Or an electrician who believes that his job is to make wires pass through this same pipe. This leads to confrontations, such as those the government will have on the international stage, which unfortunately would have reflected on the whole country had it not been for the generosity of the Bloc Québécois members who helped their colleagues go to defend Quebec's integrity in Bali.

What a bunch of half-wits we would have looked like without those few sensible persons who, democratically, have an undeniable right, especially because in terms of simple distribution, this government only represents some 30% of the Canadian population! Unfortunately, we have not yet avoided this reputation, which we must acknowledge is not a source of pride.

We have not forgotten this government's stand with respect to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It is enough to leave anyone involved with this bill perplexed.

We in northern Quebec certainly have our own concerns about the last James Bay agreement, which gave the Cree their share, although they are still awaiting the final agreement.

This is somewhat like Santa's sack, which he is holding in front of the beneficiaries, even though he has no intention of loosening the strings and handing out any presents. This is another point that reminds us of the dirty tricks of the Duplessis years.

It is like the hon. member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, who was elected based on his campaign promise to resolve the forestry crisis. He was elected at the beginning of September. The throne speech was presented at the end of October, but there was no mention of the forestry crisis. Nevertheless, he stood up and voted for that speech. This is not a problem; there are others just like him. In fact, one mayor in my riding stood up to protect this little sinking ship in a sea of Canadians—especially in the shadow of a big Albertan—who would include this topic in the next minibudget. Once again, they did not deliver.

Yet, his big Albertan, as a consolation prize, allows him to blather on, making a few silly remarks on occasion, getting a laugh out of the visitors' gallery, more often than not at his own expense. After all, there are still a few good little French Canadians in Quebec who have not yet managed to separate.

For all these reasons, the Bloc Québécois must remain ever vigilant and uncompromising on behalf of all Quebeckers, aboriginal and non-aboriginal. This always leads us to demand that Quebec officials be consulted in the same way as Canadian officials.

We will therefore vote in favour of this bill, so we may study it and propose amendments, as needed.

Patent Act

[The Speaker]

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

Bill C-45, an act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal liability of organizations)--Chapter No. 21.

Bill C-25, an act to modernize employment and labour relations in the public service and to amend the Financial Administration Act and the Canadian Centre for Management Development Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts--Chapter 22.

Bill C-6, 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--Chapter 23.

Bill C-459, an act to establish Holocaust Memorial Day--Chapter 24.

Bill C-55, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 2004--Chapter 25.

Bill C-37, an act to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts--Chapter 26.

Bill C-50, an act to amend the statute law in respect of benefits for veterans and the children of deceased veterans--Chapter 27.

Bill C-48, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (natural resources)--Chapter 28

Bill S-21, an act to amalgamate the Canadian Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors and The Canadian Association of Financial Planners under the name The Financial Advisors Association of Canada.

First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

They were young women and we could just not accept that. We were shocked. We asked them, “What can we do to help you?” And what they said to us was, “Let us live. Let us flourish. Let us share this country, which was ours before you came, in our own way”.

I share my colleagues' opinion that we Quebeckers behave better towards the Amerindians, the first nations.

I would never agree to a law that still told them what to do. “Under certain conditions, we can help you, but you will always be at our mercy, you will always be minors with relation to us”. That is demoralizing and humiliating. I understand why these people are doing all they can to try to tell us, “Oppose this bill”.

I repeat what was said earlier: we have had Bill C-6, C-7, C-19, ehough is enough. We have had enough of pushing around people who have a right to live, who have a right to all they posses, and who have the right to develop in their own way.

Once again, I am probably wasting my breath, because the majority is over there and the bill will pass. Still, we will have the pleasure of saying that we did our duty, that we said what we had to say, and that we have tried to speak up for the people who have asked for our help.

As for the communities in my riding, unfortunately, I do not have an opportunity to see them very often, because they are far away and the riding is large. Still, if I can help them develop in their own way, I will do what I can.

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, again today we are having an emotional debate. Having listened to the members for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, Drummond and Saint-Jean, I realize how true my feelings are, and how much they are shared by others.

The government is acting the way it always has. As a superior being telling others what to do and how to do it, rather than allowing the first nations to develop according to their potential, their interests and their abilities.

These are recognized peoples. Why are we always so paternalistic? Why not let them develop at their own speed and according to their own abilities? We have heard the comments on Bill C-6 on first nations specific claims, and C-7, and now on C-19. The first nations are on the verge of announcing that enough is enough, and of demanding the powers they need.

Not long ago, I and my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot had the opportunity to visit the Attikamek of Weymontachie. I was amazed at these brave people, who have done wonders despite being blocked at every turn.

I found it fantastic to see this community of 1,150 had managed to preserve its language and was teaching its children Attikamek up to grade three. This community is perfectly bilingual; both French and Attikamek are spoken.

We can learn something from this people, with their amazing will to survive. We cannot help but be amazed at their determination and their abilities.

The member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot shared my amazement when they told us that there are six seasons when you get 100 km north of La Tuque. The way they explain the different seasons is really extraordinary and well worth the trip just from the cultural point of view. The Attikemek have a very logical explanation for their six seasons.

The member for Saint-Jean has referred to his unforgettable memories of trips to aboriginal lands, and I can say the same.

What is regrettable is witnessing how hampered they are in their development, when that development would enrich all of society. It is not true that we stand to lose when we allow others to grow. The same applies to Canada as a whole. The day that Quebec can reach its full potential on its own, everyone will stand to gain. I am certain that if I develop my personal potential to the fullest, others gain something from it.

I am reading a book about this on that period. We took their land, yet the first nations saved us. Learning about history makes us realize to what extent we owe them our being here. It is painful to see them constantly being put down and told how and what to do, when we have so much to learn from them.

Forty years ago, I was coming back from La Tuque, where I was a manager for a company. I gave a ride to a hitchhiker, a man between 25 and 30, who looked pretty demoralized. I asked him what was wrong.

He said, “I have left my country”. I asked him where his country was. “It was located north and west from La Tuque, near Gagnon Lake. Our people lived there”, he said, and he added, “We had our customs, our language, our culture”. He went on to say, “I buried my father yesterday. He was the last one. He wanted to be buried with his ancestors. But I am leaving because our country is gone”.

That day, I told myself I did not know what I would have done in his place. I was the white man who had not allowed him to develop, while he had as much right as I did to do so, and his people and language had enriched my life.

I asked him if he resented me. His answer was, “Why would I? What I have lost is lost forever”. That is right. When we manage to pass legislation here that allows these people to survive, they enrich us at the same time as they enrich themselves.

When I was in Weymontachie with my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, we learned that, in the early summer, one young person a week, for three weeks in a row, had committed suicide.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it should be noted that we are debating a group of amendments at report stage of Bill C-19, but 54 out of 56 amendments put forward by the NDP have been disallowed and will not have the benefit of debate. We will not have the opportunity to re-craft the bill with language more acceptable to first nations on whose behalf we speak today. We were hoping the minister would stay and listen to our arguments because he did not listen to first nations in crafting this legislation.

I can say categorically that first nations across this country oppose Bill C-19 just as they oppose the rest of the minister's suite of bills, Bill C-7, Bill C-6 and Bill C-19. They viewed it as the reincarnation of the 1969 white paper which is something with which the current Prime Minister is very familiar.

We are debating two amendments to a bill that we in the NDP fundamentally oppose and that is the least crucial point. First nations oppose the bill as well.

I have in my hand a letter dated October 31, 2003 from the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations. He is prepared to admit and concede and put on the record that he too opposes Bill C-19 on behalf of first nations across the country. I will read it because it is important. To hear the minister and the parliamentary secretary tell it, the Assembly of First Nations wants the bill but we and a few first nations are somehow blocking it.

I would like to read from this recent letter from the legitimately elected leadership of first nations. He said simply:

As many of you know, an AFN Special Assembly was held in October at Squamish First Nation.

I was there, as was the member for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot. During that meeting, a resolution was put forward concerning the AFN's position on Bill C-6, Bill C-7 and Bill C-19. The resolution which the chief endorsed called for the rejection of Bill C-7, the rejection of Bill C-6, but proposed to support Bill C-19. I quote:

The resolution failed to receive support from the Chiefs.

In other words, the chiefs voted down support for Bill C-19. I want to be perfectly accurate here because this is critically important. The letter continues on:

We must, as an organization, remember that unity is often best measured.... And while we do not support Bill C-6, Bill C-7, and Bill C-19, the AFN's view respects and gives dignity to those First Nations who disagree.

Fair enough. It is as clear as the writing on the page that the Assembly of First Nations oppose it. Therefore it is the height of colonial style arrogance for the Minister of Indian Affairs, in the last days of his being the Minister of Indian Affairs, to shove the bill down the throats of aboriginal people. We have seen this consistent pattern with Bill C-7, Bill C-6 and now with Bill C-19.

Will those members never learn? Will they never listen to first nations people across this country who have said categorically and unanimously that they oppose this suite of legislation? They are offended and insulted by the manner in which it has been rammed down their throats without consultation. They reject it and we in the House of Commons should reject it as well.

I have been denied the right to move 54 significant amendments which were drafted not by me and my researchers, but were drafted by people in the Assembly of First Nations. Leadership in the aboriginal community fed us material. They provided us with changes that they found acceptable. We are not even going to get to debate those amendments.

I regret that this will probably be the last time I will have a chance to share my thoughts with the House on this very flawed bill. In the few minutes that I have, I want to pay tribute to the courageous leaders in first nations communities who have dedicated months and months, actually years now, standing up for their rights and opposing the strategy of the Liberal government.

I have to begin with Chief Roberta Jamieson of the Six Nations of the Grand River. She has tirelessly led a campaign to coerce the government into respecting aboriginal and treaty rights and to bypass this flawed package. Also, the vice-chief for Ontario for the Assembly of First Nations, Charles Fox, representing all of the first nations in Ontario, is vehemently opposed to this bill. The vice-chief for the Assembly of First Nations for Quebec, Ghislain Picard, is vehemently opposed to this legislation and has said so categorically in print and verbally.

The vice-chief of the Assembly of First Nations for Manitoba, Grand Chief Francis Flett, is opposed. The grand chief of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, Dennis Whitebird, is opposed. The grand chief for the Southern Chiefs Organization, Margaret Swan, is opposed. Stewart Phillip, the grand chief of the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs is opposed. Stan Beardy from the Nishnawbe Aski nation in northern Ontario is also opposed. Leon Jourdain represents the treaty 3 people in the minister's own riding, the 54 first nations in the minister's own riding. They are unanimously opposed. They do not want it.

What is so difficult to understand? Where do the Liberals get off being so arrogant in thinking that without consultation, without cooperation and without the participation of first nations they are going to fundamentally change the way the first nations are supposed to govern themselves? It is the very antithesis of self-governance to impose government structures on a free, independent and sovereign people. It makes me mad just thinking about it.

I attended the Assembly of First Nations national assembly in October and the Squamish first nation of British Columbia and I saw the debate. There are, legitimately, first nations leaders from British Columbia who support Bill C-19 which is fair enough. However there is nothing stopping them from moving forward with the issues we find in this bill without national legislation because of the 633 first nations, the majority of which are overwhelmingly opposed.

I also would be remiss if I did not mention the courageous battle and the energetic, enthusiastic actions of my colleague, mon frère autochtone, my brother in aboriginal issues, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

Both of us had the honour of being recognized by the Assembly of First Nations for the positions we have taken on this bill. Both of us were given spiritual names, which is an honour that I will never forget and an honour that I will value all of my life. I could not have been more proud if I had received the Order of Canada when we were brought before the Assembly of First Nations and thanked.

We were told it is a rare thing when non-aboriginal people actually get it for a second, actually understand the issue of sovereignty and self-governance and the inherent rights of a people to be independent and sovereign. My colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot has no problem with that concept. I learned that concept more recently perhaps. We were both very honoured and very proud to work hand in hand with the people in the Assembly of First Nations.

I also want to recognize some of the elders, the clan mothers of the Oneida, the Cayuga, the Mohawk and Six Nations who came out night after night to represent the interests of their people. They reminded us that frankly the eurocentric view of the government does not honour and respect tradition, culture and heritage. The clan mothers reminded us that we must think seven generations back and seven generations forward before we introduce this kind of change. My thanks go to them. They have my never-ending respect for the work they have done in their representations.

We should defeat this bill in its entirety. We should go back to the drawing board. We should work with respect and cooperation to craft self-governance legislation, as the emancipation of aboriginal people is the civil rights challenge of our time.

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak to the amendments to Bill C-19 proposed by my colleagues in the New Democratic Party.

I was very disappointed to see that, of all of the proposed amendments, you have only selected two for debate. It seemed to me that while we were examining this bill—and a controversial one it is—we would have been able to revisit the debate on some of the truly problematic elements.

First, as we begin, I would like to point out that, contrary to what the hon. parliamentary secretary said a few moments ago, there is no unanimity on this bill, none at all. There are positive things, but there are so many negative ones. It was the minister's responsibility to convince the first nations that the positive elements could outweigh the negative ones in this bill, or else show some openness to substantive amendments. In fact, there are many problems in this bill. It has missed its mark.

A few weeks ago, I attended the special chiefs assembly, held by the Assembly of First Nations in Vancouver. This bill was the subject of a heated debate. Some of the first nations supported the bill because it might mean an improvement. Others, the vast majority in fact, rejected the bill. The results of the vote were clear. If my memory serves me, 103 first nations chiefs were opposed and 59 were in favour. When there is more opposition to a bill than support for it, it is because the minister did not do his job in several respects.

First, he tried to convince some first nations, the most developed ones, that this bill might have merit. He forgot about the others. He forgot that most of the 638 first nations in Canada are experiencing real problems on a daily basis, problems such as poverty, multiple addictions, the lack of management and development resources, and access to drinking water. These problems are major ones. Young aboriginals are also experiencing social problems.

Ten years ago, when the Liberals talked about improving the status of first nations, something should have been done. However, instead of talking about it, instead of proposing concrete measures, they chose to engage in petty politics, to try to convince some at the expense of others; in short, to divide and conquer. Now, the vast majority of the 638 first nations in Canada do not want this bill to pass.

They do not want it primarily because this bill is part of a trilogy. There was Bill C-6 on specific claims resolution. Then, there was Bill C-7. No one knows what happened to this bill or where it is. I hope it stays lost. Then there was Bill C-19. The minister himself appeared before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources to tell us that this was a complete package.

When he did present us with Bill C-7, it was the most odious bill possible for the first nations. He claimed to be replacing the odious Indian Act, which has been in place for 130 years. In the end, all that was accomplished was to retain the Indian Act, which treated the first nations like children, while adding on some elements of colonialism. This was not a good start to any demonstration of the virtues of the trilogy.

Then he turned up with Bill C-6. Yesterday, convinced of his inability to sell us on its validity, he imposed it on us. He is imposing upon the first nations the amendments proposed by the Senate on specific claims, which are now subject to a $10 million ceiling, whereas they average out at $18 million, judging from the situation in Saskatchewan in recent years.

He is using time allocation to shove this bill down our throats, once again thwarting the legitimate aspirations and ignoring the legitimate objections of the first nations. Here we are faced with Bill C-19, which is an attempt to push through something that no one will buy.

Why not focus the same amount of energy, courage, perseverance and political savvy on moving real things ahead? In the case of the first nations, this means speeding up negotiations on self-government. Enough of the apartheid mentality, enough of colonialism, let them speed up negotiations on self-government. That is the only way to ensure that the first nations can develop in keeping with what they are, what they want, and what they aspire to. Is that clear enough?

In order for a nation to develop, it must possess one main tool: government. The first nations have been calling for that government for ages. Their entitlement to it is recognized not just nationally but internationally. Even the United Nations have said that the first nations constituted nations. As nations, they therefore have the capacity to determine their own futures, to put in place their own government, to determine their own policies, their own way of doing things in accordance with their culture, their language and their traditions.

There still exists this paternalistic, colonial, condescending reflex. We thought this reflex had disappeared years ago with the elimination of apartheid in South Africa. We thought that was a thing of the past. Here we are with a bill that would still have us control the first nations.

The minister, in his quest to exercise control, is so driven that he forgets some things and says whatever comes to mind. On Tuesday, in response to questions I had asked him, he said, “We appointed the present national chief to the commission that exists today”. They appointed the head of the taxation commission. The minister thinks he has such extraordinary powers that he told us, here in this House, just check Hansard, “The national chief himself was appointed by the government”. He said that Phil Fontaine was appointed by the government. It takes a narrow-minded, power-hungry megalomaniac to think like that.

He is so power-hungry that in Bills C-6, C-7, and C-19, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is vested with all the discretionary power. He can appoint the members of commissions or institutions, he can reject or accept first nations specific claims. He can also say to first nations, “You have decided one thing, I will decide another”. He is so self-important he thinks this power is fully and completely his. He says, “I myself appointed the national chief of first nations”. Who does this minister take himself for? He has been in politics for 14 years, and it is time that he left.

This man wreaks havoc. He has become a megalomaniac. Everyone knows that the chief of the first nations is elected by the chiefs of the 638 first nations. He is elected by his peers. Neither the government nor the minister has anything to do with it. He must be really full of himself.

Specific Claims Resolutions Act

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I apologize to the hon. member, but it being 5:15 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the motion relating to the Senate amendments to Bill C-6.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Madam Speaker, the member said that the AFN has opposed the bill. Certainly the AFN has opposed the bill. The Senate also opposed the bill. It is not the type of bill that looks after the interests of our aboriginal people.

Our aboriginal people are saying once again, and they have been saying it for many years, that they have not been treated fairly and equally.

When the member states that the national chief is opposed to Bill C-6, Bill C-7 and Bill C-19, all of them, that tells us that the bill itself is an injustice to the aboriginal people. That is how the aboriginal people feel.

Does the hon. member not think it is about time that we sat around the table and we listened to the recommendations of the aboriginal people? Should we not open our minds to that for a change instead of closing the door on them every time?

For years and years we have been closing the door on the aboriginal people. For once we should open the door and let them speak. Let the aboriginal people have an opportunity to have their say. It is about time.

[Rick Laliberte, Liberal, Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, on October 31 the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations stated that the AFN must and will vigorously oppose the enactment of all three bills, referring to Bill C-6, Bill C-7 and Bill C-19.

In her presentation the hon. member emphasized the relationship of the aboriginal people and the aboriginal nations of this country. I would like to ask her if she would agree with the terminology that Canada is a treaty nation. This nation was created by peace treaties. These peace treaties may have the gift to give world peace, because the world is looking for peace. That gift might be here. It might be embedded in the very treaties on which this nation rests its laurels and its certainties.

We go to bed every night as proud Canadians. However it was the aboriginal nations, through their agreements with the crown after its differences with France and Spain, which engaged by treaty to create a treaty nation based on peace and friendship.

Is the member aware that the national chief stated on October 31 that the AFN must and will vigorously oppose the bill?

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I will not be speaking that long, as the hon. member from the Bloc will also be speaking. It is an honour to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-6.

My friend and colleague, the member for Perth--Middlesex, spoke on this important legislation earlier today and I yield to his knowledge on this issue. He has done remarkable service for our caucus on this file and I want to take this opportunity to thank him for all his hard work. He has been keeping our caucus well informed and he is the expert in our party on this issue.

What I do know, and what everyone in the House knows, is that we have a special obligation to our first nations people. Each and every one of us do, on both sides of the House. All first nations, as was stated by the Bloc member, are against this bill. It goes against their democracy, and we must not have that.

This has happened for hundreds of years to the first nations people. It is time that the government straightened this out once and for all. They are special. They were here before any of our people historically came upon the grounds in Canada. For the power of the first nations, they should have their own autonomy.

I was really shocked when I heard the hon. member on the government side refer to them as special interest groups. They are not special interest groups. They are special people as well as being Canadians. They do not mind being Canadians, but they are first nations. There is no question that they have special interests and Bill C-6 does not address those interests. They want to look after their children.

It is time now, once and for all, for all of us to get together and do what is right. I would like to have seen the motion that was sent to the Bloc member. Every member in the House should see it.

I am not a historian and I recognize that correcting the injustices of the past sometimes involves a very long and arduous process. Not only has our nation evolved, it has expanded, and some of the claims being made by our first nations are where some of our greatest cities now stand. The land is there. There is land that they owned, land that was theirs, and there is land still there that should be theirs. The maps of our history have been replaced by the maps of the present day. They take the maps of the present day, but they do not look historically at what belongs to the first nations.

There is no question that historic injustices have been imposed upon our first nation people in Canada. There is no question that we must ensure we can adequately reconcile the disputes of the past by the means of the present. That is the purpose of this legislation, but I am deeply concerned, as are all of our people on this side of the House, about Bill C-6. Senators as well are very concerned because they have brought forward amendments. When that happens, we know there is an injustice in the bill that has been brought forward.

Like many of the bills before the House, there is much room for improvement. As it is currently written, Bill C-6 might not fix the very problems it hopes to correct and that is why they have sent their motion. They are saying that they oppose this bill, that they have an alternative motion that should be dealt with. We have received additional guidance from our friends in other places, as I have stated, and we would be wise to consider the amendments from the Senate.

My friend from Perth--Middlesex offered his thoughts on possible changes, when he spoke to this legislation earlier today. I echo his comments and I urge the House to listen to his compassionate reasoning. I believe Bill C-6 might not be capable of addressing some of the additional factors that can be a crucial part of the claim.

At the present time a claim can include treaty rights with respect to hunting and fishing. In New Brunswick where I come from we have seen what can result when these important considerations are not properly dealt with. We have seen the violence that can result when a decision is forced on the community. We have seen the dangers of not taking the care necessary to correct the longstanding problems that still exist.

Certainly the Supreme Court and the Department of Indian Affairs have dealt with cases of all kinds. Some types of cases involve cultural values and practices that can complicate the process but must be respected. Bill C-6, I am told, might not properly acknowledge treaty breaches of that kind. These types of rights have been at the very core of a number of first nations communities and we must deal with them very carefully for fear of affecting those communities and hurting our first nations people.

The story of our first nations is one about promises made by governments both in the past and in the present. The steps that we take must acknowledge those promises. For many first nations communities, the land at their disposal is crucial to their standard of living and for their families. I do not think that everyone realizes that, like all of us, they have families. They want to look after their families. The land is crucial to their standard of living. They have to have their land.

There are serious questions as to whether Bill C-6 will adequately protect the rights of those whose claims fall through the cracks of this legislation, and it will not. We know that it will not protect them. Given the complicated relationship that exists between the government and our first nations, the Supreme Court has made it clear that a fiduciary relationship exists. That fiduciary relationship ensures that those who have entered into commitments with the government are not taken advantage of by the government. We should make sure that never happens.

We must take this duty very seriously if we consider this legislation and its effects. We must acknowledge that we have a special responsibility, and I say that right from the heart, to protect the interests of our first nations. I am not, as I have said, an expert in these matters. I know there are those who have spent their professional lives working for solutions to these problems. I know in my heart that something must be done and I know that the House must play a leading role. I have to say that I do not have all of the answers, but I think it is time that we started to listen to members of the first nations.

The consideration of the bill lets us revisit the mistakes that have been made in the past. Many, many mistakes have been made with our first nations. Indeed, the entire issue of first nations claims stems from oversights and mistakes that occurred when our country was still very young. Let us not make further mistakes in correcting these injustices.

As I stated at the beginning, the first nations should have their own autonomy. All first nations are against the bill, as was stated by the member from the Bloc, and it goes against democracy as it is stated right now. If it goes against democracy, that is not what we are about in the House of Commons.

The first nations have contributed to this country. They have not always wanted a handout from any of us. They want to live their lives on their land that they own, that is theirs, that they founded, and we should make sure that they can. I never want to hear anyone in this House ever refer to the first nations as a special interest group. They are founders of our country. We owe it to them to do what is right for them and that is exactly what we are here for.

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

Mr. Speaker, there has always been controversy ever since Bill C-7 was introduced, also Bill C-6, Bill C-19 and Bill C-19, which took 10 years of development by the first nations people. They agreed to it and then things changed dramatically.

As far as that party is concerned, there is direction from a leader and the major critic on Indian affairs in misguiding the members of his community. What he is really advocating is that the status quo be maintained with the first nations people organizations. He says that there are--

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to ask a question.

What has just happened is absolutely shameful, shameful beyond words.

The member who has just spoken may not have a crystal ball, but the facts are there. Throughout consideration of Bill C-6, all of the first nations were opposed to this bill, along with all the opposition parties.

Everything in this bill is anti-democratic. I wonder what the hon. member is doing in this House when he denies the first nations' right to be masters of their own house, and to take steps to regain the independence this government has taken from them.

I would like to hear the hon. member's thoughts on this resolution, which the first nations have sent to my colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

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

Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member says is all very well, but the least one can say is that his crystal ball is very cloudy.

He has painted a very limited picture of reality. This matter is causing tensions between communities. No conciliation is possible in such an environment. As we speak, the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador and the Native Women of Quebec are meeting in a general assembly in Rivière-du-Loup, and they are angry.

They have just sent us a resolution in which they confirm the opposition of the chiefs of the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador. They also say in their resolution that they are formally informing the federal government that the first nations of Quebec and Labrador will take all political, legal and administrative measures necessary to ensure that Bill C-6, Bill C-7 and Bill C-19, do not interfere with the autonomy and development of the first nations.

Let us stop talking about conciliation: the ink is not even dry on the resolution from the Assembly of the First Nations of Quebec and Labrador and Native Women, a document we received just moments ago. They are reaffirming their strong opposition to the three bills, especially the government's attitude as demonstrated in Bill C-19.

[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?

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

Yes, he is the minister of backlogs and he will continue to be the minister of backlogs.

In this backlog, 48% of the specific claims are from first nations in British Columbia. That is almost half. The most claims from any region in Canada are in the province of British Columbia. First nations in British Columbia have the most to gain from the establishment of a truly independent, fair and timely process. And they have the most to lose if the bill before us is passed without further significant amendments, which we have come forward with in the past.

Bill C-6 will institutionalize the federal government's conflict of interest in judging claims against itself and will authorize and reward the Minister of Indian Affairs for indefinite delay in deciding whether or not to accept specific claims for negotiations. It will institutionalize the conflict of interest in the whole process.

The Alliance of Tribal Nations is outraged by the failure of the minister to consult with first nations on Bill C-6, by the speed with which Bill C-6 was rushed through second reading, and by the fast tracking of this legislation through the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources.

As members may remember, only one day was allocated for briefs from first nations, with their presentations being limited to from 5 to 10 minutes, and with only 10 to 20 minutes for questions and answers. That was not enough. If we wanted to listen to all the parties involved, one day, with just 5 to 10 minute presentations, was not good enough.

The Alliance of Tribal Nations has asked that I oppose this legislation vigorously. That is why I am participating in the debate along with my other colleagues, who have already given a good version of this whole situation.

In conclusion, I would like to say that the Canadian Alliance strongly supports the speedy resolution of claims. However, this bill will not speed up the resolution of claims and particularly not the larger and more costly claims. The Senate recognized all the main problems with the bill, which we in the Canadian Alliance pointed out during earlier debate in the House. While the Senate amendments marginally improve the bill, they do not go far enough to rectify the fundamental flaws in the legislation. We therefore stand opposed to the Senate report and to the final passing of this bill.

However, I believe that this exercise of participation in the debate is an exercise in futility. It is an exercise in vain. First, the government does not listen. Second, we know that the House is going to prorogue soon for the preparation of the incoming leader. Or maybe the House will adjourn soon and all this legislation will be pending and will go into the waste bin eventually. I will just say for the sake of analogy that if we have to demolish something and there is a bulldozer next to us but we continue building something with the hope that it will not be demolished, we know that if the bulldozer is there our building will be demolished. The work we do will not be fruitful.

I am concerned that the government is not serious about specific claims settlement. I still believe that if the government listens to the official opposition, to the other concerned bodies and to first nations, it can come up with some proposed amendments. The government should listen. That would improve the quality of the bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to participate in the debate on Bill C-6, an act to establish the Canadian centre for independent resolution of first nations specific claims.

After seven months Bill C-6 has returned to the House with amendments from the Senate. The Senate has recognized all of the main problems of the bill which my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance, the official opposition, pointed out during earlier debate in the House.

While I support these few Senate amendments, my colleagues in the official opposition and I feel they do not go far enough to rectify the fundamental flaws in the legislation. Personally, I do not subscribe to the logic that a bad law is better than no law at all. It is incumbent upon the government to produce legislation that furthers the interests of aboriginal people and the general Canadian public. With Bill C-6 the Liberals have failed in that duty.

I will now speak to the specifics of the bill. On the definition, specific claims as opposed to comprehensive claims deal with the grievances over Canada's alleged failure to discharge specific obligations to aboriginal groups, usually in relation to treaty rights or undertakings given by the federal crown.

Bill C-6 provides for the filing, negotiation and resolution of specific claims and makes related amendments to other acts. The stated purpose of the proposed act is to establish the Canadian centre for the independent resolution of first nations specific claims. The centre will be composed of a chief executive officer, a commission and a tribunal with the commission and tribunal playing the most significant roles in the day to day process of dealing with specific claims.

In 1998 a joint Canada-Assembly of First Nations working group set out a draft legislative proposal for a reformed specific claims process which included some key features. One was the elimination of Canada's conflict of interest through an independent legislative mechanism to report directly to Parliament and first nations. Another was to establish both a commission to facilitate negotiations and a tribunal to resolve disputes in case of failed negotiations. It also included a tribunal authority to make binding decisions on the validity of claims, compensation criteria and compensation of awards, subject to a budgetary allocation of settlement funds over a five year period.

Its keys features also included the definition of issues within the jurisdiction of the commission, the independent funding for first nations research and negotiations, and a joint review after five years to include consideration of outstanding matters such as lawful obligations arising from aboriginal rights.

That was the model legislative initiative upon which Bill C-6 was to be built. The question is, what happened after that? Instead of this model, the bill before us has the following six conditions. The appointment process for the commission and the tribunal maintains the conflict of interest that Canada has as the federal government is the sole appointing authority. The tribunal's decisions may be appealed to the courts. There is a cap on the dollar amount of claims to be dealt with. The review of the entire process is only binding on the federal government. There is no incentive for the federal government to move the claim settlement process along in a timely fashion. Last, the types of specific claims subjected to this process are severely restricted.

Under the present system Canada is the judge and jury at the same time. If enacted, Bill C-6 will do nothing to alter this situation. The title of the bill suggests that the newly created body will be independent but that could not be further from the truth.

How could the new claim resolution centre be truly independent if the government appoints all the commission and tribunal members? There is a compromising situation. How could it be independent? Those appointments include the CEO, chief commissioner and chief adjudicator with only token input from the first nations.

Suspicion about partiality, patronage and conflict of interest will inevitably plague the centre, destroying its legitimacy in the eyes of the first nations. Not only will it not be independent, but there are indicators that the perception would be it is not completely independent. This is a fatal flaw for independence is essential to the successful working of the centre. Independence must exist in fact and be perceived to exist by all parties as well as by the public.

Under the proposed legislation, not only does the Minister of Indian Affairs have the final word on who will work on and decide specific claims, he or she is also directly involved in the claims process itself. Once a claim is filed, the commission must provide a copy with supporting documentation to the minister. After preparatory meetings the commission must then suspend proceedings until the minister decides whether or not to accept the claim for negotiation. I do not see any independence of this body in its complete working with respect to these claims.

Bill C-6 permits the minister to consider a claim indefinitely. There are no time limits that must be obeyed. No independent body has the authority to say that enough is enough.

Allowing the minister, who is a party, to determine the next step in the proceedings essentially takes carriage of proceedings away from the claimant and the centre and places it with the respondent.

Under the proposed legislation, the commission lacks the authority to compel all parties to act. Nowhere is this more evident than in the absence of authority to compel the minister to respond to a claimant band in a timely manner.

Now, as for the cost components, as my colleague from Saskatoon—Wanuskewin noted earlier, the Senate amendment increasing the tribunal cap from $7 million to $10 million is little more than tokenism. The requirement for claimants to waive their rights to compensation above the specified cap set out in clause 32 in order to obtain a tribunal ruling on the validity of their claim has been singled out by critics as the most significant flaw in this bill. We pointed this out during the previous debates, but the government did not listen to those objections.

We just have to look at the cost to the federal and provincial governments of previously settled specific claims and we can see why aboriginal groups are up in arms over this provision of Bill C-6. Documentation related to specific claims settlements in Saskatchewan since the mid-1980s shows that the treaty land entitlement class of specific claims, asserting that Canada did not provide the reserve land promised under treaty, resulted in payments of $539 million. Individual settlements ranged from a low of about $3.1 million to a high of $62.4 million. The average is over $18.5 million.

Other specific claims in Saskatchewan cost a total of about $128.6 million, with individual settlements ranging from just over $0.4 million to $34.5 million. Saskatchewan is only one example. Counsel for the Indian Claims Commission indicates that of the 120 claims the ICC has dealt with, only three were settled for less than $7 million. According to the Assembly of First Nations, in the past three years, 8 of the 14 claims paid out by the federal government were for amounts over $7 million.

Therefore, it strikes me as extremely disingenuous for the government to try to cap settlements at $7 million. It does not make sense. Based on the Saskatchewan settlements, the amended cap is little better. The member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin proposed an amendment in committee to increase the cap to $25 million. If that amendment had been accepted, far more specific claim cases might make it before the proposed claim body. That was a sensible amendment, but unfortunately it was not accepted.

Cases take longer and cost more when dragged through the courts, having the effect of delaying the time when a final decision is brought down, and therefore postponing the date at which the government is required to pay out a claim for a decision made in favour of the claimant. Therefore, the imposition of a cap on the tribunal looks much more like a strategic stalling tactic by the government than an example of fiscal prudence.

Who is standing up for the taxpayers in this new process? Who is standing up for the taxpayers? Bill C-6 will discourage the use of the less costly alternative dispute mechanisms and will thereby waste taxpayers' money, for there is no prudence and no diligence. I am concerned about that.

Now, about the backlog, one of the primary goals of the bill is to provide for speedier resolution of claims. According to the Department of Indian Affairs Specific Claims Branch, between April 1, 1970 and December 31, 2001, only 230 of 1,123 specific claims were settled. A small fraction of the remaining claims, 466, were in various stages of review, while 119 were in active or inactive negotiation, 181 had been closed or were found to establish no lawful obligation, 33 had been resolved administratively, 50 were in active litigation, and 44 were before the Indian Claims Commission.

The picture is clear. This legislation does nothing to eliminate the specific claims backlog. We will be facing the same backlog with the same pace for the settlement of the claims, so there is no improvement in that. Bill C-6 in fact offers numerous opportunities for the government to delay and stonewall with impunity. It will not ensure a faster claims resolution process. The Senate committee examining Bill C-6 recognized this to be the case. I myself noted this flaw in the bill when I was speaking last time in the House, yet the government has done nothing to correct this serious flaw despite its stated intentions.

Regarding the reactions of B.C. first nations, Bill C-6 has been met by opposition from aboriginal groups across Canada, including those in my home province of British Columbia. The British Columbia Alliance of Tribal Nations, representing 23 member first nations, feels that Bill C-6 completely fails to meet the bill's stated principle, namely, to establish a process for the resolution of specific claims that is independent, fair and timely.

On those three counts, the government has let down the aboriginal people. The process is not independent. It is not fair. It will not be timely in its operations. Aboriginal people argue that it will instead create a process that is even worse than the current flawed process, which has over 500 claims sitting in a backlog awaiting the minister's decision on whether or not they are acceptable for negotiation.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Madam Speaker, the principle of the new system that Bill C-6 proposes is very simple. Both the Government of Canada and the first nations would much rather negotiate than litigate.

Having such a centre as proposed by Bill C-6 means first nations would have an effective means to deal with outstanding grievances, thus helping to remove an enormous roadblock to economic development in communities that we all care very much about. Investors could proceed with confidence and first nations could negotiate from positions of strength.

By supporting this proposal we are fulfilling a pledge to have in place the authority to facilitate, arbitrate or mediate disputes that may arise between Canada and the first nations in the land claims negotiations process, and binding decisions rendered on the acceptance or the rejection of such claims for negotiation.

With this proposed act we are in addition helping to fulfill the vision of Canada's aboriginal action plan that we put in place in response to the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, something again that is long overdue for action on those files.

That vision sees increased quality of life for aboriginal people and the promotion of self-sufficiency through partnerships, revenue generation, responsiveness to community needs and values, and a place for aboriginal people with other Canadians.

By effectively dealing with outstanding claims through this new system we would help to realize this vision by clearing the way for greater economic development of first nations communities. The benefits for aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities alike should be obvious to everyone. Experience shows that partnership between first nations, the private sector, corporations, governments and communities benefit the economic health and prosperity of the entire community.

Resources now used in settling claims in the current adversarial system can be saved and better applied to this economic development for the good of all. This is truly a benefit for aboriginal and non-aboriginal sectors working together as it benefits all Canadians.

We realize it is not perfect. Few pieces of legislation are actually perfect. This is a big move toward trying to solve some of the ongoing problems of the aboriginal communities. The other two pieces of legislation that are still to go through the House together would very much help to ensure that the aboriginal community has a strong and positive future in Canada.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to rise to speak in support of Bill C-6, the specific claims resolution act to establish the new claims resolution centre, something that has been many years in the coming.

The bill is a cornerstone of the government's overall strategy to have a new system to resolve specific claims which will be more efficient than the process we have now and give first nations the tools of self-sufficiency that will enable them to play a fuller part in the life of this country.

Having heard the concerns of first nations about different aspects of the bill, parliamentarians in both the House and the Senate have acted to make constructive changes to the proposal in light of these criticisms.

Most recently, the Senate put forth a number of important amendments to proposed Bill C-6 that would directly address the concerns of first nations and render the proposal a better piece of legislation, something that we all want to see. This, in turn, should give first nations the confidence to use the claims resolution centre as outlined in this new legislation.

It is comforting to see that the parliamentary process has worked and is responsive to the concerns of the first nations and that better legislation is derived from the cooperative efforts of all stakeholders and all parliamentarians.

To refresh people's memories, the proposal would have a chief executive officer, who would handle the day to day administrative matters of the centre, as well as a commission to facilitate negotiations on land claims by first nations and a tribunal to resolve disputes involving those claims.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for Windsor—St. Clair for a very thorough analysis. Being a lawyer himself, he added to the debate some of the legal context. Many of us lay people have a gut feeling that something is fundamentally wrong with the bill, but it is reassuring to learn that there a basis in law for our objections and for the cautions and concerns that were raised in the House of Commons, at committee stage and more recently in the Senate.

One of the specific issues which has come to light in the Senate debate, because we are technically here to debate the amendments from the Senate, is the conflict of interest that has to exist by virtue of the fiduciary obligations of the crown in its relationship between the crown and first nations and the fact that first nations have to come forward and make claims for resolution to their specific claims to the government. Therefore, it is a clear conflict of interest.

I will cite a court ruling as well. When there is a fiduciary obligation, the Supreme Court has ruled in Guerin v. The Queen that the highest standard of conduct must apply. With first nations, when the crown is acting unilaterally in its fiduciary capacity, it must be held to the highest standards because the honour of the crown, and I heard the hon. member mention the honour of the crown, is at stake in such matters. That was the findings in Guerin v. The Queen, a recent Supreme Court ruling.

In that context, could the member share his views on the fact that Bill C-6 imposes a cap of $10 million? Notwithstanding the denial of the minister, there is a cap, or a ceiling, on any claim. Would he agree with me that it puts a first nations community, a band, in an uncomfortable and an untenable situation?

If the value of a claim is say, within the range of $10 million to $15 million, in that ballpark figure, and the option is to go ahead with the specific claims process and get a relatively quicker resolution or to carry on in the courts for another 10 or 15 years and spend millions of dollars in the court, the temptation will be to settle for an amount of money less than the real value of the claim.

Given the urgent fiscal crisis in which many first nations communities find themselves, the chief, council and the elders will say that they could get $8 million, $9 million or $10 million today or within a reasonable time, or they can go another 15 years in this mind numbing battle with an obstinate government that refuses to settle, spend another $5 million in legal fees and maybe get their $15 million down the road.

Would the hon. member agree with the fairness of the pressure, the economic violence is what I call it, and the coercion associated with having to make that kind of choice?

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Madam Speaker, I believe we are faced with two issues today as far as Bill C-6 is concerned. I would address them in the following order. First, the fact that the government once again has used time allocation, a form of closure, to limit debate on what is a crucial issue for the first nations.

I just looked up some numbers and we know this is not the first time the government has used time allocation. In fact I did a comparison with Prime Minister Mulroney's administration from 1984 to 1993. That particular government used closure and time allocation 72 different times, which was heavily criticized by the current Prime Minister and his party throughout that entire period of time. It was a gross exception in the number of times that time allocation or closure was used.

As of today this government, which has been in power from 1993 to 2003, has used closure and time allocation 85 times. Therefore the hypocrisy of the government's position is quite clear. It is particularly shameful in terms of its conduct that it is being used on this particular bill and being used against the first nations.

It is quite clear, from our responsibilities as a legislature, that we have been directed in a series of cases by the Supreme Court of Canada on what our responsibilities are toward the first nations with regard to consultation and taking into account their position on legislation that affects them directly.

The first nations have been very clear and absolute, and I mean absolute in that term. They have been absolutely unanimous in their opposition to the legislation because it is a perpetuation of the paternalistic approach that we have used, Europeans have used, toward first nations since we came to the country and that Parliament historically has used in various pieces of legislation, most notably the Indian Act.

The proposed legislation and the approach by the government perpetuates that position and that attitude. The first nations have attacked the bill and have made it clear that they do not support it. They have a number of specific reasons, other than the basic approach, but they oppose the very contents of the bill.

The fact is that the House is being given the opportunity to once again say to the first nations people that we recognize what we have done wrong historically, that we will take another look at this and we will deal with claims on a nation by nation basis.

The fact that the other place has given us that opportunity is one that I would urge all my colleagues in the House to take advantage of today and when we come to vote on the bill.

I will use as one example, and we have heard this from some of the other members today, the opposition that has come from the first nations. This is just on one aspect of the bill, which is whether there is an independent commission here. I think anyone who has looked at the bill with any kind of objectivity realizes that there is not an independent commission.

A group, formerly known as the Aboriginal Rights Coalition, called KAIROS gathered a petition with 50,000 signatures from across the country. When it was brought to Parliament it did not quite meet the technical requirements, so it could not be filed in the House according to our standing orders. What it did then was ask the Prime Minister to receive it in order for him to perhaps finally understand the opposition among the first nations to the proposed legislation. To date, he has not agreed to do that.

I have a list of all the first nations and associations among the first nations that have opposed the bill. They have signed on saying that this commission is not independent. They are saying that we are going to have a commission appointed by one side, the Government of Canada, to arbitrate and make decisions on land claims to the exclusion of the other party, in this case the first nations. The list is quite lengthy.

Today, we are faced with time allocation. It is a shameful experience to say that we are part of a Parliament that would do that. It is even more so, when we look at the legal and constitutional position that we are in vis-à-vis the first nations. The Supreme Court of Canada has made it clear what our responsibility is with regard to consultation.

When this bill originally came forward to the aboriginal affairs standing committee in the House, it got very short consideration. There were at least 30 first nations and other organizations who wished to be heard and were not given that opportunity. In the other place, although the committee did hear some witnesses, once the amendments which are before us today were placed before the committee, there was no further evidence taken or interventions heard from first nations witnesses.

In fact, there have been no consultations on these amendments either here in the House of Commons or in the other place. The significance of that is that since 1982, since we repatriated the Constitution and introduced the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we now have special responsibilities to the first nations.

If we were to review the Supreme Court of Canada's decisions addressing this consultation process with respect to the aboriginal peoples, we would get some sense of the scope and the magnitude of the consultation that is required. It is very clear that the Supreme Court expects us to conduct that consultation at every opportunity and with regard to every single piece of legislation affecting the first nations. It is not something on which we have a choice. We must absolutely do this.

There is a larger principle, which affects not just the first nations, of democratic government that was outlined by the Supreme Court in the reference regarding the secession of Quebec, something to the effect that “a functioning democracy requires a continuous process of discussion”. We have that at the larger level as well.

The Corbiere decision by the Supreme Court of Canada elaborated on that and would affect the first nations directly. It stated:

The principle of democracy underlies the Constitution and the Charter, and is one of the important factors governing the exercise of a court's remedial discretion. It encourages remedies that allow the democratic process of consultation and dialogue to occur. Constitutional remedies should encourage the government to take into account the interests, and views, of minorities.

With respect to aboriginal peoples, the requirement for discussion goes beyond just those basic philosophic principles. It is specific, real and justiciable. Aboriginal people are not one of the many minorities, but a people with special rights under our Constitution. That is something the government has forgotten.

Under section 91, subparagraph 24, the federal Parliament was given the responsibility for Indians and lands reserved for Indians. It is right in the Constitution. We have always had that jurisdiction. Quite frankly, historically, we did with it what we wanted to do with it. Since 1982, the responsibilities under that section have been expanded and limited because of section 35 of the Constitution, which is generally referred to as the non-derogation clause in the Constitution.

It recognized and affirmed the treaties and rights of aboriginal people. It tells Parliament that it cannot conduct business as it did prior to 1982. Parliament does not have the power to tell aboriginal peoples what they can and cannot do.

That is what this bill does and it is clear that this bill will be struck down at some point by the Supreme Court of Canada.

We expanded the responsibilities because as Parliament, in addition to government, we have a responsibility to consult with aboriginal peoples and to follow certain guidelines in the way we consult. We will hear from the government that it did consult; however, in law and in our relationship with the first nations peoples we must to conduct ourselves in certain ways.

We cannot simply say we sent out a letter, we sent out a notice and we had 10 meetings and that was it. As Parliament, we have a responsibility to engage in a dialogue with the courts to ensure that the laws we pass will not be overturned and that abuses by government are effectively restrained.

Again, I note the words of the Supreme Court in Corbiere with regards to the Indian Act specifically. It stated:

There are a number of ways this legislation may be changed so that it respects the equality rights of non-resident band members. Because the regime affects band members most directly, the best remedy is one that will encourage and allow Parliament to consult with and listen to the opinions of Aboriginal people affected by it.

After it had made that decision in Corbiere, the court suspended a declaration that would have struck down that particular section of the act as invalid in order to give Parliament the opportunity to deal with the issue in a proper consultative manner.

Nothing happened. There was no consultation. The government basically sat on its hands for the next 18 months. We are now left with having to deal with this in a variety of bills that have come before the House or are pending to come before the House, including Bill C-6.

There is no question that we are dealing with fundamental rights under the charter here. Recently, in the Powley decision regarding Métis rights, which came down in the last few months, both Houses of Parliament were told by the Supreme Court that the consultation process was crucial. When the Powley decision was raised at both the Senate committee and the aboriginal affairs committee of this House, members were told by experts that Bill C-6, based on the Powley decision and prior decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada, would not withstand legal and constitutional challenges. Both committees were told that and in spite of that, we still have this bill in front of us today.

At the same time that those witnesses were in front of those committees, they were making proposals for how the bill could be amended and how it could be put into shape.

Once the Powley decision came down, there was a recommendation made to the committee in the other place to set aside the bill for six months to give the first nations, the aboriginal peoples of this country, an opportunity to come forward to involve themselves in the proper consultative process. Instead, what happened was that a handful of experts from the other place, none of them first nations representatives, were given only a few day's notice to deal with what, at this point, had clearly become a complicated assignment. The committee, very briefly and in just over a week, reported the bill back. That was the process that was undertaken. That comes nowhere near, does not even get to first base, if I can use that analogy, in terms of the responsibility to consult.

In a number of decisions, the Supreme Court of Canada has set out more specifically what is required for consultation and the standards that must be met. The first principle it annunciated was in regard to section 35, the non-derogation and treaty rights, and that consultation is mandatory.

For example, in R. v. Horseman the court made it clear that it was no longer morally or politically acceptable for the federal government to modify a treaty right without consultation with first nations and aboriginal groups whose rights were affected. It is absolutely mandatory. That standard has not been met in Bill C-6.

The next point that it makes is that if Parliament is to infringe on aboriginal treaty rights, the court ruled in Sparrow that there must be a valid legislative objective. Even then, it must examine whether the honour of the Crown, and the special trust relationship and the responsibility of the government vis-à-vis aboriginal peoples was at stake. That was not met either.

The court built on that principle in R. v. Nikal stating that there must be as little infringement as possible in order to effect the desired result. So, if the rights are out there and they are exposed, the intervention must be justified and the intervention must be as little as possible. “Little infringement as possible,” are the words that come out of the R. v. Nikal case.

Another point is that fair compensation must be available and the aboriginal group involved must be consulted with regard to the measures being implemented. Given the history of the government, that is not going to happen either. The court went on and added:

It can, I think, properly be inferred that the concept of reasonableness forms an integral part of the Sparrow test for justification...So too in the aspects of information and consultation the concept of reasonableness must come into play. For example, the need for the dissemination of information and a request for consultations cannot simply be denied. So long as every reasonable effort is made to inform and to consult, such efforts would suffice to meet the justification requirement.

That again was not met here. We know that the consultation process here was at its absolute minimal and in some cases non-existent.

In R. v. Marshall the court again commented on the requirement for consultation where rights protected in section 35 might be affected. It stated:

As this and other courts have pointed out on many occasions, the process of accommodation of the treaty right may best be resolved by consultation and negotiation of a modern agreement for participation in specified resources by the Mi'kmaq rather than by litigation.

J. La Forest emphasized in Delgamuukw v. British Columbia at paragraph 207:

On a final note, I wish to emphasize that the best approach in these types of cases is a process of negotiation and reconciliation that properly considers the complex and competing interests at stake.

That negotiation and reconciliation does not exist in the format that was used to get us to Bill C-6 and certainly will not flow out of it. I have already mentioned the way the commission would be established. It would be open to accusations of bias as being appointed entirely by one side in the negotiations.

When we go back and read that quote, I can hear it before the lower courts and being argued with that terminology, and again used before the Supreme Court of Canada. Ultimately, this legislation will get struck down, if in fact the House proceeds to pass it.

As I said earlier, there are two issues here. First, there is the fact that time allocation has been imposed and the shameful conduct by the government, not only on this bill but historically. It is particularly offensive when dealing with a bill that is so important to the first nations. Second, the consultation process has been either non-existent or a total failure in terms of meeting the standards set down by the courts that we are required to meet.

On that basis, I would urge all my colleagues in the House to oppose this legislation and vote it down.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I too would like to add a comment and a question to the speech from the member for Perth—Middlesex. I thank him for his thoughtful and well researched understanding of the bill. His comments had more depth and more substance than the comments we heard from the minister when he tried to justify moving closure on this critical bill as it pertains to aboriginal people.

This government's experience and in fact all Canadian governments' experience with aboriginal people can be best summarized as 130 years of social tragedy, and Bill C-6, the way in which this is being treated, only adds to that tragic legacy.

The member mentioned the fact, a very glaring fact in my mind, that the Government of Canada is in fact in a conflict of interest when it tries to be both judge and jury in settling claims against the government. In the absence of a truly independent claims commission, free from the interference and manipulation of the minister, where is the fairness?

To have a longstanding claim, where the aboriginal people are claiming the government is in the wrong, where is the fairness when the government itself is the judge and jury that decides not only the merits of the case but how much money will be the ultimate settlement should it rule that way?

Could the hon. member speak for a minute about that obvious glaring conflict of interest?

[Gary Schellenberger, Progressive Conservative, Perth—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I must explain again that I do not know how to reach a consensus. How do we sit down and talk with people when this bill seems counterproductive?

I have various literature stating that Bill C-6 purports to improve the resolution of specific land claims but it fails to do so. Another one states that Bill C-6 does not make the process of resolving claims more efficient. Another one states that no more resources will be committed to addressing the backlog of over 600 existing claims and that the minister can delay any claim indefinitely.

Bill C-6 does not provide for an independent commission but leaves government as defendant, judge and jury. Bill C-6 does not remove the federal conflict of interest but rather entrenches it in legislation. Bill C-6 diminishes justified claims. No claims worth more than $10 million can be dealt with by the tribunal. Funding limits mean only eight claims per year can be settled.

Bill C-6 does not make the claims resolution process more transparent and omits principles of fairness and justice. The minister and his department can frustrate the work of the new claims body and delay progress on claims without providing justification. Bill C-6 is opposed by the Assembly of First Nations.

Finally, on October 20 in the Senate, the Senate's pre-eminent legal expert, commenting on the constitutional flaws of Bill C-6, said that aboriginals were not convinced that the system would be trustworthy.

[Gary Schellenberger, Progressive Conservative, Perth—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and I agree that in business we always have timelines.

Bill C-6 is big business in that it affects first nations across the country. There should be timelines within the bill.

One thing I have learned is that what always seems to work best is consensus, no matter what we are doing. I think there should be consensus between the government and first nations. They should sit around a table and come up with a document that they can both agree on.

As I look at Bill C-6 and the various statements that I read to members today, it just looks to me like there has not been any consensus here. I think there is a willingness on behalf of the first nations to sit down with the government, but it seems as if the bill is being pushed forward. I just cannot accept things that are pushed on people.

[Gary Schellenberger, Progressive Conservative, Perth—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is the second chance the House has had to make improvements to Bill C-6. We have to realize just how serious the situation is and realize that Bill C-6 does little to improve that situation.

There are about 600 claims in the system now and the number is expected to increase to 1,700. There are significant ways in which Bill C-6 falls short of the current definition of specific claims and it falls short in terms of what was consistently promised and agreed to earlier.

The current definition of “specific claim” refers to breaches of treaties and agreements and is not confined to treaties and agreements that deal with lands and assets.

Currently a claim can be advanced dealing with treaty rights with respect to hunting and fishing. Cases have arisen in which the Indian Claims Commission has dealt with that kind of case. The Bill C-6 definition excludes those kinds of treaty breaches. There is an even more devastating omission. I cannot understate the importance of this because failure to recognize this kind of claim would destroy some first nations communities.

Many first nations communities were unilaterally promised that the crown would give them reserves. There are first nations whose ability to have any kind of land base or quality of life depends on the fulfilment of a unilateral undertaking.

The Supreme Court of Canada said in Guerin v. The Queen that a fiduciary obligation leading to the enforcement right, in other words a specific claim, could include a unilateral undertaking. The Supreme Court of Canada said that this was a way in which a specific claim might arise. This is excluded from the definition in Bill C-6. That was never discussed by the joint task force. The federal AFN joint task force definition of specific claim included promises to provide lands or assets by a unilateral undertaking. The federal government had agreed, but Bill C-6 dishonours that agreement.

Why is the federal government so intent to walk away from a commitment? To include a unilateral undertaking does not mean that every unilateral undertaking would become a specific claim. We still have to show that it is a legal obligation. There is no risk to the federal government of a new category of claims suddenly being created. Only if it is a legal obligation that is being breached can the unilateral undertaking give rise to a claim. We would not be adding to the category of federal liability, but we would not be excluding it under the joint task force definition.

Even though the House has passed Bill C-6, these amendments from the upper chamber give us an opportunity to point out these deficiencies which can be fixed.

The definition in Bill C-6 excludes a category of claims. What is the practical significance? Potentially one-third to more than one-half of specific claims might be excluded. British Columbia and Quebec would be hit hard, hit where it hurts. Do people have a land base or not? Does a group have the basis for a collective existence? This is a serious business and the exclusion from Bill C-6 is unacceptable.

If this were not enough, Bill C-6 has added new exclusions. A claim must be at least 15 years old. Imagine having a grievance against the federal government and being told to come back in 15 years to see if the government will deal with it.

Another exclusion is claims involving rights that arose under a British statute or proclamation before Confederation. We know constitutionally, Canada agreed to assume responsibility for the crown's responsibility, but not first nations which will be turned aside by Bill C-6. When Bill C-6 was in committee before its passage, various members, including Liberals, acknowledged these problems.

Specific amendments were proposed in the House to remedy the problems with Bill C-6 so it could go forward as an improved bill. All these amendments were rejected by a straight majority party vote, with the exception of one Liberal dissenter. The government decided to go against all opposition parties and against all first nations, and now it is wondering why we still want to see improvements in Bill C-6. The issues we are raising have to be addressed if we are to purport that Bill C-6 is fair and just.

I have not addressed another important point, and that is access to the tribunal. There is no problem getting to the commission set up in Bill C-6. Anyone can do that, but so what?

Everyone knew there was a problem at the time of Oka, but since Oka another 400 or so claims have been filed and an additional 60 claims are filed every year, each alleging an outstanding lawful obligation.

The majority of the claims filed are ultimately found to be valid, yet Bill C-6 is setting up a system which can process only seven or eight claims a year because of the cap on both the amount of the award and the limited amount of money given to the commission annually.

Every year there are more claims coming into the system than can be resolved. Continuing a situation in which the vast majority of claimants have to wait in a long line to have access to binding dispute resolution, which means access to the tribunal, will just continue the failures of the past.

There is little value in having access to a commission where one can talk if there is no incentive for the federal government to get serious, to make a decision about the claim and, if it considers it valid, to negotiate the settlement of the claim. Alternate dispute resolution works only if there is an incentive on both sides to make it work. To tell people to wait in line, to tell people to wait 15 years, is not likely to create social justice.

It is not social justice at all to tell claimants that if their claim is over a certain amount, $7 million as the bill stands, and $10 million with the amendments, they cannot have access to the dispute resolution agency. Two claims are reported to have been settled in the last fiscal year, one for approximately $63 million and the other for $6 million. In the previous year, five claims were resolved, four of which were well over $6 million: $17 million, $37 million, $83 million, and $14 million. Only one claim was under $10 million and it was for $40,000.

There is the further problem that a claim may enter the system when it is somewhat under $7 million, but then, because of the delays, the interest brings the amount to above $7 million. The first nation then has to decide to forego the interest, no matter how long it takes, or to start over in court.

The Indian Claims Commission, in its submission to the House committee, said that of 120 claims that it had considered, fewer than 10 were for less than $7 million. Some lawyers have called this fiscal cap draconian. It is of no help to know that the government can raise the limit. It can also lower it. How are we getting away from the conflict of interest if the federal executive freely has the right to determine it just might lower the cap at any time? How can we talk about an independent commission?

If this House were to turn down the proposed amendments, we would have an opportunity to go back to the drawing board, do it right and come up with a new Bill C-6 that would have the support of first nations.

I know I cannot propose new amendments, but I can ask the government for assurances. I would like to know if it will make a commitment to continue the existing Indian Claims Commission if Bill C-6 passes. Will it give first nations the choice of going to the existing claims commission or to the Bill C-6 mechanism?

There is absolutely no reason why the two agencies could not continue to exist and give claimants a choice. It is possible today for a civil claimant to decide whether to file certain claims in federal court or in provincial court. Having the two commissions would allow first nations claimants a similar choice. Then, three or four years from now, we would have proof of whether Bill C-6 is better or worse than the status quo.

We know the federal government has fiduciary duties. Its breaches of fiduciary duties give rise to claims. The primary responsibility of a fiduciary is to avoid conflicts of interest. Now, the same party that is breaching its fiduciary duties is saying, “Trust us. Let us appoint someone to decide if we have breached our duties”. The government should not ask Parliament to give statutory credibility to its conflict of interest. It should not ask Parliament to approve it as judge in its own case.

The problem of lack of independence has been identified over and over again for the last 40 years. Now the government is saying that all these matters are unimportant because the process in Bill C-6 is totally optional and first nations who do not want to use the new agency do not have to use it. That is cynical. We all know the only other option available is court. We know that justice department lawyers do not have to worry about legal costs. We also know that they will use every technical defence available. They will not be interested in justice.

The federal government reserves the right under existing policy to invoke technical defences. That means it can invoke statutory limitation periods. If an individual does not bring a claim within six years or 20 years or whatever, then it is too late and no claim is allowed. How perverse.

We must remember that until 1951 first nations were prohibited by law from engaging a lawyer to lodge a claim. Bill C-6 says claimants will have to wait 15 years before they can file a specific claim, yet most claimants will be statute barred by the time they get to 15 years.

We should all be looking for a system to relieve the government from its conflict of interest and to set up something so it does not have to be judge and jury in its own cause.

The joint task force report recommended joint appointments. The minister now says that the insistence on joint appointments arises because the AFN wants to use this to further its claims to sovereignty. How ridiculous.

The AFN has never said anything in its presentation about Bill C-6 and sovereignty. It has been emphatic about independence. The minister is clouding the issue of independence by blaming the AFN for insisting on an independent process.

It would be so easy for the government. A person could not be appointed without both sides agreeing. An appointee could not be removed without both sides agreeing. A person could not be reappointed unless both sides agreed. What could be more clean and clear than that? Would that not be fair?

However, the government says this simple act of justice would somehow violate the principle of crown prerogative. That may be the government's preference, but this is Parliament. Here in this place, Parliament is supreme. If Parliament wishes to set out a joint appointment process, it has the clear power to do so. There is no constitutional law that will be broken. In fact, Parliament has already appointed joint bodies.

All the modern land claims agreements have dispute bodies whose composition is jointly decided. The federal government has agreed to joint appointments in NAFTA and in the World Trade Organization. There is also the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. In the Meech Lake accord, the government of the day was prepared to have Supreme Court of Canada justices chosen from lists proposed by the provinces.

We could, for example, have a joint task force or committee agree on a list of names and then let the governor in council decide which of those persons would be appointed.

There is no obstacle whatsoever to prevent Parliament from providing the Bill C-6 agencies with independence. Now is the time for the federal government to break the existing pattern of conflict of interest by setting up a genuinely independent body. Now is the time for the federal government to abandon the approach that has been proven to be ineffective and lacking in independence.

This stubborn and wrong approach of the government to stack a commission in its favour is not consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and not consistent with modern administrative law doctrines. Why are we allowing a bill to be passed that will be successfully challenged in the courts before the ink is dry?

We are at a point in history where the government is about to change. There is no reason why we cannot set aside Bill C-6 and all its imperfections. There is no reason why the government and the AFN cannot return to the table next year and come up with something that could be supported by both first nations and government.

It is a simple political choice for the government: accept something so grossly imperfect today or go back and come up with something much more fair and just in the months to come.

The government has squandered its goodwill. Only a few years ago the government and the AFN were saying that they agreed to everything. Today the situation has deteriorated to the point where first nations across Canada are vigorously opposing the government's decision to proceed with Bill C-6.

This House can help Canada get back on track by using those mechanisms available to us to send Bill C-6 back to a good, joint drawing board.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Jonquière for her question and her kind words.

The only thing that saddens me today, on top of the motion for time allocation and the deaf ear the government is turning to first nations, is the fact that the first nations are not here today to debate their future directly with us.

What really irks me is that I should be the one to have to speak for the first nations. Inspired by my political commitment to voice the desires and aspirations of the nation of Quebec, I am in a good position to know that I would not like having someone from another nation to speak for me and not having full rights to defend myself in this place.

We have had this problem at the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources. We were discussing the future of an entire nation, while members of this nation watched us non-aboriginals debate their future, and we were forced to defend the aboriginals. That is not right. In 2003, we cannot call ourselves a modern society if we have no legitimate forum where the first nations can express their rights, for instance.

They are not looking for a handout. The first nations have internationally recognized rights. Self-government processes are under way around the world. That is what is required: self-government.

The aboriginal people have the capacity to govern themselves. They are not children. They can have a government like ours. There is no better government than an aboriginal government to defend the future of aboriginal children.

We should be here today defending nations who are not here to defend themselves, to defend their future and that of their children. This makes no sense.

The role of the federal government is not to run them. It has a fiduciary responsibility toward first nations. It must abide by the long-standing treaties with the first nations. It must not force down their throats things they do not want.

They must be given every means to build themselves. This was referred to as a healing process in the Erasmus-Dussault report, the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal People.

It is a healing process. It concerns the redefinition of the nations that have been particularly damaged, because they were told that they were not real nations all though Canada's history. As for rebuilding these nations, they must have our help and our support in creating their own government and in governing themselves, and we must not impose anything on them. Most of all, we must respect them for who they are, these first nations. They each have a culture, a language, a form of government. In other words, it is none of our business.

When will the government and its representatives like the parliamentary secretary get it into their heads that the aboriginal nations are recognized as nations? Are we going to tell the Americans what to do? Are we going to tell the French what to do? Why do we take it upon ourselves to impose our choices on the aboriginal nations this way? What is this, anyway?

At the United Nations, the definition of a nation is the same for aboriginal nations as for any other nation, whether it is the Canadian nation, the Quebec nation, the French nation or the American nation. It is the right to self-government. There is also the respect for agreements made hundreds of years ago when the first Europeans arrived here.

Earlier in my speech I mentioned wampum. We should all know what wampum is. It is an almost sacred symbol that we have given our word, both the aboriginal people and the European nations, that we could live as neighbours, that we could live in harmony, but in complete independence.

That is what wampum symbolizes. Wampum is in the form of a beautiful belt. It should be shown around the world and copies distributed. On this belt we see a European ship of the era and a canoe, representing the aboriginal nations, sailing along together. The European ship does not encroach on the space of the first nations' canoe. They are moving together, in parallel, with respect, and in accordance with the terms and conditions agreed upon at the time.

Today, some people are trying to ignore all of that. They want to throw it away and say that the federal government, the Government of Canada—just as it was done 130 years ago with the Indian Act—can continue to park the first nations on reserves, treat them like children, impose whatever conditions it wishes, and slow down negotiations on self-government—the only true negotiations that should be going on in order to enable the first nations to develop and give them every opportunity to do so.

There are first nations communities that were given this opportunity. It is not an opportunity, but a right. Self-government agreements were reached, and look at how prosperous these first nations are today.

In Quebec, we have the example of the James Bay Cree. The first self-government agreement was signed there by Mr. Lévesque. Go see them today. This community is prosperous and has taken charge of its own destiny. Try to impose anything on them. They are a proud people, who insist on exercising their prerogatives as a nation. They are people who have developed, have the skill to do so and a true business sense.

We should stop taking the first nations for something they are not, but instead we keep on seeing bills as idiotic as this one. What sense is there in that? After having tabled the Erasmus-Dussault report a few years ago, after having given so much hope to first nations, what are we doing with bills like this and a policy of confrontation? That is not how we are going to move forward. That is not how we are going to create a peaceful future of coexistence where everyone can prosper and have the opportunity to do so. It is despicable to do things this way.

The new prime minister, who is hiding behind the curtain, said he was against the three bills concerning first nations, including Bill C-6. Where is the future prime minister? Where was he this morning when we voted on the time allocation motion? Where will he be when we vote on Bill C-6? Will he have the nerve to come here and vote in favour of this bill when, from behind the curtain, but publicly, a few months ago he said he was against the bill, as he was against the bill on self-government? I cannot wait to see that.

The Bloc Quebecois was created in the spirit of the first agreement with the James Bay Cree, signed at the time by Mr. Lévesque, the leader of the first Parti Quebecois government. We are motivated by equal opportunity and respect for long-standing treaties and the first nations' inherent right to self-government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this government motion concerning the proposed amendments to Bill C-6.

First, I want to say that this is a sad day indeed for Parliament. This will be remembered as the day the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and most of the Liberal members voted on a time allocation motion in relation to Bill C-6 on specific claims, a very important piece of legislation.

It is a betrayal of our history, a willful and offensive repudiation of everything our ancestors agreed to with the first nations. It is a betrayal, because when we signed these long-standing treaties, we thought we would then be negotiating equal to equal, nation to nation.

With this morning's time allocation motion, the government is telling us that the spirit in which the Indian Act was implemented over the last 130 years will continue to prevail. We will continue with our paternalistic approach to impose our wishes on first nations.

Furthermore, despite the Erasmus-Dussault report tabled a few years ago, which gave the first nations and aboriginal children hope for their future, this future is once again becoming a dead-end, as it has been for 130 years with the infamous Indian Act. This betrays not only the spirit, but also the letter of what we had agreed upon for decades.

For several years now, this government has preferred confrontation over conciliation and healing in its relations with the first nations. Oddly enough, when the Prime Minister rose just now in the House, I felt ashamed. When the other ministers did likewise, I was doubly ashamed. When I saw most of the Liberal members vote in favour of time allocation, I was even more ashamed to see people deny history and misrepresent it like that.

For the past two days, the Samson Cree community has performed the drum ceremony in front of Parliament. The drums represent the voice and heart of Mother Earth. She is trying to help parliamentarians understand the significance of this bill.

Unfortunately, Mother Earth and the beating of the Cree drums in front of Parliament did not work their magic on the government. It has shut its eyes and ears to the unanimous calls of first nations and the opposition of all the parties to this bill, with the exception of the ruling party.

The minister claimed this morning that he had the support of the first nations. That is not true. I just came from the Assembly of First Nations meeting in Vancouver, which was unanimous in its opinion. All the chiefs are opposed this bill. Why? Because it betrays what is represented by wampum.

Wampum is a symbol of ancient treaties under which the parties negotiated as equals, nation to nation, where no nation was superior to another, but each side had rights. These rights, including the inherent right to self-government and rights under these ancestral treaties, should be respected.

Despite the fact that the first nations have appealed to the United Nations, and we here have been condemning Canada's treatment of the first nations for many years, our pleas fall on deaf ears in this government. We are dealing with a minister who, after a fifteen year career—I hope this is his last year, because he has wreaked enough havoc—is being hypocritical in presenting this bill and saying he has the first nations' support. This is despicable.

It is especially despicable to see the Prime Minister stand up and vote in favour of the time allocation motion. Yet, in 1993, he said, and this can be found in the red book, that given how slowly the first nations' specific claims are being addressed, an independent commission should be set up, not a commission that is entirely controlled by the government and is both judge and party. He talked about an independent commission with independent judges, who could assess the damages, specific claims and compensation with all the independence required for appropriate legal treatment.

This rings hollow because members of the two main institutions in Bill C-6, the first nations specific claims commission and tribunal, will be appointed by the governor in council, in other words cabinet, on the recommendation of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, without input or suggestions from the first nations. It is the minister who will make recommendations to cabinet and who, in keeping with the paternalistic approach of the past, will continue to impose rules through people who are both judge and party.

We are far from the recommendations and numerous reports prepared since 1982 that called for an independent commission. We are also far from the 1993 red book promise of an independent commission, with people appointed by both parties, not just one that is both judge and party, but both the first nations and the government.

So we end up with a structure that is totally at the discretion of the minister. He is the one who will appoint people, so of course there will no biting of the hand that feeds. Obviously, then, the minister and the governor in council will have control over these two major institutions. They is being described as impartial, whereas they are totally partial. If people are appointed, it cannot be assumed that they will be torn between the interests of the first nations or the interests of the government, when it is the government that has appointed them. The first nations have nothing at all to say about these appointments.

It can take several years before specific claims are even made, because once again the decision on when to entertain them is the minister's. He is the one to decide whether they are acceptable or not. This is a mechanism put in place to slow things down, and God knows how slow the processing of specific claims is at present. There are still more than a thousand under consideration. Since the process was inaugurated 30 years ago, 230 specific claims have been settled. At that rate, it will take 150 years to get to the end of the process.

That is just the existing specific claims, not the ones that will be added later. As the first nations begin to inform themselves about their rights, carry out research and call upon the services of experts to find ancestral treaties, we are starting to discover treaties that give more and more rights to the first nations. What the government does not get, and what the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Deveopment does not get, because of his usual arrogance and cynicism, is that the first nations are not looking for charity; they are looking for respect of their rights.

They are seek redress for the numerous wrongs of the past, as well as for loss of part of their land, land that belongs to them. As long as the paternalistic and colonial mindset remains, one that appears to be shared by the minister, the parliamentary secretary and all his colleagues, nothing will be accomplished. The first step must be to recognize that there are rights, that there are treaties that confirm those rights, and that justice must be done.

The minister says that the process will be speeded up. How? No additional resources have been allocated to speed up the processing of these specific claims. There are no new resources. How can he say that the process will be speeded up? How can he say that there will finally be harmony between the parties, when he is ignoring the second party, when he is putting in place a system where he will decide, at his discretion, whether a specific claim is acceptable or not?

He will use his discretionary power to appoint the members of the commission and on the tribunals, but not in cooperation with the first nations.

How can he talk about harmony? I think we have to talk about confrontation instead. This minister is the minister of confrontation. All we can hope for is for this man to leave political life as fast as possible, so that someone else can take his place, someone with more competence, understanding and openness of mind. It takes an open mind to recognize that first nations have rights and that these rights must be respected.

It takes a open mind and also intelligence to know that justice must be done fully and not partially. It also takes intelligence to be sensitive to one's environment and to see that all first nations in Canada, without exception, from sea to sea to sea, as the Prime Minister likes to say, are against Bill C-6, as well as against Bill C-7 on governance. All first nations also had the opportunity to express their views on Bill C-19 a month ago. The great majority voted against Bill C-19.

What justification does the minister have, except to advance his personal agenda? This personal agenda is not the future of first nations, or the future of first nations children faced with educational and multiple addiction problems. What matters is not the future of the minister. We could not care less about his future. What matters to us is the future of first nations, and that of first nations children. The future of these children is not very bright. But the minister does not care.

What saddens me this morning it to see that, following the Erasmus-Dussault report, there was great hope. Since the negotiations on self-governance have gathered some speed a few years ago, there has been great hope. But this kind of bulldozer attitude, using time allocation to have a bill that on one wants passed, dashes hopes. That is wrong.

This bill contains not only this extraordinary discretionary power given to the minister but also a totally despicable principle that must be rejected. Since when, in a case that has yet to go before a court, are we already in a position to tell in advance that there is a ceiling on the claims and compensation, on the value of settlements for specific claims?

If that happened to us, if we were in court and a government tried to have legislation passed, whereby any non-aboriginal citizen going to court will be told that, unfortunately, even if he has a $25 million claim, the maximum value is set at $10 million, as provided by the Senate's amendment, I think that we would say that there is has been a miscarriage of justice somewhere. We would not have it.

Before a case is heard, claims are made, and the injury and the value of the granted lands or resources has been assessed, no ceiling can be imposed. Before even hearing a case, one cannot say what it is worth. Unless, of course, the case is settled in advance. I think that, in the mind of the minister and his government, all aboriginal cases are settled in advance. That is not improving their well-being, nor is it doing them justice; this is just controlling the expenditures of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

I have some suggestions for the minister. If he wants to limit the expenditures of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, there is a good way to do that. Every year, for some years now, the present Auditor General and her predecessor said there was shameless waste in this department. The billions of dollars they claim they are spending on first nations go into the pockets of bureaucrats and go to wasteful projects. They go for travel abroad to see how other governments deal with their aboriginal peoples. That is where the money goes. There is a system in this department that operates something like the mafia, where public servants call the shots and do as they please.

You can try to get a breakdown of expenditures in contracts given by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Canada to communications agencies, for example, or management firms. You can try to find out who profits the most from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, besides the first nations. You will see it is not easy. In fact, it is impossible.

I tried to obtain the list of financial management firms who had co-management contracts with a number of reserves across Canada. It was impossible to get it. Why? Because things in this department are hidden. Someone is afraid, and rightly so, that the situation will be revealed, and we will see that it is not the first nations, nor their children, who benefit the most from the billions of dollars in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, but this is the system, the cronyism of this government.

So far, no one has convinced me that this is not true. I have made repeated calls requesting a breakdown of this department's expenditures and a breakdown of people who have contracts with this corrupt department—let us not mince words. Every time I made such a request, it was turned down.

I mentioned the ceiling that the minister had set at $9 million. The Senate, no more intelligently, set it at $10 million. Great work, great principle, Senate. The problem is the same; not a thing has changed. A ceiling should not be imposed before the case is heard.

If we look at the past 30 years and the 230 specific claims that have been settled, mostly in Saskatchewan, we see that the average is $18 million. And that is not direct compensation, what with all the time this takes at the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development with the current process, which is not going to change, because there are no supplementary resources. It takes several years before a case like that is settled. The $18 million also includes interest and legal fees, it is not the net amount given to first nations.

Consequently, justice is only partially done. Based on our legal system, this is a constitutional state. Either justice is done or it is not, it cannot be done partially.

Earlier, the minister said that we are the only country in the world to have this type of tribunal for specific claims. I can see why. There is not a civilized or industrialized country in the world, in 2003, that would want to implement a system where rights are denied to the first nations and where justice is done partially instead of fully. I can see why there are no such examples.

For the past several years, the United Nations have singled out Canada for its treatment of the first nations. UN envoys have toured the first nations communities in Canada for several years now, to verify the pitiful state of facilities and things like mildew in houses.

People are ill because the federal government is not doing its job. People are ill because the federal government is not investing sufficient resources to resolve problems related to unhealthy living conditions and unsafe drinking water. We are not talking about Africa, but Canada. Many communities have a problem with their drinking water.

Is it not strange to be dealing with a government in name only? The minister, who is a mere figurehead too, is saying that things will be fixed. At this rate, it will take 150 years to resolve currently pending specific claims. What kind of system is this? What will the outcome be? Hopefully, the minister will not be running in the next election, and we will do our best to see that he does not.

This morning, the minister made statements that were quite unintelligent, to avoid using other words that might cause the Chair to force me to withdraw my remarks, since I sincerely and honestly believe it. The minister said that if the first nations are not satisfied, they can go through the regular courts. Well. There is the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the minister's discretionary power, the discretionary power of the Minister of Justice, and a whole bunch of lawyers who will fight the first nations to ensure they are cannot resolve their specific claims.

For all these reasons, I am ashamed today to be here in Parliament with my colleagues opposite who voted to impose time allocation on this bill. This bill was unanimously rejected by the first nations, since it will lock us, over the next few decades, into legislation that is strangely reminiscent of the Indian Act. This is legislation harks back to colonial times, which does not make sense. This is 2003, not 1810.

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

Mr. Speaker, you will understand that my feelings are considerably hurt by the fact that there were members across the way who did not like to hear me speak yesterday. I thought I was doing a good job in bringing forward some significant points. However, sometimes in this place very brutal measures are brought to bear, as just happened in the vote, with something that needs much more debate in the House in terms of improving Bill C-6.

Bill C-6 is no improvement over the present claims body. I differ with the minister. I do not think we will see the minister standing up in the House to say that the bill has done a much better job. In fact, contrary to what the minister said, there are a number of members within his own party, and most notably senators who were making the point and I will indicate some of that now in reading from the Senate record.

I also give notice that I will be giving substantial time to other members today. Much more significant things could be said in respect to why the bill is not a good one, why it is badly flawed and its many defects. However, I will allow others to make those points in the course of the day through to the vote at the end of the day which has been pushed forward by the government by way of closure.

Some of the other material that I referred to in the past is from an insightful document written by Leigh Ogston Milroy, called “Towards an Independent Land Claims Tribunal: Bill C-6 in Context”. I will not have the time to make a substantive reference to that but it is there for people's reading and I suggest that people do read the essay.

I want to put on the record some comments from Liberal Senator Serge Joyal. This is what Senator Joyal had to say on the record in the Senate in reference to at least one aspect of the tribunal part of Bill C-6:

In this bill, we have a proposal to establish a tribunal. A tribunal is a court of justice; it is an independent body. This independent body, according to any legal advisers, must satisfy three criteria. First, it must be financially secure. In other words, it should not depend on a third party for its supply of money in order to function. Second, the members of that tribunal must have security of tenure, which means that they must remain there for a long period of time, to be immune to undue influence.

We see that Bill C-6 is so rife to patronage, to those kind of accusations or allegations. I do not think we have the sense that there is independence at all by way of the appointment process. Then others get to critique after the fact, typically as we do with appointments, railing at the government for the inappropriate appointments that are made.

The senator went on to say:

Second, the members of that tribunal must have security of tenure, which means that they must remain there for a long period of time to be immune to undue influence. In other words, they must not make popular decisions to please the person who has the authority to appoint. We can understand that easily. Third, the tribunal must have institutional autonomy. In other words, it must rule its affairs totally outside any kind of influence.

According to Serge Joyal, those are the three criteria for an independent tribunal. He went on to say:

What is at stake in this bill? In this bill is essentially the constitutional duty to establish a system of adjudication that meets those criteria so that those who go to the court [this tribunal] will have the assurance that their claims will be dealt with properly.

When we apply those three criteria to the bill in question there are some issues pending.

That is his mild way of putting it. I would have stated it a lot stronger, but we will go with that for now. He went on to say:

One is that the judges are appointed for five years--

In a commission it is only three years. It does not even overlap two terms of a government. Judges on the tribunal are appointed for five years--

--and they might be reappointed to that or any other position. That is found in clause 41(7) of the bill. This raises the issue that a person might adjudicate on the basis of an expectation of being reappointed to that position or to another position.

Here we open the door not to a sense of impartiality, but of partiality because of the nature of the appointments and the very short duration of this court in effect, or tribunal set up under Bill C-6.

He went on to say:

That is a very important element because administrative tribunals such as the one contemplated in this bill are presently the object of an investigation by former Chief Justice Antonio Lamer. His report, expected in December--

That is coming up very shortly; we could have waited for that report.

--will analyze the various norms that administrative tribunals must satisfy in order to continue to adjudicate properly, to maintain not only justice but also the appearance of justice.

There are other aspects of this bill that raise problems with regard to institutional autonomy. The bill says, in various aspects, that its people are assimilated to public service. They do not have the autonomy that court personnel should have to remain outside influence.

In terms of financial autonomy, Treasury Board defines the scale of salaries. This is problematic too. As you know, there has been a decision of the Supreme Court in relation to payment of salaries to judges, and the court has established very stringent criteria. We have had to deal with those problems here.

He went on to talk about the fiduciary responsibility. He said:

Hence, the system contemplated in the bill is a very delicate balance between those two conflicting objectives. The mechanism put into place by this bill raises serious questions. We must be sure that this bill will meet the test of the court.

Obviously sprinkled throughout in other comments I cannot read here, he very much tips his hand to indicate that he sees it will not meet that particular test. Senator Joyal went on to say:

Honourable senators, read clauses 41 to 70 and you will realize that this is a real court of justice that is being proposed.

A court, in evaluating the reliability of that system, will apply the norms that are usually operational in a court system. This is important because that guarantees that the aboriginal people will get real satisfaction. If they are not convinced of that, what will happen? All our debates will be for nothing. All of the hours and the long sessions that the aboriginal affairs committee, under the chairmanship of Senator Chalifoux, and the time that other senators will have spent on this bill will be to no avail because the system will not be trustworthy.

And I add as an aside, all the time spent by this place in committee, in this House and so on.

In conclusion he said:

There is no doubt that if we do not reconcile the trust of the first nations people in the system we are putting in place, we will not solve the conundrum that we have found ourselves in for centuries.

I remind all of us here today that this is not comprehensive land claims we are talking about. This is specific claims, where a first nation was promised land of a certain good, fertile quality.

In some cases they were given disastrous swamp land, marsh, nothing better. Is it any wonder then that some of these bands are in the predicament they are in. With no economic development opportunity, they are like third world countries, in very desperate straits because of some sharp dealing, some dishonest dealing by Indian agents back in time. Another case would be where some Indian agent came along and sold off a chunk of a reserve without the proper permission and did not give that money and resource to the band, but pocketed it himself or disappeared in some other way. Who knows?

That is the nature of what Bill C-6 is dealing with in specific claims. As I have said before, it has definitely been long and drawn out, with delays to no end. Justice delayed really is justice denied and we have to acknowledge that.

I have made this marathon speech, although it was not as long as some other speeches in the House. It was my first opportunity in six and a half years here to speak for this length of time. I chose this opportunity because there are major defects and flaws in the bill.

The government in the Senate has acknowledged some of the main points that the Canadian Alliance and some of the other parties such as the NDP and the Bloc have made. We spoke for 45 minutes on Friday and another two hours yesterday because we think there are some major problems with the bill. It will not resolve the specific claims at all. In fact to the contrary, it just adds some more elements of delay, stonewalling and so on, and entrenches it more specifically in Bill C-6.

The few amendments that the senators had the gumption to bring back to this place quite frankly are wimpy ones. They are cosmetic. They are token, no more. We are not much reassured. We would have had more hope of some better work coming out of the Senate in respect of this bill.

As I said before, the Canadian Alliance supports the speedy resolution of specific first nations claims. Specific claims include alleged improper administration of lands and other assets under the Indian Act or other formal agreements.

I will be emphatic in stating that I hope I am wrong. I hope the minister will be right but I have no reason to believe so and he has not provided anything at all to reassure the House or others across the land.

Bill C-6 will not speed up the resolution of specific claims. There are no timelines mandated in the process. The minister made a kind of faint half-hearted attempt to say that the minister had to report back, but he can simply ask for more time. He does not have to give any kind of reason. He can do this indefinitely, on to eternity. There are no specific timelines in terms of the minister having to fish or cut bait and going ahead with this or not. He can keep dragging it out, stalling it indefinitely. That is one of the major problems many people see with this process and with Bill C-6 in this regard.

There are no timelines mandated in the process at all. There is nothing to assure us that it will not go on indefinitely. Built into the bill are numerous opportunities for the government to delay and to stonewall with impunity, with no punitive measures against it. It has utmost immunity with respect to that.

I ask the House and I ask people across Canada, who is standing up for the taxpayer in this new process? Bill C-6 in my view and in the view of many discourages the use of the less costly alternative dispute mechanisms. As we well know, going the route of more costly court cases wastes taxpayers' money. It wastes significant dollars that should be used to resolve these situations with first nations across our country, giving them the due and proper justice that they should have. Who is standing up for the taxpayer? Who is standing up for first nations and finally giving them the proper recompense that they deserve in these cases?

The new claims centre will not be independent. We have talked about that and I wanted to state that once again on the record. All adjudicators and commissioners will be appointed by the government with some token input from first nations, mostly after the fact. The appointment will be made and then we can make a comment. We can critique it. I can and anyone can. However what is the good of that?

Unlike the joint task force of 1998 that suggested the decent process of having individuals chosen for this particular body, the government instead has thumbed its nose at that. We are going to have all kinds of allegations and suspicions of conflict of interest, partiality and patronage in the process. That will ultimately destroy its legitimacy in the eyes of the first nations people.

We have been urging the Liberal government to take a serious look at the 1998 joint task force report. Considerable hours and a lot of time was put into that report by a good many capable and qualified people who came to some bottom line positions. It is not that they were all pleased on either side, which generally tells us that it had to be a reasonably fair process, but it was something that they could live with down the road and would give it the kind of ability to resolve the outstanding specific claims across the country.

We have been urging the government to go back and look at that. Perhaps somewhere down the road when we have to rewrite a bill because of the mess that this one is in, some of those reasonable recommendations may be brought into a bill in the future which would address what we perceive to be the major flaws and defects of the present Bill C-6.

I cede the floor to others regrettably, lamentably when there was much more I would have said on the bill and pushing back against Bill C-6. In conclusion, it was rather telling as well when the minister was pressed by a member of the New Democratic Party this morning who asked him if he could name one band across the country that supports Bill C-6. There is not one band to my knowledge that supports Bill C-6. I am not naive. I understand that we are never going to have a bill in any area, no less in this area, where all the first nations are jumping on board saying that it is a wonderful piece of work and a good piece of legislation.

It is also very telling when not one band steps forward to say that it is a good bill. Then we should know that we are in trouble and that we have a problem. If we were unable to satisfy even so much as one band anywhere in the country, never mind a significant number or maybe even a majority, then Canadians who are looking at this and viewing it might think this is badly drafted and badly flawed legislation. It is not satisfying anybody but the minister, and he alone, so he can complete his agenda before he walks off into the sunset.

Having said that, I think it is very plain that Canadian Alliance members object to the bill. We have done our very best in standing against this disastrous legislation. It will go down in the Hansard record that we thought it was a problem.

If I am ever proved wrong, I would be more than delighted, but I think my grandkids sometime down the road will look back to read grandpa's words and understand that the bill, as is proposed today, did not solve the problems. In fact it will have created more problems than it possibly could have resolved.

With that, we yield the floor to other good colleagues to continue to make the point of the major disastrous problem with Bill C-6.

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

Mr. Speaker, this independent claims body that is being set up under the government's bill is anything but independent and the minister knows that. There is token involvement from first nations after the fact, after the appointments are already made. The minister is quite aware of that.

It will not do anything to help breed trust among the parties involved. As well, who is standing up for the taxpayer in the process? The bill before us discourages the use of the less costly alternative dispute mechanisms. We are going the route of more costly court cases time and again, wasting taxpayers' money and those resources that could be applied to first nations.

We have been urging the Liberal government to go back and seriously look at the 1998 joint task force report which had some reasonable recommendations that would address what we perceive to be the major flaws and defects of this bill. His own Liberal senators have acknowledged that. Why does he not seriously consider and adopt into Bill C-6 the reasonable recommendations of the 1998 joint task force report?

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely disappointed that the minister, over the course of his time in working with first nations, has not made a serious attempt to work and partner with first nations.

Canada has proven that telling first nations what to do is not the answer to improving the situation. Listening to first nations and bringing in legislation that they support is what is important. Quite frankly, I have not heard the minister talk about even one first nation that supports this legislation. There are 633 first nations in this country. How many of them support this legislation?

Bill C-6 does nothing to change existing federal policy which has narrowly defined parameters and processes to which all claims must conform and adapt. The minister says there are no parameters. There are, and that is not acceptable.

Bill C-6 is not established to help settle claims but rather to control and limit the government's liabilities. Why does he not be up front and honest? This is not to better things for first nations; it is to make it easier for him.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot predict anyone's future, mine nor the member's. We will see how he makes out when he is up for nomination in his own riding or when he is up for re-election.

However, the objective of what we are proposing today is to put forward modern institutions of governance and the ability of the Government of Canada, through an independent specific claims commission and tribunal, to work with first nations outside of the courts to fast track and bring forward outstanding grievances of the past.

I do not understand this rhetoric from across the floor that somehow this diminishes the respect of aboriginal people. If they choose not to use the tool, that is their right; however, the fact is that we do not have the mechanism now to improve the abilities to work with first nations on resolving these claims. That is why Bill C-6 is so important to the long term resolution of grievances of the past.

What we set out to do in this mandate was very simple. We wanted Parliament to enter into a debate for the first time about the important modern institutions necessary for first nations to be part of our country, not sitting on the sidelines, living in poverty, and waiting for us to find some political will to work with them.

That is what Bill C-7, Bill C-19 and Bill C-6 are all about. And I dare say, later on this week, we will see another piece of legislation that also signals the same need for first nations people.

[John Duncan, Canadian Alliance, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, during their administration, the Liberals have invoked time allocation and closure a total of 84 times. The record in the previous administration, the Mulroney administration, was a total of 72 times. Therefore, we are already well past the record setting pace of the Mulroney administration.

The government, in all of its dealings with aboriginal legislation, must be known for an absence of sharp dealings and forthright expression of its constitutional fiduciary obligations to indigenous peoples.

Not only does Bill C-6 fly in the face of virtually all commentary received from aboriginal communities, but it also flies in the face of all of the opposition parties in the House.

The minister made reference to the First Nations Land Management Act. I was here when the act went through this place. We had 14 first nations that were strong proponents of that act.

I ask the minister, where are the first nations that are strong proponents of Bill C-6? They do not exist. Is the government invoking time allocation because of the legacy that this minister hopes to leave behind? In others words, the first nations governance act, Bill C-7, has gone sideways, and these are the final days of the minister's mandate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I heard the minister say he was establishing an open system. It is not; it is a completely closed system. For example, it is closed, as far as the ceilings on claims is concerned. With the Senate amendment, the ceiling will be increased to $10 million. And yet, the average individual claim settlement in the past 30 years was over $18 million.

He says it is an open system. But it is closed, as far as accepting the first nations' individual claims is concerned. The minister will be the sole judge of whether or not such first nations claims will be accepted. He says it is an open system, because it allows court challenges if the commission does not work properly. Well, yes. Once again, he will decide on whether individual claims that are referred to the Department of Justice are acceptable.

We know very well what will happen with the Department of Justice. Technical evidence will be introduced. Things can be drawn out for 15 or 20 years. There are still 1,000 individual claims that have not been settled by the existing process. Things will not improve with the process proposed by Bill C-6. No additional resources are being allocated to settle the hundreds of individual claims that already exist.

The minister says that there are no systems in the world comparable to the one we are going to establish. Of course not. Apartheid ended in Africa some years ago, and he is recreating apartheid for the first nations.

Bill C-6 is goes against all the work that has been done since 1982. We are talking about a commission that is independent from the government, a government that is both judge and party. The first nations understand that. The minister must stop saying that he is speaking for the first nations and the chiefs of the first nations. Less than a month ago, in Vancouver, there was a first nations summit meeting. The chiefs present, including the grand chief, were unanimously opposed to Bills C-6 and C-7, and most of them were opposed to Bill C-19 as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister knows very well that those amendments from the Senate are pretty wimpy, pretty much token and nothing of an adjustment in a significant way at all.

The Canadian Alliance blue book states support for speedy resolution of specific first nations claims. Specific claims include alleged improper administration of lands and other assets under the Indian Act or other formal agreements.

In other words, in some cases the Indian agents took and sold off Indian reserve lands and lined their own pockets with the money. That is the kind of injustice that we are talking about here today.

Bill C-6 would not speed up the resolution of specific claims. No timelines are mandated in this process. In fact, there are numerous opportunities for the government to delay and stonewall with impunity.

I would like to ask the minister why there are no timelines of any kind in this particular bill to get some resolution and some justice to native people since justice delayed is justice denied.

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

Mr. Speaker, in 1993 the Liberal red book promised an independent claims commission jointly appointed by first nations and the Government of Canada.

Bill C-6 clearly breaks that promise by concentrating the power to make appointments in the Prime Minister's Office. In that regard this will then be very much controlled by the government.

Indian bands have repeatedly faced obstruction, rejection and delay in their attempts to have the government consider their claim. I would like to ask the minister why native people across this country should trust the government to act in good faith in the face of yet another 1993 Liberal red book broken promise and in the face of what Bill C-6 offers them.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are not here debating Bill C-7 but I will make a quick comment and that is that Bill C-7 is alive and well and he will have an opportunity to debate that some time soon I am sure.

The reason for that is that no one in their right mind, who knows anything about aboriginal issues, can say that the present Indian Act meets the needs of first nations people. We all know the status quo is not acceptable. We all know first nations people are suffering because Parliament has not acted in modern times to bring forward the kind of institutional changes necessary to improve the opportunities for first nations to be successful.

If the member is having a debate about whether Parliament has the right to move legislation without every first nation leader across the country being in support, then he has a different definition of his role and responsibilities than I do.

I go back to Bill C-6, which is the matter of the debate and on which many members want to ask questions. I will put it to the member again. If the member believes that Bill C-6 is not as good as the present Indian Claims Commission we have before us today he should stand up and say so. My belief is that this legislation is 10 times as good as the process we have now. It will prove to be very effective once it is implemented into law.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister standing today and moving closure is the desperate act of a desperate man. He is fully aware that his first nations governance initiative has been an abject failure. It has been an abject flop because first nations, from one end of the country to the other, have denounced it. They have said that they do not want it.

In choosing to go forward with Bill C-6, is the minister not aware that first nations, from one end of the country to the other, have said that Bill C-6 is not what they want? Where does he get off, where does he get the licence and where does he get the colonial arrogance to impose this on his supposed partners in the community who have said clearly that they reject it? They have said that it bears no resemblance to the joint task force that was struck and that was supposed to develop such an institution.

Will the minister admit that his first nations governance act is a failure, that the whole initiative was a failure and that the whole suite of bills has been a failure? Will he go back to the drawing board with some respect for first nations people and start over again in consultation with first nations people? Will the minister do that, at least in this last opportunity that he has?

[John Duncan, Canadian Alliance, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government is showing its true spots again and breaking new records for invoking closure. What is most astounding this time, however, is that the government invoked closure in the Senate on Bill C-6 as well. It is quite possibly unprecedented for any government to have had an aboriginal bill time allocated in the Senate and now in the House of Commons. It is certainly a precedent for which the government cannot be proud.

Because of limited time only the Canadian Alliance has spoken to Bill C-6 , with only one member speaking to it for a total of three hours of debate. Why is the government so intent on pushing through this poorly crafted bill?

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, what we do know about Bill C-6 is that this is the third attempt since the 1950s to bring forward a tribunal and a commission process, an independent body that will allow first nations to bring their specific grievances, which are legally binding agreements that we as the crown have signed over the last 100 years or so, to a process where there is fairness.

The fact that there has been debate in this place for the last year about whether Bill C-6 is perfect, whether it is completely independent or whether it meets all the needs is a legitimate debate. However the time has come to put a process in place that will be more acceptable than the one we have in place today.

At the present time the backlog is significant. The reason is that we do not have a process in place where we can sit down and use the modern tool of management, of negotiation and discussion to bring this to a conclusion and decide on what the government would owe to a first nation based on a past grievance.

This is a unique process to Canada. There are no commissions or tribunals like it in the world. The Human Rights Commission is the only commission that is close to being like it. We have said on numerous occasions that no one in the House can predict the success of it but we believe we must find ways to work together and negotiate instead of litigate, which is the objective of the exercise.

We have had over a year of debate and that is a significant amount of time. Good amendments have been made by the Senate and we agree with those amendments. We want to move on with the implementation of Bill C-6.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That in relation to Bill C-6, 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, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the stage of the consideration of Senate amendments to the bill;

and fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the allotted day of the consideration of the said stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, my apologies first to my hon. colleague for interrupting his speech.

An agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the stage of consideration of Senate amendments of Bill C-6, 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.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

I regret the filibuster which has been going on for the last few days.

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

Mr. Speaker, precisely, and the point here is to show that these very weak and whimsical kinds of amendments that have come back from the Senate entirely miss the point. Very good work has been done over a number of years, building rapport and building recommendations so we get a good bill before us. Bill C-6, even with what the Senate brought to us, does not take that into account.

I am trying to show and adduce here some of these things from the joint task report. If they were taken into account in terms of the amendments from the Senate, we would have something with which we could live. The first nations have indicated that. Members around the House have as well. I cannot understand or see why members on the government side have not.

The point is that a considerable amount of work has been done. These things should be taken into account and the Senate amendments should be adjusted. They should be taken into account as the work is being done. It is important to note that the underlying assumption in all the lead up work to Bill C-6, and to even get us to this phase of the JTF, was that the goal of the exercise was to find, and this is the crucial thing, a mutually acceptable means by which to settle claims. That was the whole point of the exercise.

Can we say, with a straight face in all honesty today, that Bill C-6, coming back with the weak amendments from the Senate, is a mutually acceptable means by which to settle claims? I think not. It is just so far removed from the case. In fact there was a modicum agreement coming out of the JTF. These were the minimal basic kinds of standards that would be taken, even at this late hour, by the government. If it would hear what is being said adjust the report, then we could get on and get the business done so we could have a body which would be a mutually acceptable means by which to settle claims.

There has been a growing backlog of claims for many years, outstanding legal obligations that present a liability to this government and to any government that comes in later; the new Conservative Party government that will take office in the future. We need to deal with it in a fair and reasonable fashion. That is the whole point of it.

The legislative proposal, the mandate that committee had, is conveyed here. It is a very technical table of some very technical work, which is being done, to come to agreement on a detailed proposal and a model for a more credible claims process. That is why we are doing this whole thing. That is why we had a JTF. The last way of doing it and the present way has not worked. It has not been a credible claims process. The Senate should listen to the recommendation. At this late hour, to get something of a decent body and to get this approved in the House before we rise, the government should take into account some of those minimal standards of the JTF report.

Those recommendations are articulated in the draft in the form of drafting instructions. They represent the joint product of people on both sides, extensive efforts by leaders and by officials on both sides. Notwithstanding that, every effort was made to meet the needs and concerns of both parties. These proposals, as said by the JTF, articulate the best technical means by which to resolve these claims. I stand by that. I think we would find a spirit, a willingness in the House to move forward if we went back to the very considerable work that was done.

I need to stress the main themes and elements of the JTF proposal. It has been often said in the Senate in recent days, on Bill C-6, that what we have is basically JTF. It could not be further from the truth. It is definitely not the case. Only by members around the House today understanding what JTF is about can they themselves make a judgment and say that our own senators, Liberal senators, were not exactly telling us the whole story. It is not representing JTF. It is something else they have come up with and it is a bit of a deception to say that it is JTF when that is not the case.

The government should accept and incorporate the main elements of the joint task force report the into the bill, were it to find it possible at a late hour.

The main elements are comprised of that commission to facilitate negotiations and tribunal as well to resolve disputes. The proposed commission is meant to ensure a more level playing field for negotiations by providing for independence. That is key.

I have something that I want to share. It is a very substantial piece of work that has been done by an author on this very issue entitled, “Towards an Independent Land Claims Tribunal: Bill C-6 in Context”. Mr. Milroy, in his writing on this, has very astutely and aptly exposes how this is not independent. How will we ever get some resolution to this unless we have some perception of that?

The proposed commission is meant to ensure this level playing field by providing for independent facilitation, at least that is what was recommended by the JTF. However, it is not at all what we find in Bill C-6 here. The JFT states:

It can draw upon an entire range of alternative dispute resolution techniques and mechanisms to assist the parties in reaching final settlements that will be satisfactory to both sides. These tools range from mere facilitation of meetings to various forms of mediation. If the parties agree, they can even resort to arbitration to resolve a claim or any issues within it that may prevent progress in negotiations. The Commission need intervene only to the extent required by the parties in their efforts to reach a resolution.

The proposed Tribunal, on the other hand, would be a last resort. It would be a quasi-judicial body available to make a final binding determination on the validity of claims, on discreet legal issues that prevent progress in negotiations or on compensation to be awarded claimants in lieu of damages to first nations communities.

“The Tribunal”, at least as perceived by the JTF and which in fact should be the case here in Bill C-6, “is an essential element in the proposed process where independence ultimately resides with that body, thereby eliminating any conflict of interest on the part of the Crown”. It goes on to state, “Its presence is intended to provide incentive for the parties to conduct negotiations in good faith and to reach timely settlements”. There are no timeframes or time structures in Bill C-6. It goes on:

The key difference from the current process, the process that we have had and have been going with up until now, is that incentive for timely and efficient settlements to be reached is greatly increased, if we follow the joint task force report of 1998.

“It should be noted that despite the wish of many first nations, outstanding lawful obligations and grievances related to aboriginal title and rights are specifically excluded from this proposed process”. Again, it is not about some of those other outstanding kinds of things. This is about specific claims where in many cases it has been established that they are bona fide claims where somebody has absconded with aboriginal or first nation resources, sold their land and pocketed the money to the detriment of that first nation.

The federal government in fact insisted on this exclusion, so at the end of the day the parties at the table agreed to that. The federal government did not agree that the issue could be revisited upon the five year review as was recommended. It wanted to keep those other things out and just make this specific claims. So be it. That is where we are with regard to some of the very good recommendations in the JTF report.

The reports states:

It was agreed that a separate review of the federal comprehensive claims policy would be included in the National Delgamuukw Review process now being initiated.

The JTF recommendations have maintained the long-standing principle that negotiations are the preferred means by which to resolve outstanding legal obligations. We continue to agree that the courts are far too costly, adversarial and inaccessible to realistically resolve the hundreds of specific claims that have been brought forward by first nations.

It is clear that the costs of not settling these claims will continue to grow the longer they are not addressed.

That is so profoundly true. It goes on to say:

More importantly, the social and economic benefits of settling these claims makes it an important means by which Canada can assist first nations in healing broken communities and building a productive future.

The big advantage here is that settling outstanding claims is not another spending program, it is paying off old debts. These are recognized obligations that Canada owes First Nations. The benefits that will be derived from bringing closure to these outstanding matters far outweigh the costs. This initiative is a key step in building a new relationship by correcting past wrongs. It represents one important step in building mutual respect that first nations in Canada can undertake immediately.

Some of the key features, as we got into that JTF process, of the proposed model, included the removal of Canada's perceived conflict of interest through the creation of a truly independent mechanism which would report directly to Parliament and the first nations.

Another key feature was the establishment of a commission to facilitate and ensure good faith negotiations by providing appropriate mechanisms for alternate dispute resolution.

The third key feature was the establishment of a tribunal that would be available to claimants to resolve legal disputes when negotiations fail.

Fourth was that the tribunal could make binding decisions on the validity of grievances, compensation criteria and award compensation subject to reaching an agreement on a fiscal framework.

Fifth, another key feature, was a contemporary definition of what types of issues could be brought forward which were consistent with case law evolving jurisprudence that included all legal obligations arising from the fiduciary relationship and the honour of the crown.

As well, another theme would be the flexibility to accommodate regional diversity and complement existing or future regional mechanisms.

Another theme would be the capacity to offer innovative means of resolving outstanding grievances. That is lacking. That is not in Bill C-6. Also, getting a legislative base for the new settlement process to ensure adequate authority, impartiality and secure financing.

Another key would be that of independent funding for first nations research, submission and negotiation.

The last one would be a joint review after the first five year period which would assess the effectiveness of the process and consider matters that could not be addressed at this time, for example, the inclusion of lawful obligations arising from site specific aboriginal rights.

The joint task force moved through its report and came to the end of some fairly decent and reasonable recommendations. These were not found in Bill C-6 before the bill went to the Senate, and are still not found there after the Senate recommendations. They are not found anywhere. However, there were several items, and in a process of this sort special challenge come to the surface. Admittedly, in the joint task force report a conscious a effort has to be made to maintain the task force interest base approach to the discussions.

These types of issues brought out some more of the adversarial aspects of the relationship. They required some fairly sensitive discussion.

Such issues had undermined previous efforts of joint policy development. This group resolved it would not fall into that old pattern of positional bargaining. Those more difficult issues and how they were dealt with might be informative to other joint efforts in the future, and I think I would agree.

On aboriginal rights, early on in the process it had to face the fact that the federal government and first nations held very different conceptions about how land grievances should be addressed. First nations wanted to hold to the original Liberal red book commitment, that an independent commission to deal with all claims would be established. The federal government insisted that aboriginal title and comprehensive claims had to be dealt with separately. The issue of site specific aboriginal rights was raised.

The first nations across our country pointed out that many first nations could suffer damage due to an infringement on such rights. However, they did not have access to comprehensive claims negotiations.

In the view of first nations such issues are no less lawful obligations than any other specific claim.

Federal officials were concerned about opening the door to aboriginal title matters. They insisted that the government would never consider dealing with aboriginal title within the same process, primarily due to the compilations presented by issues related to the jurisdiction of provinces.

Many of the first nations were not prepared to support the JTF process unless their concerns about a review of comprehensive claims policies were addressed. That particular issue was only resolved at a meeting with the chiefs' committee on claims on December 11, 1997, late in the year prior to when the JTF report came out.

The minister made an explicit commitment to a second process to review federal comprehensive claims policy. That proved rather timely as the Supreme Court of Canada's Delgamuukw decision came out later the same day in fact.

In the very end, this issue has been flagged for inclusion in the five year review of the new process recommended by the joint task force. It is important to note that the proposed process would allow for issues related to aboriginal titles to be addressed in the independent process with the consent of the minister. That is the recommendation. It is a very reasonable one.

There was a fiscal framework for all of this. When one looks at specific land claims, I think anyone would have to acknowledge that fact. Reaching agreement on recommendations for a fiscal framework proved to be one of the biggest challenges for the joint task force. It had to agree that certain key principles should guide the discussion on a fiscal framework. The backlog of claims and the transaction costs for processing them should be reduced. All claims should be resolved within a reasonable timeframe.

When we look at the Senate recommendations and when we look at the bill as it went from committee to the Senate, that was a problem. We acknowledged that in committee. Recommendations and amendments came forward in the committee but of course they were voted down by the government members, for whatever reasons we are not quite sure.

However there were no timeframes. If this is going to work, there have to be timeframes. That is simply why I have emphasized time and again throughout my speech that it is such a crucial part of a proper process.

There is one recommendation which needs to be heeded by the government and which should have been heeded by the Senate and could possibly still be adjusted with respect to that. It is the recommendation in terms of a fiscal framework comprised of a budgetary allocation for a settlement of funds over the initial five year period which has been referred to as a five year compensation amount or FYCA.

If during the five year period when the amount paid in settlements by negotiated agreements or tribunal rulings reaches a certain predetermined point, it will trigger a pause in the caseload until the next budgetary allocation is determined. That makes sense.

That would be the way of doing it even with those that are going to be over the “cap”. We think the cap is way too low. We have indicated that. It could be put into the next budget year and a pause put on some of those other examinations of cases until such time as the payouts happen.

Once this point was reached, the commission would not issue certificates for first nations to go to the tribunal. That would prevent the new system from imposing liabilities that exceed the budgetary allocation. This should satisfy the federal requirement for a manageable fiscal framework while meeting the first nations need that no claims be excluded from the new independent process.

Although there are federal concerns that one or more large claims could expend the budgetary allocation early on in the five year period, the joint task force concludes that the FYCA proposal is the best means by which to meet the minimum requirements of both parties.

While the federal side has presented the problem at the task force table and has indicated a wish to explore options which might exclude larger claims from the tribunal process, first nations representatives were not comfortable discussing any exclusion of lawful obligations claims. Such a compromise would require political direction and might very well undermine the broad first nations consensus maintained to that point.

While the JTF was not in a position to resolve how the financing would ultimately be addressed, agreement was reached on what data and approach would provide the most realistic cost projections for future settlements. It gave a very specific outline of that in an appendix which was rather helpful for the government and for the Senate to take into account.

The main variables to be used in making cost projections have been clearly identified. They were discussed and all that foot work was done. For example, 60 claims come in each year and 60% of those have been accepted for negotiation. That would provide the base data for determining a whole range of options on financing.

It is important for us to know too in terms of when other bodies get involved, other less partisan bodies some might say, the kind of process they go through to come up with a report. I think it is instructive and enlightening for us. There are drafting instructions which the task force provided to the government which represented the product of intensive efforts by leaders and officials from both sides. It was not one sided.

A great deal of technical assessment and legal analysis had to be undertaken when the joint task force began developing proposals for an independent claims body sometime ago. The proposals themselves are the product of many years of work by many different people all of whom have recognized the need for some fundamental reform.

The joint task force did a lot of work reviewing and debating a wide range of options in arriving at the recommendations. Its suggested model was thought to be the best course in terms of eliminating the crown's conflict of interest in dealing with claims against itself. The joint task force proposal aims to achieve fairness, efficiency and effectiveness in the process for settling specific claims. All participants agreed that these were reasonable expectations in view of the serious shortcomings of the current process.

There were many legal, political and financial implications brought to bear on the task force's lengthy discussions. Many hours were put into the discussions. The task force devised what it believed to be an innovative and workable solution which was ignored by the government and the Senate again. The task force thought it was innovative and workable. Hours of no end were put into the challenge of jointly establishing recommendations for a fiscal framework.

The joint task force relied heavily upon the many years of experience of the participants, the wealth of past analytical material, as well as the expertise of the various consultants and experts who were brought into the process at different points.

The process was unique. It is rather different from what goes on in the House of Commons. It demanded representatives from both sides to act in a mutually supportive fashion to achieve results. There was not a lot of previous experience in such joint efforts to draw upon. The participants discovered that it required a great deal of mutual support and understanding to make it move forward. Each party had to come to grips with the constraints under which the other operated, especially at difficult points in the discussions when it seemed that different viewpoints were almost insurmountable.

From the outset the participants determined that the discussions had to be guided by an interest based approach, what was in it for one party and what was in it for the other based on interest, which was non-positional and required some wide-ranging consultation.

The development of mutually acceptable guiding principles helped both sides reach agreement relatively quickly on the scale of things on what the main elements of the recommendations should be. In this way the task force was able to take up one element at a time and work its way through the required details.

The task force hoped that its respective principals, the Government of Canada and first nations, would come to an agreement on proposals that could be mutually sanctioned and implemented within an agreed timeframe. Alas, it appears that will not be the case. It will be some time before we get some resolve on this. Regrettably it is not coming to pass anytime soon.

After the report was written, both the minister and the chief expressed the desire to have the new body in place by April 1999. The calendar in front of the Mace indicates that it is now November 3, 2003. There will be quite a few more sittings of the House before any headway will be made on the issue. Those individuals were obviously far more optimistic than they should have been.

The minister committed to the first nations that the required legislation would be jointly developed, thereby providing the task force with some sense of urgency in its efforts to complete the package. The goal was to have the legislation ready for introduction to Parliament early in the current session and here it is almost five years later.

Part of the urgency in moving the legislation forward quickly was due to the growing backlog of claims. Back in 1998 there were approximately 400 claims. We can well imagine what the backlog is now. The backlog contributes to the frustration and sense of grievance that have characterized relations between Canada and the first nations for so many years.

The need to clear up the uncertainty and to remove the impediments caused by those outstanding claims is now more apparent than ever, as first nations and Canadians pursue a wider range of economic opportunities and business partnerships.

Developments in the law have helped to clarify the legal basis of these claims and also the federal responsibilities in this regard. This makes it even more imperative that we eliminate the appearance of conflict in how Canada deals with first nations grievances against the government.

It had been expected that, pending agreement on the recommendations, those proposals would go to cabinet very quickly thereafter. That was postponed and delayed and other things stood in the way. Finally, we stand here on November 3 not anywhere closer at this point it is regrettable to say. Some of the delay was in order to address the federal requirement for a fiscal framework as set out in the Liberal government's red book.

Based on the desire to move forward on the required reforms without delay, the task force prepared a model of what the basic elements for legislation might look like and presented that in its report. If the drafting instructions of the joint task force had been approved by cabinet, the task force could have moved forward with the development of an actual bill very quickly. Instead the government took a detour. It went in a rather different direction from the recommendations in the 1998 joint task force report.

The task force was directed to work on a fiscal framework. It sought to satisfy the federal need for financial predictability. This was very time consuming and many hours were put into doing that. It was found that building a fiscal framework had fundamental implications for key aspects of the proposed model under discussion. It also brought about a further re-evaluation of such fundamental questions as to what comprised independence, how much it would cost and the issues surrounding fiscal control.

Those are good questions to be asking. Whenever we embark on a bill around this place those are the necessary questions. Sometimes we are concerned that the government does not get into that, that it does not look through it carefully and does not do the projections nor does it extrapolate the costs. It makes a lot of sense that this should be done in respect of this. The task force went through a lot of that work trying to get the figures down to be able to make the proper predictions.

It is believed that the five year compensation amount recommended by the task force addresses the concerns raised by the government of the day. It required a significant compromise on the part of first nations representatives who had a clear mandate to avoid putting financial caps on the settlement of claims. It was with great difficulty that the task force managed to reach agreement on a fiscal framework that would not prejudice or exclude claims.

The task force firmly believes that its proposal will provide the best means by which to settle claims. It is important to begin addressing these outstanding matters in a very significant way as the cost for first nations and the costs for the nation of Canada, can only rise when there is further delay. There are costs for not settling these matters not only fiscally, which is important of course, but socially as well. There are other kinds of fallout as well, which we do not want to have to get into today because it is a rather sad and sorry state. The cost of settling these matters must be done in a clear and timely fashion.

The task force's proposals were felt to provide the kind of basis for moving forward. Again, they were ignored by the government and by and large they were ignored in the Senate amendments as well. The task force suggested that the first nations and Canada begin to consider the types of mutually acceptable individuals who should fill those key positions in the new body.

Now we sit around waiting, and we will be waiting for a while to come, as the government has no particular willingness to make some significant adjustments to the bill. It was thought it would be timely to consider a joint advisory body to assist the new claims commission and tribunal in setting itself up. We are a way from doing that as things unfortunately stand.

The task force believed it engaged in an exercise that could serve as a landmark and a model for a new partnership between first nations and Canada. It addressed it in a very creative, cooperative spirit. There was a whole range of technical, legal and financial challenges it had to address and it did in a reasonable manner. It is not perfect and nobody is saying that, but the task force produced a very detailed, innovative and for the most part very practical proposal.

The task force was ready and willing to provide any further technical assistance. If it were called up today I am sure it could provide advice and wisdom, having sat that many hours for that particular joint task force. Task force members hoped and I hoped that its work would in some sense contribute to the enactment of legislation in this place and to other measures that would ensure a new process to resolve claims to the satisfaction of all parties concerned.

I think that is important when we look at what the government produced and what the Senate then, in a fairly weak and wimpy way, came forward with: something of the final draft of the legislative drafting instructions for an independent claims body, the instructions for preparing the legislation, the product of the joint first nations and Canada task force. The task force completed its work in a series of monthly meetings beginning in February 1997 and concluding in the latter part of 1998.

The following are some of the suggestions the task force had. The bill was going to be called the first nations specific claims resolution act. I think the instructive item in the title was that it was actually going resolve something. It was going to resolve these specific claims.

There were definitions, as there are always are. There were definitions with respect to AFN and with respect to the bands. A band was defined as:

(a) a band as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Indian Act;

(b) a group of Indians that was recognized as a band under the laws of Canada, or whose ancestors were so recognized, and whose members are members of a band referred to in paragraph (a) or (c); or

(c) a group of persons that was a band as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Indian Act that was a signatory to a comprehensive claims settlement agreement entered into with the Government of Canada or to any other agreement specified by the regulations.

Establishing a commission by subsection 5(1) of the act was also addressed.

With respect to competing claims, it was defined as follows:

“competing claim” means a claim that is brought by a band before an adjudicative body otherwise than under this Act if there was another claim filed under section 10 and the two claims are in respect of the same asset and raise substantive or remedial issues that could result in irreconcilable decisions.

We would not want to be at odds if it is already under consideration in some other context. That had to be sorted out and clearly and properly defined.

The purpose of the proposed act was to provide for the establishment of:

an independent and expert Commission to help First Nations and the Crown settle, or resolve by binding arbitration, certain claims and to establish an independent and expert Tribunal to expeditiously and finally determine issues referred to it that arose from such claims.

With respect to non-derogation, it stated:

The bill will provide that, for greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from the application of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Then in general there were proposed sections 5 to 9, which are what the bill should look like. This is more closely what it should approximate. These were specific drafting instructions for the government of the day which for some reason this government decided to ignore. Why do we put people to work on these expensive and time consuming task forces and then ignore them and set aside their report?

The bill was to include:

provisions for the establishment of the First Nations Specific Claims Commission and for general administrative matters regarding the Commission.

It stated:

The Commission shall consist of a Chief Commissioner, a Vice-Chief Commissioner and between three and five other members to be appointed by the Governor in Council.

It recommended that:

Persons are eligible to be appointed only if they are recommended by the AFN and the Minister.

Thus we see that a joint recommendation was suggested.

In regard to regional representation, it stated:

Appointments shall be made having regard to regional representation in the membership of the Commission.

That was to get some balance around the country.

In regard to full time and part time, it stated:

The Chief Commissioner and Vice-Chief Commissioner shall be full-time members and other members may be appointed as full-time or part-time members of the Commission.

In regard to the terms of their appointments, it stated:

Each member of the Commission shall be appointed for a term of not more than five years and may be removed by the Governor in Council only for cause on the recommendation of the AFN and the Minister.

As things stand now, where we have only three year terms, if the government does not like how the commission is doing things it could well remove members.

I sat on a health board for the city of Saskatoon and the Saskatoon area, the largest health board in that province, where at one point in time the NDP government of the day decided it needed something of a buffer, so there were appointments of members to these health boards while other members were elected. I was one of those elected members. Six were appointed.

I need to make members aware that when individuals are appointed, as was the case there, they are going to be somewhat careful not to buck the trend and not to go against the government if in fact they are dependent on the government for their reappointment.

In this case, we have three year terms. With that kind of scenario, if these individuals are looking for reappointment because they need the salary, the job and they want to carry on, it is only for three years. If they do not kowtow to and rule as the government wants them to, members can imagine that they are not going to be reappointed. That is problematic.

Therefore it was a very wise recommendation coming out of the joint task force report that:

Each full-time member of the Commission shall be paid the salary fixed by the Governor in Council and each part-time member shall be paid the fees or other remuneration for that member's services that are fixed by the Governor in Council.

Then we move on from there in terms of a number of other things.

Mr. Speaker, you are signalling me that my time has concluded. I have much more to say on this subject. I look forward to that in days ahead. I understand that I have indefinite time, so am I to understand that I will commence again when Bill C-6 comes back to the House as I yield the floor now? I will cede the floor, but I will be back on the docket to relay much more wisdom and many more insights, not from myself but from the joint task force report.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am rather concerned. Today we are debating the amendments to Bill C-6 as they came back from the Senate. I know many members are concerned but we would certainly hope that he would stick to the main point in order and not digress. That is probably the reason that people are not listening very much.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know they will be watching from the TV monitors out in the lobby as they are eating their lunch and hearing the very important things that are being said this hour in response to the report from the Senate with regard to Bill C-6.

When I left off on Friday in terms of this rather important bill under consideration, I was saying that I do not dispute the point that making the centre independent not to mention giving it the appearance of independence is no small challenge. It is a challenge. As I said last week, it is clear to me that the government is not up to the challenge.

Proposals to help give the centre independence and the important appearance of independence are staring the government in the face from the pages of the joint task force report, to which I will refer later. There are large blocks of that document that are very helpful. There is another document by Leigh Ogston Milroy which talks about the need for independence with this particular body.

A number of amendments were put forward in committee by the Canadian Alliance and there were some from other parties as well. There were a significant number of amendments from our party, yet those were completely ignored and swept aside.

Another Senate amendment is a transitional provision to ensure that those who are claimants under the current specific claims policy are also entitled to make representations regarding appointments to the new claims centre.

Another Senate amendment will allow first nations to make representations as part of the government's three to five year review process mandated in the bill. This will affect clause 76 of the bill. Unamended, Bill C-6 does not obligate the government to seek anyone else's input into the review process or to document their thoughts.

Even with the Senate amendment, nothing forces the government to make public and be accountable for concerns that the many first nations have with the claims resolution process. How does the government expect to win over the confidence and the trust of first nations when it ignores them in such an obvious manner? How does the government expect to convince people that the claims resolution centre is independent when it is keeping such tight control over every aspect of the process?

Indian chiefs from across the country as well as the Assembly of First Nations have made their position very clear, that the appointment process mandated by Bill C-6 undermines any claim that the centre will be independent and impartial. If they use it at all, the first nations will not accept rulings against their claims because they lack confidence in the impartiality of the centre.

The government has set up a process that will not resolve anything in terms of producing closure or finality to a claim.

The parliamentary secretary told us in committee that the minister would consult first nations. Having said that, he was unable to explain why the minister is unwilling to put that promise in the bill. The review process sends the message that the government is only interested in the effectiveness of the centre from its own perspective, rather than understanding its impact on all parties concerned.

I believe that is a major flaw and a major problem in the bill. If the bill is not looked at in terms of the other parties involved, in terms of getting the proper resolution, saving us all kinds of tax dollars if we have to use the more expensive and extensive process of going through the courts, this is not taking into account those considerations.

The concerns about trust and lack of independence of the proposed claims centre have been raised numerous times in the Senate as well. I frankly confess that I am surprised that the Senate report to the House did not include any stronger amendments to rectify the situation.

For example, Progressive Conservative Senator Terry Stratton noted at one point:

Under the present system Canada is already the judge and jury. Bill C-6 retains this concept and adds elements to this conflict.

The federal government retains sole authority over appointments to the commission and tribunal and retains authority over possessing the claims, which undermines any concept of independence. Appointments are made on recommendation of the minister, the same minister responsible for defending these claims. Obviously, this system is ripe for political patronage considering that the commission appointees have no qualification requirements.

Liberal Senator Gill told his colleagues:

I have trouble seeing how this tribunal or the appointed commissioners or judges would be independent. I have a lot of trouble seeing that independence.

At one point Senator Nick Sibbeston, speaking in defence of the bill, argued:

There is no other system. No other approach is possible in our system of governance, where the government appoints people to tribunals and boards. We have to live with that system and trust that the appointees are not in a conflict of interest situation. We must trust that they can make judgments based on their best ability without regard for who appointed them.

Senator Sibbeston and others speaking on behalf of the government on this issue are arguing that we are dealing with an either/or situation, making no room for a middle ground.

Elsewhere in Senate debate, Senator Jack Austin, also speaking in defence of the bill, objected that the Assembly of First Nations and other aboriginal groups were demanding veto powers over government appointments. The Assembly of First Nations has indicated that it can live with the recommendations that are in public view for all to see in the joint task force report.

As I indicated in my speech last week, although it gives aboriginal groups much more input into the appointment process than they would have under Bill C-6, it would still give the government the final decision making power. First nations can be given far greater opportunity for input into the review process as well without giving them veto powers over the final release of the government's report.

Mr. Speaker, as you well know from your many years in this place, there is a mechanism in Parliament whereby in the case of committees, opposition parties can release dissenting reports. No doubt, Mr. Speaker, you were in on that process when you sat on the opposition side.

Opposition reports, or dissenting reports, are not uncommon in this place. Those dissenting reports are given when individuals do not agree with a committee's final report. Those opposition reports are tabled and made public. They have official status but they do not stop or obstruct the government's legislative agenda from moving forward.

I do not understand why there is such a lack of creativity on the government side when it comes to the specific claim centre that it cannot come up with something comparable to that such as dissenting reports or whatever one wants to call them in the three to five year review process mandated in the legislation.

Senator Sibbeston raised an interesting point in the comment which I quoted a few minutes ago. He talked about trust and about how important it was. We are supposed to “trust that the appointees are not in a conflict of interest situation”. He said that we must trust that appointees can make judgments based on their very best ability without regard for who appointed them.

The hon. senator talked about trust in the context of the industry minister's interesting relationship with industry giant Irving Oil. We would not want to forget the special perks that other ministers have received from Irving. When we are told to trust the government, we should not forget about the Minister of Human Resources Development and her admission regarding Irving perks. That minister is already famous for the HRDC boondoggle that was exposed under her watch. Trust indeed. There is also the involvement of the environment minister and who knows who else will admit to an unethical relationship with Irving later on today, tomorrow or sometime during the remainder of the week.

When we think about trust and the current government, we might also keep in mind the flagrant abuse of taxpayer dollars through the billion dollar boondoggle gun registry. There has been no end to the ink used to write on that exposé of scandalous waste of taxpayer dollars and then we use the word trust.

That scandal in respect to the gun registry has been brought to us by the current industry minister. Everything he touches seems to turn to scandal and boondoggle it would appear, at least in terms of the number of portfolios he has had.

There are the current health minister, the justice minister and now the solicitor general, and there are all of these different problems in respect to the kinds of perceived conflicts and scandals they have been involved in.

Speaking of the justice minister, this is an individual who is presently sacrificing our parliamentary democracy on the altar of judicial activism and so we had hearings all across the country. We listened to good, qualified, competent people who presented considered, reasoned opinions to the committee and at the end of the day when it was just about to release its report, it was pretty much shut down. Other individuals were brought in to stack the committee. It did not matter that the members did all this good work over some considerable period of time in attempting to get an understanding of the crucial issue of marriage in the country.

As well, there is no question from the vast majority of witnesses that the way in which the government is going in terms of homosexual marriage is not the direction the committee wants. In fact, it would have been along a different line, possibly civil or domestic partnerships or something like that but certainly the retention of heterosexual traditional marriage was the way the committee obviously would have gone.

At the end of the day the government threw that out or did not even appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. A pretty good body of opinion is asking why it did not do that. It is because it knew in fact it would have been upheld; the traditional heterosexual time honoured definition of marriage in the country would have been upheld.

The Minister of Justice at that point did not trust at all what the committee did. He was not to be trusted because he really sabotaged and hi-jacked the whole process to his own end, to his own purpose and to his own agenda. Instead of taking it to appeal which would have upheld the traditional heterosexual time honoured definition of marriage, the whole thing was sabotaged.

The justice minister was trying to get in the way and obstruct others who were going to come forward in lieu of the government on that particular issue, defending in our country what has long been held to be the proper definition of marriage. It is as constitutionally valid today as ever.

I say that simply because there is the issue of trust. Can we trust? Ought we to trust? Ought we to be so naive as to trust when we have things like that going on in our country? I would say it would obviously be very naive.

Getting back directly to Bill C-6, that is why when Senator Sibbeston talks of trust, either he is thinking that we are a little bit naive and fairly stupid in this whole thing or he believes it himself and that is not even a strong statement in respect to his own credentials for his role.

Trust in the current government is probably at an all time low because of a number of these things. We cannot simply trust the government.

How would it go over, Mr. Speaker, if you showed up at a place in your riding, or if any of us did for that matter, and walked in saying, “Trust me, I am from the government”. I think it gives a little sense of it if you, I, or any member here did it.

I am slightly shielded at this point because I can say, “Trust me, I am from the official opposition party, the Canadian Alliance”. But if I were to walk in and say “Trust me, I am from the government,” I can imagine what kind of a response that would get from constituents. “Trust me, I am from the government” is not an assurance that goes very far today, not with the government engaged in permanent damage control due to unethical behaviour and gross incompetence.

Canadians want to make their government accountable by seeing their promises stipulated in legislation. They do not want a verbal statement that the government is going to do such and such; they want it in legislation. Let us defend it, make sure it is entrenched there and then they will be more likely to believe it. Verbal assurances are not good enough, certainly not when there is the kind of legacy that the Liberal government has.

What is so difficult about putting some bottom line, minimum standards in place in terms of the credentials required by a claims centre employee to mitigate against the risk of patronage and conflict of interest? That could be done, it should be done and it is necessary for it to be done. Such a move would increase the confidence of Canadians, including the aboriginal claimants involved in these claim disputes.

At the same time, to bring my comments back specifically to the three to five year process, let us give first nations a better mechanism to have their voices heard, especially if they do not agree with the government's report.

The Senate has made another amendment that seems designed to address concerns over conflict of interest. It may be of some benefit in that respect, although that remains to be seen. We are not quite sure. The amendment in the words of the Senate Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples chair, the hon. Thelma Chalifoux “seeks to protect the impartiality of the commission by limiting employment with claimants for certain appointees following the completion of their term”. It also imposes a temporary employment restriction with the Department of Indians Affairs and Northern Development for prior appointees.

The government should make further amendments to deal with the independence and the impartiality of the claim centre before sending the bill back to the Senate for final approval, instead of simply accepting the Senate report as written.

Bill C-6 states that the majority of the adjudicators, including either the chief adjudicator or the vice-chief adjudicator, must be members in good standing of the bar of a province or la Chambre des notaires du Québec. As I mentioned a few minutes ago, the bill says nothing about the professional qualifications of those eligible for appointments to the claims commission. In a saner time one might be able to trust the government to make competent appointments, but the scandalous revelation of out of control bureaucrats that have been surfacing in recent months lead to some real concerns about the need for greater clarity as to the credentials of potential appointees to the claim centre.

It might also be worth examining the length of the terms that the appointees hold with the centre. First nations have expressed concern that the appointment periods for the chief and the vice-chief commissioners and adjudicators are only five years and for the regular commissioners and adjudicators the period is three years, with the possibility of reappointment available in all these cases. First nations, and rightfully so, fear that these short periods of service will tempt the officials to rule in favour of the government that appointed them so as to ensure they are reappointed. That concern was also raised during Bill C-6 debate in the other place, in the Senate. If the appointee sits for such a short term and has the option of being reappointed, will his or her interest in being reappointed affect his or her commitment to impartiality when hearing the claims?

The final amendment proposed by the Senate adds to the tribunal's authority by amending section 47. Section 47 deals with some of the responsibilities of the tribunal. The Senate amendment adds to the tribunal's responsibilities. If this amendment passes, the tribunal will be able “in relation to a specific claim that is before the commission to summon witnesses or to order production of documents”.

In other words, if one of the parties is not forthcoming with information deemed important by the commissioners to resolving the particular case at hand, the commission can request the intervention of the tribunal for the purpose of requiring witnesses to appear before the commission and to require the production of documents that would help in evaluating the claim. That on the surface seems like a reasonable amendment. I might be able to support that if we were to get that far, but I am not so inclined to think we will at this point.

Although not reflected in the amendments from the Senate, the question of transparency with the specific claims resolution centre was a significant topic of debate in the Senate. I found it very interesting to note and to understand what was said there on this matter. It was the subject of some observations which the Senate added to the end of its report to this House.

That is another area of the bill that needs to be dealt with to build confidence and trust in the government by our first nations aboriginal people across the country.

What we are talking about regarding transparency are provisions to make the process effective and efficient. I think everybody concerned in this process would like that. We want a process that is expeditious, not one that is full of delay, obstruction and stonewalling. Sadly, we see the very opposite in Bill C-6. In the legislation there are far too many opportunities available to the government to stall and to delay the process of considering a claim.

As individuals well noted, it has been said numerous times in speeches delivered here and elsewhere, that justice delayed is really justice denied. There is no question about it. If we hold off people indefinitely and obstruct, stonewall and delay, then justice delayed is simply justice denied. That is a sad statement.

The comments from the Senate are remarkably similar to the concerns that we raised in the House and in the aboriginal affairs committee earlier this year. Let me read the Senate comments into the record today. I quote:

One of the primary goals of this Bill is to provide for more speedy resolution of claims. Nonetheless, there are many areas of potential delay built into the process. Most notably, there is no requirement on the Minister to make a decision on whether to accept a claim for negotiation within a set time period. We have been told that this flexibility is necessary because of the complexity of many claims and the limited legal and other resources available to the Minister to make these determinations. As well, the government may be limited in the number of claims it can address because of the budget available for settlements. We would therefore urge the government to allocate significant additional resources to the process of validity determination, negotiation and settlement of claims so that the admirable goals of the Bill can be met.

We would ask that the Minister, in the review of the Act in three to five years, pay particular attention to the impact of the issues of delay and resources that have been allocated to the process of validity determination.

We, of course, believe the government should make the necessary amendments to the bill immediately and not put it off. As I noted earlier, the government has protected itself fiscally by establishing a budgetary limit to the funds it can distribute each year to settle claims. Then to go on to say that it needs to build on such protections at other points in the bill is really nonsense.

There is nothing stopping the government from resolving claims in any given year that total an amount greater than that which has been set aside in the budget to allocate to such claims. In such a situation the resolution process could include a provision to add an appropriate amount to the claim payout to take into account the fact that it cannot be allocated until the next fiscal year or whatever subsequent date on which the payment would be made. Therefore, if the total is used up within a year, that is fine, then there is an agreement, a written legal binding part of the text, that says it will be paid out of another year's or maybe the total amount could be increased altogether. However, I would say that it is fairly uncreative. I can attribute other things to it as well, but do not say that it cannot meet these bigger claims because it does have the total allocation, when it could be paid out in the subsequent years. I am sure that would be acceptable to that band rather than setting it aside altogether.

I am sure that the simple fact of resolving a claim would be a step forward for peace of mind and security for many native people, even if the payout for that claim had to be delayed by a year or two based on prior knowledge of budget constraints. To leave first nations claimants in a state of insecurity and flux over the final outcome of their claims simply because the money is not available to pay it out in any given year is quite frankly an indefensible position.

I want to take some time now to remind the House of the numerous specific areas in the bill in which the government has built in opportunities to delay and obstruct the claims resolution process.

The minister, for example, if he decides not to negotiate the claim is nowhere obligated to explain his reasons for that decision. If the claimant decides to challenge the minister's decision, the minister has to provide disclosure in his defence at a later date before the claims tribunal or the court. The claimant on the other hand is required to provide a full accounting of his position and rationale for it at the outset of the process.

One would expect that in a context that is supposed to be conciliatory and guided by alternative dispute resolution mechanisms rather than the more adversarial environment of the courts, that Bill C-6 would make clear the responsibility of both parties for full disclosure at the earlier point in the process.

The government has also built many mechanisms into the bill to enable delay and obstruction in the process of considering a claim. It has avoided the establishment of tangible timelines contrary to recommendations in the 1998 joint task force report, which we want to make some reference to later, to ensure a speedy resolution of claims.

That 1998 joint task force report had some very good, notable and worthy recommendations. The government has also rejected joint task force report proposals that would have given the claimant or the commission the ability to move the process forward if the government seemed to be taking excessive time to consider a claim.

The first example of what we might call a stalling clause is the provision for multiple, preparatory meetings. It is probably fair to call it a stalling clause because that is the net effect of what results here. Following the initial preparatory meeting, the commission is authorized to hold additional such meetings at the request of either party. The minister can conceivably use this provision to delay the process.

Indian representatives who spoke with us said that one preparatory meeting was generally enough and therefore the option for additional meetings was not likely to be a provision found useful by first nations. Concern was raised that it existed more for the benefit of the government for use as a stalling mechanism. People were pretty wise to that from all sides of the table. I think the government was also aware of that, but would obviously not want to concede that or publicly fess up to that.

The bill does not require the commission to hold additional meetings at the request of either party, and one could imagine the government using this point in its defence to try to defend the indefensible here. However, without protections in the bill to ensure that the commissioners are competent and free from conflicts of interest, this really means very little. As we have said before, we need those specific protections in the bill along the lines of the competence of commissioners free from conflict of interest and so on. We need those in writing. It is not good just to have verbal assurances of same. A handshake, unfortunately, is not adequate for the job in this case.

Later in the process where the bill discusses the minister's need to consider the merits of the claimant's case and to make a decision as to whether he will negotiate the claim, the bill gives him six months to report back with a decision. Clause 30 of the bill also states that the minister can come back to the commission in six months and instead of reporting his decision, he can say that he needs more time.

This might seem like a reasonable provision on the surface, if it simply extended the government's deliberation for another 6 to 12 months. When we look at it more closely, we find out that timelines and final deadlines are completely absent. They are nowhere in there, not in respect to a 6 to 12 month deadline. Therefore, the government could theoretically ask indefinitely for additional six month extensions carrying on to eternity, I assume. Obviously, that is a real problem.

Earlier in committee, the Canadian Alliance attempted to amend this section with a one year limit on the process, but the government rejected that amendment as it did with pretty much all of our amendments. Hansard records indicate that this aspect of the process was a topic of some debate and concern in the Senate, but unfortunately that concern was not translated into an amendment in the Senate's report to this House.

The amendment that we in the Canadian Alliance proposed would have required the minister to apply to the commission for more time rather than to simply declare that he needed more time. That is how it stands now: that he simply needs more time. Rather, what I think was our very reasonable amendment stated that the minister had to apply for more time, thereby essentially giving the commission the right to deny the government's request, enabling it to say no, it has had time enough. As it stands now, the minister simply says he needs more time and that is it. There is no verdict that can be rendered back to him to say that he cannot have more time.

The amendment we put forth and the proposal we made also would have required the commission to hear from the claimant before making a decision. Then it could render a decision on whether that period of time was required.

Bill C-6 does not even require the government to provide its reasons for insisting on an extension to its reporting deadline. Can hon. members imagine that? The government can say it needs an extension without any indication of how much time it needs and without having to give any reason why. I find that extremely absurd and nefarious at worst.

We are dealing with a government that despises accountability and transparency. Subclause 30(3) states that the government may provide the reason that it needs more time “if applicable”. The way this clause is phrased, it treats the practice of not providing reasons as normative. That is not uncommon, as we hear that across the way in question period as well. Not giving reasons is the norm. The exception would be that in some really remote and strange case one might be compelled to provide some sort of reason. That is the way the clause is phrased. It treats the practice of not providing reasons as normative, saying that the minister need only produce reasons if it is deemed “applicable” to do so.

I do not know what situations would make it not applicable for the minister to provide reasons for delaying the process and leaving the parties hanging there. One of my amendments in committee would have deleted the words “if applicable” and just knocked that out of there, but again, the government members voted that down. Apparently this secrecy provision, which is almost what I would call it, is important, even though the minister does not tell us why.

It is this lack of transparency in the bill that raises serious questions about how effective it really will be in clearing up the terrible backlog that exists today in respect of specific claims. The government even added a fourth section to clause 30 to protect itself against penalties for stalling the process. Subclause 30(4) states:

No passage of time in relation to the decision on whether to negotiate a claim may be considered as constituting a decision not to negotiate the claim.

This section reinforces the fact that the bill makes no provision for the claimant to circumvent this part in the process. The commission may not treat the lack of a decision from the government as a decision one way or the other, so it would remain in limbo until the minister decides to announce his decision.

It would be worthwhile at this time to consider for some moments part of the legal analysis of Bill C-6 produced by the Assembly of First Nations as it pertains to the particular issues of accountability and transparency in the claims process proposed in this legislation. Here I will quote:

Under Bill C-6, the federal government unilaterally controls the pace at which claims are considered. Bill C-6 permits the Minister to 'consider' a claim indefinitely at an early stage in the process. There are no time limits that must be obeyed. No independent body can ever say 'enough is enough, the claim goes to the next stage'. A claim might have to go through an elaborate series of distinct stages and steps before compensation is ever paid. This could include:--

Here the Assembly of First Nations lists distinct stages and steps before compensation is paid:

--a funding application;

--initial preparatory meetings;

--Ministerial consideration;

--mediation;

--further delays while the Minister considers an amendment that the claimant makes to its initial claim;

--an application and hearing to convince the commission that mediation has been exhausted;--

I am getting a bit exhausted just reading through this whole thing.

The steps continue:

--a hearing in front of the Tribunal to determine compensation;

--mediation to deal with compensation;

--an application and hearing to determine whether mediation has been exhausted;

--proceedings in front of the Tribunal;

--a five year delay while the award is paid out;

--judicial review of the award.

I can rhyme all that off in just a few short minutes here, but each one of that number of steps and stages takes considerable and lengthy time in and of itself. They are distinct stages or steps that would be required to be undertaken.

The Assembly of First Nations continued:

Many of these steps could have been eliminated or combined. With others, the delays could have been controlled by giving an independent body control over the pace by setting a strict time frame in the statute itself. The Joint Task Force Model Bill was built for making major headway on the backlog. Bill C-6 is almost certain to ensure that the backlog grows.

That was the thing. Even with all of those steps that we listed there, there was no strict timeframe in respect to any of them, so members can imagine that it would go on for an awfully long time. It is just a fact of life that if some timelines and timeframes are not set, then things go on indefinitely. In all courts of law, in all those processes, there is something to address that, yet we do not have anything here at all.

In a footnote to these comments, the AFN noted that:

Under the [Joint Task Force] report, the minister did not have the discretion to consider a claim indefinitely.

I think that was a very good thing about the joint task force report, one among many things. In that joint task force report, the minister did not have the discretion to consider a claim indefinitely. The AFN went on to say:

Once a claim was lodged, the Commission and Tribunal, not the federal government, had the primary say over the pace of proceedings. A First Nation was not required to attend more than one preparatory meeting, or to prove to a third party that mediation or other “alternate dispute resolution” was exhausted... When a claim reached the tribunal, both validity and compensation could be dealt with together.

As I have examined this particular bill and the claims process in general, including the entire history leading up to the place at which we find ourselves today in the House, these observations made by the AFN generally strike me as quite reasonable.

Another problem with clause 32 is the obstructionist language used in terms of the requirements the claimant has to fulfill before the commission is permitted to send a claim to the tribunal. A claim can go to the tribunal if the government refuses to negotiate it following discussions facilitated by the commission with the help of alternate dispute resolution mechanisms. If the claimant still wants to pursue his claim, he can ask the commission to refer it to the tribunal for a binding decision.

The problem here is the excessive threshold of proof that the bill imposes on the claimant before the claim can go before the tribunal.

Subclause 32(1)(a) states:

the basis for the claim and all matters of fact and law on which the claimant relies in support of the claim have been fully and clearly identified and adequately researched and have been considered by the Minister;--

Subclause 32(1)(b) states:

all dispute resolution processes appropriate for resolving the issue have been exhausted without the issue having been resolved;--

These sections essentially require the claimant to prove to the claims commission that he has done absolutely everything that he could possibly do within that alternate dispute resolution process before the commission can send the claim to the tribunal to consider its validity.

The absolutist language in this clause imposes an excessive if not impossible threshold on the claimant to reach before he will be permitted to pursue a hearing before the tribunal. If pro-government patronage appointees are sitting on the commission, they could help the government to use this provision as yet another stalling tactic. If the claimant does not have every single t crossed and every i dotted, this step in the process can be another place to delay justice for aboriginal people and, as we have said before, justice delayed is justice denied.

Also as we have said before, first nations have pointed out that they do support the use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, and that if the alternative dispute resolution process is working for a particular claim, it is in their interest to make it work. First nations therefore say they do not understand why the government is using this big stick approach to ensuring the use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms--unless it is another mechanism to be used as a stalling tactic, of course, which would explain why the government would be of a mind to use it--and that it is a matter of trying to force the claimant to continue to sit down with the federal government even long after any reasonable person would have observed that nothing further could be gained by additional negotiations.

One comment we received from first nations on this issue is as follows:

Alternate dispute settlement mechanisms, such as mediation, only work if both parties are committed to making it work. The best judge of that is the parties themselves.

The very best individuals to know that, the best persons to know that, are those who are sitting at the table, those parties themselves. The comment continued:

A claimant should not have to “prove” to the commission, in another potentially expensive and dilatory proceeding, that alternative dispute resolution is “exhausted”.

Now they have to prove that it is not working, with the burden of proof being on them. The comment continued:

The current provision allows the federal government to further stall and frustrate the process by dragging its feet with respect to its participation in the alternate dispute resolution process.

I want to move to discussion of the compensation phase of the process. Assuming that the tribunal has made a binding decision that the claim is valid, that it is a bona fide claim, then both parties have to go back to the commission to try to negotiate the appropriate compensation for the claim. That is dealt with in clause 35 of Bill C-6. Subclauses 35(1)(a) and 35(1)(b) of this clause duplicate those in clause 32.

Subclause 35(1) essentially requires the claimant to prove to the claims commission that he has done absolutely everything that he could possibly do within the alternative dispute resolution process before the commission can send that claim to the tribunal to consider its validity. As I said before about absolutist language, in this clause it imposes an excessive if not impossible threshold on the claimant to reach before he will be permitted to pursue a hearing before the tribunal. If pro-government patronage appointees--I said it before and I will say it again--are sitting on that commission, they could help the government by using this provision as another stalling tactic.

First nations have pointed out that they have supported the use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and they would be willing to use that process. I think they are the ones best, willing and able to decide whether it is working, and the government across the other side as well, rather than forcing that individual or those claimants to sit down with the federal government even long after reasonable people would have observed that nothing further could be gained by additional negotiations.

Some first nations have said that if alternative dispute resolution mechanisms do not work by the end of one year, there should be a provision for the claimant to request that the claim be transferred to the tribunal. One representation we received states in part:

After one year of attempting to negotiate a resolution, the claimant should be free to proceed to the tribunal. It should not have to go through further hoops, involving additional delay and expense, to show that it tried to exhaust other means of settlement. It is unnecessary and unfair to require the claimant to exhaustively state its case, including all of its evidence and legal arguments, prior to the tribunal hearing. No one is required to do so in any comparable litigation or arbitration context.

The representation goes on to say:

The Minister should not be able to delay resolution by dragging a First Nation through a slow or endless series of 'negotiations'. Any First Nation that can achieve a reasonable settlement by negotiation will do so. Why would it risk losing at the tribunal?

These certainly seem to me to be reasonable observations. I think other people, as they examine, scrutinize and carefully look over the bill, would draw the same conclusion.

I am not saying that no criteria should be stipulated as a basic standard that has to be met by the claimant before the commission can transfer the claim to the tribunal. Perhaps there are ways in which the claimant could unfairly take advantage of a situation in which no criteria are required. But at the very least, the criteria should be modified with changes to the absolutist language that currently exists in the bill.

As I consider the lack of independence and transparency in the claim centre proposed in Bill C-6, I continue to be astonished at the government's claim that this is an improvement over the current situation. Even in the Senate, the hon. Jack Austin, speaking on behalf of the government, stated numerous times that:

The centre will create a more independent, impartial and transparent system.

He also claimed that:

Bill C-6 is the result of a substantial joint Canada-First Nations task force process.

Does the government believe that if it says the same thing over and over again--in the Senate or anywhere in the country--that no matter how absurd it is, people will eventually believe it? It clearly has not taken into account, in a substantive manner, the recommendations of the joint task force report of 1998.

It does not matter what Senator Austin or others have said. They can say it until they are blue in the face, but it does not make it so. It can simply be looked at and it is not on too many pages in that report. We eventually realize how far it falls short of those recommendations there.

Thankfully, aside from the government senators, Progressive Conservative and some Liberal senators were willing to challenge Senator Austin's claims on the independence of the Bill C-6 process, as well as his insistence that it was fairly representative of the joint task force report of 1998.

We also had Canadian Alliance Senator Gerry St. Germain make representations to say that what was in Bill C-6 was not independent as reported back to the House from the Senate. For the record, the hon. Terry Stratton, a Progressive Conservative senator observed that:

The [Indian Affairs] minister, in his presentation to the committee, referred to the joint task force report. He stated that there were two areas where they did not agree with the joint task force report and, therefore, did not follow the recommendations of the task force report. However, the aboriginal presentations stated to us quite clearly that far more than just two references to the JTF were ignored. As a result, because there were so many problems with the bill, not just two, they maintained that the bill should be rejected. There was a conflict between what the minister had stated and what the aboriginals had been stated with respect to the JTF.

Senator St. Germain stated, for example, that:

The government has built mechanisms into this bill that will delay and obstruct the process of considering claims. It has avoided the establishment of tangible timelines to ensure a speedy resolution of claims. This is contrary to the recommendations in the 1998 joint task force report.

Senator St. Germain also noted:

Bill C-6 would permit the minister to consider a claim at the early stages of the process indefinitely.

This reinforces exactly what we have said, what we as members of the committee have said, and what I, as a member of the Canadian Alliance, have said. The process can be carried on indefinitely. He went on to state:

There are no time limits that must be obeyed. No independent body can ever say, “Enough is enough, the claim goes to the next stage.” The claim might have to go through an elaborate series of distinct stages and steps before compensation is ever paid. Many of these steps could have been eliminated or combined with others. The delays could have been controlled by giving an independent body control over the pace or by setting a strict timeframe in the statute itself. The joint task force model bill was built for making major headway on the backlog. Bill C-6 is almost certain to ensure that the backlog grows.

Senator St. Germain then pointed out:

The AFN also noted that under the 1998 joint task force report, the minister did not have the discretion to consider a claim indefinitely. Once a claim was logged, the commission and tribunal, not the federal government, had the primary say over the pace of the proceedings. A first nation was not required to attend more than one preparatory meeting or to prove to a third party that mediation or other “alternative dispute resolution” was exhausted. When a claim reached the tribunal, both validity and compensation could be dealt with together.

As we can see from these comments, the concerns over the integrity of the government regarding the joint task force meetings is in question, at least in the eyes of first nations peoples. Why would the government go through that process, all the countless hours, in supposedly good faith, to get something of a meritorious document of that sort, and then ignore it?

Unfortunately, that happens with too many reports around this place. We go through the effort and then the report sits on a shelf collecting dust. It is not followed-through for one reason or another. That is why people question the integrity of the government regarding the whole lengthy process of the joint task force meetings. That is why first nations people, who participated in that process in good faith, question the whole process, particularly the government's intent and whether or not there was any good faith.

If the government decided that it could not stomach the recommendations of the joint task force report, then it should have the courage to say so, rather than pretending that Bill C-6 is a natural step in the process, that it is an evolution from the joint task force report of 1998, when clearly it is not.

The government should be bold enough to tell us there are problems. It should acknowledge where it sees problems so we can have some debate on this rather than the subterfuge that everything is fine and in Bill C-6, when that is obviously not the case.

I want to turn my attention to another example in Bill C-6 of the government's hostility to the principles of accountability and transparency.

Clause 77 of the bill gives the governor in council the authority to make regulations. Mr. Speaker, you have been in this place long enough to know that the Canadian Alliance, and perhaps members from every party in the House, are rather uncomfortable with the idea of the governor in council, in other words the government or the cabinet, making and changing laws behind closed doors, doing it by way of regulations beyond the scrutiny of Parliament and the Canadian public.

That is not to deny that sometimes that is necessary, particularly the fine points, the detail and so on, but obviously, it must adhere to the principles in the bill, not with regulations being made thereafter and going off in a different direction. That seems to violate the very letter and spirit of any bill if changes are done by way of regulations.

The reform party, before it became the Canadian Alliance, and members of other parties, have made it clear that they have considerable concern and unease about some of these things being made by regulation and, therefore, no scrutiny by Parliament. It is sometimes an easy matter to insert a clause here or a phrase there where it is not going to add thousands of pages, and then it does not have to be done in the regulations. It is plain for all to see in the bill itself.

This whole matter of too frequently relying on regulations to change laws, and often violating what would seem the spirit and letter of the bill, is a dangerous practice. It undermines Parliament by ignoring, and even ostracizing and diminishing the role of parliamentarians in this place, members of all parties who work good and hard making good legislation for people concerned. We need processes in place with respect to any bills that come before us that encourage and ensure democratic accountability.

Specifically in Bill C-6, the governor in council has the authority to add to part 2 of the schedule the name of any agreement related to aboriginal self-government, and to prescribe anything that may, under this act, be prescribed. We have a lot of “any” and “anything” there and that seems to open it up pretty wide.

Let us look at the second part of this provision, “the authority to prescribe anything that may, under this act, be prescribed”. Two places where the government will have the authority to make rules for the claims process outside the supervision of Parliament after the bill has passed are in subclause 32(1)(c) and subclause 35(1)(d).

Subclause 32(1)(c) is one of the conditions that claimants must meet before the commission is permitted to refer their specific claim to the tribunal for the purpose of determining its validity. It reads:

(c) the claimant has, in prescribed form, waived any compensation for the claim that is in excess of the claim limit as it applies to the claim in accordance with section 56.

It is, therefore, the condition that requires claimants to agree not to pursue an amount greater than the value of the cap--moving up to $10 million by way of a Senate report amendment--to settle the claim before they are permitted to have the tribunal consider the claim to determine whether or not it is valid.

For years now, the Canadian Alliance has been objecting to the government's practice of passing incomplete legislation, what we might call fill in the blank legislation, bills that need to be fleshed out by the government after the bill has been passed, fleshed out somewhere other than in Parliament, where there are less eyes watching and where they are protected from much of the accountability process that is provided by the House.

I do not think that is an appropriate way to handle the issues in the bill. There are enough problems with this section already, as I have mentioned, without making the implications of the bill for first nations and taxpayers less clear by keeping those important details of the law out of the bill until after it has passed.

The same must be said for subclause 35(1)( d ), the waiver clause for the compensation phase of the claims negotiation process. We are not going to know all the rules that govern the cap until the governor in council finishes prescribing them behind closed doors, somewhere at a time and a place when they will not be subject to the scrutiny and the accountability of Parliament. This is simply undemocratic and it is another example of the current government's hostility to the principles of accountability and transparency.

I have discussed some of the most troubling aspects of Bill C-6 even in its amended form. What I have listed here is by no means an exhaustive list of the flaws that permeate the legislation.

When the bill fails, it will fuel the feeling of injustice and unrest among first nations across the country. It will put Canadian taxpayers on the hook for the cost of setting up and running the centre with minimal or no return on the investment.

Taxpayers will have to continue to pay the government's legal bills in addition to this claims body. They will have to pay those legal bills for the expensive court cases that will be launched in place of the mediated hearings that would take place in an effective claims commission and tribunal.

The first nations will continue their uphill battle to have legitimate claims recognized over incidents of injustice and maltreatment at the hands of the federal government and its agents in violation of historic treaty agreements.

Bill C-6, for a host of reasons, does not deserve the dignity of being passed by Parliament. It should be withdrawn by the government and then redrafted before being brought back to the House for consideration.

I have referred a number of times to the joint task force report that was put together with considerable work by individuals back in 1998. It has considerable bearing in terms of what the new independent claims body should look like. Therefore, I am going to be making comments regarding the joint task force report on the specific claims policy reform. This was submitted by the Assembly of First Nations and the specific claims branch of DIAND. I am reading from a reformatted version of November 25, 1998.

The report's table of contents gives us a way out of the morass, the delay and the lack of resolution we have had in respect to specific land claims. I will make reference to the many covering letters which go into some of the background on how we arrived at this point and why we need such a body. Some of the main themes are outlined, such as the JTF proposals, and some of the key features. It then gets into a discussion of some of the general issues: aboriginal rights, fiscal framework, the joint task force process and then the current status. And, of course, as with any of these reports, there are a number of appendices, charts and graphs.

I first will read a letter to the chiefs from Rolland Pangowish, the co-chair of the joint task force report. It is dated November 25, 1998. He says:

Dear Chiefs:

On behalf of the First Nations Task Force representatives, I would like to take this opportunity to present to you the Report of the Joint First Nations/Canada Task Force on the Reform of Claims Policy. This report reflects the painstaking and highly detailed efforts of the past one and a half years of cooperative efforts between the AFN Chiefs Committee on Claims, First Nations technical advisors and government officials from the Departments of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Justice.

In introducing the JTF Report, I would like to offer my personal assessment that this exercise in partnership has succeeded by achieving agreement on what participants feel is the best technical approach for resolving claims. The recommendations set out in the proposal are based on the assumption that the goal is to resolve claims.

I think that is pretty basic and it is good they came to that understanding. He goes on to say:

It should be kept in mind that both sides had to give and take in this process in order to reach agreement on these recommendations. While there are certain aspects of the proposed process that each side would have liked to take a different approach, the proposal represents a minimum standard that each side thought their respective principals could live with.

Overall, in my estimation, this joint policy development initiative should be highlighted as a positive and productive venture in terms of its future role as a workable and highly useful means for addressing the many issues currently confronting the First Nations and the Crown.

It must be said, however, that many legal, political and financial questions were raised at the table for discussion. While the input from the Department of Justice was most helpful, the First Nation participants believe that any future refinement of these proposals should involve senior financial specialists from central agencies directly in the discussions. Had these key officials been active participants in our joint dialogue, they might have provided necessary expertise and assistance for us to achieve more timely solutions in key problem areas.

The Joint Task Force has now provided a highly detailed and focused blueprint for fulfilling the long-standing need for an independent claims body. The implementation of these proposals would represent an important step in addressing an important aspect of the RCAP Report. Although the Task Force could not address all the matters contemplated in the RCAP Report with respect to an independent claims body, we have attempted to design a process whereby the perception of conflict of interest would be eliminated.

The primary phase of the task that was mandated for the AFN by the Chiefs-in-Assembly has now been completed. The First Nations Joint Task Force technical representatives, under the guidance of the Chiefs Committee on Claims, has sought to ensure that this proposal is entirely faithful to the principles that have been set out for it by the First Nations political leadership.

In the next few weeks, we will be presenting this proposal to the Chiefs Committee on Claims and to the Chiefs at the Confederacy

On behalf of the Joint Task Force, we look forward to the opportunity for continuing to meet the challenge of ensuring that this proposal will one day form the framework for resolving conflicts between the First Nations and Canada. It is our anticipation that this proposal will provide a sound basis for a new, constructive and mutually productive relationship.

Sincerely,

Rolland Pangowish

Co-chair, Joint Task Force Report

The letter was carbon copied off to the appropriate individuals: the AFN executive committee, chiefs committee on claims, the joint task force members, the Minister of Human Resources Development and so on.

At the outset of the joint task force report there was a very interesting letter that I would like to read. I think the listening audience and members in the House as well will find it interesting. The letter was written by Dan Kohoko, the director of special projects, specific claims branch. He wrote it on Indian and Northern Affairs Canada letterhead and sent it to Mr. John Sinclair, the ADM policy and strategic direction, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, and then off to Mr. Scott Serson, the deputy minister, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. The letter reads:

The Joint Task Force, which Mr. Rolland Pangowish, Director, AFN Land Rights United, and myself, Director, Special Projects, SCB, chaired over the past two years, recently completed its work on what I would consider to be Phase I of our towards establishing an independent claims body.

For the record, we would like to table a report on the Joint Task Force (JTF) work, to which we have appended the actual product produced by the JTF in phase one; as well as a copy of both English and French versions of the legislative drafting instructions. The JTF work on the drafting instructions was basically completed when we met with AFN in October 1998. It was indicated at that time that a staged approach was preferred by the federal government.

As requested we held a meeting in Quebec City to discuss what a model that could be considered a staged approach might look like. The work to adjust the current drafting instructions to reflect such a model is what I consider to be the next phase of potential work for the JTF. However, before proceeding the JTF should receive direction from both First Nations and the federal government with regard to Phase II.

The letter was signed by Dan Kohoko, director, special project, specific claims branch.

We find again that the letter was forwarded off to the appropriate people: Warren Johnson, A/ADM, claims and Indian government, DIAND; Paul Cuillerier, DG, specific claims branch, DIAND; Dennis Wallace, associate deputy minister, DIAND: Daniel Charboneau, minister's assistant, DIAND; and, Rolland Pangowish, director, lands right unit, AFN. I simply add all those individuals who received it so nobody can claim it was not without their knowledge. This is public record and it has been read by all.

What we have where we say it is the JTF report embodied in Bill C-6 is hard to comprehend when in fact it is so obviously different from it and it does not take into account some of the very good recommendations that we find in the 1998 joint task force report.

I want to give some background and content though as we come up to the need for a specific claims body of some kind or other and what brought this particular joint task force together. In the preface of the report itself it gives some of that background. It states:

The Joint First Nations-Canada Task Force on Claims Policy Reform has been charged with addressing an important part of the new partnership the Government of Canada has promised will characterize its efforts to build a new relationship with First Nations. If this new relationship is to be based on mutual trust and respect, we must begin to address those things which have created mistrust.

It is well put from my point of view. The report goes on to state:

Obviously, an important part of this healing process requires that we effectively resolve outstanding grievances and address the need for an adequate land and resource base.

For many years, First Nations and others have called for the establishment of an independent body to resolve outstanding claims. The need to eliminate the federal government's perceived conflict of interest in resolving claims against itself has now been widely acknowledged.

Lots of people have seen the light on that one. The report continues:

The mandate of this task force was to provide a forum where federal and First Nations officials could cooperatively develop recommendations for the reform of Canada's claim policies.

The commitment to this type of process followed up on the federal government's Red Book commitment to work with First Nations to design a new independent claims body. This commitment was consistent with the recent RCAP Report recommendations and many years of similar recommendations by First Nations and independent observers. This commitment was further affirmed in the subsequent “Gathering Strength” and agenda for action polices of the federal government, which convey Canada's commitment to building a new relationship with First Nations, based on trust and mutual respect.

The Task Force is a technical table composed of regional First Nations representatives and federal officials from Indian Affairs and Justice. It began its work in earnest in the Spring of 1997 and has reached agreement on detailed recommendations with respect to the major elements of a new process for addressing what have come to be referred to as specific claims. We have now identified the required structures, basic procedures and required legislative--

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

Mr. Speaker, I assume we have moved on to Bill C-6 and we can commence from there. However I wonder if we could have quorum in the House first. I have some important things to say and wonder if that could be established before I commence my speech.

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your admission and concession. I appreciate the rules of the House and your diligent application of them in fairness to all of us.

As I was saying, cases take longer when they are dragged through the courts to no end. They have the effect of delaying the time when a final decision is brought down, postponing the time at which the government is required to pay out the claim for decision made in favour of the claimant.

We believe this kind of strategic stalling by the government is not an example of fiscal prudence. I am a fiscal conservative and I think taxpayer dollars have to be watched carefully and closely. When we drag it out through the court system, which is the other route to go, it serves no one. In fact it is very negative in terms of getting disputes resolved in a very difficult area.

Surely, the minister understands that this cap gives government officials much greater leverage for claims than is to be expected in the ballpark of $10 million. Let us use an illustration to make the point.

Take a situation in which the claimants believe their claim has a value of $13 million. In this scenario the government refuses to accept the claim and negotiations collapse. The claimants therefore have to decide whether to lower their demand to only $10 million in order to proceed to the tribunal or to insist on their demands for the full amount. In this case the claimants have to start from scratch all over again in the court system, drag it out to no end and add a great length of time. That is even if the band has the funds necessary to launch a court case.

This illustration demonstrates how the existence of a cap, and such a low cap at that, can greatly benefit the government victimizing the claimants all over again. In some of these cases it is quite heart-rending to read of how Indian agents took advantage of a first nation and pocketed the money themselves. There was great injustice. The first nations in an earlier time, in a different era, did not have the means to defend themselves and they were victimized. Now they are being victimized all over again.

Does the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development really believe that this kind of policy is helpful in building a culture of trust and mutual respect between the Canadian government and first nations people?

There is another aspect to the cap, and I think it is a trap, that troubles me. It is not addressed by any Senate amendments, but it was discussed as an observation in its report to the House, and it was a topic of debate in the Senate.

The government could deal with the matter if it chose to do so by amending the Senate report that was delivered to us rather than simply accepting the Senate amendments as written. The troubling aspect of the cap revolves around the fact that Bill C-6 requires a claim to be heard twice by the commission and by the tribunal if the claim cannot be resolved through the commission.

It first has to go through a validity phase which is designed to determine the validity of the claim. After that claim is deemed valid, if the government decides to negotiate it or if the tribunal rules that the government must negotiate it, the claim then has to go through a similar process to determine compensation.

What is astonishing to me is that $7 million, or if we take the Senate recommendation to amend it to $10 million, that cap, whatever it is, applies to both stages. In other words, just to have the tribunal determine the validity of a claim prior to any consideration of the value of compensation that might be determined through compensation related negotiations, the claimant is then expected to waive the right to a payout higher than $10 million.

There is absolutely no good reason why the potential value of a claim should have any bearing on the right of the tribunal to consider it for the purpose of determining its validity. That is another question. The validity and compensation amount are so interwoven, so inseparable that I think it does hurt the process.

Requiring a cap at the validity stage of the process greatly weakens the potential usefulness of the proposed claim centre. Since the bill clearly separates these two parts of the process, it should be relatively easy, we would think, to eliminate the cap requirement for the validity stage. Is it valid or is it not? Let us not get into the issue of the compensation at that point, but is it a valid claim?

In committee the Canadian Alliance introduced an amendment that would have done that but, unfortunately, there was no intelligent discussion of the amendment nor any give and take. There might have even been some adjustment on our part to hear some wisdom in respect to that, but it was just summarily swept aside.

In the Senate, the hon. Nick Sibbeston, an aboriginal senator who was supporting the bill, indicated that this matter was raised with the government by the Senate committee examining the bill. According to Senator Sibbeston, the response the committee received was to this effect. He said:

--the government sees the situation as putting a system in place. No one is perfectly sure how it all will work--

I admit that because that is the way it is with most bills. He goes on to state:

--and it wants to see how the system works before it makes more improvements.

The last part is the telling part. The government will use this as a guinea pig, a trial and error kind of system, not having any sense of the degree to which it will be effective and how it will work before it makes more improvements.

What kind of answer is that for the government to say that it is the government and therefore it will give it a shot. It will simply see what kind of mistakes there are, what kinds of messes are left and then it might take a look at it later. I do not know if this is too strong a word but I think it is a bit of arrogance when that attitude is taken and it oozes from the remarks in that statement.

What is wrong with the government in this respect? Has it lost its ability to think clearly and seriously consider reasoned amendments from others around the House? All wisdom does not reside in any one party. It does not reside on the government side or any party on this side. I would be the first to admit that but why does the government have to assume that it is all on its benches?

Has it lost any interest in developing effective, responsible, workable legislation? That is the role of members in this place. The role of the opposition is to constructively and positively go after these things and try to get a better piece of legislation and a better result.

If the government cannot defend an aspect of its legislation, but only say that it will try it out and see what kinds of messes and problems we have, what on earth is it doing here? If it does not have a reasonably good sense or projection that it will work, and that is the only response when questioned in respect to the perceived flaws in the bill, then what is going on in this place?

I want to read into the record the brief statement that the Senate made on this aspect of the bill because its observations following committee hearings are very instructive. It states:

The Committee frequently heard, both from First Nations and neutral observers, that the requirement for claimants to waive their rights to compensation above the specified cap (as set out in Section 32) in order to obtain a Tribunal ruling on the validity of their claim was the single most significant flaw with the Bill. The government expressed concern that removing this requirement would pose undue and unpredictable financial risk and might imbalance the overall operations of the Commission and Tribunal. Given the safeguards built into the legislation (Section 71), this seems to reflect an excessive concern with risk aversion.

That comes right out of the brief statement that the Senate made on this particular aspect of the bill. Those are not my words. Those are not the words of a possibly perceived partisan individual. Those words come from the Senate's report on this aspect of the bill. It says that it is the single most significant flaw in the bill. Those were not the words of the Assembly of First Nations, a member from the opposition side, some other native group nor somebody with a bigger axe to grind. The senators are telling the government that imposing the cap at both stages of the claims resolution process seems to reflect an excessive concern with risk aversion.

Let me continue from the Senate report. It states:

We are concerned that the financial cap on validity will create two categories of claims within the system and could create a significant impediment to the settlement of larger claims.

The committee then explains its views by saying that an incremental approach in this area may be better, which is why it recommends including it in the three to five year review of the bill rather than making it an amendment at this time.

I do not see any reason to wait to amend this section of the bill. If all kinds of groups saw it as the single most significant flaw in the bill, the Senate included, then if it remains in the legislation how will it encourage an atmosphere of trust and mutual respect surrounding the specific claims resolution process?

I want to stress that the first nations have indicated that without the potential for a tribunal to issue a binding decision on a claim, the government lacks the incentive to process the claim in an expeditious manner. We can see clearly their lack of confidence in this new system.

The claims centre proposed in Bill C-6 is seen as useless in terms of dealing with claims that are valued higher than the very minimal cap that is being proposed in the bill. If the cap is going to remain in the legislation it should be increased, as we suggested in committee, to at least $25 million and should be removed altogether from the validity stage of the claims process. That is another issue: determining the validity, looking at the evidence, looking at the historical facts and so on to determine the validity of the claim itself.

The Senate also made a couple of amendments that would allow for some input from first nations in the appointment of the commissioners and the adjudicators for the centre, as well as for the agency's chair and for the vice-chair. This amendment affects clause 5, clause 20 and clause 41 of Bill C-6. Specifically, first nations would be able to “make representations in respect of appointments to the office or offices in question”.

In other words, after the Minister of Indian Affairs has made his appointments, first nations representatives can provide input as to their thoughts about the people who have already been appointed. That is about as backward as it can get. It is a process that happens in our country maybe far too often when the PMO appoints individuals and then we have our chance to fire away, but what good does it do after the fact? We would like that in a whole range of things, in respect to judges and some of the other appointments where they are vetted through the appropriate standing committee, before not after.

What good does it do if the appointment is made and then after the fact we get to write letters and e-mails that go in the wrong files? We get to badger away and play it up in the media if they have an interest at that point because it is a done deal.

This is very disrespectful and not at all helpful when we just simply allow them after the fact. It is already a fait accompli and at that point then the first nations representatives can provide input as to their thoughts about the people who have already been appointed. What a useless, senseless thing to do in the bill. What good would it do when the person is appointed and already in place?

This is certainly a far cry from what was proposed in the 1998 joint task force report produced by the government and first nations following several years of discussions. I want to spend some time later reading large sections of that report. The government spent three years negotiating with first nations, the back and forth, the give and take, around the table together. Some rapport, some mutualities and some respect I assume was built up over that time. They spent some three years coming up with a plan for dealing with specific claims.

The report from the joint First Nations-Canada task force on specific claims policy reform reiterated the longstanding recommendation for an independent claims centre, this being a fair bit of writing to which we can look at and refer to in respect to the independence of this bigger claim centre.

The primary mechanism by which it was going to be made independent was by a joint government first nations process for appointing the commissioners and adjudicators. That was in the report. Both parties were to arrive at a list of jointly approved candidates and the government would pick the commissioners and adjudicators from that list. It seems like a fair process. It seems like common sense.

The government, however, has completely abandoned that proposal. In Bill C-6 the government has the exclusive prerogative of appointing the officials and then reappointing them. Others in the peanut gallery can make comments and decry or deride these particular appointments but the government has the exclusive prerogative to increase or reduce the number of commissioners or adjudicators within, of course, the parameters provided by the bill. The Senate amendment does not change that process. Its amendment is nothing more than window dressing.

In response to demands for more first nations participation in the appointment process, government spokesmen object that there is no precedent for the government sharing the responsibility of making appointments, whether we are talking about judges or officials who serve on quasi-judicial tribunals or government boards. They say the government must preserve the final authority over such appointments, including to the specific claims agency.

While it might be true, whether we are talking about judges or other appointments, that there is no kind of precedent in our country, that is unfortunate. There is a precedent in other modern democracies around the world. Our neighbour to the south of us, just beyond the 49th parallel, has a very good process where there is that greater scrutiny, that greater look at individuals coming forth, because their background, their biases, their world view, their perceptions and so on are all pretty significant in terms of how they will handle that job and the degree of objectivity or lack thereof that might be the case. Just because we have never done it that way is not to say that might not be a considerable improvement. As we look at other places around the world where it is already in place, we think it actually allows the public to have a greater say and greater access to the process.

The government is confusing the issue with such an assertion that it has never done it that way before. I do not dispute the government's prerogative to have, and we will even concede, maybe the final say in making appointments, but the proposal recommended in the joint task force report does not take away that prerogative from the government. I still do not understand why the government has refused to implement that very reasonable proposal in Bill C-6.

The joint task force proposal gives the government the final decision on appointments to the specific claims resolution centre but it also gives first nations direct participation in the appointment process. That is a far cry from the paternalistic tokenism reflected in the Senate amendment, not to mention the complete shutting out of aboriginal input that was established in the unamended bill.

When we read the Senate debates on Bill C-6 we will hear critics of Bill C-6 repeatedly raising the question of the independence of the specific claims resolution centre. Defenders of the bill repeatedly assert that the centre was as independent as one could make it in our political system, which is not saying a lot, and in respect of the fiduciary responsibilities the federal government has toward the first nations across the country.

Critics, however, remain unsatisfied with the government's assertions, warning that the centre could not and will not win the trust and the confidence of first nations people.

I do not dispute the point that making this centre independent, not to mention giving it the appearance of independence, is a challenge, admittedly so, but what is clear to me is that the government is not up to that challenge, not at all. It is not even coming close. It is not even attempting to give it the perception of any kind of independence here. The government is not up to the challenge, as would appear in the report from the Senate back to us and the intent of the government as it bulldozes ahead on this particular piece of legislation.

Proposals to help give the centre independence and the important appearance of independence are staring the government in the face from the pages of the joint task force report and the amendments proposed earlier by the Canadian Alliance, yet the government is completely ignoring them.

I will have to wrap it up as time runs out, but I assume that I begin to speak at the point where we resume with Bill C-6 in the future. I have much to say and I am just getting warmed up and getting into this crucial topic.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak to Bill C-6, 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.

This means that the bill before us today is designed to set up a permanent centre to evaluate specific claims brought against the federal government by first nations across our country. An Indian claims commission already exists, as most of us are aware, but it was put in place some 12 years ago, back in 1991, as a temporary measure, just like our taxation and many other things. It has lasted this long and now there is an attempt to put something together in a different fashion. This proposed centre for resolving first nations specific claims is supposed to replace that temporary commission of some 12 years ago.

For the most part, as my colleague across the way mentioned, specific claims deal with outstanding grievances that first nations have regarding Canada's fulfillment of its obligations under historic treaties or its administration of first nations lands or other assets under the Indian Act. That of course is in contrast to more comprehensive claims, substantial land claim treaties such as Nisga'a and Delgamuukw, which have been debated at length in the House over the last number of years. There is a difference with these claims in the fact that they are outstanding grievances in terms of their reserve lands not being handled by or being sold off by an Indian agent with funds being pocketed by that individual, or other things of that nature.

The House has already considered the bill, but now the Senate has sent it back to us and is reporting suggested amendments. The Senate examined Bill C-6 and found it to be unsatisfactory as it was written. Most of us on the aboriginal affairs committee had some sense that there were some major concerns around some things and probably some flaws in the bill. It comes as no surprise to those of us who served on that committee that the bill has come back from the Senate with some suggested amendments, but we do not think they go far enough.

In what was often a very passionate debate in the other place, both Liberal and Progressive Conservative senators condemned the legislation. They even tried to kill it with a hoist amendment. These senators observed all of the most serious flaws in the bill, which had already been noted by members within the committee, by myself and, in the House, by the Canadian Alliance before the bill went to the Senate.

As a result, after its scrutiny and examination, the Senate has proposed several amendments to try to improve the bill, as was mentioned by my colleague across the way. We think there is some partial merit to them. That would be faint praise, I suppose, in support of these amendments, because they go only a small way in an attempt to mitigate or improve the worst aspects of the bill. Unfortunately they do not go far enough, so we continue to oppose the bill itself.

In the Senate, a hoist amendment was introduced during third reading debate after the amendments had been tabled by the Senate's aboriginal peoples committee. We can see, then, from the public record that even with these amendments, this particular bill still generated strong opposition. In fact, the bill generated much more debate than the government expected, so the Liberals resorted to the use of a time allocation motion to terminate debate.

We have become quite familiar with that anti-democratic tool in this place. It has become a very popular weapon in the hands of governments and of this government in terms of using closure an unprecedented number of times, but for the record and for the viewing audience, it is rarely used in the other place. It is rather uncharacteristic to use closure in the Senate.

The disgust expressed against the government for stooping to such tactics in that place came not just from the opposition members in the Senate but also from Liberal senators. That is another experience that we in this House are unfamiliar with, as often protest or outrage is not expressed by members on the government side when closure is being used in the House of Commons.

My point in recounting some of these events that happened in the other place is to demonstrate that the Canadian Alliance is joined by many others of different political and cultural persuasions in our opposition to this government bill. That opposition to Bill C-6 is across party lines, across cultural lines and from aboriginals and non-aboriginals.

To show how obstinate the government is, it bulldozes forward with this agenda in the face of widespread, reasoned opposition. I believe it is another example of how the government has not been listening as it should. Maybe the majority it has in the House is far too large. Maybe there is too big a gap and it needs to have its feet held to the fire a little more.

In committee, we had some very reasonable amendments that were dismissed and summarily swept aside. That does not sit well with members of a committee who carefully thought through these things, had discussions and listened to the testimony and so on only to have it just simply batted aside as being of no account, with the bureaucrats and the department saying that they knew what was best and they were just going to ram this thing through come hell or high water, that it did not matter what we on the committee said.

A government that gets to the point where it figures it has all the answers and is arrogant and unresponsive to the needs and circumstances of real people is a government that will not be bringing forward the kind of legislation we need. Its legislation will be badly flawed and marred. To say that it will be imperfect is an understatement.

As a result, a lot of the House's time is wasted on badly drafted legislation that does not suit the purposes, has a cosmetic and very superficial effect and is not for the good of the individuals directly affected by the bill.

Initially I was prepared to say I was pleased that some amendments have been made to the bill and that the minister has condescended to accept them, but I am not even sure that I am pleased with this situation. A couple of the amendments might have some consequential impact, one might say, on the specifics claims process. I will come to that in a moment.

We believe that others, like increasing the tribunal cap from $7 million to $10 million, are little more than tokenism in terms of the real substance of the issues involved in this particular bill. That increase from $7 million to $10 million came by way of the Senate report to the House, by the way.

It has been some time since this bill has been before us, seven months to be exact, so I want to remind the House of what Bill C-6 proposes to do in establishing a specific claims process. Then I want to go on to discuss some of those Senate amendments and how they relate to the concerns we and others in the committee process have raised about Bill C-6.

Bill C-6 would set up a claims resolution centre made up of a commission and a tribunal. A first nation could file a claim with the commission. If it were to meet the terms of an “admissible claim” for the purposes of the commission, the claim would then be submitted to the Minister of Indian Affairs for his consideration. The commission would then convene preparatory meetings to help the claimant present its case to the minister. Upon completion of this phase of the process, the commission must suspend proceedings until it receives a written response from the minister as to whether or not he will even consider to negotiate the claim.

One of the major flaws in this is the fact that the minister is not given a deadline of any kind with respect to making his decision. I think there might even be an admission from the government in its heart of hearts that this is a problem; in a quieter moment, off to the side, not in this more contentious atmosphere, this more partisan place, I think there might be an admission. It is a major problem. It is a recipe for stonewalling, for obfuscation and for never getting back. It is really very unfair.

In a court of law process or in any other kind of procedure across the country one would assume that at some point there must be deadlines. They might be protracted and extracted and long, but there must be some kind of deadlines. None of that is here for the minister and we think there is very major problem with that. It is not justice. It is not even the norm in respect to other contexts in our country.

If the minister were to decide not to negotiate the claim, the commission would sit down with both parties in an attempt to help them resolve the question of the validity of the claim, using alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. If that process did not work, then the claimant could request that the case be sent to the tribunal, but only if the amount of the claim did not exceed $7 million, or $10 million if the House accepts the Senate amendment to that effect.

If the tribunal were to decide that a claim was valid or, if at the earlier stage in the process the minister were to decide that he would negotiate the claim, the commission would then have to try to help those two parties arrive at an agreeable amount of compensation.

Again, if the compensation question could not be resolved by the commission, the claimant could then make an appeal for the tribunal to hear the case, but only if the compensation being demanded by the claimant--and this is the kicker--did not exceed, in the case of the Senate amendment, $10 million. The tribunal then has the power to make a binding decision after it has heard the case. The government, however, can request a judicial review of the tribunal's decision.

The goal behind this bill, or at least what we are told is the goal behind this bill, is to expedite the process of resolving specific claims. Between 1970 and March of last year, Indian bands across the country had filed 1,146 claims. Only 232 had been settled. That backlog is terrible and it is only getting worse. It is not diminishing, with both the government and first nations, I would have to say, becoming increasingly frustrated with the current system.

Unfortunately, as I made mention of earlier, Bill C-6 is not the legislation that we need to solve the problem. In fact, the mechanisms proposed are likely to make matters worse. Liberal senators were very forthright, more forthright than government members in the House, when it came to acknowledging the imperfections in this particular bill, but those commissioned to push this bill forward essentially said that it is better to pass a bad law than no law at all.

I do not think I have ever known people as passionately committed to mediocrity as those in the current government, which says that it is better to get bad bills through than no bills at all. I do not buy that and I do not think a lot of the public does, because it then creates messes that have to be cleaned up thereafter.

Liberal Senator Anne Cools put it very well during debate in the Senate when she stated:

Honourable senators, I want you to know that we sit here again and again and feel compelled and driven by governments to pass bad bills or insufficient bills or inadequate bills.

I want to repeat that because I think it bears repeating. Senator Anne Cools, who is a Liberal senator, stated:

Honourable senators, I want you to know that we sit here again and again and feel compelled and driven by governments to pass bad bills or insufficient bills or inadequate bills.

Rarely if ever is it appropriate, in my view, to pass a bad bill rather than no bill at all. Even aboriginal people, those whom the government claims it is helping by implementing this legislation, are telling the government that it is better to fix this bill than to pass it in its current form. That is the message the government has heard from the Assembly of First Nations as well as many individual bands. That is also the message the government heard from three of Canada's five aboriginal senators, all of whom are government members, as well as from Senator Gerry St. Germain, a Canadian Alliance senator who counts Métis as part of his ancestral heritage.

The Hon. Charlie Watt from Quebec, one of Canada's aboriginal senators, in reference to urging from the government to pass Bill C-6 as it began to turn up the heat and tighten the screws, stated this with regard to Senator Austin saying that action is needed now:

Maybe action is needed now, but is this the right instrument that we are providing to the aboriginal people? Will it advance the rights of the people? I don't think so

The Hon. Aurélien Gill, another aboriginal senator, made similar comments, stating that:

It became clear in committee that National Chief Phil Fontaine [the new head of the Assembly of First Nations] is urging the government not to pass this bill, but rather to discuss it further. Peter Hutchins, an expert, told us: “Wait, take your time; there are some major issues in this bill”.

The fact that the Senate sent Bill C-6 back to the House with amendments is actually a good thing. It gives us one last chance, one might say, to fix it properly before the government passes this particular piece of legislation. The House can accept the Senate's amendments or reject them or amend them. The government is recommending that we just simply accept those recommendations and breeze on through, but my party and I do not believe that is the right solution. Rather, this House should amend those Senate amendments, strengthening them even further and adding to them before sending the bill to the other place and before sending the bill to the Governor General for royal assent.

Let us take a few minutes to look at some of the specific amendments proposed by the Senate. One of those amendments would raise the cap for cases that can be heard by the tribunal from $7 million to $10 million. This deals with clause 56 of the bill. This cap is the maximum award that the new claims centre is permitted to authorize for any single claim.

In light of the figures we are dealing with when it comes to specific claims, increasing the cap from $7 million to $10 million is ridiculous. It is almost not worth the effort. We proposed in committee a cap of some $25 million.

If there is validity to the claim, and if they do not deal with some of the railway claims in B.C. and so on, then on average they are more than this. We think it is cosmetic, it is superficial, it is just on the surface and really not about the business of getting a better result for things here.

The Minister for Indian Affairs and Northern Development has claimed that the $7 million cap has been set high enough to conclude most specific claims. At least that was the argument made at the earlier stage in committee when we had it before the House. Yet in a footnote to its legal analysis of Bill C-6, the Assembly of First Nations notes that AFN technicians have been informed by Miss Kathleen Lickers, commission counsel for the Indian Claims Commission, that of the 120 claims the ICC has dealt with, only three have been settled for less than $7 million. The AFN analysis adds that in the past three years, from 2000 to 2003, 8 of the 14 claims paid out by the federal government were for amounts about $7 million.

The Assembly of First Nations acknowledges:

It is true that in the earlier period from 1990-91 through 1999-2000, a majority of payouts actually were for less than $7 million; but there is no reason to believe that this earlier record of relatively low settlements can be projected forward.

Some of these, as I said, reflected claims regarding railway land, and it was all small stuff. However, we could add up the numbers and say that we go through ICC a lot of claims, when in fact it is all small potatoes and there really is not a lot of stuff in dispute.

There is no reason to believe that this earlier record of relatively low settlements can be projected forward into the future. There was likely bias in the system for settling smaller claims, and without reports to an independent tribunal, first nations were in a very weak bargaining position.

Interest on the value of claims will also increase their value through time. If inflation is worked into it, then we have problems that are not taken into account by the cap, even in the amended cap that the Senate has suggested.

I have heard recommendations from first nations representatives calling, as a bare minimum, for an increase to the cap to anywhere from $14 million to $30 million, to enable the centre to hear the majority of current claims.

I introduced an amendment when this bill was being studied by the aboriginal affairs committee to increase the cap to $25 million. I thought it was a reasonable one. After all, this is about getting it out of the very expensive, drawn out court system for the government. These people do not work for nothing and lawyers bill on a pretty good rate per hour. It is costing our taxpayers a considerable amount of money.

If we can get the right mechanism and the right kind of a claims centre together, such that there is a perception of independence, then we can save taxpayers a considerable amount of money. We will actually do service to the aboriginal peoples as well.

Some people might be concerned that making the cap higher is fiscally irresponsible because it will commit the government to greater fiscal obligations than would be the case with a lower cap, but really that is not the case. The government has dealt separately with the question of how much money is available annually. It is a different issue. It has already set an amount. It has already indicated what is available annually to distribute to the claimants who have won their cases.

As well, the claim centre does not increase the number of claims before the government. It simply provides an alternative process for hearing them. Whether they were heard in the courts or resolved through this commission and tribunal, if the judges or adjudicators found in favour of a claimant, the government would be obligated to settle in either case.

Cases take longer and cost more when dragged through the courts, having the effect of delaying the time when a final decision is brought down and also postpones the date at which the government is required to pay out a claim for a decision made in favour of the claimant. Therefore, the imposition of a cap on the tribunal looks more like a strategic stalling tactic by the government rather than as an example of fiscal prudence, and I think members have commented on that.

I would think independent objective observers would say this is a recipe for disaster, a recipe for stalling by the government. The imposition of a cap complicates things and undermines the great thing we are trying to achieve by way of an expedited process.

The cap also looks like a stalling mechanism when examined from another perspective. The minister of Indian affairs has tried to play down the significance of the cap by noting that it only applies to the tribunal and not to the commission. In other words, it will only be applicable for screening out claims that cannot be resolved by the commission and therefore might be brought before the tribunal for a binding decision.

I thought I had unlimited time, Mr. Speaker, with respect to this matter.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-6, the specific claims resolution act. It is one of the initiatives the government is bringing forward aimed at putting the tools of self-sufficiency into the hands of first nations enabling them to play a fuller part in the life of this country.

The specific claims resolution act proposed is a cornerstone of the government's overall strategy to have a new system to resolve specific claims that will be more efficient and effective than the process we now have.

As this proposed legislation made its way through the parliamentary process we heard from various first nations and first nations organizations express their concerns and perspectives. The Senate, in hearing these concerns, has put forward a number of important amendments to Bill C-6 that would directly address the concerns of first nations and render a better piece of legislation. This should give first nations the confidence to use the new claims resolution centre as outlined in the legislation.

It is comforting to see that the parliamentary process has worked and is responsive to the concerns of first nations and that better legislation is derived from the cooperative efforts of all stakeholders and parliamentarians in the House and Senate.

With respect to the proposal now before us, we have heard that the current specific claims process could be improved to make it more efficient and effective, and to avoid costly and slow litigation in the courts. Every dollar wasted in court is a dollar less for investment in economic development, governance, and real bread and butter issues facing aboriginal people.

With the current claims process, we are only able to settle a few claims each year. At this rate, we would have to leave it to our children to clear away the existing number of claims that are on inventory, and that inventory is growing each day.

The new centre that Bill C-6 would put in place under this proposal would be called the claims resolution centre. It would consist of a chief executive officer who would be responsible for the day to day administrative affairs, a commission to facilitate negotiations, and a tribunal with the authority to make binding decisions. This would greatly speed up the process in a much more cooperative atmosphere than in a courtroom. In an atmosphere of cooperation, I am sure the centre would play a very important role in helping us bring this new system forward.

It is important to be clear about what kind of claims the new centre would deal with. Its authority would cover a variety of claims that relate to Canada's management of first nations land and other assets. It would not deal with comprehensive land claims, which are based on the concept of continuing aboriginal rights and title, and which have not been dealt with by treaty or other legal means. There is a separate policy and negotiation process designed to find resolution to those types of claims.

To refresh our memories, this new legislation was arrived at through extensive input from first nations. That led to the recommendations from a joint task force concerning the need for an independent claims commission. The fact that we are here today looking at this legislation demonstrates that the work of the joint task force was for the most part successful.

The Senate committee heard from numerous witnesses concerning the bill. One of the concerns that was repeatedly put forward was the jurisdictional authority placed on the tribunal.

As originally proposed, the legislation set the jurisdictional limit on 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, and is now before this House, to increase the tribunal authority to a maximum limit of $10 million.

We are confident that this new ceiling is a realistic one and meets the needs of first nations. As we have heard, most of the claims currently before the Government of Canada would be dispensed with under this new increased amount. In fact, as of March 31, 2002, the average specific claim settlement was some $5.6 million.

We have heard from those who say that there should be no ceiling at all. We wish there could be an unlimited budget. But again, in the interests of our country, our spending priorities and all, there must be a maximum amount set.

Another important element from first nations that we heard in the Senate hearings were concerns regarding the appointment process for the chief executive officer, the commissioners and adjudicators of the proposed new body. We listened to these concerns and have 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. We also proposed to confirm post-employment conflict of interest rules.

Another important change that the Senate has recommended to the current proposal would deal with increased subpoena powers of the tribunal, thus giving greater credence to the independence and fairness of this quasi-judicial body.

Much work has been done in the drafting of this bill and it would appear that we are getting some improved legislation back from our Senate colleagues. As I said, this is very important because a key aspect of how it will work is a built-in regime of reporting requirements and mechanisms to allow us to fine-tune the practical applications of the new system. For that reason, I will sketch out a few of these important developments.

Accounts and financial transactions of the centre would be audited annually by the Auditor General. A report on the work of the centre, including the Auditor General's audit, would be submitted to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development after each fiscal year. This report would be tabled in the House of Commons and the Senate, and made available to first nations and public scrutiny.

Quarterly reports to the minister concerning compensation paid respecting resolved specific claims would be required under the act and a requirement for review of the entire process is built in and would take place between three and five years after the legislation came into effect.

A report on the review, to include any recommendations for changes to the legislation or functions, powers or duties of the chief executive officer, and the commissioners and adjudicators would also be submitted to Parliament.

These are extensive mechanisms that can help us make the new system work better. If not perfect, it certainly is a major step in the right direction. But until the system is running, we will not know what needs to be fixed.

It has been a long road to get here. The bill came before this House last year. It has gone to the Senate and is back now for its final approval. 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. We want to have a system that would level the playing field for negotiation and would resolve claims more quickly and efficiently. This will allow aboriginal people to get on with their lives with enhanced opportunities for economic development in a climate of certainty.

With this act in place, we would finally be able to leave behind a process that has frustrated many first nations communities and other stakeholders. We will begin a new direction that will give first nations a more fair and efficient means to settle their long outstanding grievances and begin dealing with their affairs in a more prosperous way as full participants in this great nation of ours.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

moved the second reading of, and concurrence in, amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-6, 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.

Business of the House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will return to consideration of Bill C-32, the Criminal Code amendments, followed by Bill C-54. If we get through this, we will proceed to consideration of Bills C-19 and C-6, two bills on first nations. If we have time, we will also look at Bill C-51.

If that is a bit too ambitious, the first item for consideration tomorrow will be Bill C-6, the specific claims legislation. After oral question period, we will come back to Bill C-54, which we debated this morning, concerning fiscal arrangements. If there is time, this will be followed by Bill C-46, the market fraud bill, and Bills C-19, on first nations, and S-13, concerning the Statistics Act.

Next week, we will continue to consider bills that have not been completed, beginning on Monday with Bill C-46, on financial institutions. We will add to that list Bill C-23, the sexual offenders legislation.

By mid-week, we hope to be in a position to consider Bill C-52, the radio communications bill, and Bill C-20, the child protection legislation, as mentioned by the Minister of Justice during oral question period.

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act

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

Mr. Speaker, according to what my colleague is saying, this government is very good at alienating a lot of people and a lot of provincial representatives, economically and otherwise. With the three bills it introduced, Bill C-6, Bill C-7 and Bill C-19, the government is above all alienating the first nations.

Some fifty members from these communities are gathered here to express their opposition to these bills, which do not respect the inherent right to self-government, which do not respect ancestral treaties, and which do not respect them as full-fledged members of nations so recognized by the United Nations.

I have a question for my colleague regarding equalization. Does he not believe that it would be a good idea to settle the fiscal imbalance issue, a move which would really give provincial governments and the Quebec government the resources they need to assume their own responsibilities? If this was done, we could slowly proceed to do away with this equalization program, which has been nothing but trouble since its inception because it is too complex to administer and too complex to improve.

Children of Deceased Veterans Education Assistance Act

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I understand there would be unanimous consent that as soon as the parliamentary secretary completes his remarks on Bill C-6, the House would see the clock as being at 1:30 p.m. and would proceed directly to private members' business.

Business of the House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, insofar as the last part of the question, in fact such a motion would not change a law in any case. Let me first of all start by saying that this afternoon we will continue with debate on the opposition day non-confidence motion.

Tomorrow we shall consider Bill C-50, respecting veterans benefits, followed by the Senate amendments to Bill C-6, concerning first nations. Then, if we have time, we will consider Bill S-13, an act to amend the Statistics Act.

On Monday, we will consider bills left over from this week, as well as Bill C-32, the Criminal Code amendments, Bill C-13, the Assisted Human Reproduction Act, and Bill C-45, the corporate governance bill.

Tuesday shall be the last allotted day in this budget cycle.

On Wednesday and on subsequent days, we shall return to any unfinished business, adding to the list any bills that may be reported from committee. We will also start debate on Bill C-19, the First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, and Bill C-43, an act to amend the Fisheries Act.

This is the part of the session when it would be normal for bills that have been in committee for some time to be reported back to the House. I am hopeful that committees, such as the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and the Standing Committee on Transport, will soon complete their legislative work, so that the House may dispose of them in an orderly fashion.

Parliament of Canada Act

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be back to make a couple of speeches on the first day of the autumn session of Parliament. I would like to welcome everyone, especially the new pages. I would like to assure my constituents in Yukon that the new pages have already completed the most important part of their training and fully understand that Yukon is the best constituency in the country.

Before I go into details on the amendment to Bill C-34, the previous speaker discussed the general legislative climate this fall. I would like to follow up on that because it is a very aggressive and detailed legislative agenda and I hope people do not lose track of that.

There are many bills that we are in the midst of bringing forward and must continue with such as, Bill C-34, which we are talking about now; but also Bill C-13, assisted human reproduction; C-22, family law; C-38, marijuana; Bill C-45, which I hope to talk about later today concerning the Westray bill for worker safety; Bill C-46, market fraud; Bill C-19, resource taxation; Bill C-6, first nations specific claims resolution for the economic development of first nations; archives legislation; bills related to child pornography and the sex offenders registry; citizenship; as well as urgent veteran's needs.

And then of course all the committees are working. The finance committee will be doing its pre-budget work. There are always important issues in foreign affairs. The health committee has to work on the West Nile virus and the agriculture committee on mad cow disease.

This is a very detailed agenda and continues to be one of the most productive legislative agendas we must get through. I hope people do not get sidetracked in the House or in the media about other things or go off these important changes that affect real people in Canada.

I am pleased to address the NDP amendment at report stage with respect to Bill C-34, a bill which would establish an independent ethics commissioner reporting to Parliament. The amendment proposes the deletion of clause 38 of the bill in its entirety.

This clause would change subsection 2(2) of the Federal Courts Act by adding references to both the ethics commissioner and Senate ethics officer so that the activities of the ethics commissioner and Senate ethics officer are not subject to review by the Federal Court, whether by judicial review or by appeal.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader has already explained why the NDP amendment is inappropriate and should be rejected. I want to comment on the need to preserve the House's privileges in this area.

The House and its members have traditionally been responsible for their ethical conduct. This is a tradition we in the House have had since Confederation and which we share with other parliamentary democracies.

Let me set out how the bill preserves this tradition of parliamentary privilege and ensures the House's accountability to Canadians.

Clause 38 amends a provision in the Federal Courts Act which itself exists for greater certainty to ensure that the activities of Parliament and parliamentarians are excluded from review by the Federal Court. Given the role of the ethics commissioner and the Senate ethics officer in dealing with the conduct of parliamentarians, it is logical that those provisions be extended to these two officers of Parliament.

This clause is but one of several provisions in the bill intended to ensure that the House, and not the courts, continues to have the ultimate responsibility, and accountability, for the ethical conduct of its members. For instance, the bill would create an ethics commissioner as an officer of the House.

Section 72.05 includes express recognition that the ethics commissioner “enjoys the privileges and immunities of the House of Commons and its members in carrying out his or her duties and functions”. This section also provides express recognition that the bill does not in any way limit the powers, privileges, rights or immunities of the House or of its members.

Further, Section 72.12 would ensure that the ethics commissioner and his or her staff could not be taken to court in respect to their official activities. This section also acknowledges that the commissioner and his or her office are protected by the privileges and immunities accorded to Parliament as an institution. Similar provisions have been made for the Senate ethics officer throughout the bill.

Collectively, these provisions, including clause 38, are essential if we are to create an ethics commissioner who, in respect of matters pertaining to members of the House, is to function as the legislation requires and is accountable to the House.

In this regard, the bill states that the ethics commissioner's functions in relation to members would be carried out “under the general direction of any committee of the House of Commons that may be designated or established by the House for that purpose”.

Canadians expect members of the House to establish and abide by ethical rules. This is only proper because as parliamentarians we are ultimately accountable to the public, both for our own ethical behaviour and for the steps taken by the ethics commissioner as an officer of Parliament.

In our view, the proposed amendment would seriously undermine Parliament's long standing privileges, the ability of the House to properly assign duties and functions to the ethics commissioner, and the House's ultimately accountability for the ethical conduct of its members.

It would undermine the ability of the House to govern its affairs and would open up the possibility that the courts might be called upon to second guess or review the actions of the ethics commissioner.

Canadians have every right to expect that the House would create and enforce the highest ethical guidelines for members. They know and expect that the House and its members are ultimately accountable for the ethical code it will implement. They do not want parliamentarians to transfer this responsibility to the courts. Accordingly, I would encourage members of the House not to support the amendment.

I want to conclude by again referencing the previous speaker's speech when he commented on the tremendous potential leadership awaiting in the wings for the country and how popular that is with Canadians. We will have a great transition to even more exciting times, but as I was saying at the beginning of my speech I hope that the important things that affect the lives of Canadians, which I mentioned and the number of bills that we will be dealing with throughout the fall, winter and spring, would not be lost in the simple transition of politics.

Specific Claims Resolution Act

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find consent in the House that those who voted on the previous motion be recorded as voting on the main motion for third reading on Bill C-6 and on the ways and means Motion No. 2, with Liberal members voting yes.

[The Speaker]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion for third reading of Bill C-6.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, it will probably surprise you that my speech will be a little longer than those of the other members. I could actually speak from now till 5:30 p.m. I will not bother asking for unanimous consent for that because I rather suspect there would be at least one member here who would decline.

There is so much to be said on this topic. It is one of those issues where again, we ought to be paying a great deal more attention to the facts of the matter than we actually are.

I would like to begin by laying some groundwork. I have had some experience, but not a great amount, in working with native people. When I was in the math department at the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology, one of the very good projects in which I was involved was setting up a program for students who had dropped out of high school so that we could get them back into the educational route and hopefully retrieve their lost years. We would get them into a program and give them training so that they could obtain employment.

The institute had a program called pretechnology where we taught the basics of mathematics, the English language and science. There was a course in chemistry and a course in physics for them. On those subjects we actually went back all the way to the very basics. We started probably at the grade 2 or 3 level in math. We did not spend a great deal of time at that level because they were adult students, but we laid the foundation and we built on that.

At the end of one year we had taken those students right through to having completed high school equivalency. They did not get a high school diploma from us but we gave them enough education in those basic areas so that the following year they could enter a post-secondary program, just as those who had gone through grade 12 in high school.

Most of the students in that program for one reason or another had dropped out of school any time after grade 9 or 10. They had forgotten everything they may have known, so it was a major task.

I am indicating that today because when I was working in that program, I was also one of the instructors. Even though I was the head of the mathematics department in those years, I also chose to work as an instructor in that program.

In that program we had a small number of native students. I always felt that somehow these students were not anywhere near the potential that was contained in them. For the most part that was true. When I would talk to them individually about this, I would find out that most of them had had very poor opportunities and very poor discipline and learning in the schools that they had attended. There was a big attendance problem. The students were never really properly motivated, whether or not it was because their parents did not support their going to school adequately.

Many of them were involved in cultural things. In the fall they would go hunting. I always felt that if that is what they wanted to do, that was fine, but surely we could devise an education program that worked around that. Their vacation time could be during hunting season if need be. These young people could go out with their dads and learn how to hunt and do all of those things. That would be great, but let us not stop their education.

As a result these students came to NAIT very often with a very poor elementary and lower high school background. They were wonderful people to work with. I say that unequivocally. I found them to be very gentle, if I can make a generalization, and very eager to please.

I actually met one of the students on the airplane not very long ago. He had been in my class. Amazingly I remembered him but he did not remember me, which was quite a curiosity. Usually students remember me because I was the guy up front and they would recall that I had been their instructor. He also was one of my students and we did a little reminiscing about that experience.

What I am trying to say by preamble is that I have a real soft spot in my heart for the natives of Canada because of the situation that they have been in for many decades. I believe primarily it is because of the fact that governments have really done wrong by them, they really have, and it is time to correct it. It is time to put that behind us and start moving forward in huge leaps and bounds in order to allow native Canadians to realize their full potential. That is a goal I think we really need to seek out.

As the House may or may not know, for a time I was also involved in a small business. I remember that one of the young men who was hired to work for us was a first nations person. He was a fine young man. He worked diligently and people could count on him. If he said he was going to be there, he would be there. Unfortunately I have to say that was not true of all of the employees, but for him it was.

I remember as well one occasion, and this is a dead giveaway, when I stopped at one of the Kentucky Fried Chicken places in Edmonton. I was hungry for Kentucky Fried Chicken. This is a free ad for it and everyone can see it had a good, long term effect on me. I was eating my meal in the car. I used to pick up my food, sit in the car at noon time and listen to the radio before I would head back to work.

I was doing that when a young native came to the door of my car and asked for money. Instead of giving him money, I asked him what he needed it for. When I found out that he needed bus money in order to get home, I told him to get in and that I would drive him home. I had an opportunity to talk to him. I found out about what a sad plight he was in. Here he was in the big city and he did not have a job or any means of support. He really was very desperate.

That is not acceptable. It is not acceptable that for years and years these people have been undertrained, undereducated and underemployed. We need to correct that. One of the ways of correcting it is to treat them with the dignity with which they should be treated.

When we come to the topic of Bill C-6, I think this is an area where the federal Liberal government, which loves to crow about its compassionate attitude, has so totally blown it. It has blown it over decades. The Prime Minister likes to brag about the fact that he held all sorts of portfolios, that way back he was the minister of Indian and northern affairs. In all areas where those people have been trying to work with our first nations people they have utterly and totally failed. Now they have deluded themselves into thinking that if they keep on doing the same thing a little more often, they are going to get different results. I do not think so.

I look at the many provisions in Bill C-6. I am rather appalled by the mediocrity of the bill, by the fact that the Minister of Finance under the direction of the Prime Minister and all of the people in that department could not come up with something better than Bill C-6 with all of its flaws.

Another thing that really annoys me is that in the next election campaign, and I can already see it, there is going to be an election platform where the Liberals are going to say, “Do not vote for the Canadian Alliance. It voted against the natives”. That is how they will message it. That is very annoying.

The reason that we in the Alliance are against this bill is it is so totally inadequate. The Liberals will twist it. Instead of saying that we are against this bill in order to improve it for the natives, they will twist it so that Canadian people will be led to believe that we are against the natives. It is exactly the opposite.

It is the Liberals who are against them because of the inadequacy of legislation such as this bill. A careful reading of the bill would prove that what I am saying is correct.

Some of the previous speakers have already drawn attention to the fact that if the goal is to provide for speedy resolutions of claims, the bill would be one of the major hindrances to achieving that goal. How ironic to state that is the goal of the bill and then to design the bill so that it does exactly the opposite.

Madam Speaker, it is as if we were in a race. In order to help you, I as the young engineer, want to get your car going really fast and I say that we should tie a bunch of rocks on the back of the car and then drag them along. You would say, “Okay, you are the engineer, go ahead and do it”. But it would not help. I could say this would help you to go faster, but just because I say it would help does not make it so. In fact it would be just the opposite.

The same is true with the bill. When the Liberals say the purpose is to provide for speedy resolution of claims, it is just the opposite.

I would like to talk a little about some of the specifics of the bill. One that comes to mind is the promise of independence.

One of the reasons the natives of our country feel so downtrodden is that they have had governments lord it over them for too long. Here we have a process in place which again uses a label which is totally opposite to the result. They are talking about having an independent commission, an independent tribunal. Maybe the Liberals should get out the good old dictionary. They should have a look at what it means to be independent. They have missed the boat entirely on it.

I have used this example before in some speeches but it bears repeating here. It is the same as someone who gets into the ring to have a boxing match and the opponent also happens to be the referee. I wish that person luck in winning the match.

The natives are looking for an independent and fair resolution mechanism and what do they get? They get more of the same from the past, the Liberal government lording it over them.

The Liberals do not know the meaning of the word “independent”. If they do, they sure do not give any demonstration of understanding the meaning by the legislation they have here, in terms of appointments to the commission and to the tribunal. It is absolutely incredible that independence is a word only to them.

Of course we know that they do not understand it. Way back in 1993 we were promised an independent ethics counsellor. We have seen in the last nine and half to ten years how independent an ethics counsellor is, who is appointed by the Prime Minister, whose salary is determined by the Prime Minister, who answers to the Prime Minister, who reports to the Prime Minister and who, in effect, has been drawn into becoming part of the Prime Minister's damage control team every time anything goes wrong. We do not get independence by having a close tie like that to the government, to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

It is really a shame that they could not arrange for, as our amendment stated in committee, true independence, people on the board who would be agreed to by both the government and the first nations people. Why could that not be done? Surely they could agree. There must be about 15 million or 20 million adults in Canada. Among those, surely we could find 14 people who would be mutually agreeable.

That would take a little bit of work, perhaps. But the government simply says that it will appoint, and that is what this legislation does, but the actual wording is something like order in council. We in Parliament of course understand that is by order of the governor in council of the executive branch of our government, which means the Prime Minister and the minister and they will appoint whomever they will.

The legislation is so offensive in that regard. They will be appointed by the Prime Minister. Their salaries will be determined by the Prime Minister or by a minister of the department; their working conditions; any bonuses; and the extent to which expenses are paid. Where do the first nations people come into this? Nowhere.

The government will have a person or a group of people who will be adjudicating and determining the basis on which these claims are processed and the whole process will be done by people who are beholden to the government.

What is the probability of commissioners making a fair judgment, which might go against the government, if they know their appointment is to serve during pleasure, which means the Prime Minister and the minister are pleased with their work? How can they ever come up with something that displeases the government?

Why can the Liberals not simply build into that appointment process, that hiring process and that benefit process a way of having an independent appointment process, just simply, as I said, to make sure those individuals who are appointed are mutually agreeable? That should not be difficult.

As I said before, and this is a very small sample, but in my dealings with native Canadians I have found them so co-operative. They seem to be a group of people who have a gentle spirit. I find it unfathomable that in this country we would be taking more and more of them away from their natural ways and training them to become almost militant and to have to stand up so strongly for their rights because they have been put down so long.

Let us look at the appointment of the chief executive officer. The bill states:

The Chief Executive Officer may be appointed to hold office for a term of not more than five years and may be removed for cause by the Governor in Council.

It is right in the bill. What is ironic is that the appointment is for a term not exceeding five years, but the very next paragraph states:

The Chief Executive Officer is eligible for re-appointment on the expiration of any term of office.

There is a flaw in that. I realize members are all paying very close attention to what I am saying, all 170 of them out there. I want to point out the flaw in the fact that the individual would be subject to re-appointment. That puts in another reason that a commissioner would have to make sure he or she did not offend the sensibilities of the Prime Minister or the minister of the department in order to keep the job. And it is a fine paying job. It is ranked at the level of deputy minister and the salary is higher than members of Parliament, if I am not mistaken. There is a very fine pension plan and all that stuff. Of course those commissioners would want to keep their job. They will not rule against the government. Where do the natives stand in this? They come out on the short end of it once again.

Subclause 8(3) states:

The Chief Executive Officer shall be paid the remuneration that is fixed by the Governor in Council.

Everything would be done by governor in council, no mutual agreement at all.

To skip a few points, it is interesting that under subclause 8(6) it states:

The Chief Executive Officer shall not accept or hold any office or employment or carry on any activity inconsistent with the duties and functions of that office--

And then, in a most bizarre continuation of the sentence, it states:

--but, for greater certainty, the Chief Executive Officer may also hold the office of Chief Commissioner.

The bill states that the chief executive officer of the organization specifically can be a member--

[Andy Burton, Canadian Alliance, Skeena, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-6, an act related to the Canadian centre for the independent resolution of first nations specific claims. It is my understanding that the purpose of the bill is to create an independent institution to provide for the filing, negotiation, and resolution of specific claims.

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

On almost all fronts, aboriginal Canadians are 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 heart breaking, and the imprisonment and reoffending rate is higher than any other group in Canada. Yes, there is a legacy here. Unfortunately, to Canadians and in particular aboriginal Canadians, it is an infamous one.

Let me first make clear what the Alliance policy is with regard to settling of aboriginal claims. Our position in land claims negotiations would be to ensure respect for existing private property rights, affordable and conclusive settlements of all claims, and an open and transparent process involving all stakeholders.

Aboriginal Canadians will not be able to move forward as individuals or as an autonomous group until the outstanding claims are settled conclusively and with finality.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development are living in a world that has 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 mistake over and over again. Fresh approaches and renewed attitudes are needed in order to see substantial change for the betterment of aboriginal Canadians.

The bill would expedite only claims for cash involving less than $7 million and not any larger claims or claims for land. In addition, the commissioner and adjudicators would not be representative of all stakeholders, as they would be appointed by the Prime Minister.

As I understand the process involved under the bill, the centre would consist of a commission and a tribunal. In turn the claims process would proceed through three stages.

First, the input and preparatory stage where the first nations would submit their claim to the commission, arrange research funding and notify interested parties of the claim. Second, the validity stage where the Crown would decide 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, is the negotiation stage. When the claim is accepted by the Crown, or deemed valid by the tribunal, it would enter a commission led negotiation. If negotiation fails, the first nation could ask the commission to refer the claim to the tribunal for a binding decision on cash compensation to a maximum of $7 million. Obviously, this limits the ability of many first nations, and the federal and provincial governments where involved, to resolve claims because most claims are much larger than that.

I have several concerns regarding the bill. Although the centre is slated to be in Ottawa, there appears to have been no consideration for where the most cost effective location for the centre would be.

I am pleased to note that the Auditor General of Canada would audit the financial accounts of the centre annually and the report of the audit would 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, there is the appearance of some transparency.

What concerns me is that the minister would not be presenting the quarterly reports from the centre to Parliament. This is wrong and they should be tabled, thus keeping parliamentarians fully apprised of the centre's financial well-being. Let us not have another gun registry on our hands as Canadians cannot afford that.

Another of my concerns relates to the efficiency of the process. The government needs to re-examine its approach to defining access to the proposed claims centre. If it were to be more efficient, the minister would need to determine how to allow more access for legitimate claims. The government must ensure that transparency exists throughout the entire process. It is not reasonable to give government the right to hold up the process as it decides whether or not to hear a claim because it provides no timelines or final deadlines for government to provide an answer. Furthermore, it would provide no mechanism for the commission or the claimant to move the process forward in the event of extended delay by the government.

The government appears determined to continue to hold on to all of its dictatorial power, all the while paying lip service to aboriginal Canadians.

Clause 32 would allow the government to require the claimant to meet an excessive threshold of proof of having used all available mediation mechanisms before allowing the first nation to request a move to the tribunal in the case of an unresolved claim. This appears to be nothing less than another stalling mechanism for the government. Of special note is that this clause would also impose a cap on the validity stage of the process.

I am concerned about the arbitrary $7 million cap for compensation approval by the centre. I understand there were other proposals, as high as $25 million, however the amendment was defeated. Furthermore, the process used to determine the actual compensation is difficult, if not impossible, to determine.

One of my greatest concerns surrounds 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 would allow the government to fill in the blanks after the bill has passed under the watchful eye of Parliament. Although the Prime Minister talks the talk about parliamentary democracy, he is unable to walk the walk. Legislation should not be something that can be added to arbitrarily after the fact.

Let me confirm that the Canadian Alliance supports the fair and expeditious resolution of claims in a manner that benefits relations between aboriginal Canadians and the federal government, and in fact all Canadians. The bill would not achieve that goal. The federal government has it all wrong with timing. Under this draft of the bill, first nations could not file claims based on events that occurred within the 15 years immediately preceding the filing of a claim.

The bill would raise false hopes 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.

In the past three decades the government has settled only 230 claims. Some 500 claims are still waiting to be heard. First nations representatives tell us they expect up to 1,000 more claims to be filed. At the current rate it would take 200 years to deal with all of these claims. That is totally ridiculous.

In 1993 the Liberal red book promised an independent claims commission jointly appointed by first nations and the Government of Canada. The bill breaks that promise by concentrating the power to make appointments in the PMO.

Bill C-6 requires change and amendments before being ratified. I would ask all members of the House to support the current amendment that would send the bill back to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources. This legislation is flawed and requires serious change before becoming law.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, I find it rather ironic that I rose to speak in support of Bill C-2 just prior to Bill C-6. All of the accolades that I gave to Bill C-2 with respect to the consultative process, to all parties not only being involved in the process but being supportive of the process are absolutely and totally changed when we come to Bill C-6. In fact, it is the same minister and department, but it is like night and day.

Bill C-6 has not had a consultative process. It has not listened to the joint task force of 1998. It has not brought all of the stakeholders together in a consultative process. It is frankly one of the worst piece of legislation that the ministry could bring forward. Here we have two examples, one a good example and one a deplorable example.

Again, I rise on behalf of my colleague, the member for Dauphin--Swan River, who has been instrumental in speaking in opposition to the bill. I would like to reiterate the position of the Progressive Conservative Party that we cannot support Bill C-6 at third reading.

As has been said by the member from the NDP, there are a number of shortcomings in the bill, not the least of which is the limit of the commission of $7 million for the tribunal. We recognize when we are dealing with land claims, when we are having to make necessary commitments to those land claims, that the majority of them are well over the limit of $7 million.

It seems to me that it is simply a matter of the government putting in place another roadblock where it does not have to deal with the real issue of settling these land claims, and simply delays and delays. As usual the government feels it can stick its head in the sand often enough and long enough with whatever the issue. Whether it be EH-101 helicopters, health care, taxation, gas prices or land claims, it sticks its head in the sand and eventually it thinks that people will either forget or the issue will go away. It will not and it cannot.

In fact, in this particular case what the government would like to do with its proposals in Bill C-6 is take about 100 years to clear up the backlog of the outstanding land claims. The government may think it has 100 years, but I know the average age of the government members and I can assure the House they do not have that long to sit in the House to be able to settle those land claims.

I am also concerned with the makeup of the tribunal. We have examples now of other organizations that have government appointed members. One that comes to mind is the Canadian Wheat Board where the government has its own appointees. What they simply do is take the agenda of the government to the table and nothing changes. This is the same factor in Bill C-6 where the members of the tribunal would be appointed by the same person, the minister who is trying to reach an agreement on land claims which is a total conflict of interest.

However the government is not too concerned with conflict of interest as we have seen with other issues that are now going on in the House. It is not only not a concern for the government but it seems to be part of the norm. It seems like the government members like to put into place legislation that would perpetuate more conflicts because that is the way in their minds business is meant to be done. It seems they have done a very good job of putting in place another conflict with the land claims system which is something they probably did on purpose.

Another issue relates to animosity. There is not a stakeholder who supports the bill with the exception of the minister. The minister feels that it is the best piece of legislation contrary to whatever anybody else believes.

As I said earlier, there was no consultation and no process. Any of the people that it is trying to achieve a settlement with do not buy into the process and do not buy into the legislation.

The Progressive Conservative Party will vote against Bill C-6 at third reading. We believe strongly that bringing forward Bill C-6 would just perpetuate the problem. We believe that there must be closure. We believe that there is a need for an honest resolution to the land claims issues within the country. There is not only a need but a constitutional right to be able to settle those land claims. Unfortunately, the bill would perpetuate the problem, it would not fix it. It is more part of the problem than part of the solution. Therefore we will be voting against the bill.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand today and speak to the third reading of the Bill C-6, the first nations specific resolutions claims act.

The bill aims to modify the current specific claims process by creating a new administrative body which will include a commission to facilitate claims, negotiations and dispute resolutions, as well as a tribunal to make binding decisions on the validity of claims and compensation awards to a prescribed maximum per claim.

We should try to locate the bill in the context of other bills involving aboriginal people. This is part of a series of new legislations that make up the most comprehensive review of the Indian Act in modern history.

The Indian Specific Claims Commission, the ICC, was established in 1992 by order in council as a temporary independent advisory body to review specific claims that have been rejected by government and to issue non-binding decisions. This limited mandate has frustrated commission members and aboriginal claimants.

The ICC has called for a permanent independent specific claims commission. This has been on the Liberal agenda since the 1993 pre-election agenda. As it stands now, claims are presented to the Canadian government for review and acceptance.

In 1996 a Joint First Nations-Canada task force began considering the structure and the authority of this commission and submitted a report containing a model bill for a new specific claims body. Although the new legislation in question makes massive changes to the JTF report, the proposed Bill C-6 will replace the ICC.

I listened with interest to the comments of the member before me who expressed a great deal of disappointment with the bill and a sense of betrayal for native people. New Democrats feel the same. We have a lot of difficulties with the bill and I would like to go through some of our concerns.

As with the other bills included within the ministry's suite of first nations legislation, such as Bill C-7, the governance act, and Bill C-19, the fiscal institutions act, this bill would further damage the relationship between the government and the first nations as it would arbitrarily impose legislation upon the first nations people regardless of their input and their massive objection.

Treaties are nation to nation agreements that date back over 300 years and are central building blocks to the creation of Canada. They are legally protected under section 35 of the Constitution of Canada. Bill C-6 does not respect the spirit of those treaties, and as such it is unconstitutional. The government is in conflict of interest in this instance. It is both the defence and the adjudicator.

With this bill, the government has not created the independent and impartial committee for which was asked. Instead the minister has the last say about everything in the bill.

Bill C-6 dismisses the role of the Assembly of First Nations when it comes to their inherent right to self-government. Not only does the bill dismiss the government-AFN joint task force report model bill, but nowhere does the legislation even mention the Assembly of First Nations.

In addition to dismissing the joint task force report, the consultation process regarding Bill C-6 has been a joke. The committee set aside only three weeks for Bill C-6 and this included everything from introduction to all witnesses, to clause to clause revisions.

Under the joint task force report, there is no provision in Bill C-6 for appointments, renewals and approvals to require the consent of the AFN as well as the federal government. All appointments, such as the chief executive officer, commissioners and the tribunal will be made on the recommendation of the minister alone.

What is wrong with this picture? It has to be fairly obvious. Faced with constantly being dependent upon the federal government for reappointment, members will feel the pressure of wanting to be favourably regarded by the government. Thus the members will not be seen to be free to make a decision against the very government that would be responsible for their reappointment.

There are many other flaws in this legislation. With Bill C-6, the minister also has control over the so-called independent bodies through its ability to add more members whenever he or she pleases.

First, Bill C-6 ignores the JTF report and dramatically and arbitrarily narrows the definition of specific claim in the following way. It excludes obligations arising under treaties and agreements that do not deal with lands or assets. Second, it excludes unilateral federal undertakings to provide lands or assets. Third, it excludes claims based on laws of Canada that were United Kingdom statutes or royal proclamations.

The bill also severely limits access to the tribunal by denying all claims that are over the cap of $7 million. That amount can be unilaterally defined by the federal cabinet. It can be lowered as well as raised. The majority of claims, whose content deal with land, damages or loss issues, will be seeking compensation that is above that cap. The Indian claims commission reports that out of 120 claims they have dealt with, only three were worth less than $7 million. It is not meeting the needs of claimants in this regard whatsoever.

Delay is a major problem in the current system as well. It explains much of the current backlog estimated to be over 550 claims. Bill C-6 does not create any independent or impartial body designed to clear up that huge claim backlog. Instead, it is an instrument that enables the federal government to closely control the pace of settlements and decisions by granting the minister the power to consider a claim indefinitely at an early stage in the process. There are no time limits for compliance that must be observed.

Bill C-6 authorizes the federal government to delay the claims resolution process. It does so in the following ways.

No claim can proceed to alternate dispute resolution administered by the commission or the tribunal without the consideration and the approval of the minister. Bill C-6 says that no delay in responding can ever constitute constructive denial. A first nation cannot take a claim to the tribunal unless all alternative dispute resolution is exhausted and it must wait for the minister to deem that process exhausted. The government can request additional preparatory meetings even if the first nation does not think that it is necessary. If a first nation ever amends a claim during commission proceedings, the claim cannot proceed to the commission until the minister has considered the amendment. Finally, the government can delay by unilaterally lowering the cap on the overall amount of potential awards that a tribunal can issue in a given year.

It is clear that Bill C-6 favours the government by requiring the first nation to disclose all the facts and laws it is relying on before it reaches the tribunal. It does not require the same transparency from the government. The government sets the rules and controls the system by which it governs itself. This proposed process is not an independent or impartial process.

It is extremely insulting to the Assembly of First Nations and to native people across the country that the government asked the AFN to take part in the joint task force in 1998 responsible for making recommendations in this regard and then it completely ignored the model bill which it proposed.

First nations leadership wants changes to the Indian Act and they welcome change. Yet Bill C-6 has generated an unprecedented degree of animosity and disgust. Partly because of the content, but more important because of the process that animosity has occurred.

I will finish by saying that the NDP will not be supporting Bill C-6. It is not a constructive bill at this point in time and it is causing damage to relationships with native people.

Business of the House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to make the business statement and I will have two motions which relate to that immediately afterward, with the permission of the House.

This afternoon we will consider the Senate amendments to Bill C-12, the sports bill. I understand this will be brief. This will be followed by third reading of Bill C-15, the lobbyists legislation. If time permits, we would then turn to Bill C-20 on child protection, and then possibly Bill C-23, the sex offender registry. I think by then the day will probably have exhausted.

Tomorrow our plan would be to commence with Bill C-2, the Yukon bill, which would then be followed by Bill C-6, the first nations specific claims bill.

When the House returns on March 17 we will complete the budget debate on that day. I will have a motion to offer to the House in a few minutes to defer the vote on that.

March 18 shall be an allotted day, as shall be March 20. I will give an update to members of the House in terms of legislation to be called on March 19.

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties and I wish to seek unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, if on March 17, 2003, a division is requested on the main motion for government order, ways and means proceedings No. 2, the said division shall be deferred until the conclusion of the time provided for government orders on March 18, 2003.

For the benefit of members, that refers to the budget motion.

Specific Claims Resolution Act

[The Speaker]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-6.

First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act

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

Mr. Speaker, you took me a bit by surprise. I thought that the government had a bill to defend, especially when it is its own bill. However, we find that even the government's own members are not willing to defend a bill such as Bill C-19.

We can see why. Bill C-19 is part of a major federal offensive, along with Bills C-6 and C-7, against all the traditional land claims and the rights of Canada's first nations, such as the inherent right to self-government, the right to a land base, the right also to compensation for the 130 years during which they were subjected to the Indian Act—the most retrograde law ever conceived by man, and this law was created right here in Canada 130 years ago. All these rights, as well as the respect to which our first nations are entitled, are being trampled by Bill C-19. And, of course, Bill C-19 is part of a whole scheme that also includes Bills C-6 and C-7.

We always come back to the same basic problem. When the government came up with Bill C-19, it had not even bothered to adequately consult first nations. This is an attempt to shove a bill they do not want down their throats. This is an attempt to undermine their credibility, to say for example that the Assembly of First Nations does not represent all first nations in Canada, which is false. There is even a federal law that recognizes the Assembly of First Nations as the spokesperson for first nations in Canada.

But, as the old saying goes, divide and conquer. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has taken this old adage to heart and is being quite machiavellian in how he applies it.

They are even going to bypass the Assembly of First Nations and choose some Liberal Party sympathizers. The selected individuals picked by the Liberal Party of Canada and by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will then say that they agree with the government, that everything is great and that everything in the bill is great.

We tried to amend Bill C-19. We tried to convince the minister that this bill was not quite right, that first nations had very legitimate claims, that they wanted to be consulted and that they wanted to be respected for who they are. The minister turned a deaf ear.

Many representations on Bill C-19, C-6 and C-7 were made. Currently, Bill C-7 is at the committee stage. Each time we have proposed amendments to improve the contents, to ensure that the rights and demands of the first nations of Canada are respected, the minister has turned a deaf ear and said, “I know what I am doing. I consulted, I have held 400 meetings since last year and this is the result of those consultations”.

What the minister forgets to mention is that those 400 consultations were probably each about five minutes long. How can the first nations, under such circumstances, make positive contributions? Because these bills are for them. How can they satisfactorily contribute to replacing the much-hated Indian Act with legislation that recognizes and respects them for who they are?

We had supported the principles in Bill C-19. Given that the minister does not want to hear about the major changes that need to be made, we are forced to change our minds. We will oppose Bill C-19, which is part of a broad offensive to get first nations to accept the unacceptable, which no Canadian, and certainly no Quebecker, would do.

Bill C-19 creates a statistical institute, a tax commission and a first nations financial management board.

As if aboriginals needed three additional ultra bureaucratic entities. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development's speciality is bureaucracy, cumbersome administration and piles of paperwork. Aboriginals do not need any of this. They want nothing to do with it. These are not their real problems.

This is not what they talk about when they appear before us in committee or when we meet with them individually. They want us to address the real problems in the aboriginal communities, such as land claims that have been on the back burner for decades, compensation for the harm caused to them and aboriginal health issues.

In terms of health, there is no need to draw a picture. Across Canada, aboriginals' health is worse than anyone's. They contract infections that no longer even exist in our communities. For instance, there is a high incidence of tuberculosis among the Lubicon in Alberta.

These communities are struggling with substance abuse problems in young children. Recently we saw young children 6 or 7 years old behind homes sniffing gasoline fumes or glue. These are real problems.

There are major problems with drinking water across Canada. Imagine, that was a discovery for me. Some regions of Canada are in the same situation as the developing countries. I thought drinking water problems were mainly in Africa, where CIDA is doing such excellent work.

I think we need to look a little closer at ourselves and stop thinking that underdevelopment is something foreign to us. The reality is that the first nations have been marginalized. They do not have drinking water. Considering the importance of safe drinking water for health, and particularly for child development, I hardly need say how ashamed this makes me feel. This is a problem that must be addressed.

Moreover, to dispel any old prejudices that may still be lurking in the minds of any of my colleagues, what the Auditor General said was not that there were administrative problems in the first nations communities, but that those problems lay within the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs.

I see these three new entities relating to taxation and statistics as a way for employees of that department to hang on to their jobs. The right thing to do today would be to abolish the despicable Indian Act, which treats aboriginal people like children and kept them on the reserve for so many decades. This legislation has been around for 130 years now and has stripped them of their resources.

If we abolished the Indian Act, we would at the same time abolish some, if not most, positions at Indian and Northern Affairs. But they will do as they did at Fisheries and Oceans. There are no more fish, but there are hundreds of employees. Why? Because the changes in the fish stocks must be monitored. SInce these people have been monitoring the situation, fish stocks have decreased. But that justifies jobs at Fisheries and Oceans.

It is worse at Indian and Northern Affairs. I met some of the employees when they appeared before the committee. Some had that typical attitude that is so despised, people for whom what is important is to hang on to their jobs, not to work for the well-being of the aboriginal community or to help it break out of the vicious circle that has been in place for the past 130 years and has the first nations mired in chronic underdevelopment, which gets in the way of their future development and their children's future development, and strips them of pride and dignity.

But officials are not there to work on these problems. Of course not, they are there to create bureaucratic entities. The Auditor General said that first nations are overadministered.

Almost all aboriginal communities are required to fill out 168 lengthy forms every year on their administration, on how they operate, down to the last penny. One hundred and sixty-eight forms, do you know what that represents? That is three government forms per week in every aboriginal community. Keep in mind that there are some communities with about 100 people.

It is the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development that requires this. The Auditor General did not criticize aboriginals for being sloppy when it comes to the administration of aboriginal affairs; she criticized the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for being sloppy and ineffective and for its excessive bureaucracy.

That is who she criticized. Not only has the government failed to rectify the situation, but it has added to the problem. First nations will now have to produce even more reports and fulfill the requirements of even more administrative bodies.

What about the real problems facing aboriginals, that we in Parliament should be solving? What are we doing about drinking water? What are we doing about health problems? What are we doing about education problems?

There is a few million dollars here and a few million dollars there. The government will point to the budget. True, some tens of millions of dollars were given for health, as well as for education, but that is completely inadequate. Particularly since Bills C-6, C-7 and C-19 impose additional administrative requirements. But the resources are not forthcoming. Put plainly, first nations are given the same resources, and they have to fight to keep their heads above water to assert their rights, to fight the federal government in the courts, to build their case and to solve community problems with what little resources they have. These same resources will now be used to fulfill the requirements of these three new administrative bodies and also the new provisions that are contained in the governance legislation, Bills C-6 and C-7.

All of this is outrageous. It really is ignominious. I asked to be given the first nations file because it was a very interesting one, even if it was one we very seldom heard about. I asked for this file because there were things that I wanted to resolve and understand. I have a hard time understanding why a country like Canada, that prides itself on being a country where rights and freedoms are respected, a country that even adopted a charter of rights and freedoms, a country that includes in every throne speech an explicit reference to the aboriginal people and to respect for their culture, their language etc, does not do anything in this regard. It talks a lot, but the disgrace is that not much is happening.

Now I understand why. After the Erasmus-Dussault commission, everything was in place for the Canadian nation and the first nations to negotiate solutions to problems as equals. The report was lengthy. Consultations had been held. But no. Our fine Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, a follower of Machiavelli, divided and conquered, and rammed through new measures that were supposed to improve the act, the infamous Indian Act. There was a flurry of protests and all first nations representatives opposed these bills. However, the minister bragged about the fact that he could count on the support of his friends. He has a few aboriginal friends. It looks good to have a few aboriginal friends when you are the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

We are lucky. We are really lucky—and I see that there is agreement here—that aboriginals have not revolted more than they have up to now. Because if I were an aboriginal and I had been treated like that, I would have dumped the standing committee. I would have come to Parliament a long time ago together with all 638 first nations. I would have come to Parliament a long time ago and mobilized numerous resources to say, “That is it. We have rights. You put us in reserves 130 years ago. You crushed us. You took away our dignity. You tried to get rid of us. Now, that is it. You will not repeat the past with Bills C-6, C-7 and C-19”.

They appeared a few times before the United Nations. Their claims were even successful. There are, for example, the Alberta Lubicon. They are in the news now because, several decades ago, they had been promised their territories, which they are entitled to, and they were also promised compensation.

What happened in the meantime? There are rich oil and gas companies in Canada. They have the support of the Minister of Industry even if they are hurting the economy now and even if the price of heating oil has gone up 30%. The minister is on their side. He is siding with the oil and gas companies. This is not the first time that the government has sided with them.

As soon as major oil deposits were discovered on the land claimed by the Lubicon, we started hearing that they might not have any right to them, that the land might not be theirs. In the 1930s, official papers were even falsified. What a fine reputation. If you do not believe me, the matter was taken all the way to the United Nations, where the Canadian government was criticized for its lack of respect for the human rights of the Lubicon Lake Indians.

Quite clearly, the Lubicon no longer had any territorial rights. As soon as these rich oil fields were discovered, the matter of profits for large oil companies arose. These companies cozy up to the government, and this has been going on for decades.

The government was both defendant and adjudicator, collecting royalties on the oil resources developed by the big companies. So, the Lubicon were ignored. And this injustice has been going on for 70 years. Even a UN resolution was not enough to shake the government.

Government representatives go around the world presenting Canada as a supporter of rights and freedoms, talking about our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, while within Canada there are these injustices. After 130 years of the Indian Act, the government is spreading the injustice and making matters worse with bills that no one wants, namely Bill C-6 and Bill C-7. The aboriginal nations do not want these bills because they do not respect who these people are; they do not respect their cultures and traditions.

It is totally unacceptable to be presented with such bills, especially since there is a common thread linking the three we are debating, when we include Bill C-19: an attempt to erode the rights of aboriginal people. The federal government is trying to shirk its fiduciary responsibility.

Why I am making such a statement? Because there is no non-derogation clause in Bill C-19, in Bill C-6, or in Bill C-7. A non-derogation clause would reassure first nations by guaranteeing that, despite the provisions found in Bills C-19, C-6 or C-7, their aboriginal rights, their inherent rights to self-government, their land rights, their rights to compensation, and their rights to pride and dignity are not beign threatened. This is what a non-derogation clause is all about. There is no non-derogation clause in these bills even though, in the past, such clauses were included to reassure aboriginal nations about the fact that even though a bill brought about some changes, even though it included new provisions, their claims and their rights were not in jeopardy. A non-derogation clause does not give them anything, it simply gives the assurance that their rights will be respected.

Over the past 30 years, in a number of rulings, the Supreme Court has consistently come down in favour of respect for aboriginal nations and their inherent right to self-government. These decisions compelled the federal government to settle numerous disputes that had been going on forever.

All these rulings were in favour of aboriginal nations and, today, we fare faced with a situation where, instead of following up on the rulings of the Supreme Court, instead of implementing the recommendations of a royal commission of inquiry that tabled its report a few years ago, the government is repeating its past mistakes. Instead of treaties written in archaic language over a century old, we have modern bills that are every bit as insensitive and cruel to aboriginal nations.

For all these reasons, we will strongly oppose Bill C-19. We will also strongly oppose Bills C-6 and C-7, which are utterly objectionable.

The members of the Bloc Quebecois members will fight for the aboriginal nations of Canada and Quebec, not to give them more rights than we have, but to ensure respect for the rights that they do have, and to settle disputes once and for all, in a climate of respect and dignity, nation to nation. Equality between nations must go beyond words; it must be a concrete reality, and it must be based on respect and dignity.

Business of the House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for carrying the motion.

There have been consultations among parties and I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following business to be disposed of, as follows, and I will do it step by step because we have a number of them. I move:

That on Bill C-6, the question on the amendment to the motion for third reading be deemed to have been put and a division thereon requested and deferred until the conclusion of Government Orders, February 25, 2003.

Specific Claims Resolution Act

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is very important for us to resolve the issues of Bill C-6 in an equitable and fair way.

One of the things that the bill provides is for a tribunal which has a cap of some $7 million on things that it can decide on. Beyond that, it is beyond its scope. So there is a limitation. If there were an impasse on a certain inquiry, then we would have the situation where the tribunal would not be able to solve the problem and we would have the same kind of impasse that we have had for the last 20, 30, 50 years.

I would like the member's comments on the cap and the tribunal process.

[Rex Barnes, Progressive Conservative, Gander—Grand Falls, NL]

Madam Speaker, listening to the hon. member who just spoke, he outlined some areas and some organizations that are totally opposed to the manner in which this has taken place. When we talk about negotiations to come to a deal to satisfy groups of people, we negotiate to satisfy the majority of the people.

From what I see here, the bill has definitely angered a lot of people within the organization. As a result of that, we in the Progressive Conservative Party will not be supporting it. We firmly believe that these are not negotiations that have transpired. This is the government saying that this is what it wants, rather than what the people want.

The minister has stated that there are 550 claims in the system right now, which will take approximately 30 years to do under the current procedures, and he believes that the new system would resolve 80% of them. If 80% of the outstanding land claims are easy to resolve, why have they not been resolved?

I know the claims may be complex, but if the government does not sit at the table and negotiate with all the groups it will never get done. However, we need to have open negotiations. We need to listen to the first nations people. It cannot be all one way. Right now it is all one way. It is the government's way or no way.

The minister also stated that the first claims policy statement arose out of the Supreme Court decision in 1973. Since 1973 it has been the same old story. We are still waiting for first nations to have their land settlements resolved, which is unfortunate.

We cannot continue in that way. We need to make peace with our first nations people. We need to make sure that the court ruling is upheld. They are entitled to their land claims. Let us settle these claims now and get them over with so we can work as a nation. However we all know that is not what the government wants to do.

My hon. colleagues before me mentioned many points. One of the things is that after an initial review of Bill C-6 we identified a number of departures from what was agreed upon in the 1998 joint task force report, which may compromise the new body to assist in resolving claims in a fair, expeditious and impartial manner.

Where are we going with this? We need to have impartiality. We need to make sure that it is done in a certain timeframe so that the system works for everyone. We cannot continue to say that if it does not work we will put it into the courts to take care of the larger issue. If the smaller issues were resolved, then the big issues sometimes take care of themselves by sitting down to negotiate and talking sensibly.

There is a big concern about a conflict of interest. It has to have independence. We cannot have the government appointing people to do certain things because then it is not impartial.

A lot has been said about this issue and a lot will continue to be said. What we need to do is to get back to the table to settle the land claims, to sit down and speak to our first nations people and to all the people to whom we need to speak, so we can move forward to make sure that the best deal is given, not only to the aboriginal people but also that it be fair to the government.

I do not see that happening because there are two sets of rules, one for the people and one for the government. We need to make sure that it is good for the country and good for the people. The government cannot get its own way all the time.

As a result, the bill does not answer a lot of the concerns of the first nations people. The Assembly of First Nations had a lot of concerns. I have seven of them here, most of which were addressed today: the cap up to $7 million; the patronage appointment process; the lack of first nations input; no significant increase in the budget for the new process; conflicts of interest; and the minister's role in managing the process.

The other item that was of great concern had to do with the compromises built into the new body that was done in the joint task force of 1998.

There is so much that is unsettled with this new bill that the parties in the House cannot support it. I would recommend that the minister go back to the table, go back to the people and speak to the committee. I know the committee members were upset. I am not a member of the committee but I spoke to members of the committee who were very concerned about the direction in which the bill goes.

I know the minister has the greatest of intentions to make sure that the land claims are all settled and that first nations people get what they rightly deserve but if the bill becomes law it will not give them what they deserve. It will cause major fighting, major bickering and major unsettling of our people.

I firmly believe that the minister should go back to square one and listen to the people. Yes, we need to compromise but in negotiations. He talked about his past negotiating skills but I can tell him right now that in negotiations we give some and we take some. It is a compromise. However, when it is all finalized and we come away from the table, both parties should be happy and settled with it. If not, in the real world, if it were union negotiations, they would be on strike.

Right now we could almost say that the people who are opposed to this are on strike. We need to get back to the table, sit down and discuss this reasonably and rationally and, most important, let us get a deal that is good for the country, good for the people and one in which all Canadians will benefit greatly.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased on behalf of the New Democratic Party to join the debate on Bill C-6 at third reading.

I would like to compliment the speech made by my colleague from the Bloc Québécois, a member of the aboriginal affairs committee. His speech contained very thoughtful remarks and a well researched analysis of this very flawed bill.

We intend to emphasize many of the same points as would have been heard from the Canadian Alliance when it opposed the bill and from the previous speaker from the Bloc Québécois as he opposed the bill. Virtually everybody associated with aboriginal claims issues is opposed to the bill, as the hon. member from the Bloc pointed out, with the possible exception of the minister and his immediate staff.

I will mention some of the organizations and communities that have contacted the NDP to express their very strong dissatisfaction with the bill. They include the Assembly of First Nations, as has been pointed out before; the Alliance of Tribal Nations from New Westminster, B.C.; the Saddle Lake First Nation of Saddle Lake, Alberta; the Adams Lake Indian Band from Chase, B.C.; the Lucky Man Cree Nation from Saskatoon; Long Lake Reserve No. 58 from Longlac, Ontario; Eagle Lake First Nation from Ontario; The Society for Threatened People from Austria; the Tlowitsis First Nation from Campbell River, B.C.; the Battlefords Tribal Council from Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; the Blueberry River First Nation from Buick, B.C.; the Boston Bar First Nation from Boston Bar, B.C.; and the Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council from Prince George, B.C.

There is also the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak Inc. from northern Manitoba. I believe MKO represents some 50 communities in northern Manitoba. There is also the Opaskwayak Cree Nation from The Pas, Manitoba whose chief, Oscar Lathlin, is currently the minister of aboriginal affairs in Manitoba.

Also on the list are the Treaty and Aboriginal Rights Research Centre of Manitoba Inc. from Winnipeg; the North Shore Tribal Council from Cutler, Ontario; the Six Nations of the Grand River from Ontario. The Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, a plenary umbrella group from Saskatchewan is on the list.

The list also includes the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte from the Mohawk Territory, Ontario; the Pasqua First Nation from Fort Qu'Appelle, Saskatchewan; the Okanagan Indian Band from Vernon, B.C.; the Nanoose First Nation from Lantzville, B.C.; the Tsuu T'ina Nation from Alberta; the Halfway River First Nation from Wonowon, B.C.; the Northwest Tribal Treaty Nations from Terrace, B.C.; the Nipissing First Nation from Garden Village, Ontario; the Union of New Brunswick Indians, Fredericton, New Brunswick; the Seabird Island Band from Agassiz, B.C.; the Algonquin First Nation of Timiskaming, from Notre Dame du Nord, Quebec; the Wolf Lake First Nation from Quebec; the Buffalo Point First Nation and Chief John Thunder from Buffalo Point, Manitoba; the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, Kamloops, B.C.; and the Barriere Lake Algonquin First Nation from Quebec, just bordering the city of Ottawa.

That is a partial list of the groups that have come forward. Some made representation to the committee and some simply contacted our offices, appealing to the opposition parties to do all they could to stop Bill C-6 because it does not meet their needs. It is not what they are looking for. It is not what they desire in terms of a truly independent claims commission as claimed by the minister.

The most compelling thing I bring to the House today is a petition that was brought to my office. Unfortunately it is not in a format which I could present to the House of Commons. I will not be formally tabling the petition because unfortunately, my office was not contacted first to get the proper format.

Those people went to a great deal of trouble. There are over 50,000 names on those sheets of paper which are in boxes in my office as we speak. I would like to read into the record at least the preamble of that petition, even though I know full well it cannot be presented formally.

It is a petition by the Jubilee Petition on Aboriginal Land Rights called “Land Rights, Right Relations”.

Dear Prime Minister,

In keeping with the Jubilee theme of Renewal of the Earth, we the undersigned call for a renewed relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples based on mutual respect, responsibility, and sharing.

As part of this ongoing process towards a new relationship, we are seeking justice for Aboriginal peoples.

We join the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and the United Nations Human Rights Committee in calling on the federal government to act immediately to establish a truly independent commission with the mandate to implement Aboriginal land, treaty and inherent rights.

The signatories are from all over Canada. I should point out that they are not primarily aboriginal people. The vast majority of the signatures on this 50,000 name petition are not of first nations people. In fact, the sample I am holding are people from downtown Guelph, Ontario: Debbie Armstrong, Cindy Donafeld, Erin Stather and Mike Elrick; these people all identify themselves as being from fairly suburban urban Canada.

Perhaps it was long-winded but I wanted to share with everyone the depth and breadth of the opposition we are learning about to Bill C-6. There are ordinary Canadians as well as first nations communities who do not accept that Bill C-6 is what it is touted to be, the long awaited and much ballyhooed bill that was looked for with great optimism.

Many aboriginal people I met, leaders through the Assembly of First Nations, authorities in the field of land claims, worked on the joint task force for years leading to the formation of an independent claims body. Many expressed their dismay as soon as the hon. minister of aboriginal affairs presented the idea two years ago that he would be introducing this new claims commission by legislation and advanced preliminary sketches of what the bill might look like.

The Assembly of First Nations made it clear at that time that the government had missed the point, that it did not fold in the important key recommendations of the joint task force. That round table met for, I believe it was 18 months, leading up to the development of its position paper which called for a truly independent Indian claims commission.

There was advance warning. The minister cannot feign that he was somehow blindsided by this. He was advised from the very outset that the bill being contemplated and proposed would miss the mark and did not satisfy or pass the test of the truly independent claims commission that was being called for by first nations leaders.

With that as a preface, I suppose I will outline once again some of our objections to Bill C-6 and give an overview and legal analysis of Bill C-6. I do not think we need to get too technical because it is the position of the New Democratic Party when it put forward umpteen amendments at the committee stage. Every single one of them was rejected. It is now our position that the bill is not redeemable.

The bill in its current form unamended is not worthy of our support and will not be getting our support. Therefore I am not going to bore the House of Commons or anybody watching at home with the gritty details of the minutiae, the technical details. That was done by the Canadian Alliance for 40 minutes half an hour ago.

Our initial review of Bill C-6 identified a number of departures from what was agreed upon in the 1998 joint task force report. We believe this compromises the ability of the new body to assist in resolving claims in the expeditious, fair and impartial manner that was contemplated by the task force. Bill C-6 fails the test of being able to introduce a commission that is truly fair, impartial and expeditious.

There is deep concern, and we expressed it from the very outset, with the conflict of interest in the minister's role in managing the independent claims board process. This point has been made over and over again, and not just by opposition critics in the House of Commons but by authorities who have studied this issue for decades in civil society, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal.

How can the commission be truly independent when the minister's discretionary authority is enhanced in the bill rather than diminished and when the commissioners are appointed by the minister? We believe the independence of the commission and the tribunal are undermined by the retention of the unilateral federal authority over appointments and by the unilateral federal authority over the processing of claims. This is the key fundamental point upon which Bill C-6 falls short of introducing a truly independent Indian claims commission.

As many people were, we were shocked and disappointed to see that appointments would be made upon the recommendation of the very minister charged with defending the Crown against such claims. How can anyone not see the blatant conflict of interest? The minister would get to appoint the commissioners, and it would be the Crown against which these claims would be made. Can people not see what is fundamentally wrong with this picture?

We have tried to articulate it as clearly as we can and still we get no relief from the minister or from the Liberal majority on the standing committee. Our representatives on that committee, using the rules of the House of Commons, legitimately tried to have that amended and corrected. Had we achieved that amendment, we would be supporting the bill. Just as no one in their right mind could fail to see the blatant conflict of interest, no one in their right mind could fail to hope that some of the 550 outstanding specific claims could be settled expeditiously, at least in our lifetimes.

I share in the frustration of aboriginal people, many of whom have waited 30, 40 and 50 years for resolution, not to a general land claim but to a specific claim, which I should explain. Let us use an example.

There have been cases where a military air force base expropriated a certain amount of land from an Indian reserve for a specific purpose. When that function was finished and it came time to return that land to the band, it gave back less than it took. The aboriginal people involved said, “Wait a minute. You borrowed 100 acres and gave us back 85. What is going on here?” They filed a specific claim. I am pulling that abstract out of my head. There are about 550 of those.

Here is another example. The amount of money transferred to aboriginal communities is based upon a per capita basis. There may be a dispute between what the first nation says is its membership and what the federal government has counted as membership. A claim would be filed to address that grievance. That is the type of very specific issue with which we are dealing, but unfortunately without a satisfactory resolution mechanism, the band has no recourse but to clog up the courts with these claims.

As I said, no one in their right mind would not want to see a speedy and expeditious settlement of these outstanding grievances to give remedy to these, in many cases, historic injustices.

We are frustrated and we share the frustration of aboriginal people. It has yet to be determined if all the claims are legitimate. Hopefully, a fair and impartial arbitrator will decide that. However now we will not have that mechanism. The long awaited and much ballyhooed mechanism to finally give satisfaction to these outstanding claims is not forthcoming. These people will have to go forward with what they perceive to be a biased mechanism, a mechanism that is tainted and clearly prejudiced, or at least there is a conflict of interest. It remains to be seen if fairness can still be achieved.

There are no effective timelines provided under the commission process. We believe that this is a shortcoming of the bill. We would be far more likely to achieve satisfactory resolves, if people could not play the waiting game. Certainly the government has been playing with many claims for all these years.

Using timeliness as a delaying tactic is reprehensible in my mind. There is a phrase “justice delayed is justice denied”. It is even more unkind when the government throws it back in the face of aboriginal people by saying that they are always clogging the courts with all of these claims.

The reason the claims are in the courts is because the government refuses to sit at the table and resolve these issues. It takes two to tango. It takes two to create an impasse. Aboriginal people want these claims settled. The government has a vested interest in stalling and delaying because if the claims are resolved, as they are in most cases, it will cost the government money.

If we stipulate ourselves to a dispute mechanism that is supposed to be fair and expeditious, then timelines should be imposed so that these delaying tactics could no longer be used as a tool by the federal government. There are far too many opportunities for federal delay built into this process.

From where did the $7 million cap figure come? It was pulled out of the air. I cannot say whether it should be more or less for specific claims, but anytime a line like that is drawn there will be cases that fall right on the line. I will give the House an example of a worse case scenario.

Let us say a first nation has been waiting 30 years for satisfaction on a specific claim and it has spent $2 million on legal fees. The claim is worth $10 million. It could carry on in the courts, because this is optional, and spend another $2 million fighting for what it knows to be right, or it could go before the independent claims body and have it settled to a maximum of $7 million. This may coerce, out of necessity, first nations to accept less than what they deserve and what they have coming because they cannot afford to fight for another 50 years.

As the previous speaker mentioned, this generation of aboriginal people may not be quite as patient as their forefathers were in achieving justice. They need it and they want it now. However because of the cap the maximum that will be handed out will be $7 million. We believe this is a cost saving measure contemplated, vented and executed by the federal government in imposing this cap into the bill.

My party is further critical of the definition of a specific claim that has been narrowed from the existing policy. Believe it or not, we are supposed to be moving forward toward resolution of these outstanding grievances with the bill. Instead we are going backward. The definition of what constitutes a specific claim for treatment under the independent new commission is narrower than things that could go under the existing independent claims commission.

The bill does not provide for a substantial financial commitment and is more about limiting federal liability than about settling claims. That is the simplest way I can express our objection to the bill. It does not provide for a substantial financial commitment. It is more seized with the issue of limiting federal liability than it is about settling claims. Bill C-6 offers little hope for addressing the growing backlog of specific claims in the foreseeable future.

I appeal to the minister to step back and look at the whole suite of legislation he has introduced, namely, Bill C-6, Bill C-7 and Bill C-19. There are those of us on opposition benches who would like nothing better than to enthusiastically support legislation that will amend the Indian Act because we think the Indian Act is fundamentally evil. We believe it is responsible for 130 years of social tragedy. If I do nothing else in my time here as a member of Parliament, I would like to say that I moved the issue of aboriginal people one step forward.

I appeal to the minister to take a step back and rethink why the entire first nations community is opposed to these measures. I appeal to him to introduce something again, in a co-operative manner, something of which we can all be proud. The government will then have the enthusiastic support of the New Democratic Party instead of the opposition we have expressed toward the bill.

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

The hon. member for Champlain tells me that, at this rate, it will take 141 years to settle these specific claims. If we take the average pace for the past 30 years, at 8% per year, and taking into account what could be added, with a process such as the one proposed by the minister, aboriginal nations will have to wait 141 years before they can hope for a fair settlement of their specific claims.

When I said it was a joke, this is an indication of how seriously the minister takes his work. This morning, he told me he had the support of the first nations. I wonder where he got this support, because I attended all the committee meetings on Bill C-6 and I did not meet many people, except for public servants, who agreed with this new process.

To sum up, we tried in vain to amend this bill. So many amendments were proposed that, at one point, the bill practically needed to be rewritten. The Liberal majority refused to go along with all the amendments we had proposed to make this a good bill and to give us, finally, the means to settle specific claims in an expeditious and lasting manner. All the amendments were rejected.

We believe that, as things now stand, this bill will limit the right to justice, impartiality and equality for first nations. It is a cynical bill that somewhat reflects the minister who introduced it. This bill is not supported by the first nations, and is an insult to our intelligence and to the intelligence of the first nations.

For this reason and for the sake of justice, equality, effectiveness and intelligence, the Bloc Quebecois will vote against this bill, which is a bad bill. Members of this House should vote massively against this bill, which will do nothing to help first nations. On the contrary, this bill will add more obstacles to a process that is already questionable, and has settled 230 specific claims in 30 years.

As my colleague from Champlain said so well, if it is going to take 141 years to settle the current specific claims, this should make many people stop and think.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in the debate on this bill. What is less enjoyable is realizing that the bill is now being considered at third reading without a single opposition amendment having been passed from the time the bill received first reading or during the legislative process that followed.

During the work in committee, several criticisms were levelled at Bill C-6. Most of these criticisms were against the bill as a whole. There were so many deficiencies in the bill that both first nations and the opposition parties were unanimous in asking for this bill to be dropped since it in no way meets the needs of aboriginals with regard to expediting specific claims.

There have been various committees, often joint committees of both first nations and representatives of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. They have made countless recommendations for expediting specific claims by first nations to ensure that the process is effective and objective, and as impartial as possible.

In light of the experience of the past 30 years and the various committees, it is somewhat surprising that, in spite of all the recommendations made, we are once again looking at a bill which, if passed, will not change a thing. It will not improve how quickly specific claims are settled nor ensure the impartiality that has been lacking from the beginning in the processing of these claims.

We are going to end up with a scheme that will be perfectly efficient vis-à-vis the objectives sought, a process that will not be a serious one and one which, in practical terms, amounts to some kind of avoidance strategy on the part of the government when it comes to resolving once and for all the hundreds of specific claims filed by aboriginal nations in Canada.

In the next few minutes, I will try to demonstrate that this bill is a complete farce, contrary to what the minister told us this morning in a haughty, arrogant and cynical fashion.

First, I would like to address the so-called impartiality of the new process and the new institutions proposed by the minister. Through his bill, the minister is proposing the establishment of a specific claim resolution centre, itself comprised of two divisions.

The first one, the specific claims commission, will receive and analyze claims from the first nations, and advise the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the minister himself on the admissibility of these claims.

After admissibility has been determined, the commission may help set the amount of compensation for each specific claim.

The second is a tribunal responsible for making recommendations to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, which in turn makes recommendations to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, after the commission has made a decision. If the minister agrees that a given claim is admissible, the tribunal then entertains this claim. This new special specific claims tribunal will be the one reviewing the whole file and setting, in conjunction with the parties—as in a regular trial—the amount of compensation for each specific claim.

The institutions and the process of negotiation between the federal government and the first nations have always been faulted for their lack of impartiality, because the minister and the government appointed people who were both judge and defendant. As representatives of the federal government, they received complaints, acted on them and, in the end, paid out the money.

This could not be any clearer. The federal government has always been both judge and defendant. This morning, the minister claimed that he was remedying the situation. Yet all members of the commission and all members of the tribunal to be created by Bill C-6 are to be appointed by the governor in council on the recommendation of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

This means that it is the cabinet, acting on the recommendation of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, that will receive suggestions for appointments and determine the membership of the specific claims commission and tribunal.

Where is there any impartiality, if the minister is both judge and defendant and is the one to appoint those who will sit on the commission and the tribunal to settle specific claims issues? This is a real joke. No one can claim impartiality and be both judge and defendant.

Despite the minister's claims to the contrary, this bill has not done what the joint body, that is one composed of the first nations and the department, had been suggesting for a long time in order to make the process impartial. Members could have been appointed jointly by the government and the Assembly of First Nations.

Neither the Assembly of First Nations not the aboriginal nations in general have any say on the appointments of commission or tribunal members.

This is a pretty serious situation, when all recommendations made over the past 30 years have emphasized collaboration, partnership, and above all impartiality.

Not only are this new structure and these new institutions not impartial but the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada reserves an unbelievable discretionary power. He has the power, through his department and ultimately through himself, to make a specific claim admissible when he deems fit.

In other words, several years can pass before the minister decides that a specific territorial claim is admissible and acceptable, and it is sent to the specific claims tribunal.

What this means is that the minister, who is both judge and jury in this situation, could block not only the settlement, but also the admissibility of a specific claim by a first nation, for many years.

Is this right? Is this an effective approach? Previously, all the serious and non-partisan stakeholders told us that the only realistic, appropriate and effective way to handle specific claims by aboriginals was to give them direct access to a specific claims tribunal without an intermediary who is both judge and jury, who stops the process and delays justice.

That is all that ever happens; the normal course of justice is stalled for those, who for 130 years have been subject to the worst law, to practically apartheid, under the Indian Act.

The minister says this will speed things up, but I think the opposite is true, that it will slow down the course of justice which for 30 years has hardly been stellar in terms of settling disputes and specific claims by aboriginals.

There are also no supplementary resources at Indian and Northern Affairs Canada to accelerate the admissibility of specific claims, their processing and, where applicable, the decisions made by the tribunal.

Without any supplementary resources to handle the administration of specific claims, how can the minister say that claims will be processed more quickly and that justice will be served for Canada's first nations?

I also mentioned the experience of the past 30 years; there is a reason for that. Over the past 30 years, every attempt has been made to speed up the settlement of specific claims by aboriginal peoples. In 30 years, only 230 cases have been settled. There are still 1,154 and more will be added in the coming years.

As we go back and research the past, as we find written treaties and call upon the oral traditions of elders and others to analyze these treaties, we become increasingly aware that first nations have rights that were unsuspected. As a result, specific claims will be added to the 1,154 claims that are already pending.

In the last 30 years, 230 of these claims have been resolved. How many years will it take to resolve the 1,154 specific claims, and perhaps the hundreds, or even thousands of others that will arise in the coming years? It is a veritable farce.

If the minister had really wanted to speed things up, he would have provided additional resources, he would have allowed direct access to the new specific claims tribunal for those with claims involving compensation. He would not have been both judge and jury while involving the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in order to confuse the situation and get away with dragging out the settlement of aboriginal people's claims.

Bill C-6 does something that can only be described as unusual. It excludes specific claims that could exceed $7 million. Since when in a legal case, do we set a ceiling on the amount that can be claimed—$7 million in the case of this bill—before even assessing damages, before even calculating the compensation or estimating the value of the case? Since when is legislation worded so as to render only partial justice?

It does not work that way. Either justice is rendered, or it is not, but it cannot be rendered partially, and all specific claims from first nations that exceed $7 million excluded. It makes no sense.

Say we were to set a ceiling of $7 million today. Over the years, interest can add up on a case, and costs add up too. Normally, at the end of a case, when a ruling is handed down, the judge takes into account additional costs related to inflation, for example, and the loss of interest revenues, because compensation is not paid until five years after a claim is filed. So, there are all sorts of considerations involved.

This means that if a case is worth $7 million at the start, then is held up for five years before the specific claims tribunal renders its decision, taking into consideration interest, lost revenue and legal costs, it will still be worth $7 million and will never go beyond this amount.

Since when has the capacity to render justice to an individual or a group of individuals been limited? This does not make any sense.

If the past few years are any indication, particularly since 1985, in a region like Saskatchewan where many specific claims were made and some resolved, the average amount of a specific claim was $18.5 million. Does this mean that if the same claims, which represented $18.5 million at the end of the process, were made today, a first nation that felt that its rights were affected since time immemorial would not have the right to seek more than about one-third of what the claim was worth?

It is quite unbelievable that the government introduced this bill with a straight face, and that we are being told that now aboriginals will obtain justice. If that were done to us, for example, I can tell you that the Canadian Bar Association would be the first to condemn this denial of justice. Perhaps I will pay them a visit to get their opinion. It would be interesting to see if the Canadian government is working outside the law and is guilty of denial of justice with its own bills, if it is breaking all legal conventions. This bill is being presented by a minister whose arrogance and cynicism defy description.

For claims in excess of $7 million the usual process applies, except that there is one more constraint on the first nations.

For specific claims in excess of the $7 million cap, the regular courts will be used. It will not be the new tribunal, but rather the regular courts. The novelty of the century, thanks to the cynical and arrogant Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, is this: he will be the one to decide whether or not a given case is acceptable and can be submitted to the justice department. Incredible. The minister is the one who will determine, when the $7 million limit has been reached, whether the case is valid or not. He will be the one to determine the time limit, the procedure, and the validity of the largest claims. This will be entirely the responsibility of his department and the Department of Justice.

This is pretty serious business. If ever that cap is exceeded, whether five, six or seven years down the road, the first nations claimants will find themselves passed over to another minister, the Minister of Justice. He will be the one to determine what is valid and what is not, as well as the timeframes for processing the claim. Here again we will end up with the possibility that has been often seen in other instances—revenue cases among them—of the federal government and its lawyers presenting technical defences, limitations and a defence invoking procedure or defective presentation of the specific claim.

In short, all the delaying and defence tactics we have become accustomed to in the regular courts can end up having a case involving an $8 million claim end up taking 10, 12 even perhaps 15 years before settlement, because of procedural wrangling, postponement of proceedings, technical glitches and new evidence. I do not need to draw hon. members a picture of this.

We find ourselves in a situation where we have the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development telling us, “We are making improvements and we have agreed with those who were calling for improvements”. This is unbelievable. Actually, it is the opposite.

It is as though every road block has been put up, strategically, to avoid settlements. Instead of assessing specific claims and resolving them, everything possible to postpone their settlement has been done. If a case exceeds $7 million, forget about it, because it will take a long, long time before it will be resolved and before first nations will see any compensation.

I can understand why the Assembly of First Nations and the vast majority of all of the groups that appeared before us condemned this bill as a fraud. They said that the bill will not solve anything, that the bill is ineffective and avoids solving problems. Instead, the bill passes them down to future generations, leaving it up to them to solve the responsibilities that are ours today.

Imagine the situation. Aboriginal communities in Canada have been waiting for years. More than 1,152 cases have been pending for 30 years. These people have not seen justice done. Young people today are getting more and more impatient. I have met young aboriginal people. They are starting to say, “We have had it. Our ancestors were a bit more patient than we will be. We want justice”.

I understand that young aboriginal people are getting impatient and appearing before international tribunals to explain that Canada is not an example when it comes to respecting the rights of first nations, that Canada is not an example when it comes to its ability to solve the problem of specific claims, or that Canada is not an example when it comes to respecting its first nations.

Since September, I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources. I did not think that it was still possible to hear offensive comments regarding aboriginal peoples. I thought that this was a new era.

I did not think that there could be such paternalistic analyses, which keep aboriginal nations in a state of dependency. I thought that we were living in another century and that we had gone beyond such biases and intellectual hang-ups, and I thought we were prepared to recognize aboriginal nations, to do them justice and to promote mutual respect between our nations and their nations.

I also felt somewhat ashamed to hear some people say that we cannot settle everything, that some issues in justice can only be partly settled. If we were treated in this manner, with justice only half done, we would not appreciate it. Many people in our communities, both in Quebec and in Canada, would cry foul, but when it comes to aboriginal nations, it is no big deal.

Then the minister told us, “We will speed things up and we will make sure that we have the money to meet the needs of aboriginal nations”.

When we look at the budget earmarked by the minister to settle issues relating to specific claims, we notice that it is still the same. It is $75 million, while outstanding claims are estimated at about $1.5 billion. How can we speed up the settlement and compensation process when the money is not there? There is $75 million in the budget, but the specific claims that are pending have an estimated value of $1.5 billion.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-6, entitled 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.

For non-technical listeners today, a layman's explanation is that the bill is designed to set up a permanent centre to evaluate specific claims brought against the federal government by first nations.

An Indian Claims Commission already exists, but it was put in place eleven years ago in 1991, as a temporary measure, to stay until the Liberals got around to fulfilling their 1993 red book promise. That promise is nine years old now. In my view and in the view of others on the committee, the Liberals are still not keeping their promise with the bill before the House today.

For the most part, specific claims deal with outstanding grievances that first nations have regarding Canada's fulfillment of its obligation under historic treaties or its administration of first nations lands or other assets under the Indian Act. That is of course in contrast to the comprehensive claims, which are substantial land claim treaties such as the Nisga'a and Delgamuukw claims.

In other words, at points in our country's history, and maybe even until a few decades ago, there were sharp Indian agents, too sharp by half, who took native lands, who absconded and cheated first nations out of certain shares of that land. Some of these claims have been validated already, but for others, that was the whole point of this centre.

Bill C-6 proposes to set up a claims resolution centre made up of a commission and a tribunal. First nations will file a claim with the commission and if it meets the terms of an admissible claim for the purposes of the commission, the claim then will be submitted to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for consideration. The commission then will convene preparatory meetings to help the claimants present their case to the minister. Upon completion of that phase of the process, the commission must then suspend proceedings until it receives a written response from the minister as to whether or not he will negotiate the claim. Therein lies the rub, and I will talk later about the stall and delay tactics that can be engaged in thereafter.

In other words, the minister is not given any deadline for making his decision. If the minister decides not to negotiate the claim, the commission will sit down with both parties in an attempt to help them resolve the question of the validity of the claim using alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.

If that process does not work, the claimant can then request that the case be sent to the tribunal, but only if the total amount of the claim does not exceed $7 million. If the tribunal decides that a claim is valid or if at the earlier stage in the process the minister decides to negotiate the claim, the commission then has to try to help the two parties arrive at an agreed upon amount of compensation.

If the compensation question cannot be resolved by the commission, the claimant can make an appeal to a tribunal to have the case heard, but again only if the compensation being demanded by the claimant does not exceed $7 million. The tribunal has the power to make a binding decision after it has heard the case.

The goal behind the bill is to expedite the process of resolving specific claims. Between 1970 and March of last year, Indian bands across the country had filed 1,146 claims and only 232 had been settled, which is less than 20%. The backlog is terrible. The cost in terms of human lives and suffering in the meanwhile is only getting worse, with both the government and first nations becoming increasingly frustrated with the current system.

Unfortunately Bill C-6 is not the legislation we need, despite the minister's pretext to the contrary. I certainly agree that the intent behind the bill is sound and the goal is correct, but the mechanism proposed is terrible. It will not work. What we have before us today is unfortunately a badly and deeply flawed bill.

At committee, the Canadian Alliance Party introduced about 40 amendments to the bill to improve it, to get it right, to make it fair and just and to make it work. But as we in the House of Commons know, the government always has a majority on a committee. The Liberal dominated committee voted against every single amendment we put forward. If it had passed even just one of those amendments, I might be able to stand here today with a message of some hope and some optimism for the Indians who are supposed to use the centre that the bill authorizes and for the taxpayers of this great country who are expected to fund this institution.

Unfortunately I cannot do that, because I believe the claim centre that Bill C-6 proposes will not work. It will fail because it does not have the confidence of the first nations people who are supposed to use it. It will fail because the $7 million cap on the claims that can be heard by the tribunal will significantly limit the number of claims the new centre will be able to consider. It will fail because it lacks transparency, concrete accountability measures and provisions to prevent patronage.

When it fails it will fuel the feelings of injustice and unrest among Indian people across our nation. It will put Canadian taxpayers on the hook for the cost of setting up and running this centre, but with no return, or a very negligible one, on their investment.

Taxpayers will also have to continue to pay the government's legal bills for the expensive court cases that will be launched in place of the mediated hearings that would take place in an effective claims commission and tribunal. First nations people will continue their uphill battle to have legitimate claims recognized over incidents of injustice and maltreatment at the hands of the federal government and its agents in violation of historic treaty agreements.

I want to discuss some of the reasons why Bill C-6 is such a flawed bill. I will revisit some of the current concerns we raised by way of amendment in committee and hopefully this time around the government will be listening. As a result, perhaps even at this late hour the government may be of a mind to withdraw the bill or to send it back to the aboriginal affairs committee for further examination.

One of the worst aspects of the bill, in contradiction to the proposals and recommendations that came prior to this in the lead-up to the bill, is the lack of independence of this centre. The government spent three years negotiating with first nations to come up with a plan for dealing with specific claims, or longer than that if we count some of the negotiations prior to that process, which produced the 1998 report of the Joint First Nations-Canada Task Force on specific claims policy reform.

That report reiterated the longstanding recommendation for an independent claims centre. The primary mechanism by which it would be made independent was a joint government-first nations process for appointing the commissioners and the adjudicators. Both parties were to develop a list of jointly approved candidates. The government would pick the commissioners and adjudicators from that list. However, the government has completely abandoned that particular key and crucial proposal.

In Bill C-6 the government has the exclusive prerogative of appointing and reappointing these officials and deciding whether to increase or reduce the number of commissioners or adjudicators, of course within the parameters provided by the bill.

Also, the three to five year review process mandated by Bill C-6 is to be undertaken only by the government, rather than by a joint team of government officials and first nations representatives or other vested interests. The government may, and again “may” is a slippery word, bring other parties into the review process, but it is not required to.

We certainly do not consider the government's track record of late to be one of transparency and disclosure when it comes to dealing with ethical violations. We hearken back to the lack of disclosures on the gun bill of late, to some of the deceptive stuff that was going on there. We do not believe that there will be the transparency and disclosure that is required for this centre to work properly. Therefore, the review process sends the message that the government is interested in the effectiveness of the centre from only its own perspective, rather than understanding its impact on all of the parties involved and concerned.

Indian chiefs from across the country, as well as the Assembly of First Nations, have made their position abundantly clear: that this appointment process mandated by Bill C-6 undermines any claim that the centre will be independent and impartial. If first nations use the centre at all they will not or will very reluctantly accept the rulings against their claims, because they lack confidence in the impartiality of this proposed centre. Unless the government has already decided that it will negotiate all specific claims, it has set up a process that really will not resolve anything in terms of producing closure on or finality for a particular claim.

The parliamentary secretary told us in committee that the minister would consult first nations, but having said that, he was unable to explain why the minister was unwilling to put such a promise into the bill, black on white, where all could see it and read it. Simply saying, “Trust me, I am from the government”, does not work today. It never did. If an MP were to try that, going back to the constituency and telling people, “Trust me, I'm from the government”, people would not be likely to swallow that real well, especially not when such a sentiment produces $1 billion gun registry fiascos and numerous other examples of gross incompetence and questionable ethics.

Canadians want to make their government accountable by seeing its promises stipulated in legislation so that there can be no backing out or waffling on what was intended by some verbal statement. Verbal assurances are not good enough and certainly not when there is the kind of legacy that this government has.

There is also concern about the possibility of patronage appointments to the new centre. There is nothing to prevent the government from resorting to its common practice of patronage and stacking it with its own people who are really not capable and not competent. They may have raised money for the party and done other kinds of things and maybe they are competent in that respect or that sphere, but not with respect to something as important, as crucial, and as complex as this might sometimes be.

The bill does not provide sufficient details on the credentials required of the commissioner or adjudicator so as to ensure that the person actually has some basic understanding of specific claims. Bill C-6 states that the majority of the adjudicators, those who serve on the tribunal, including either the chief adjudicator or the vice-chief adjudicator, need to be members in good standing of the bar of a particular province or the Chambre des notaires du Québec, but the bill states nothing about the professional qualifications of those eligible for appointment to the actual claims commission.

In a saner time one might have been able to trust the competence of appointments without more specification, but I am not even sure if ever in the history of our country we could. Right now a parliamentary committee is calling bureaucrats to account over the billion dollar boondoggle of the gun registry to determine their role in the out of control spending that took place there and the less than ideal amount of disclosure. Of course patronage is standard operating procedure for governments through the course of history of our country, particularly for the Liberal government. So we have real concerns about the need for greater clarity as to the credentials of potential appointees to the claims centre.

First nations have also expressed a concern that the appointment periods for the chief and the vice-chief of commissioners and adjudicators are only five years. For the regular commissioners and adjudicators the period is three years. There is the possibility of reappointment in all cases. First nations fear that these short periods of service will tempt the officials to rule in favour of the government of the day to ensure their being reappointed. I think they have a legitimate point.

I served on a district health board in my province as one of the elected members. We had eight elected and six appointed. I think fair observers of that whole process in Saskatchewan would be quick to say that yes indeed, when push came to shove, those who were appointed tended to be looking over their shoulders in terms of whether to be on the government side because of more money. Sometimes we were being underfunded or there were other issues, but they did not want to rock the boat very much because they owed their appointments to the government of the day. As an elected member, I did not. I was not at the government's beck and call. It was the old adage of he who pays the piper calls the tune.

Therefore, we think there needs to be a longer period of time so the officials are not so beholden to the government by way of the appointment process.

The government has abandoned the recommendation of the joint task force report. A number of these things that I am talking about today were from the joint task force report. Despite the statements of the minister here, first nations are not accepting of that. Our party is not, because we want a quick, expeditious and fair settlement of claims and this is only going to bog it down and make it longer, to the frustration of all parties involved.

We believe that the government has chosen to act in bad faith with Indians by securing exclusive control over the appointment process for the claims centre. As such, it has undermined the legitimacy and the credibility of the agency, guaranteeing its failure before it has even begun. That is a tragedy and it is one that victimizes first nations, some 600 bands across our country. It victimizes them all over again and also victimizes the taxpayers who have to pay out more because of that.

A third area of serious concern with the legislation is the complete lack of transparency. The provisions allow the government to stall, delay and stonewall the process of considering a claim.

If the minister, for example, were to decide not to negotiate the claim, he would have no obligation to explain his decision. Of course, if the claimant were to decide to challenge the minister's decision, he would need to provide complete disclosure in his defence. The minister does at a point much later along the way, if we even get there. The claimant, however, must provide a full accounting of his position and his rationale from the very outset of the process.

One would expect that in a context that is supposed to be conciliatory and guided by alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, rather than the adversarial environment of the courts, that the bill would make clear both parties' responsibilities for full disclosure. In a court of law or in any other judicial or semi-judicial proceeding it is not acceptable that only one is required to divulge his or her position fully, exhaustively and completely, while the other one has no onus at all in that respect .

The government has built a number of mechanisms into the bill to enable delay and obstruction in the process of considering a claim. It has avoided the establishment of tangible timelines, contrary to recommendations in the 1988 joint task force report that would have helped to ensure a speedy and effective claims resolution, which is what the Canadian Alliance, and the Reform Party before that, had insisted on.

The government also rejected the joint task force report proposals that would have given the claimant or the commission the ability to move the process forward if the government seemed to be taking excessive time to consider a claim. The first example of a stalling clause in the bill is the provision for multiple preparatory meetings. On the initial preparatory meeting, the commission is authorized to hold additional such meetings at the request of either party. The minister can conceivably use this provision to delay the process.

Indian representatives who spoke to us said that generally one preparatory meeting would be enough and that therefore the optional additional meetings would not likely to be found useful to first nations. Concern was raised that it existed more for the benefit of the government for use as a stalling mechanism. These meetings do not necessarily have to happen back to back and they can be strung out and protracted over a long period of time too.

The bill does not require the commission to hold additional meetings at the request of either party. One could imagine the government using this point in its defence. However, without protections in the bill to ensure that the commissioners are competent and patronage free, this means very little.

Later in the process, where the bill discusses the minister's need to consider the merits of the claimant's case and to make a decision as to whether or not he will negotiate the claim, the bill gives him six months to report back with a decision. That sounds well and fine enough for more complex kinds of issues and settlements but in clause 30 of the bill it states that the minister can come back to the commission in six months and, instead of reporting his decision, he can just simply say that he needs more time. Six months later he can come back again and say he needs more time. This could go on indefinitely. Therefore at first blush it might seem like a reasonable provision to ask for an extension of six months but if it is extended again and again, which it can be with no particular reasons other than he needs more time, then there really are no timelines or final deadlines provided at all. The government could theoretically ask indefinitely for additional six month extensions.

One of the amendments that we submitted, which we thought was a reasonable and fair amendment, would have put a one year limit on the process. However the government voted down that amendment. More specifically, our amendment would have required the minister to apply to the commission for more time, giving the commission the right to deny the government's request. It also would have required the commission to hear from the claimant before making a decision.

Currently, the bill does not require the minister to seek permission for an extension. The minister can make the decision unilaterally and the commission and the claimant are forced to live with it. The bill does not even require the government to provide its reasons for insisting on this extension to its reporting deadline.

We are dealing with a government that appears to, these days at least, despise accountability and transparency. Subclause 30(3) states that the government may, and there is that slippery word again, provide the reasons that it needs more time, and here it really compounds it, “if applicable”.

The way the clause is phrased it treats the practice of not providing reasons as normative by stating that the minister only needs to produce reasons if it is deemed applicable to do so. I do not know what situations would make it not applicable for him to provide reasons for delaying the process and leaving the parties hanging.

One of my amendments in committee was to delete the words “if applicable” but, alas, the government members voted it down.

Although I am not quite sure why, this secrecy provision is important to the government, even though the minister is secretive about telling us why it is important. It is the lack of transparency in the bill that raises serious questions about how effective it would be at clearing up the terrible backlog that exists today in specific claims.

The government even added a fourth section to clause 30 to protect itself against penalties for stalling the process. Subclause 30(4) reads:

No passage of time in relation to the decision on whether to negotiate a claim may be considered as constituting a decision not to negotiate the claim.

The government protected itself quite well there.

That subclause reinforces the fact that the bill makes no provision for the claimant to circumvent this part in the process. The commission may not treat the lack of a decision from the government as a decision one way or the other. It remains in limbo until the minister decides to announce his decision. It has no possibility of going another way, no recourse to some alternate route, until such time.

The Canadian Alliance proposed an amendment to delete that subclause from the bill but again the government members in the committee defeated the amendment.

I want to take a moment to quote the legal analysis of Bill C-6 produced by the Assembly of First Nations, being that the minister said that they were so much in love with the bill and supported it so grandly. The following is their analysis pertaining to the issues of accountability and transparency in the claim process proposed in the legislation. They state:

Under Bill C-6, the federal government unilaterally controls the pace at which claims are considered. Bill C-6 permits the Minister to “consider” a claim indefinitely at an early stage in the process. There are no time limits that must be obeyed. No independent body can ever say “enough is enough, the claim goes to the next stage.” A claim might have to go through an elaborate series of distinct stages and steps before compensation is ever paid. This could include:

The following is the AFN list:

a funding application; initial preparatory meetings; Ministerial consideration; mediation; further delays while the Minister considers an amendment that the claimant makes to its initial claim; an application and hearing to convince the Commission that mediation has been exhausted;

They tried everything and absolutely covered all the grounds. The list goes on:

a hearing in front of the Tribunal to determine compensation; mediation to deal with compensation; an application and hearing to determine whether mediation has been exhausted;

Even as I read this I am almost exhausted thinking about the long, drawn out and frustrating process. To continue:

proceedings in front of the Tribunal; a five year delay while the award is paid out; judicial review of the award.

The AFN continues:

Many of these steps could have been eliminated or combined. With others, the delays could have been controlled by giving an independent body control over the pace or by setting a strict time frame in the statute itself. The Joint Task Force Model Bill was built for making major headway on the backlog. Bill C-6 is almost certain to ensure that the backlog grows.

In a footnote to these comments, the AFN notes that:

Under the JTF Report, the Minister did not have the discretion to consider a claim indefinitely.

I think that was a good thing in the joint task force report.

Once a claim was lodged, the Commission and Tribunal, not the federal government, had theprimary say over the pace of proceedings. A First Nation was not required to attend more thanone preparatory meeting, or to prove to a third party that mediation or other “alternate disputeresolution” was exhausted...When a claim reached thetribunal, both validity and compensation could be dealt with together.

As I have examined the bill and the claims process in general, including the history leading to the place we find ourselves today, these observations strike me, generally speaking, as quite reasonable.

When the minister finally gets around to making a decision, if he decides not to negotiate the claim, the claimant can then request the commission to bring the minister to the negotiating table in an attempt to resolve their differences. That is where we face yet more problems.

The bill would require a claim to be heard twice by the commission and by the tribunal if the claim could not be resolved through the commission. It would first have to go through a validity phase, which is designed to determine the validity of the claim. After a claim is deemed valid, if the government decides to negotiate it or the tribunal rules that the government just get on and negotiate it, the claim would then have to go through a similar process in order to determine compensation.

As everybody knows by now, Bill C-6 includes a cap such that any claim valued above the level of the cap would not even be heard by the claims tribunal. The cap proposed in the bill is $7 million and whether or not a cap of some sort should exist at the compensation stage of the process, there is no reason that the cap should be proposed at the validity stage.

Since the bill would clearly separate these two parts of the process, it should be relatively easy, one would think, to eliminate the cap requirement for the validity stage. In committee, the Canadian Alliance introduced an amendment that would have done just that. It would have eliminated subclause 32(1)(c) which would have required the claimant to waive any compensation for the claim that is in excess of the claim limit. We wanted that subclause eliminated.

The government likes to point out that the cap is only applicable at the tribunal stage of the process, that there is no cap for claims heard by the commission, but if government officials knew that an unresolved claim at the commission level had to be bumped into the slow and expensive court system because it could not be sent to the tribunal, that would act as an incentive to stall and obstruct the process in the case of claims the government really had no interest, no desire or did not want to resolve.

In other words, although the cap would not apply directly to the work of the commission, the other side of it is that it, nevertheless, would have a significant and severe impact on the work that would take place there as well.

Perhaps the reason for preventing access to the tribunal for determining validity for costly claims is strictly political. Some first nations have told me that a tolerable compromise might be a measure similar to the one that is available in the current Indian Claims Commission.

The current commission cannot issue binding decisions on a claim but it can prepare non-binding reports that first nations could use to generate some political pressure on the government at least, if they feel the government is unfairly stalling in the resolution process. That is more likely the reason that the Liberals do not want an expensive claim to come before the tribunal, even to deal with the matter of validity. The unfortunate result is that far fewer claims will be successfully processed through this new claims centre than the government hopes.

Another problem with clause 32 is the obstructionist language used in terms of the requirements the claimant would have to fulfill before the commission would be permitted to send a claim to the tribunal. A claim could go to the tribunal if the government refused to negotiate it following the discussions facilitated by the commission with the help of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. However if the claimant still wanted to pursue his claim he could ask the commission to refer it to the tribunal for a binding decision. The problem here is the excessive threshold of proof that the bill would impose on the claimant before his claim could go before that tribunal.

Subclause 32(1)(a) states:

the basis for the claim and all matters of fact and law on which the claimant relies in support of the claim have been fully and clearly identified and adequately researched and have been considered by the Minister;

Subclause 32(1)(b) states:

all dispute resolution processes appropriate for resolving the issue have been exhausted without the issue having been resolved;

These sections, essentially, would require the claimant to prove to the claims commission that he had done absolutely everything that he could possibly do, no stone unturned. The onus would be on him to prove that he had done that within the alternative dispute resolution process before the commission could send that claim to the tribunal to consider its validity.

The absolutist language in that subclause would impose an excessive, if not impossible, threshold of proof on the claimant before he would be permitted to pursue a hearing before the tribunal. If pro-government patronage appointments were sitting on the commissions, and we think there is every likelihood of that, they could help the government use this provision as yet another stalling tactic. If the claimant does not have every single t crossed and every i dotted, this step in the process could be a place to delay justice for aboriginal people. We think that cannot and should not be and, unfortunately, it is again, to the detriment of native people across our country.

First nations have pointed out that they support the use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and that if the alternative dispute resolution process is working for a particular claim, it really is in their interest to make it work. First nations therefore say that they do not understand why the government is using this big stick approach to ensure the use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, unless it is another mechanism to be used as a stalling tactic to force the claimant to continue to sit down again and again with the federal government even long after any reasonable person, any outside fair-minded observer, would say that there is nothing further to be gained by additional negotiations.

One comment we received from first nations on this issue is as follows:

Alternate dispute settlement mechanisms, such as mediation, only work if both parties are committed to making it work. The best judge of that is the parties themselves. A claimant should not have to “prove” to the commission, in another potentially very expensive and dilatory proceeding, that alternative dispute resolution is “exhausted”. The current provision allows the federal government to further stall and frustrate the process by dragging its feet with respect to its participation in the alternative dispute resolution process.

I want to move to the compensation phase of the process. Assuming the tribunal has made a binding decision if the claim is valid, both parties then have to go back to the commission to try to negotiate the appropriate compensation for the claim. That is dealt with in clause 35 of Bill C-6. Subclauses 1(a) and 1(b) of this clause duplicate those found in clause 32. We have talked about that before, and the same reasons why it is so flawed and problematic apply in this case here.

We introduced amendments in committee to improve these clauses, but again they were defeated by the government without explanation. This was the course, a stony silence on the other side. Even when its own member on the committee asked for the reasons for voting down some of these amendments, there was dead silence. Other times there were other offhand remarks that were not respectful of the process.

Some first nations have said that if alternative dispute resolution mechanisms do not work by the end of one year, there should be a provision for the claimant to request that the claim be transferred to the tribunal. One representation we received, stated in part:

After one year of attempting to negotiate a resolution, the claimant should be free to proceed to the tribunal. It should not have to go through further hoops, involving additional delay and expense, to show that it tried to exhaust other means of settlement. It is unnecessary and unfair to require the claimant to exhaustively state its case, including all of its evidence and legal arguments, prior to that tribunal hearing. No one is required to do so in any other comparable litigation or arbitration context.

The representation went on to state:

The Minister should not be able to delay resolution by dragging a First Nation through a slow or endless series of “negotiations”. Any First Nation that can achieve a reasonable settlement by negotiation will do so. Why would it risk losing at the tribunal?

That is a very valid point.

They certainly seem to me to be reasonable observations. I am not saying that no criteria should be stipulated as a basic requirement of part of the process, but we think that the claimant should be able to proceed without being stalled or stonewalled in that way. It has to be something met by the claimant before the commission can transfer it to the tribunal. Perhaps there are ways that I or others in committee have not thought of, but more thought could be given to that, if in fact a claimant tried to unfairly take advantage of a situation in which no criteria were required. At the very least, the criteria should be modified with changes to the absolutist language that currently exists in the bill.

Subclause (1)(d) of clause 35 requires the claimant to waive any compensation amount higher than the cap stipulated in clause 56, which is currently set at $7 million. We introduced an amendment to increase the cap to $25 million. I will be talking about this more in a moment.

When we think about the section before us, we have to realize that the claimant is really being asked to waive his right to a claim amount higher than the designated cap before even knowing what the final value of that claim might be. That strikes me as being rather perverse. The longer a claim takes to be resolved, the more its value grows in terms of interest and appreciation. If a claim is close to the value of the cap or if the government stalls the resolution over many years, the value of that claim rises above the cap. Claimants who have signed waivers have to essentially take a loss in terms of the maximum amount they can receive from the federal government for the claims.

If it is ruled an authentic claim, then questions arise about the legitimacy of attempts to get the claimant to accept the compromise. We well understand that the government does not have an unlimited pot of money, but it raises some serious philosophical and practical questions when we allow the fiscal limitations to guide, in this case, the government's decisions about whether it will honour contractual and treaty obligations. Others have to declare bankruptcy to escape fiscal obligations. To hold the government to a lesser standard of contractual obligation, is to grant it the right to exercise arbitrary power.

As I stated earlier, there might be issues of jurisprudence that should be revisited, but to maintain respect for the rule of law, the government should be held accountable to honour whatever jurisprudence it has chosen to accept.

The claimant already has had to waive a compensation amount over the value of the cap before the claim can even proceed to the tribunal at the validation stage. The claim might be well more than the $7 million, and that is the whole purpose of the process. However claimants have to waive that, or sign away their life so to speak, at the outset of the process and that seems hardly fair. It is not even clear why they have to sign waivers a second time prior to the tribunal accepting it for the purpose of determining compensation.

There are other aspects of the clause that might have some merit, although I expect that is rather open to debate. However due to the government's refusal to make the important amendments proposed by the Canadian Alliance in committee, I introduced an amendment to delete the entire clause from the bill.

The government has not told us what it is afraid of when it comes to being held to the same standard of accountability that first nations are held to with this piece of legislation. Yet time after time in committee amendments, from the Canadian Alliance as well as from other parties, that would have introduced stronger measures for accountability and transparency into the legislation were defeated. It just shows how self-important or maybe even arrogant a government can become.

Most of the amendments were put forward with sincerity and reasonableness but were defeated without explanation. Committee members from the various opposition parties continually asked the government members to explain why. From time to time we had wringers in committee, and I am sure we are all familiar with that term. They walked into committee totally unaware and out of the loop of the discussion beforehand. Therefore we understood why they could not explain. However no attempt was even made by other committee members who had been supposedly told to vote a certain way.

I confess one Liberal member voted with us on a number of these. Consistently he asked his own colleagues for an explanation to refute the apparent reasonableness of some of our amendments, yet almost without exception our questions were met with blank stares and stoney silence. I suppose when the government has a majority in Parliament, it does not have to explain its actions or defend its decisions. It can do whatever it wants in the hope that constituents will have forgotten by the time the next election comes around.

I want to speak for a moment about clause 56 which stipulates the criteria for determining compensation, including the $7 million cap. I think that cap is very unfair. We had proposed a cap of $25 million. I will leave it to subsequent speakers to deal with that. However, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following therefore:

Bill C-6, 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, be not now read a third time, but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources for the purpose of reconsidering clauses 30, 32 and 35 with the view to making the claims negotiation process faster by, among other things, setting timelines for each step of the process.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

moved that Bill C-6, 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, be read the third time and passed.

Madam Speaker, there are countless compelling reasons to support this important legislation. Perhaps most important, the specific claims resolution act would enable us to achieve honourable and just settlements to some of the longstanding grievances of aboriginal people, yet of all the arguments, few are more persuasive than the fact that this act would create opportunities for unprecedented economic and social development in first nations.

The Canadian centre for the independent resolution of first nations specific claims established by Bill C-6 will usher in a new era of cooperative and impartial negotiations; negotiations which will allow us to more efficiently address the grievances of the past so we can focus on building stronger, more self-sufficient first nations communities in the future.

One of the greatest benefits of the bill is that it reflects the priorities identified by aboriginal communities. In response to the recommendations of the First Nations-Canada Joint Task Force on Specific Claims, we are proposing an independent centre that would operate at arm's length from government. It would be comprised of a chief executive officer and two components: a commission division to facilitate negotiations on specific claims and a tribunal division to resolve disputes involving those claims.

The centre would promote a fairer and more transparent process for the research and assessment of claims and to conduct negotiations. It would also establish a forum in which both parties can be held to account for their actions to resolve claims.

I want to go back to many years ago to reflect for a moment and advise the House that this is the third time in the last 50 years that we have attempted to create an independent resolution process for specific claims and claims for aboriginal grievances. I am proud today to stand in this place to recognize the hard work of the aboriginal joint initiative between ourselves and the first nations, in particular the AFN. We have gotten to a point where we are now talking about a piece of legislation that will remove the judge and jury type of philosophy that we have used in this place for many years to deal with these kinds of claims. We will now have, I believe, a very independent body to deal with these very fundamental issues of grievances of the past.

This is a very important step as it would increase first nations people's confidence in the process and help us reach agreements more amicably and efficiently. We would no longer be left with no alternative other than being bogged down in an adversarial court system. We would instead be able to resolve impasses before an impartial tribunal.

With the specific claims resolution act, we will be able to create a system that is more fair and just as important, more effective in settling specific claims. The claims resolution centre would provide a range of modern dispute resolution mechanisms to help to accelerate the rate of claims settlements.

All specific claims would have access to the centre's modern day bargaining tools which would include facilitation, mediation, non-binding arbitration and, with the consent of all parties, binding arbitration. These alternative mechanisms emphasize that the Government of Canada and first nations would rather negotiate than litigate, because negotiations save unnecessary delays and help to reduce costs.

As a labour unionist in my past life and a negotiator, I can say that one of the most important parts of arriving at arrangements between parties is the ability to have these modern tools at our disposal. Whether it is mediation, joint research, or the ability to go to arbitration when necessary, these are the kinds of tools the centre would bring to the forefront for the first time in our relationship.

It would be done with the independence of a commission whose members would be appointed by order in council, but they would be qualified people, as is done in the same fashion with other commissions right across the country. They would also, through the budget that would be set down for them, have the ability to use it in an efficient way to arrive at the kinds of arrangements they want and to get away from going to court, as we do on a regular basis.

I remind my hon. colleagues that not only first nations residents but entrepreneurs and communities all across Canada, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike, profit from the settlement of these claims. Successfully completed specific claims produce a win-win situation for Canada as a whole.

The first obvious impact that comes to mind is the economic benefits they create. One key obstacle to the development of aboriginal businesses is the difficulty of getting the investment and the loan capital that companies need to grow. The certainty provided by claim settlements can help to bridge this gap.

Settled claims pave the way for partnerships among first nations and the private sector, governments and other Canadian communities. Once claim settlements have been reached, the door is open to expanded opportunities, such as joint ventures with non-aboriginal businesses. Investors can proceed with confidence and first nations can negotiate from positions of strength.

The strongest cases for settling specific claims are the investments that communities make in their own development. For example, with the funds from its successfully resolved claim, the English River First Nation has purchased Tron Power, a general contracting firm which provides specialized construction services.

Equally important are the training opportunities these funds generate which create career options for young people living in aboriginal communities. The Kitigan Zibi First Nation used its $2.7 million settlement for both infrastructure and other social programs.

Of course from the first nations' perspective, perhaps the most critically important aspect of settled claims is access to land and resources. A number of first nations have purchased agricultural lands with the proceeds from their settlements to farm or to lease to non-aboriginal farmers. As one example, the Osoyoos settlement allowed the first nation to purchase a large orchard and further develop its vineyards.

Some first nations have purchased oil and gas producing lands with their claim settlements which generate revenues, employment opportunities and even sometimes joint venture projects. These partnerships benefit Canada not just from an economic standpoint, but they also strengthen the presence of aboriginal culture in the country and create new opportunities for the aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities to get to know each other better. As we all learn more about each other, we all learn to appreciate the value of different cultures and gain greater respect for our shared history. I am sure hon. colleagues would agree that we simply cannot put a price tag on that.

I want to remind the House that this progress is made possible through the settlement of first nations claims. By moving forward with the bill we can create a more positive climate for other aboriginal communities so they too can see business and other partnerships flourish.

As was made clear in the Speech from the Throne, the government is determined to move further and faster to achieve the same progress for first nations still awaiting the settlement of their specific claims. We know that the revenues generated by settled claims lead to greater partnerships and self-sufficiency. We know too that the end result of this economic success is the ability to better respond to community needs. This in turn leads to an improved quality of life for aboriginal people. It is this above all that we are determined to achieve.

For all the many good reasons I have outlined, the House must move forward in supporting Bill C-6. This economically advantageous and very necessary legislation will help to ensure that first nations people will finally see the grievances of the past resolved and can look forward to a brighter future. There can be no doubt that we all believe this will make us richer, richer as a country, richer as a people.

I know that in any discussion we have with first nations people, there are always other things they want as it relates to a piece of legislation.

But I think that in the general sense of what we have achieved here after 50 years of trying to get a piece of legislation before the House, we have achieved a good balance, a balance that the government needs to have as it relates to fiscal responsibility in a budget and also at the same time the independence necessary to work very closely with first nations on these grievances, these specific claims, in arriving at a just and very acceptable solution for all.

I thank the House for allowing me this time to voice our strong view that this is a good piece of legislation and one that needs to be supported by the House. I look forward to it coming into effect so that we can move very quickly to resolve the specific claims that are outstanding.

Business of the House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will start with the rest of this day and then go on with the future agenda.

If the opposition follows through with its offer, as promised during question period, to withdraw its motion today on the strength of the commitment made by the Prime Minister to, on the first day following military deployment should there be one which we all hope of course there would not be, call a votable opposition day that would free up the rest of the day.

Following that, this afternoon we would then deal with Bill C-19. Should there be any time left we would call Bill C-22, although I suspect that there would not be that much time, and perhaps Bill C-19 would take us close to the end.

Tomorrow we shall begin the third reading stage of Bill C-6, the Specific Claims Resolution Act, followed by Bill C-2, an act to establish a process for assessing the environmental and socio-economic effects of certain activities in Yukon.

Monday next, and Thursday as well, shall be allotted days.

Tuesday morning, we shall be resuming consideration of Bill C-13 on assisted reproduction. After oral question period, we shall begin consideration of Bill C-24 on political financing. Wednesday, we shall resume consideration of any unfinished business, with the possibility of continuing debate on Bill C-24.

Specific Claims Resolution Act

[The Speaker]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the report stage of Bill C-6.

Carrie's Guardian Angel Law

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chance to rise and speak to Bill C-6 and state for the record where my party stands on this legislation.

The reason Bill C-6 has even been introduced is because the government quite rightly recognizes that it has failed completely and utterly to deal with the issue of native land claims.

A number of members have pointed out that the government has only been able to deal with 230 land claims in the last 30 years and there are still something like 500 that are pending today. According to first nations spokespeople there are supposed to be around a total of 1,000 that will be ultimately brought forward. This is an admission of failure first of all because the government has not been able to deal with this issue.

What the government is doing now is what I would call a bait and switch. What it is trying to do is to convince the public and natives that if we put together a big bureaucracy in the form of a new agency, then we would be able to deal with these problems.

I would argue that this would actually make things worse which necessitates to some degree the reason for us to even consider the amendment that one member has brought forward. We want to see these land claims dealt with as quickly as possible. We want to see the government make it a priority. We want all sides to be treated fairly.

There are billions of dollars in liabilities at stake. Whenever the government brings down its books and we go into the section that has unfunded liabilities we see $10 billion, $20 billion, $30 billion and $40 billion in there. A lot of that has to do with land claims that have yet to be settled. We are talking about an astronomical amount of money.

We want proper scrutiny to ensure that when these land claims are settled that not only natives would be treated fairly, and they should be treated fairly and there should be respect shown for their claims, but that taxpayers must be treated fairly as well. There is a tremendous amount of money at stake here.

What I worry about, and I think many colleagues on this side of the House worry about, is that if we were to establish this independent claims commission then we would lose the ability to hold these people to account.

We have seen what happens whenever that occurs with the government. Let us look at some of these independent agencies that have gone wild. Maybe the best and most recent example is the firearms registry where we decided to let the bureaucracy run the registry. It ran up a bill of $1 billion. It was 50,000% over budget and it withheld all kinds of information from Parliament.

Let us look at the pest management regulatory agency. That should be the poster child for government agencies that do not run well. It is one that the Auditor General is constantly bringing before Parliament as an example of something that does not work well. The government still cannot get it right.

We are concerned when the government hives this sort of responsibility off and expects that all of a sudden we should forget about it and not worry about it any more, and that it will get better because it is now an agency. I do not buy that. It exacerbates the problem because now it is easier for the government to hide its failures.

I would much rather see the government step up to the plate and address the problems that it is running into now under the full light of parliamentary scrutiny instead of hiding it in some agency somewhere.

That is why we need to address the issue of the amendment that the member has brought forward. The amendment would force the government to bring any reports on how effectively the agency is running to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources. That is a pretty reasonable amendment and I do not understand why the government is so opposed to it. It would bring some scrutiny to this agency. Lord knows after all that has gone on in this place in the last number of months we need that kind of oversight.

I want to make a point about bureaucracies in general. Many people think that people on the public service side of things are in their job simply because they care more about the public and they are not self-interested at all. Whereas the self-interest of people who are in business is that they only care about profits.

That is completely wrong. People on both sides of these things, to some degree, are motivated by self-interest and to some degree they are motivated by what is good for the public. That is why we see people who are in business donating to charities, getting involved as volunteers and doing all kinds of things.

We see the same thing, frankly, when it comes to the public service. We see people who are there to help the public, but they are also to some degree motivated by what is good for them. That is why I get very concerned when we start hiving all kinds of things off to independent commissions and agencies away from parliamentary scrutiny.

There was an economist who won a Nobel price for economics based on something called the public choice theory. He asserted that if we give money to people in the public service they will act with it in the exact same way as people in the private sector. They will start to use the bureaucracy to benefit them.

The government should be wary of these sorts of things because if it is not, what tends to happen is that these people who start out with good intentions start to find ways to perpetuate their jobs.

Here is a situation where we would be asking the independent claims commission to wrap up all the land claims, but I think the tendency would be to prolong how long it would take to deal with these land claims because it would guarantee jobs. The tendency would be to build a bureaucracy bigger because it would guarantee more security and a bigger salary. We see it over and over again. We really do not need any degree in economics to understand that. All we have to do is consult our common sense and our own experience. We have seen it a hundred times, certainly parliamentarians have, when we deal with different agencies, independent commissions and that kind of thing when we are dealing with the government. That is why I become very nervous.

I am worried that as this commission is formed that there would be all kinds of examples of foot dragging when it comes to dealing with some of these problems. There would be examples of bloated expense accounts and people building empires. We would see one more agency that the government would lose control of and that would start to act in all kinds of ways that would be completely antithetical to what the government was trying to achieve. I caution the government on that.

I will wrap up by urging the House to adopt the amendment that has been proposed. The amendment says that the report on how this commission is functioning should go back to the standing committee every three to five years, whenever that report is released, so it could make judgments and provide some parliamentary scrutiny of this new agency, which I think people rightly have a concern about.

I will leave it at that and urge members across the way to think hard about what I have said as they prepare their votes.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure once again to rise and discuss Bill C-6. I had an opportunity representing our caucus when the bill was before committee late in the fall session.

I listened in some disbelief as the minister talked about the legislation being on the right track and that it was a truly independent proposal that would resolve historic grievances. He stated that it would deal with claims in a fair and efficient manner. The minister presented a certain vision of Canada with regard to compromise and fairness between the Government of Canada on the one hand and first nations on the other.

As the House heard today, nobody on this side of the House shares that view. If there is any vision of Canada, it is the historical vision of father knows best which first nations have endured for several hundred years as European settlers arrived and treaties were subsequently arrived at.

The current federal government, exclusive of Bill C-6, decides if specific laws have validity. Unfortunately, those decisions tend to be made in secret and that is what we are trying to alter. My colleague from Winnipeg Centre talked about that when he pointed out that the joint task force report and the Assembly of First Nations together with the Government of Canada tried to work out a modus operandi, something fair to both sides that would resolve treaties that had not been resolved for decades but needed to be resolved.

Compensation is currently decided by negotiations. The federal government already has a high level of control over the application of the rules. In fairness it was seen that the government seemed to be in a conflict of interest. On the one hand it was the defendant and on the other it was the adjudicator. Perhaps one might say judge and jury. That is what we want to change.

My colleague and other members in the debate today talked about the fact that the joint task force report was a good initiative but was sabotaged by federal bureaucrats who wanted something different. However I will not go over that ground again.

Under Bill C-6, which is now the replacement for the joint task force report, there is no independent, impartial body to clear the existing extensive backlog. Instead, the federal government retains carte blanche to control the pace of settlement and decisions therein. Access to the tribunal is tightly limited. Appointments are at the unilateral discretion of the Government of Canada. The delay by the federal government is a financial reward to it and not a penalty.

Claims are not prioritized even after decades of no resolution. They are not recognized as legal debts. Instead, claims are a matter of discretionary spending to be tightly controlled. The end result is a conflict of interest because the government decides land claims against itself and all that is entrenched in the legislation it introduces.

My colleague talked about other legislation that seemed to be coming fast and furious. We think the bill damages the relationship because it arbitrarily imposes limitations upon first nations people regardless of their input, and in this case, even when the government knows there is massive objection to what is being proposed. This is again a father knows best approach.

Treaties are nation to nation agreements that date back several hundred years. They should be central building blocks to the creation of a fairer and more just Canada which we all want to see. They are legally protected under section 35 of the Constitution but Bill C-6 simply does not respect the spirit of treaties.

I talked about the government being in a conflict of interest by being both defendant and adjudicator. We find it insulting in the extreme that the government asked the Assembly of First Nations to take part in the joint task force report, but then ignored the model of the bill that was initially proposed.

First nations leadership desperately want changes to the Indian Act, yet Bill C-6, which would replace in part the act, has generated an unprecedented amount of animosity and disgust from first nations people. That is one of the many reasons why the New Democratic Party caucus vigorously opposes the bill.

Specifically, I want to make these points. In our opinion the bill does not create an independent and impartial committee. We say that because the minister has the final word, the last say about everything in the bill, contrary to what the government said earlier today.

Bill C-6 dismisses the role of the Assembly of First Nations when it comes to its inherent right to self-government. Not only does the bill dismiss the joint task force report, but nowhere does the legislation even reference the Assembly of First Nations.

In addition to dismissing the report, the consultation process has been farcical. Just three weeks were set aside for consultation on the bill and there was no opportunity to really hear from the witnesses who wished to appear and register their objections to Bill C-6.

There are no provisions for appointments, renewals and approvals, which was outlined in the joint task force report. All appointments, including the chief executive officer, the commission and the tribunal will be made on the recommendation of the minister and the minister alone.

Bill C-6 ignores the task force report in three ways. First, it excludes obligations arising under treaties and agreements that do not deal with land or assets. Second, it excludes unilateral federal undertakings to provide land or assets. Finally, it excludes claims based on the laws of Canada that were originally United Kingdom statutes or royal proclamations.

My colleague talked about the $7 million cap. Another part of that is that interest and costs are included in the cap of $7 million, which means, as I said before, that the government will benefit financially from delaying settlements as the real value of these settlements will obviously decline over time. Lengthy processes will mean extremely expensive legal fees for first nations and put them under pressure to settle for what they would consider to be much less than the real value for which they are looking; 10 cents on the dollar.

There are a number of difficulties with the bill. Delay is a major problem in the current system and it cannot be overestimated. There are 550 land claims outstanding. Bill C-6 will not create an independent and impartial body. The vast majority of those 550 claims are in excess of $7 million. Under the proposed legislation, the government is not even in a position to hear and consider this proposal. It will several hundred more years with Bill C-6 before we have settled all of the outstanding land claims settlements.

The spirit and substance of the joint task force report is not being embodied at all in Bill C-6. The bill is regressive even in comparison with the current system, the one that we want to fix. It seems to us that the government should recognize that Bill C-6 is entirely unfaithful to the spirit of the joint task force report. It is not consistent with the red book promises, as the previous speaker correctly pointed out.

No reasonable person would conclude that what is here before us today is in any way, shape or form a progressive step toward justice and finality. What is needed is a co-operative partnership. The government has rejected that with “it is my way or the highway” approach. Bill C-6 is not the way to go and that is why the New Democratic Party caucus is opposed to it.

[Betty Hinton, Canadian Alliance, Kamloops, Thompson And Highland Valleys, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great frustration that I rise today to speak to Bill C-6. The bill aims to establish a centre for the resolution of aboriginal specific claims up to $7 million. The centre purportedly would reduce the time and expense of making specific claims. The legislation as written does not guarantee this. In fact, it may likely increase the time and expense involved in gaining a resolution of a claim.

The Canadian Alliance supports the fair and expeditious resolution of claims in a manner that benefits the relations between aboriginal Canadians and the people of Canada. Article 56 of our declaration of policy states:

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.

There is no provision in the bill for the respect of existing private property rights or an open and transparent process involving all stakeholders. We need a process for resolving these claims that is fair to aboriginals and other Canadians as well. All citizens, regardless of who their parents are, should be equal partners in Canada, and we have to, over the long term, work toward accomplishing this goal.

The process of setting up a claims commission has been going on since 1947. I was not even born then. When a joint Senate and House committee in 1947 recommended this, it was put into place. The Liberals have advocated for such a body since 1963 when they initiated legislation on it. One would hope that after all of this time they would have come up with something better to present to Canadians than this flawed bill. Unfortunately, for all concerned, the government has chosen to draft a bill creating an expensive patronage bill of bureaucracy that has no guarantees of hurrying along the settlement process.

There are no guarantees to spend and no timelines are mandated in this process. In fact, there are numerous opportunities for the government to delay and stonewall. For example, in clause 30, the government is given the right to hold up the process as it decides whether or not to hear a claim. It contains no timelines or final deadlines for the government to provide, and has no mechanism for the commission or the claimant to move the process forward in the event of an extended delay by the government. This clause should be deleted.

Government members in the committee of aboriginal affairs and northern development voted against all amendments that would require the government to declare openly its reasons for deciding against a claim or for holding up the claim process. Because of that, the claim centre could summarily reject claims and the decisions secretly made would never be publicly explained. That is not transparent.

Another problem is that the bill creates a false hope of speedy resolutions and correspondingly lower costs. The exact opposite would happen. The bill opens the floodgates for more claims that have been held back. The claim centre risks being overwhelmed by cases, just like the Liberal gun registry, resulting in an even larger backlog and less expedient helpfulness.

In three decades the government has settled only 230 claims. That bears repeating: three decades, 30 years, 230 claims. Not much of a record. Some 500 are still waiting to be heard. Aboriginal representatives say that they expect up to 1,000 more claims to be filed once the new centre is opened. This new bogged down claims process would further confirm the fact that claims between aboriginals and the people of Canada result in few benefits to any except lawyers, with all due respect, who keep getting richer and nobody wins.

How can the government say that this claim centre will be successful and expedite matters when the only thing it would do is create thousands more claims? It seems that the government has it backward. Instead of clearing up the claim backlog and resolving aboriginal issues, this institution will create more delays and dissatisfaction. The bill would not speed up the resolution of claims, particularly more costly claims.

We should work toward a way to create an environment where trust and open agreements, arrived at openly with respect for private property holders, can work.

One plus is the government's understanding that there should be at least some semblance of accountability contained in the bill. Government Motion No. 7 is something that we can support as being an expression, however small, of that accountability by mandating the minister to submit a report to Parliament of any change in the centre. Unfortunately this does not change the fact that any changes are at the whim of the minister and Parliament will only be told about these changes long after they are done.

The bill would create an institution that would be just one more in a long line of adversarial, bogged down bureaucracies big on promises and short on delivery. The 1993 Liberal red book promised an independent claims commission that would be jointly appointed by aboriginals and the Government of Canada. Bill C-6 breaks yet another promise from that book.

Since all the adjudicators and commissioners in the Canadian centre for the resolution of first nations specific claims would be appointed by the minister, the idea of an independent impartial body to oversee the resolution of claims is already ruined. There is too much power in the PMO already and adding more useless appointments that benefit no one makes it worse.

It amazes me that the minister, who put this forward, is a resident of British Columbia, as I am myself. As a member of the Canadian Alliance, one of my first assignments was to spend a full year as the chairman of the leaders advisory committee on Indian and Northern Affairs. My job was very simple. I was to go speak to both aboriginal people and non-aboriginal people, the other stakeholders. I did that. Some of the things that I learned were amazing. I have tried to share them with the government on other occasions but it has had no time to hear it.

Let us look at B.C. just as an example. Under the bill there is not supposed to be any geographical limit which means B.C. could be a part of the process. We count on the other parts because the government has decided to dump the responsibility onto the provincial level of government and we have been unable to do anything to prevent that. However in this case, because there are no geographical limits, B.C. could actually be covered under specific claims. It sounds good on the surface but wait until we dig a little deeper.

There are no claims in B.C. for under $7 million. This is according to the claims commission and the aboriginal people of B.C. When we put a limit of $7 million on it, once again the government has told B.C. to figure it out for itself because it does not want to get involved. It has a fiduciary responsibility to be involved and again it has abdicated it.

I spoke with aboriginal people across the country who make up, according to census figures this year, approximately 4% of Canada's population. Of the 4%, about 0.2% of that population had a driving urge to have the land claim issue settled. Those people are a minority among the aboriginal people to whom I spoke.

The people to whom I spoke were everyday band members. What everyday band members want is what all Canadians want. They want the opportunity for their children to have a better life than they have. They want to have some measure of success and they to have that opportunity to make that success happen. Aboriginal women want equality. It is something we enjoy in the country as non-aboriginal women but for aboriginal women it is lacking.

I realize I have gone off the subject of specific claims but I do not think there is much else that can be said about it. This is not an answer. It does not listen to the other stakeholders involved in the process, whether they are ranchers, tourism people or private property owners and it does not answer the needs that aboriginals have related to me. Because of those reasons, I will not be supporting the bill and neither will my party.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre could have continued. He is very knowledgeable on this. I say that with some trepidation.

I stand in place of my colleague from Dauphin—Swan River, the member who sits on this particular committee. He has done yeoman's service in understanding and putting forward our prescribed amendments, positions and opinions. I know that the whole House and certainly the committee send out their best wishes to the member for Dauphin—Swan River who, unfortunately, is now recuperating and convalescing. We would love to have him back in the House sooner than later. I can assure the members in the House that I have talked to him. He is doing well and we wish him a speedy recovery.

As for Bill C-6, it is legislation that the minister responsible for western economic diversification and Indian affairs stood in the House and said was legislation that ultimately would be a win-win situation. All I have been able to glean from the information that I have read in the past day and from all of the opinions that have been put forward by the opposition members speaking against Bill C-6, is that the only win is the win from the Minister of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. There is no win with respect to the stakeholders, with respect to the first nations community and with the settling of the land claims that are taking an inordinate amount of time and effort to resolve something that is legitimate.

The first thing I would say is that the government cannot stick its head in the sand and suggest that this will simply go away with the process that is being proposed in Bill C-6. The fact is that these are legitimate land claims. They come in the form of numbered treaties, modern treaties and the land claims. The fact is that there has to be closure. Both the first nations themselves and Canadian society want closure. Unfortunately that closure cannot come in the timeframe that is being proposed by Bill C-6. There are a number of deficiencies.

The member for Dauphin—Swan River stood in the House and said that we were prepared to send Bill C-6 back to committee so it could be improved by putting amendments on the table, having those amendments approved and accepted by the government of the day because it does not have all the best intentions at heart. Those amendments were put forward but none of them were approved, not one amendment to make the legislation better was approved by the government. Therefore the legislation that has been brought forward in the final version right now at report stage is totally flawed.

I can talk about a couple of very glaring issues that have been talked about recently by other members. The first one is obviously the make-up of the commission itself.

I know the member for Palliser will be speaking to this, although he may not agree with this particular point, but when appointments are made by the government to a commission there is a tendency for that commission, or the wheat board but we will not go there, not to be independent.

When the appointments are made by the minister, the commission will take the minister's position forward, make no mistake about that. It has been seen in the past and it will happen in the future. That is not the independence that the first nations want and not the independence that this side of the House wants and needs, and that the government side of the House should in fact put into place.

The other issue is the cap on the dollars. Is this about reality? Is this about the fairness that is necessary to put forward to first nations to make a final resolution on land claims that have been in place for literally 10 years? There is no fairness on that cap, the cap being, I believe, $7 million. If the land claim is beyond $7 million it will take years to resolve. At what I believe is $122 million a year that has been identified for this particular commission, it will take something like 24 years to resolve the existing land claims that are before the commission at the present time.

I have been told that somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1,000 new land claims may be brought forward. With that 1,000 thrown into the mix, Mr. Speaker, you and I will be long gone before any kind of resolution is made to this very serious issue of land claims within our country.

Canadian citizens in society want a resolution to this problem. The bill does not resolve the problem. I personally am terribly disappointed that the government would go forward with this flawed legislation and certainly with the attitude of the Secretary of State for Western Economic Diversification and Indian Affairs and Northern Development who said that it was win-win. That absolutely is not the case and I do not think Canadians will buy it. The spin the government is putting on it is totally wrong.

There are more questions, if the truth be known, than there are answers given in Bill C-6. How would this body be independent when the same minister, who would be charged with defending the crown against these claims, would be the same minister recommending the appointments? Talk about a conflict of interest.

Is there any explanation as to how the bill would change the current situation whereby the federal government controls almost every aspect of the process when the minister retains so much of the control over the timelines of the process? Talk about a conflict of interest. An answer to that question is absolutely mandatory before the legislation can be passed.

How would requiring the first nations to weigh liability in order to access the tribunal be consistent with the resolution of claims arising from the fiduciary responsibility or relationship? It is impossible.

What assurances do first nations and Canadians in general have that this process would reduce the outstanding liability that is growing year by year? There are no assurances that this process would reduce that liability, a liability of billions of dollars. That is a realistic reality. It is not something about which we can stick our heads in the sand and say that it will simply go away if we do not deal with it. That is not the case.

Why is the cap on the tribunal set at such a low level? We talked about the $7 million level. Why is it set arbitrarily at that number? Is it that the government wants to bring, I believe, some 400 to 500 outstanding claims forward and suggest that will be the number? The reality here is that is not the number. We should be realistic when setting up the legislation. We should be realistic when setting up the tribunal.

Could the minister tell us why there is no significant increase in the capacity to resolve more than these claims? I understand there is no significant increase to support any kind of initiative to expand the mandate or the boundaries of this particular tribunal. It just does not make any sense at all under the legislation.

Why can larger claims not have access to public inquiries as currently with the Indian Claims Commission? This is another deficiency with the legislation.

The Progressive Conservative Party, and the member for Dauphin—Swan River, who spoke eloquently with respect to Bill C-60, now Bill C-6 coming forward, stand in the House in opposition to Bill C-6. We are opposed to it for any number of reasons, but particularly because the government of the day would not accept logical amendments to the legislation that would have made it better. It would have taken a flawed piece of legislation and brought it forward to the House in a form in which it could have received support from the opposition.

We oppose it because the minister has not consulted with the aboriginal community, members of the first nations and the stakeholders. He did not consult with them before bringing forward the legislation, which in itself should not be allowed to be brought forward because of that. It also is because the minister himself has disregarded the four year joint task force report between aboriginal groups and government that actually had some reasonable implementation that could have worked in a piece of legislation. Not having taken that joint task force into consideration in putting legislation forward and not consulting with the first nations groups and the stakeholders themselves is unspeakable.

I would ask that the government not pass this and, if anything, it would accept the amendments that were put forward in committee. Let the minister come back to the House and put those amendments forward and we would support those amendments and the legislation. However, until that happens, this is not legislation that will be supported by this party.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as the aboriginal affairs critic for the NDP, I am happy to join the debate at third reading of Bill C-6. I should mention at the outset that our party does not believe we can deal with or do justice to Bill C-6 when it is viewed in isolation. It really constitutes part of a larger suite of bills, part of legislation aimed at what the government is selling as first nations governance issues in Bills C-6, C-7 and C-19.

In the early debate around Bill C-6, formerly Bill C-60, it was abundantly clear that the leadership of the first nations communities in the country felt that the bill fell far short of the recommendations of the joint task force on specific claims, which laboured for years to develop a comprehensive package of recommendations by which they believed legislation would be crafted which would address the nagging issue of the hundreds and hundreds of outstanding specific claims. These are not to be confused with general land claims in the larger picture, but have to do with issues of specific shortcomings in settlements already agreed to, be it a body of land or financial remuneration, et cetera.

The joint working group and the origins of the bill were really formed, we should be clear, out of Oka. They came out of the national tragedy that was the Oka crisis, when something seemingly as petty and as insignificant as the development of a golf course led to the largest outburst of violence on aboriginal issues in recent memory. At that time it was felt that we needed a dispute resolution mechanism that was truly independent, whereby the parties could seek recourse without feeling they had to resort to the courts and without the added compounded frustration, which led aboriginal people to feel that they had no avenue of recourse to make their point other than to occupy the land in dispute.

My first observation in the failure of the government to accept any of the amendments to Bill-6 is to point out that the claims body as contemplated by Bill C-6 falls far short of the recommendations of the joint working group that laboured on the issue for the many years leading up to the bill.

There has been almost an overwhelming amount of activity in this area in recent months. I do not say that for my own benefit as a critic on aboriginal affairs, I say that on behalf of first nations, which are trying to respond to this virtual bombardment of legislation in recent months. These three bills, the specific claims legislation, the first nations governance initiative and the financial institutions bill, Bill C-19, really represent the most comprehensive overhaul of the Indian Act in 50 years. I should point out that this is happening at the very point in time that the Assembly of First Nations, a legitimate, recognized plenary body of first nations in the country, has had its budget slashed by 50%, and thereby, its ability to respond effectively to this complex suite of bills. It is really finding itself overwhelmed, as are we, in trying to cope with what is coming at us in complex pieces of legislation like this and in the whole suite of legislation.

I should point out that during the committee stage of Bill C-6, the NDP moved substantial amendments after broad consultation with the Assembly of First Nations and first nations leadership. I am disappointed to say that not one of these amendments, put forward by the member for Palliser who was on the committee at that time, was allowed to pass. It makes a bit of a mockery of the committee process in the House of Commons, in that there is always a hope and optimism that the standing committee will really be seized by the issue to the point where it has a vested interest in crafting legislation that will be widely accepted and that some level of consensus will be achieved before bills go through.

In actual fact, the Assembly of First Nations and aboriginal leadership made it very clear at the outset of Bill C-6 that this is not the bill they anticipated. This is not the language and these are not the changes that they anticipated. It fell short of the recommendations of the working group. Even though they made this abundantly clear and brought forward amendments that would have changed the bill to the point where they could actually support it, none of these amendments were entertained or allowed by the standing committee.

I suppose it is no big surprise that the only amendment we see at third reading stage, which will succeed, is the amendment brought forward by the minister himself. Other thoughtful amendments brought forward at third reading stage, in this case by the Canadian Alliance, are being rejected universally, all but Motion No. 7.

To deal with some of the specific reservations that the NDP has about the bill, the first and foremost specific detail that we sought to have amended was the cap of $7 million on these specific claims.

Any time we draw a line in the sand and say “this is the rule”, there will be some claims that will fall exactly on that line, or just short of that line, or just above that line, claims that cannot be resolved by the bill, which also excludes much larger claims. Many of these specific claims are actually a nuisance, almost to the point where they are a nuisance amount of money that could easily be resolved under the $7 million cap. The $7 million cap does not even factor in the legal costs that brought the complainant, the griever, to this stage.

In many cases we have a 30 year outstanding complaint whereby the government may have expropriated part of first nations land 30 years ago and the first nation has been struggling to get remedy to this grievance for 30 years and has spent literally millions of dollars in the courts trying to get satisfaction. With a cap of $7 million that does not include legal costs, they may receive less than half of that amount because they will have already burnt up so much money on legal costs.

There is a second specific point that we sought to have amended. I see that further attempts have been made to have it amended at third reading. It is the point about the independence of the independent claims body when all the appointments to the claims commission would be made by the minister without input or consultation from first nations. Can we believe this?

We believe that it was a reasonable amendment we asked for: that first nations would put forward names and then the minister would appoint from that list, a pre-qualified list, a pre-approved list. Ultimately the decision would be the minister's, but at least those people affected by these specific claims would have had that input. Incredibly, that amendment has been rejected. In the interest of basic fairness, the minister should have allowed at least that recommendation, but more and more in these pieces of legislation, all three that comprise the suite of legislation, we see enhanced discretionary authority for the minister and diminished authority or input from the House of Commons or, in this case, from the elected representatives of first nations around the country.

I cannot believe I am out of time already, Mr. Speaker, because I am just getting started. I would like to draw attention to a petition I am holding that has on it 50,000 names of first nations people who are opposed to Bill C-6. I am not allowed to table this petition in the House of Commons because unfortunately it was not drafted in the required format, but I have boxes and boxes of names from first nations communities who are opposed to Bill C-6. I want it on the record that there is that widespread opposition to this bill, and the NDP caucus joins in that opposition today.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to participate in the report stage debate of Bill C-6.

The bill provides for the filing, negotiation and resolution of specific claims and makes amendments to other acts.

The stated purpose of the bill is to establish the Canadian centre for the independent resolution of first nations specific claims. The centre will be composed of a chief executive officer, a commission and a tribunal, with the commission and tribunal playing the most significant roles in the day to day process of dealing with specific claims.

Specific claims arise from the breach or non-fulfillment of government obligations found in treaties, agreements and statutes.

Interestingly, Bill C-6 has met with opposition from first nations across Canada, including in my home province of British Columbia. The British Columbia Alliance of Tribal Nations representing 23 member first nations feels that Bill C-6 completely fails to meet its stated principles, namely, to establish a process for the resolution of specific claims that is independent, fair and timely.

The amendments proposed in Motions Nos. 1 through 8 would help alleviate these concerns and therefore would have my support.

For example, Motion No. 7, the amendment put forward by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, adds a small measure of accountability to the review process and reflects an amendment passed in committee.

Motion No. 2, if accepted, would give the proposed centre increased independence from government. This clause gives the government the right to hold up the claims process as it decides whether or not to hear a claim. It provides no timelines or final deadlines for the government to provide an answer and provides no mechanism for the commission or the claimant to move the process forward in the event of an extended delay by the government.

When we see how much control Bill C-6 gives the federal government and specifically the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, it is little wonder that aboriginal groups are opposed to the legislation.

The title of the bill suggests the newly created body will be independent. Independence is essential to the successful working of the centre. Independence must exist in fact and be perceived to exist by the parties and the public.

Under Bill C-6 however, commission and tribunal members, including the CEO and chief adjudicator, will be appointed by the cabinet on the recommendation of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development alone. How can aboriginals have confidence in the centre under these circumstances? Suspicion about partiality, patronage and conflict of interest will plague the centre, destroying its legitimacy in the eyes of first nations and for good reason.

Under the proposed legislation the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is directly involved in the claim process. Once a claim is filed, the commission must provide a copy with supporting documentation to the minister. After preparatory meetings the commission must then suspend proceedings until the minister decides whether or not to accept the claim for negotiation.

Allowing the minister, who is a party himself, to determine the next step in the proceedings essentially takes carriage of proceedings away from the claimant and the centre and places it with the respondent. It is essential that the bill place power within the proposed centre. That is what the centre is there for. As presently constituted, too much power resides in the hands of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

Motion Nos. 2 and 3 would help accomplish this objective. They would take power away from the government and thereby increase the independence of the proposed centre.

Similarly, clause 32 allows the government to require the claimant to meet an excessive threshold of proof of having used all available mediation mechanisms before allowing the claimant to request a move to the tribunal in the case of an unresolved claim. In other words, it can be used as another stalling mechanism by the government.

Upon the initial introduction of the bill during the first session of this Parliament, the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations observed that he looked forward to the legislative process to address the need for important changes to this defective bill.

Besides the obvious lack of independence of the proposed centre, the AFN also found fault with the capped claim limit. Motion No. 6 responds to this criticism. It establishes the guidelines for compensation in a specific claim, including a $7 million cap. However, as a footnote in the legal analysis of Bill C-6, the Assembly of First Nations notes that AFN technicians have been informed by a commission counsel for the Indian Claims Commission that of 120 claims only 3 eventually were settled for less than $7 million. The AFN analysis adds that in the past three years, 8 out of 14 claims paid out by the federal government were for amounts above $7 million. The government should be allowing much more flexibility regarding the claim values it allows the centre to consider. In committee, we, the Canadian Alliance members, proposed a cap of $25 million but the government voted against that idea.

Motion No. 8 seeks to amend Bill C-6 by deleting clause 77, which gives the governor in council the authority to make regulations. The Canadian Alliance objects to the government's practice of passing incomplete, vague legislation, bills that need to be fleshed out by the government after the bill has been passed in the House, fleshed out somewhere other than in Parliament, where there are less eyes watching and where it is protected from much of the scrutiny and the accountability process of Parliament. This is simply undemocratic and is another example of the current government's hostility to the principles of accountability and transparency. This is at least one reason why the Liberal government is an elected dictatorship. It is almost criminal, by all standards.

Bill C-6 would create a process that is even worse than the current historically flawed process, which has over 500 claims sitting in its backlog awaiting the minister's decision on whether or not they are acceptable for negotiation. In this backlog, 48% of the specific claims are from the first nations in British Columbia, the most from any region in Canada. First nations in B.C. have the most to gain from the establishment of a truly independent, fair and timely process for the settlement of specific claims, but they also have the most to lose if the bill before us is passed without amendment.

Bill C-6 would institutionalize the federal government's conflict of interest in judging claims against itself and would authorize and reward the Minister of Indian Affairs for indefinite delays in deciding whether or not to accept a specific claim for negotiations.

The Canadian Alliance strongly supports the speedy resolution of claims, whereas Bill C-6 would not speed up the resolution of claims, particularly larger and more costly claims.

The new claims resolution centre would not be independent. All adjudicators and commissioners would be appointed by the government for patronage purposes. Who is standing up for the first nations? Who is standing up for the taxpayers in this process? A system that avoids accountability for government stonewalling and discourages the use of alternative dispute mechanisms over more costly court claims is a waste of taxpayers' money. Who is standing up for taxpayers? No one from that side of the government.

This new institution would not be transparent. Government members of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources voted against all amendments that would require the government to declare openly its reasons for deciding against a claim or for holding up this process.

To summarize, Bill C-6 would not ensure a faster claims resolution process. No timelines are mentioned in this process. In fact, there would be numerous opportunities for the government to delay and stonewall. The bill needs major amendments. Canadian Alliance amendments will advance justice, speed up the claims resolution process, reduce conflict of interest, increase organizational independence and save taxpayers' dollars.

Therefore, since this arrogant, weak and incompetent Liberal government does not accept the Canadian Alliance amendments, I have no choice but to oppose Bill C-6 as tabled. In addition, the Alliance of Tribal Nations asks that I oppose this legislation vigorously. Therefore, I and my colleagues will oppose this legislation if it is not amended.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, for Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

moved:

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-6, in Clause 76, be amended by replacing lines 20 to 30 on page 29 with the following:

“(2) On completion of the review, the Minister shall cause to be prepared and sign a report that sets out a statement of any changes to this Act, including any changes to the functions, powers or duties of the Centre or either of its divisions, that the Minister recommends.

(3) The Minister shall submit to each House of Parliament a copy of the report on any of the first 90 days on which that House is sitting after the Minister signs the report, and each House shall refer the report to the appropriate committee of that House.”

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

There are eight motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-6. Motions Nos. 1 to 8 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern, copies of which are available at the Table.

I will now put Motion No. 7 to the House.

Business of the House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, let me start with the parliamentary agenda.

We will continue this afternoon with Bill C-13, the reproductive technologies bill, followed by, if there is time, Bill C-20, the child protection bill, as well as Bill C-22, the family law bill.

Tomorrow, we will call third reading of Bill C-3 regarding the Canada pension plan. The next item will be Bill C-6, the bill regarding specific claims for aboriginal people.

On Monday, we would return, if necessary, to Bills C-6, C-20 and C-13. We will continue this business on Tuesday morning, but in any case at 3 p.m. on Tuesday, it is my intention to call Bill C-22, the family law bill.

I will be consulting with a view to returning at some point to debate on the Senate amendments to Bill C-10A, the Criminal Code amendments.

On Wednesday, we will continue the debate on Bills C-13 and C-19 if necessary, at whatever stages they are at then.

I wish to announce that Thursday shall be an allotted day.

Colleagues across the way particularly have asked about what they claim to be a principle that military intervention has a vote. I have a number of them here.

For Korea in 1950, there was no resolution in the House and no vote. For Sinai in 1956, there was no vote. For the Congo in 1960, a recorded vote was asked for but no division was held. For Cyprus in 1964, there was a debate before deployment, the motion was agreed to on division with no recorded vote. For the Middle East in 1973, the motion was agreed to with no division and no recorded vote. For the UNIFIL mission in 1978, there was no motion and no vote. For Iran-Iraq in 1988, the motion was agreed to with no division. For Namibia in 1989, there was no vote. For the Persian Gulf in 1990, it was debated after deployment, with a recorded vote and a division.

There were many cases where there were no votes, no debate, no uniformity.

We have established the coherent system which we enjoy today. We have utilized it as late as last night.

I am also prepared to offer to other parties, should they want it at some point, perhaps as early as next week, yet another evening to debate the situation in Iraq. I know many colleagues on my side of the House would like that. We are quite prepared to offer that.

First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Foundation for Individual Rights was established in B.C. by Greg Hollingsworth, the staff representative of the member from Okanagan who left his job on the Hill to go to British Columbia to set up this racist organization. It is well known to have links with the Heritage Front. It can be seen from FIRE's website that it has a direct link to the Heritage Front which no one can argue is the racist, white supremacist neo-Nazi organization in this country.There are direct links, so I am not making any comment on the Canadian Alliance party directly or the member of Parliament who used to employ Greg Hollingsworth. I am simply pointing out that there is a connection that one cannot deny.

More specifically, we can look to comments from previous critics on aboriginal affairs from the Reform Party. I do remember the famous quote by a former member of Parliament, the Reform Party critic for aboriginal affairs, who said that living on an Indian reserve was like living on a south sea island and being supported by one's rich uncle. That is a statement from the Hansard of this place. I only point it out to say what a contrast it is for me to hear the current critic for aboriginal affairs trying to sell the Canadian Alliance as being committed to the best interests of the aboriginal people when the track record of that party is so shameful on this subject.

The current member for Athabasca made the comment that just because we did not have the defeat of aboriginal people in Indian wars in this country like they did in the United States does not mean that they are not vanquished people. Otherwise, as he mentioned, why would they be living on those God forsaken reserves if they were not vanquished to those reserves.

It is that Eurocentric mindset that has become associated with the Canadian Alliance. When we dig a little deeper into the speech that we just heard from the current aboriginal affairs critic, the member from Portage--La Prairie, we can see that he really is opposed to the idea of self-governance. He really is opposed to moving forward with the true moves that might lead to the self-determination. He is more committed to the assimilation model that we saw either in the 1969 white paper, which really spawned a generation of activism among aboriginal people, or this current suite of legislation.

I think that they will really be able to embrace what we believe is the underlying tone of this current suite of legislation, which is to see through to its final end the initiative that was in the 1969 white paper. The current minister seems so committed to ramming it through, even though he is meeting stiff opposition at every turn with the legitimately elected leadership of the Assembly of First Nations right across the country.

The standing committee on aboriginal affairs is currently listening to witnesses coming before it on Bill C-7, the first nations governance act. We cannot talk about Bill C-19 in isolation because it certainly constitutes a key and integral part of the suite of bills that constitutes a package which, as I say, is meeting strong resistance across the country.

One of the problems, other than the top down imposition of this legislation that is being cited by the leadership of the assembly and one of the underlying apprehensions that the leadership has is that it leads to the municipalization of first nations. It contemplates a third level of government that is comparable to the incorporation of a municipality.

There was a witness before the standing committee yesterday who is an authority on this subject and has researched examples in the United States where this led to great difficulties. A first nations community incorporated essentially as a municipality would then of course have the power to borrow money on the open market because it would then be identified as a legal entity.

That sounds all very well and good except for, let us say, if a community borrowed $10 million to build a sewage and water treatment plant and somehow defaulted on the loan. The equity it used for that loan may have been its own land base. The fear is the gradual erosion and deterioration of the historic land base of the aboriginal communities and the inherent risk in that measure.

This is one of the things that has been cited as a major concern regarding not just Bill C-19, the institutions we are dealing with today, but again the entire package.

Two days ago we also heard Matthew Coon Come, the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, comment on Bill C-7 but he did not limit his remarks to Bill C-7. He spoke very broadly again of the inherent risks of this general package. He pointed out a number of the concerns regarding specifically the first nations fiscal and statistical management act. In the form of questions and answers, I would like to deal with some of the questions that have been dealt with at the national assemblies of the Assembly of First Nations when this subject has come up.

There are some misconceptions that they would like addressed and made clear in the House. I am glad the minister is here to hear them.

Some people would ask whether the proposed fiscal institutions act already has been approved by the chiefs of the Assembly of First Nations. To listen to some people speak, one would think that were true, but the answer is no.

What the chiefs originally approved and what they are interested in talking about is the development of new fiscal arrangements with Canada, nation to nation negotiations between first nations and the Government of Canada. Unfortunately we are further away from that than we ever have been before. The heavy-handed tactics of the current minister of aboriginal affairs have so alienated, so offended and so upset the leadership that I would say that relations have been set back 50 years in terms of true negotiations on a nation to nation basis that they contemplate.

The chiefs' committee that was formed, the Implementation Committee on the Protection of Treaty and Inherent Rights, and which concentrated on this issue, made it very clear that they needed to deal with this in a detailed way and with the fullness of time, so it was not approved. In fact the contents of the bill were not known by them until August 2002. When dealing with sweeping reform to a complex act like the Indian Act, that is not a great deal of time.

I attended the Halifax assembly of the Assembly of First Nations in 2001 where there was a misconception that there was broad interest and acceptance of this fiscal institutions bill. The support for the bill was not established at that convention. It was put off until the Ottawa assembly on November 20, 2002. I have the resolution from that assembly here and I will enter it into the record at a later moment.

Here is one of the key concerns, one of the common themes, throughout the three pieces of legislation that constitute this suite of bills. Does the proposed bill guarantee first nations that it will not diminish or change treaties, aboriginal rights or the federal government's fiduciary responsibilities? That is a key and paramount question. The fact is no, there is no guarantee in this package because there is no non-derogation clause.

Those of us who have been dealing with legislation as it pertains to aboriginal people in recent years know that every piece of legislation dealing with aboriginal people must contain, and there was agreement on both sides that there would be present, a non-derogation clause to assure the parties that nothing in the bill would diminish or derogate existing rights. The very absence of a non-derogation clause in this bill, in Bill C-7 and in Bill C-6 leads us to believe that there is a strategy here, a systematic effort to diminish and erode established current treaty rights or the federal government's fiduciary responsibility.

Adding to and fueling that fear of the absence of a non-derogation clause was the fact that the First Nations Land Management Act that passed in the last Parliament was the first time we noticed this trend. There was an attempt on the part of government to alter the wording in the non-derogation clause. It was not bold enough to eliminate it altogether because that would be seen as a flash point and people would notice what was going on. However it did attempt to alter it. We raised it in the debate at that time. After years of consistent, common language in a non-derogation clause, why was the government seeking to alter the language? We choose our language very carefully in legislation. There had to be some motivation or reason why the government would seek to alter it. That was the first hint.

We now learn that the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs in the Senate is dealing with an omnibus bill that will delete completely the non-derogation clause from all pieces of legislation as it pertains to aboriginal people and instead assume that such a non-derogation intent is deemed to be a part of every bill.

Why would we take that positive, proactive step to diminish the very clause that gives comfort to those people on whose behalf we are passing legislation?

I have proposed language here that would not only satisfy those who are concerned about a non-derogation clause. It actually enhances the existing non-derogation clause. I would be happy to read that into the record at a later time.

How can we blame people for being apprehensive or suspicious of the motivation of government when it takes the active step to delete the non-derogation clause?

This is a question that I have addressed. Some people assume that the fiscal institutions act stands separate and alone from the minister's governance act. I have made it clear that none of these bills can be dealt with in isolation. They are integrally linked as a package and they are not the package with which aboriginal people want to be dealt.

I should perhaps back up for a moment and make it abundantly clear that I do not think there is a political party in the House of Commons that believes the status quo is acceptable and believes the Indian Act should not be substantially amended with the goal of ultimately eliminating it. We have heard the minister himself indicate that the ultimate goal is the elimination of the Indian Act because it is an evil document. It is a document that has been responsible for 130 years of social tragedy. It is incumbent on all of us to do everything we can to find an alternative way of relating to first nations people and allowing them their self-determination and self-governance.

None of the issues dealt with in the first nations governance suite of legislation deals with the fundamental problems, the urgent, pressing social problems facing aboriginal people today. When there was a round of consultation to supposedly get input from aboriginal people, those people who showed up at those meetings did not show up to talk about accounting practices or whether their audits were directed to this person or that person. They showed up to talk about health care, housing, clean water on their reserves and education. They wanted to talk about basic needs, which are so lacking in these communities. Instead, the minister in his wisdom, decided to address administrative details and tinkering with a flawed Indian Act instead of going at issues of substance that would have meaningful impact on the lives of aboriginal people.

I link it to the Canadian Alliance. I link the whole package with which we are dealing and its skewed priorities to the fact that for two years straight the Canadian Alliance launched a campaign to try to link together isolated incidents of financial problems on certain aboriginal reserves into a common theme that aboriginal communities were corrupt, or incompetent or both, and it tried to sell this package. I had to sit as a member in the House of Commons and listen day after day as Alliance members scoured the countryside until they found some misuse of funds or some band council that failed to submit its audit on time. They would stand up as if this was outrageous, that all aboriginal communities were corrupt, that we had to do something to clean up this terrible thing and that we were flushing billions of dollars down the drain and wasting it on aboriginal people who were squandering it and misspending their money. It was not based on fact.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources we get the facts. We know that 96% of all first nations communities, of which there are 633 first nations, submit their audits on time, keep their bookkeeping in accordance with the Indian Act, post those audits so that all band members can see them and have no problem whatsoever at managing their funds.

This is the first time we have opened the Indian Act for 50 years. Why are we dealing with issues of financial accountability and how people elect their officers when those are not the priorities with which aboriginal people want dealt? Because we have been sold a bill of goods and the public has been pulled around and led by the nose by this campaign on the part of the Canadian Alliance to try to convince people that aboriginal people are unaccountable or not transparent in their financial dealings. ay, It simply is not true and is not based on fact.

We are disappointed to be standing here. When the minister presented this to the standing committee on Monday, I made it clear to the him that as the member of Parliament for Winnipeg Centre, with the highest aboriginal off reserve population in the country, many of them concentrated in my core area riding, that there was nothing that would make me more pleased, in what short time I have as a member of Parliament, than to deal with meaningful amendments to this fundamental evil that we knew as the Indian Act. I would love to enthusiastically support amendments to the Indian Act. It would be very satisfying for me on a personal level and on a professional level because I owe it to the people that I represent.

Unfortunately, we are not being given the opportunity to address meaningful amendments. We will be tinkering with a flawed document. This is not a step toward social justice. This is administrative tinkering and administrative details that are not based on fact.

When people went to the consultations across the country, they did not show up to complain about how they elected their band council. They did not show up to complain about their accounting practices or their auditing practices. They came out to express the desperation and the desperate, abject poverty under which they lived and they wanted a meaningful change to their lives. I am disappointed to have to use this speech to address bills that I do not think are of great consequence.

There are misunderstandings about this bill, the financial institutions act. Some people think that the fiscal institutions act will be optional. In fact, the proposed bill does not state that it will be optional, that first nations communities can opt in or out. Neither is there any protection for a first nation against being forced into the act.

The other bills that are a part of this suite have these default positions. People can choose to change the way officers are elected and the way bookkeeping records are kept. If people do not choose to do so in compliance with the standards that are set out, these standards will be foisted upon people, imposed upon their communities. It is not much of a choice. We can say it is optional but if they do not opt to do it in two years, it is imposed upon them anyway. I do not know who would understand that as being truly optional.

The fiscal institutions act could, for example, be made a condition of a funding arrangement that a deduction would be made if a first nation did not acquire its own source of revenues through taxation under the proposed bill. In other words, if a band has the ability and the opportunity to impose its own taxation regime within its community and it chooses not to for whatever reason or fails to implement it, there could be deductions dollar for dollar in the revenue streams in the current fiscal relationship from the federal government to the community. This is certainly one of the reservations that has been raised.

I should also point out, and the previous speaker did mention quite rightly, that many first nations communities are 100 or 150 people. They are already over-audited and over-bureaucratized. This will be a further level of bureaucracy, a further level of financial expertise that, without a lot of training and resources allocated to them, a lot of first nations communities would find it really difficult to avail themselves of these new fiscal institutions. When the Auditor General came before our standing committee just the other day, she made the point quite rightly that, if anything, first nations communities are over-audited.

A first nations community has to file approximately 168 forms per year to keep the revenue stream coming from the four or five different federal agencies that provide funding to a community. The Auditor General recommended streamlining these things so as not to put such an onerous task on first nations communities. There is so much room for error in there. No wonder the Canadian Alliance could find cases where papers were not filed on time or people were in arrears filing their documentation. Over three official documents have to be filled out correctly and submitted every week to add up to 168 per year. With the new provisions of Bill C-7, the first nations governance act, there will be more accounting and it will become more onerous.

The Auditor General of Canada commented that first nations communities were over-audited as it was. The real problem lied with the lack of accountability of those who accumulated the data and did nothing meaningful with it. They were supposed to jump through hoops every week and submit these forms into this vortex that was the bureaucracy of INAC and DIAND. Those were her observations and her criticism, and we share that view.

A common question that is asked of people dealing with this fiscal institutions act is whether first nations will be able to handle their own revenues as an inherent right even if they do not opt in to any of these institutions. No. By our understanding, if the proposed bill becomes law, it will mean that Parliament intends the inherent right of self-government not to include the collection and management of first nations revenue.

Is this not an infringement or a derogation of the status that aboriginal people enjoy today? Perhaps that is why the government had to eliminate the non-derogation clause. Perhaps that is why the government and its advisers felt that, in all good conscience, they would have to eliminate it or they would be subject to a challenge even if a non-derogation clause was part of the preamble of the legislation and then they made this fundamental change to take the inherent right away from them. Even if it is one minor detail of an inherent right, it is the diminishment of an inherent treaty right.

When the national implementation committee on the protection of treaty inherent rights, a standing committee of the Assembly of First Nations, dealt with this, to its credit and with its reduced staff and resources, it identified this as a serious concern.

I referred earlier to the heavy-handed punitive retribution that comes down from the minister to any organization that will not fall into line with his view of the priorities and amendments to the Indian Act. The Assembly of First Nations has suffered the worst. The minister cut its funding by 50% because it would not play ball and would not hop on the bandwagon with this legislation. At the very time it was facing the most complex and detailed amendments to the Indian Act in 50 years, the minister cut its funding by 50%. This forced the assembly to lay off 70 to 80 researchers and staff who were authorities on this subject. This is like sending a person to court and denying them legal counsel.

This one bill alone is a thick document. It is an overwhelming amount of legalese. At the very time first nations need to defend themselves or at least represent themselves adequately in the face of this bombardment of legislation, the minister has undermined its ability to do so substantially by cutting its budget and forcing it to reduce its staff by 70 people. It is to the credit of the Assembly of First Nations that it can still do its research to defend the interests of the people it represents.

Can a first nation opt into one institution and not another within the fiscal institutions act? The answer again is no. The proposed institutions are interlocking. Each one functions in conjunction with the others. For instance, the statistics institute collects data about a first nation for the use of the other institutes.

A first nation cannot borrow money from the finance authority without the consent of the tax commission and a certificate of good management from the management board. In other words, it is a whole package deal. It is all or nothing, so first nation communities could not avail themselves of one of these, set up a board and establish one and not the other because they cannot operate in an independent way.

It makes us wonder how a small first nation community could do this. We are not dealing with municipalities in the Eurocentric western sense. We are dealing with a small village of 100 people or dealing with a place, as in the case of Buffalo Point, where there are 12 residents who live on the reserve and another 100 who live off the reserve, and only have their input by virtue of the Corbiere decision to be able to participate. How does the new fiscal institutions act benefit them in any way? Where would they get the administrative capacity to establish and operate these complex legal institutions?

It is mind boggling to me and it certainly must be to the many people to whom this is happening. I say “to whom this is happening” because it is being imposed in a top down manner. It is the House of Commons of Canada that will change the way aboriginal people live, not the input of aboriginal people who are deciding how they should establish and conduct their own affairs.

It begs the question then, with all these new institutions in place, will at least a first nation be free to pass bylaws and laws of its own choice? The answer again is, no. A first nation would not be able to pass certain kinds of laws and bylaws without obtaining the approval of the proposed tax commission. Band councils would see their authority diminished and relegated to the establishment of some of these new commissions.

I should also point out that it has been a recurring theme throughout this whole suite of legislation, Bills C-6, C-7 and now C-19, that the discretionary authority of the minister, instead of being diminished, would actually be enhanced. It is a pattern, a theme, of which I have been taking note ever since I came to Ottawa five years ago. Virtually every piece of legislation we come across actually enhances the discretionary authority of the minister and diminishes the authority of the executive or of Parliament. We are critical of that.

It is not a realistic and legitimate step toward self-governance and independence. If anything, Parliament and DIND would still have an active role to play in all the real decision making. It is like the joke we used to hear in the lunchrooms of warehouses and workplaces. We might get to decide what colour to paint the lunchroom, but the boss will still decide the speed of the assembly line. That is a good analogy here.

With the new institutions in place, will the first nations be able to pass bylaws regarding licences and other locally raised revenues without getting approval? In other words, as it is hoped that we would be passing over more control over natural resources et cetera to first nations communities, would they then, in a hypothetical situation, be able to pass bylaws regarding licences without getting the approval of the new commissions?

No, first nations laws regarding the collection and expenditure of revenue, especially where non-Indians may be involved--an American tourist who may want to fish on a lake in a community--would not be able to make that choice without the approval of the proposed tax commission whose members are not elected by the band council. The members of the tax commission would be appointed by the minister or by Indian Affairs, but essentially by the minister.

This opens the door for a whole raft of jobs. There would be a board, a commissioner and a bureaucracy set up. It is the germination of a civil servant, I suppose. It adds a whole level of bureaucracy. There are people who want more red tape, I suppose, and may see a personal benefit to being one of those commissioners or members of the board of directors, but ultimately it would choke and strangle the legitimate intentions of the first nations community and the elected band council. The commission, in a case like this, would have to have the power to ensure that the rights of non-Indians were protected.

This is established within the acts. In making its rulings, the commission would have to take into consideration the well-being of the non-Indian over whom it would have taxation rights. The commission would also ensure that first nations tax laws are in harmony with those of surrounding municipalities. In other words, what kind of independence is that if the newly established tax commission is in charge and has the authority to dictate tax policy within the first nation? It cannot exceed or go beyond what exists in the surrounding municipalities. Is that not harmonization? It is the very assimilation in practice, if not in name, to which first nations pointed and found so abhorrent in the white paper of 1969.

We keep coming back to this. It almost seems like the government, or at least the Prime Minister, left one job undone in 1969 with the catastrophic failure of the white paper on Indian affairs and it wants to finish that job now in the twilight of this career, and the current Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been charged with the responsibility to see that through.

I pointed out earlier that the white paper of 1969 was met with such derision and opposition that it spawned a whole generation of aboriginal people to rise up and protest. It spawned a generation of activism and that activism is still there today. The only difference is that there are a lot more people who are trained legally and who have been to university who can put up a genuine fight-back campaign now in the courts, if not in the streets by conventional activism.

It begs the question, if the newly formed tax commission has the right to generate revenue, can a first nation then do whatever it wishes with the revenue that it raises? Is it free to spend in accordance with its needs? The answer is no again.

Under the proposed legislation a first nation would be constrained by the proposed governance act, the twin sister, the other side of the coin and the proposed new institutions bill, to spend local revenues only on local infrastructure as approved by the tax commission whose members are appointed by the federal cabinet. What kind of independence is that?

First nations would be allowed to be the tax collectors, but would not be free to spend the taxation any way they want. Any other level of government would be furious. It would be taking to the streets objecting to this heavy-handed imposition, really the will, of the minister. It is a model of which I just cannot imagine anybody approving. First nations would not even be free to spend as they see fit the revenues without the approval of the tax commission, and the commission could veto any bylaw passed by a first nation. Let us remember who the commission is: 12 people hand chosen and appointed by the minister.

First nations would also be required to ask the tax commission for approval of their annual budgets and expenditures. They would be held to a higher standard than the federal government. They would be held to a higher standard than any level of government in the country because as we know, the federal government does not even operate on estimates and expenditures. It is only accountable to what it spent when the Auditor General has time to review the spending pattern of the previous year.

Some provincial governments, to their credit, operate by submitting estimates first, getting them approved and then having their expenditures reviewed. That is the standard to which the federal government would hold first nations. They would have to go before the commission to approve the budget or estimates first, and they would also have their expenditures reviewed and audited by the same tax commission who are appointed by the minister. It is a striking denial of the right of first nations to govern themselves.

It is the antithesis of self-government. It is instituting a Eurocentric colonial view of managing affairs for them because the legislation finds its origins in the premise of the argument established by the Canadian Alliance, that first nations cannot and should not be allowed to do it themselves, that they need the great white father to supervise them because they are incompetent or criminal in their activities, corrupt. That was the pattern being painted by the Canadian Alliance and unfortunately it was bought by the government.

I will close by saying that Bill C-19 cannot be dealt with in isolation. It must be viewed in the context of the whole package of first nations governance legislation that has been coming at aboriginal people like a whirlwind. It has been an overwhelming bombardment of changes to the way they live and do business, and it is all being done from here. It is not being done in cooperation and in conjunction with their needs and legitimate demands. It is being imposed on them. It is the same mistake; it is history repeating itself once again. And the government will not listen.

If the minister was sincere about garnering support, I would be willing to join him to make meaningful change if he would take one step back and start over. Let us move forward with meaningful amendments to the Indian Act, not this language we are dealing with today.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add the point of view of the New Democratic Party regarding Bill C-19.

I begin by saying that we really cannot address Bill C-19 in isolation. It forms part of a suite of bills that have been introduced lately to amend the Indian Act and which are now being dealt with by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources. They are Bill C-6, Bill C-7 and now Bill C-19, all of which really are interrelated and form a package to address certain problems with the Indian Act which, in the minister's opinion, have priority.

I should point out that this opinion is not shared by the leadership of the aboriginal community, by the Assembly of First Nations and by the legitimately elected leadership of first nations in this country. In fact in garnering support for this package of reforms to the Indian Act, the minister has had to go to extraordinary measures, some would say heavy-handed and even bullying measures, to try to solicit support. This has been done by either punishing those who would not co-operate with the amendments, who felt that they were not the priorities that needed to be dealt with and by rewarding those who were willing to participate in consultations and development of the bills, even though many of them have expressed reservations about the misguided prioritization of the minister. We have really seen financial and political retribution used as an instrument by the government to try to sell this reform package to the Indian Act.

I would also like to preface my remarks by saying it was galling for me to listen to the previous speaker from the Canadian Alliance citing Martin Luther King in a very romantic and grandiose style. In my opinion, the Canadian Alliance and the former Reform Party lost their right to quote Martin Luther King when they hired the Heritage Front to be their security at their conventions, et cetera. They certainly have no moral authority on this subject to quote the Reverend Martin Luther King.

I sat in this House while the Canadian Alliance launched a campaign to stop the Nisga'a people from achieving self-governance. It was a comprehensive and longstanding, vicious, bitter campaign to try to withhold that first nation from achieving independence.

They also lost the moral authority when they sent one of their staffers, Greg Hollingsworth, to British Columbia to establish the organization Foundation for Individual Rights and Equality. It sounds like a reasonable organization except it is the anti-Indian movement of British Columbia. The movement has been pulled together by citizens groups who are vehemently opposed to any form of self-governance for aboriginal people. It is a racist organization. It is an anti-Indian organization. Unfortunately, that poison has spread to Ontario now in an equally vile organization called On FIRE.

Specific Claims Resolution Act

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

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the House is scheduled to debate Bill C-6, the Specific Claims Resolution Act. The Canadian Alliance strongly supports speedy resolutions of claims but we cannot support the government bill because it would not accomplish that goal.

In committee the Canadian Alliance introduced more than three dozen amendments to strengthen the independence, transparency and accountability of the Indian claims centre that would be set up under this legislation.

No timelines were mandated in the Bill C-6 process. In fact there are numerous opportunities for the government to stonewall. The proposed structure lends itself to patronage peddling.

Our Canadian Alliance amendments would have sped up the claims resolution process, reduced conflict of interest, increased organizational independence and saved taxpayer dollars. Every one of our amendments was brushed aside, despite support from opposition members.

This bill would offer very little hope to first nations or taxpayers that the backlog of specific claims would ever be resolved in a responsible and expeditious manner.

Points of Order

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, while being totally happy about the continuing support we will be getting from the opposition for our legislation, let me indicate to the House the legislative program for the following days.

This afternoon we will continue the consideration of Bill C-20, the child protection legislation. If and when this is completed, we will then turn to Bill C-19, the first nations' fiscal bill in the name of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

Tomorrow we will commence report stage of Bill C-13, the reproductive technologies legislation. On Wednesday we will call report stage of Bill C-6, the specific claims bill. On Thursday we will resume consideration of legislation not completed and add to the agenda Bill C-22, the family law bill. On Friday, my present plans are to call Bill C-3 respecting the Canada pension plan.

Consultations have taken place between the parties. I believe that you will find unanimous consent for the following motion that I would now like to move for a take note debate.

I move:

That, Wednesday, January 29, 2003, a debate pursuant to Standing Order 53.1 shall take place concerning the situation in Iraq and, that after 9:00 p.m. on the said day, the Chair shall not receive any dilatory motions or quorum calls.

Business of the House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, my response will not be in prose and verse. I just have not been hit yet with the attack of Jingle Bells , which undoubtedly seems to be striking here and there in the House.

We will continue this afternoon with the prebudget debate.

Tomorrow we shall consider report stage of Bill C-3, the Canada pension plan amendments. If there is any time left, we would then proceed with Bill C-15 respecting lobbyists. I intend to speak to other House leaders about that.

I shall communicate directly with members concerning the order of business, when we return from the adjournment on January 27. This will include any of the aforementioned business not completed, which includes: Bill C-3 and Bill C-15, obviously; Bill C-2, the Yukon bill; Bill C-6, specific claims; Bill C-10, the Criminal Code amendment; Bill C-19, the first nations bill; Bill C-20, protection of children; Bill C-22, the divorce legislation; and Bill C-23 respecting certain offenders.

As members can see, there are lots of items on the legislative agenda.

I would like to take this opportunity to express my best wishes for the holiday season and, of course, a happy new year 2003 to all hon. members, our staff and pages, not to mention the busboys.

Committees of the House

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources on Bill C-6, 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, with amendments.

I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources, pursuant to its order of reference dated Tuesday, October 22. Your committee considered Bill C-2, an act to establish a process for assessing the environmental and socio-economic effects of certain activities in Yukon, and reports the bill, with amendments.

Aboriginal Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, in 1993 the Liberal red book promised to establish an independent claims commission to resolve certain types of disputes between the government and first nations. In 1998 a joint task force report from the government and first nations also concluded that a claims commission should be independent and not controlled by the government, but in Bill C-6 the government has broken its promise to have a truly independent claims commission. In committee, the government rejected all amendments that would have brought independence to the commission.

Why is the Indian affairs minister no longer committed to an independent claims commission?

Specific Claims Resolution Act

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-6, 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.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is in the same form as Bill C-60 from the first session of this Parliament. In accordance with the special order of the House of October 7, I request that it be reinstated at the same stage that it had reached at the time of prorogation.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)