Bill C-11 (Historical)

Westbank First Nation Self-Government Act

An Act to give effect to the Westbank First Nation Self-Government Agreement

Westbank First Nation Self-Government Act

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am kind of new at this so I appreciate the correction.

I also want to congratulate the minister's staff and members of the department who have worked so hard on this for many years. I am sure there will be some opposition views and I look forward to hearing them. With anything this complex, which would have such a wide effect, certain views will have to be put on the record from various constituencies, and that is only appropriate.

What I hope to do today is provide some clarification to concerns and to things that may not have been understood. When all sorts of lawyers and people from various orders of government work an agreement for years and years concerns do come up during those times and we try to accommodate them. I think there will be some good responses to some concerns with information of which people may not have been aware.

I enthusiastically support Bill C-11 today and urge the House to adopt the legislation. I would like to thank the members of the House Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources for moving swiftly to approve Bill C-11. With only three technical amendments, the committee clearly recognizes the significance of effective aboriginal self-government and markedly demonstrates its genuine commitment to achieve this worthy goal.

The collaboration exhibited by committee members echoed that displayed by the Government of Canada and the Westbank First Nation during discussions and negotiations that led to the Westbank First Nation self-government agreement. Close collaboration with aboriginal Canadians and first nations leaders is something I am committed to as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

I believe that only through genuine partnership between the federal government and first nations can aboriginal communities achieve effective self-government. Only through open, transparent and accountable governments can first nations build strong, robust economies and healthy, enduring societies. By giving effect to the Westbank First Nation self-government agreement, Bill C-11 is a crucial step forward for the Westbank first nation in pursuance of these aspirations.

The Westbank First Nation has already demonstrated that it knows how to manage its affairs responsibly. This is, after all, an exceptionally progressive and successful aboriginal community. The first nation runs its own provincially licensed day care and early education centre, along with an intermediate care facility for the elderly. It operates its own school and community centre and maintains several recreation facilities, such as beaches, campgrounds and baseball diamonds.

The Westbank First Nation is blessed with spectacular natural beauty. Located on the shores of Lake Okanagan, adjacent to the city of Kelowna, the first nation is ideally situated to benefit from the region's booming economy, and Westbank has made most of these advantages.

The first nation and its members have opened land to development, making it a busy land manager. Today's Westbank commercial district features a number of shopping centres that generate substantial rental income and provide job opportunities for band members. Westbank has established a reputation as a fair landlord, a trustworthy partner and a reliable neighbour. When the Okanagan was ravaged by fires last summer, Westbank provided room and board for firefighters.

I want to do something I have never done before and just repeat a couple of the things I have just said related to the day care, the early education centre, the facility for the elderly, its own school and the recreation facilities. I want to repeat some of the commercial things because to me this is so exciting.

We have heard over the last week, through the aboriginal summit, where the rationale was to reduce the tragic disparity. We have seen the tragic situations across Canada and first nations but sometimes we do not hear these good news stories. This is what it can be. I think every member of Parliament, every member of the parliamentary staff and every member of the department are all here to help people advance in their lives. When we see something like this, it shows us what it is all about. Who could be against that?

When a first nation has a commercial district with a number of shopping centres, it generates substantial rental income for the first nation and it provides job opportunities for the band members. It has established a reputation as a fair landlord, a trustworthy partner and a reliable neighbour. As I said, when the Okanagan was ravaged by fires last summer, Westbank provided room and board for the firefighters.

If those are the types of successes we can have with first nations leadership, all first nations peoples, aboriginal people, Inuit people and the Metis people, can have these types of successes and take their equal place among Canadian communities.

What was perhaps most exciting about the first nation's success is that much of it was accomplished under the limitations of the Indian Act. Now the Westbank First Nation wants to establish a new relationship with the people of Canada, a more equitable relationship that will enable Westbank to realize its full potential.

The self-government agreement gives the Westbank First Nation the tools it needs to continue to develop its community. It will enable Westbank First Nation to create government structures that are both effective and representative. The self-government agreement will foster more economic growth in the community by providing the basis for a stable government and institutions, an essential condition for attracting and retaining investors and business partners.

Close scrutiny of the self-government agreement reveals how it will foster accountability and self-reliance for the Westbank First Nation.

Under the terms of this agreement, key decisions will be made by people most familiar with and most affected by local issues. I am convinced that this will lead to substantive improvements in the economic and social well-being of the Westbank First Nation members.

Westbank leaders believe that these improvements are best accomplished by the Westbank people governing themselves, with a representative and an effective government capable of exercising law-making authority and assuming new responsibility, and so do I.

The bill now before the House would help to establish precisely this type of government. The Westbank First Nation would become self-governing, assuming jurisdiction over and responsibility for its own affairs.

Under the self-governing agreement the first nation will have a range of powers. The Westbank First Nation will have the authority to enact laws in areas such as land and resources management, aboriginal language and culture, among others. It is in these areas that a key feature of the agreement lies. With these new powers the Westbank First Nation will assume control of its resources.

The self-government agreement sets forth the requirements for the establishment and content of a Westbank constitution which is ratified by the first nation at the same time and in the same manner as the self-government agreement. As with the years that were spent on consultations on the agreement, the same was done with the constitution.

The Westbank constitution is crucial because it enshrines the community's government structures and processes, from electing officials to establishing financial accountability standards, to procedures for creating laws. It also sets out the community's governing principles and guiding philosophy.

The constitution the Westbank worked diligently to create is especially significant because it was developed by the members of the community. The constitution reflects the wishes of the Westbank people, not the views of consultants and lawyers. The constitution is also a product of the first nation's consultative approach. A group of dedicated community volunteers worked tirelessly day after day and night after night for nearly a year to draft this law.

Community meetings were held to put forward ideas, discuss issues and work through Parliament. When a consensus was finally reached and the constitution was drafted, copies were distributed to all and once again people were invited to comment. Following the final round of consultations, members of the Westbank First Nation ratified and adopted the constitution.

This consensus building strengthened the constitution and will improve governance. People are more likely to respect laws and participate in governing structures that they helped to create.

Through this constitution-making process, Westbank has shown that difficult issues can be overcome through consultation and genuine understanding. It has demonstrated that an agreement can be tailored to fit local circumstances and that the rights and interests of everyone involved can be respected.

To better foster relations with non-residents of Westbank lands, the Westbank First Nation will create a mechanism to ensure that non-member residents will have input into laws that will affect them directly.

I want to speak about this very innovative section of the legislation which is not necessarily in other agreements across the country.

Westbank has over 7,000 residents who are not members of the first nation. Its members only number in the hundreds. It is a very unique situation and a wonderful partnership. This provision would give those people, through a mandatory law formation, a say into what goes on in the area. There is an advisory council right now but if the agreement is signed people will have even more say into what is going on in the area. If the bill becomes law it cannot be changed without their consent. It is not that they have any major problems, but this is an exciting mechanism that will allow people who are not first nation members to have a lot more input than they would normally have. However they would not have stayed on their land if they had not been happy with the professional way their taxes were being handled and their land was being managed by the Westbank leaders. The opposition critic has put this very eloquently in an article.

The legislation marks a significant improvement over the Indian Act, which has no such requirement. In short, Westbank will establish and maintain an effective and accountable government within the constitutional framework of Canada.

The government will respect Canadian law and recognize that all members on Westbank land, like Canadians everywhere, are subject to the Criminal Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

For the information of those who may not be aware of how these agreements work, the Criminal Code of Canada does apply to everyone throughout Canada. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has and will continue to apply fully on the reserve with the same sensitivity to first nations that is guaranteed to all Canadians in the Constitution. The same applies with regard to human rights. This is something people wanted and it will continue. There were some concerns about one of the amendments but it was made quite clear that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will continue to apply fully as it always has.

I am convinced that enacting the self-government agreement will benefit not only members and non-members of the first nation residing on Westbank land but also the people of Canada overall. Strong, self-reliant first nations have much to contribute to Canada economically, socially and culturally.

The people of Westbank are clearly ready to fulfil their obligations. They have been working toward this agreement for more than a decade. They have staged 400 information and consultation sessions. They have secured the support of municipal and regional governments, chambers of commerce, labour unions and a broad range of special interest groups. Enacting the Westbank agreement will certainly have a positive impact outside the province.

Although it is the third self-government agreement in British Columbia and the seventeenth in Canada, it is the first stand alone self-government agreement under Canada's inherent right's policy. This is an important milestone.

This agreement demonstrates that the Government of Canada can work with first nations to arrive at agreements tailored to the specific needs of a community. This agreement was signed on behalf of the people of Canada and the Government of Canada will do its utmost to make sure that the decade's worth of hard work was not done in vain.

I want to talk for a minute about another concern that was raised in committee at report stage, and that was the issue of adding to reserves and municipal involvement in that, although I think it has been clarified in those stages.

Adding land to reserves is an authority of the Government of Canada. It happens from time to time when there are obvious needs. As first nations grow and as their needs change, reserves have to be adjusted to effectively provide the land, the services and the needs for that first nation.

This is an authority of the federal government that is exercised across Canada, and will continue to be exercised with or without this agreement. Therefore, the agreement has no effect on this authority. The concern in that respect is not relevant. It cannot be changed for one particular community. We cannot tell one municipality in that it cannot collect property taxes while all others have that power and we cannot change the criminal law in one community, such as grand theft. It is a law across Canada.

This is a national policy where the federal government adds land to reserves. However, the policy states that the government will consult with first nations, provincial or territorial governments and the affected municipality. In fact there has been an addition to this reserve, but it has taken a long time because of the consultation with the municipality. Municipalities are protected under the policy. If there are any additions to reserves, it is done in a very cooperative and consultative manner.

In urban reserves, which we talked about earlier this month, there are agreements on services and all kinds of cooperative agreements before those things are put into place.

We have been entrusted with the aspirations of this wonderful first nation, and I ask the House for its full support in providing the tools needed to build its community and to build on the vision on the Westbank first nation.

There has been an exciting mood in town this week, starting with the aboriginal summit where some very historic partnerships have been made. We have dealt with aboriginal issues and bills every day this week in the House. There was great cooperation last night among all members of the House. This builds great momentum as everyone here wants to help first nation people move forward.

It is with great pride and excitement today that I introduce Bill C-11 for third reading and enthusiastically ask everyone in the House to support it.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

moved that Bill C-11, an act to give effect to the Westbank First Nation Self-Government Agreement, be read the third time and passed.

[The Speaker]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motions at report stage of Bill C-11. The question is on Motion No. 1.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a serious challenge in front of me today. There are, presumably, some 170 Liberals in the House who are listening intently to the arguments being made from this side today. My challenge is to somehow persuade them to favour the amendments that are being proposed so that we avoid disasters in the future.

I often think of the analogy of being a chess player. I have always enjoyed that game. It is a game that requires forethought. It is a game where one does not look just at the present move because if one does, one will almost certainly lose, unless one is playing with an opponent who also only looks at the current move. One must look at the second move and the third move and at what one's opponent may or may not do. In order to pass good laws we have to look at the consequences of those laws after they have been enacted to see what actually will happen.

The plea that I make to the members opposite today is to listen carefully to what is being said from this side and to actually, regardless of what their minister says or what the Prime Minister says, use their own judgment and carefully judge the impact of passing this law unamended.

I want to be a little more specific here. We have in our society a number of arrangements for how we live together. It used to be in our family, when we had all of the children still at home, that I as the dad often got my way, but just as often I did not. As a matter of fact, I was outnumbered four to one when it came to a family conference. I had to use arguments of persuasion if I wanted the family to agree on a certain task.

I also live in a little community. We happen to live out on one of those little acreage developments where there are 16 neighbours on a 40 acre or 80 acre parcel of land. I am not exactly sure how much it has extended beyond. For 17 years I was treasurer of our residents association. We had different rules that regulated what our association could and could not do. We agreed on those. We had meetings where we set up, in essence, a charter. That charter said what was permitted and what was not. When the neighbours came along and said that they wanted to have a big party and that the association should pay for it, I was the treasurer who said that we would not do that. I said that if they wanted a party they would have to collect from each of the people who came to the party and that would pay for the expenses of the party. I told them that they could not use our association money for that because it was to be used for other things, such as grass cutting, running the lights in the community and those types of things. We had those rules.

We also lived in a municipality and there are all kinds of rules in a municipality. I cannot build my garage any closer than four feet from the boundary of my property. I must put my garbage out on Tuesdays or they have no obligation to pick it up. I must pay my municipal taxes, which, by the way, I must pay with money that I have already paid tax on. That is why I have a private member's bill that says that property taxes should be exempt from federal income tax. One should not have to pay tax on money earned for the sole purpose of paying tax. However that is what we get in this federal government.

Beyond that, I am a member of the population of the province of Alberta, so I have to comply with provincial rules and regulations. One of the rules is that I must drive on the right side of the road, with which I comply most happily. Another rule says that on the road from my house up to the main highway I shall not exceed 80, with which I also comply very happily.

I believe we have rules that regulate us in that society. Now we get to the crunch. We are also Canadian citizens. Every one of us who calls Canada home is subject to the rules and laws of the Government of Canada. Those rules include a whole bunch of things, like the necessity of paying income tax, EI, CPP and complying with different aspects of the criminal code and other things. Of course the laws of Canada also provide us certain protection.

There is a myth going around that unless it is in the charter it is not necessarily a right. I disagree with that. There are many items and aspects of our lives which I believe we all have in an inherent right. It is not granted by the charter. It was not granted by Pierre Trudeau and his crew way back in 1982. In some instances the charter simply articulates rights which we already had. We have to ensure that we remember that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is simply an articulation of some of the rights that we have, but at any rate it is a rule that we have to live under.

If Bill C-11 is passed without amendments, I am very concerned about the application of the Charter of Rights under the bill. It is tremendously troubling.

I can live in my county and have all the rights of the charter that apply to me. If I were to live in the Westbank, suddenly I would not have some of the rights or at minimum it would be questioned whether I could apply those rights. I would have to go to court, as a citizen of that part of the country, to demonstrate that the charter applied to me. That is a very serious error, and I beg those 170 some Liberal members over there who are patiently listening to this to think like a chess player. Think about what will happen after the bill passes and somebody gets up to challenge it.

I know we want to trust the natives. Of course we do. We want to all trust each other. The purpose of the law is to restrain those who prove not to be trustworthy by themselves. The present government seems to be doing fine in the Westbank. However, some time in future the Westbank government may decide to do certain things which are deemed a violation of someone else's rights who live there. In fact one could even argue right now about the demand by it to collect property taxes, which it is already doing. That demand is one of the things which it presumably can carry on with, yet we find that the people from whom it is collecting taxes have no right to vote in respect to that municipal-like government.

Is that not a violation? Why would we put into law the ability of that local government to have a serious violation of our country's laws in terms of the ability to vote for the government that has control over our lives and property? That is a serious error. Why would the government want to pass the bill unamended and allow such a potential error to come in to part of the governance of the country?

In conclusion, this is a very serious matter. It is not one to be rushed through suddenly before Parliament prorogues and we have an election. It is one that requires serious thought. We need to look at the moves beyond just the passing of the legislation. We need to look at the consequences. I persuade, I beg, I cajole the members who are in majority in the House and who have the control to act wisely and to make wise decisions as our prayer says every morning.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today to Bill C-11 and the amendments that have been brought forward by members of the official opposition.

By way of preamble to what I have to say and for the benefit of those who may be listening in the gallery or perhaps on television to the debate in the House of Commons, I would like to state where I as a person am in this whole thing.

Over the last 25 years my wife and I have been foster parents. We have actually been foster parents for 32 years but 25 years ago we brought into our house a native child. He is almost 25 years old now and he is on his own. He is working his way through a degree at a college and is a very fine young man. He is part of the first nations community on the west coast of Vancouver Island.

After that we fostered a number of other children, among them a number of native children. We now have three native children in our family. One is a 19 year old daughter who is part of the Blood Tribe from southern Alberta and another is a 17 year old daughter who is part of the Siksika nation from around Gleichen in Alberta.

Because of our involvement with first nations children, we were drawn into involvement with the wider aboriginal community in Canada and have continued over the years to keep very current on what was happening with our aboriginal brothers and sisters across the country.

At the present time, after 32 years of fostering, we have a three year old native child who has been in our home since she was six months old.

I am also the member of Parliament for Nanaimo—Cowichan. Because of that role, I have sometimes struggled with the native and non-native communities as they try to come to agreement over the treaty process that is in place in British Columbia. We have the Snuneymuxw First Nation in my riding that is attempting to hammer out an urban agreement with surrounding neighbours in the Nanaimo area.

For a year and a half I was the senior critic for Indian affairs for my party and in that role I touched base with a lot of native people across Canada. Before that, I had been part of accountability groups that had sprung up across the country where native people were coming with their concerns about what was happening on reserve. I do not come to this in a vacuum. I come to it with a lot of heartfelt tugs because of my native children and I come to it with some pretty practical observations of what I have seen happen on reserves and with our native population across Canada.

Then we come to a treaty like this, the third major treaty that will be struck in British Columbia since the 1870s when we only had the Douglas treaties on Vancouver Island. How do we balance the need to free up our aboriginal people to manage their own concerns in a way that brings economic prosperity and stability to them and which helps to bring them into the mainstream of Canadian life in some kind of equality? I am not talking about assimilation. That is something that will or will not take place depending upon people's individual choices.

However, how do we get over the hurdles that are in our native communities where in some native communities in my riding there is 80% to 85% unemployment? When I walk down the street of one of the major shopping areas in my riding I see many native children, teenagers, young adults simply lounging around on the streets with an aimless look in their eyes because they have no hope for the future. They have been hit by some of the social problems that invade native communities and non-native communities as well. I think of alcoholism and fetal alcohol syndrome which, incidentally, is troubling two of our children. We know the effects of that and what parents go through. We know the pain that it brings to people's lives.

How do we get rid of those problems for our native people, let alone the non-native population? We have to do something. We have to move forward with our native brothers and sisters so they can start taking control of their own destiny and not have it in the hands of government all the time.

I come to an agreement like this and I am torn. I see within the agreement steps that can be taken to move aboriginal people forward in terms of economic prosperity, where they can take charge of the economy and create jobs for their people to get them out of this cycle of social welfare dependency. Yes, that is what we need to see take place on reserves. We need to see that take place for urban aboriginals who often are a forgotten people within the whole context of the native situation in Canada.

At the same time, in this particular agreement, we do have some problems, and they are not just problems for the Westbank or for the city of Kelowna. They are problems for the whole of Canada as we move forward with trying to bring a resolution to the treaty process and to bring prosperity to aboriginal communities.

Therefore we have proposed some amendments to the bill today that would, for instance, remove references to inherent right of self-government, which I know we talk a lot about but which has never been settled as to what it means. We do not really know what that means.

In all its years of negotiating with native people, the government has never been able to come up with a real definition that would help move this across the country so we would not have this kind of uncertainty at the end of the treaty process.

It does bring uncertainty. It is bringing uncertainty into the Snuneymuxw agreement that is being hammered out in the Nanaimo area where it is just natural that non-native people wonder what will happen to lands that may be available under fee simple purchase in the centre of Nanaimo or the centre of Gabriola Island. Unless these things are very carefully hammered out and there are good applications of both law and justice in this process, we will have lingering festering problems after treaties are struck for a long time.

There is a need for certainty, transparency and for clarification around some of these issues so that we can truly go forward together.

I do not think we should be rushing into things that would cause us more problems in the future than they have in the past. If, at this point in our history, we are here debating this simply because there is an election coming and it has to be rushed through to be put up on the Liberals' trophy wall some place as another accomplishment, then that is wrong.

I want this treaty to go forward. I want native people to have economic prosperity but I want all of us as Canadians to have equality and justice before the law and before each other.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to stand in this place to debate a bill that I think is possibly not as well known in this country. It is a bill about which a lot of people have a lot of questions, and a bill of which many people are unsure.

I would say that with Bill C-11 there is a certain hesitancy among some to even come to this place to debate it for fear of what the political ramifications and consequences may be. Sometimes good, healthy debate is held back because we become afraid that we might be painted in a way that certainly no one wants to be.

First, I would like to say that over the last two weeks I have had the privilege and the opportunity to travel around my constituency, not talking necessarily about politics, but more about our country, about what our country is and what makes it the great place that it is. Mainly, I do this at schools at the grade six curriculum and the high school curriculum. We talk about the issues, but it flows down to talking about what this country stands for. Who are we? What do we want to become? Where have we come from?

Certainly, I have noticed that there are a number of different categories of people within the schools. There are those who are complacent about who we are as Canadians and what our country stands for. They think this is a place, a boundary, where we live that is simply a place where we can find a job and go about the exercise of earning enough money for food, clothing and shelter for those we support or those in our family.

There are others who believe that the country is something they like. There are certain things about this country that they like. Many of the students said they like the fact that they have an education system. They like the fact that there is a health care system here that they can count on when they need it. Others talked about some of the freedoms that they enjoy.

I met a couple of young Canadians, Sara, Alyssa and Matthew Olafson. Although they are very young, they talked about what their country is and why they enjoy living where they live. When we went into the high schools, many of the students talked about the fact that we can have different ideas, we can believe something different, yet we can be heard. They talked about freedom, the freedom to choose, and the freedom to become whatever they may want to be.

They talked about equality of Canadians. They talked about having a country where, regardless of skin colour, regardless of social status, and regardless of the size of the bank account, there are some absolute givens that we can appreciate. They like the fact that this is a democracy. They love the fact that we can choose who supports us. We can choose the government that will lead us. We can choose the MP, the MLA, the county councillor who will represent us in that place where decisions will be made. Those are some of the fundamental ideals in which Canadians believe.

Now we have the federal government coming forward with a piece of legislation that establishes a self-government agreement with the Westbank Indian Band of British Columbia. I would submit that much of what has become so important to young Canadians is indeed threatened in this type of legislation. So much of the freedoms, so much of the democracy, and so much of even, yes, equality is put into question in Bill C-11.

This legislation is divisive. So many times in this place we come and we debate certain pieces of legislation that would take a constitutional change. I recognize that this piece of legislation may not take a constitutional change because of section 25 in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There may be certain things, section 35 and other sections, that may not take a constitutional change, but this legislation is divisive.

We have debated issues here that, until provinces come forward and say they need change, I do not even think we should be debating until we know that it is not just an exercise that is going to divide people. This legislation has become very divisive, not only among the greater part of the country, but among every part, aboriginals included.

This piece of legislation that we have before us would shield the Westbank government from the application of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This piece of legislation says that those 500 aboriginals who live on the land in question would have the opportunity to select a level of government and that they would have the ability to choose who would represent them, but the other 7,500 non-aboriginals on the piece of property would not have the ability to choose who would represent them.

One of the fundamentals of democracy is no taxation without representation. That principle is thrown out the window with this piece of legislation.

This piece of legislation sets in motion many different governments. We talk about expecting accountability within government and we talk about transparency in government. When we have so many different governments--629 different governments could be set up if this becomes a precedent--certainly, the idea of accountability and transparency is put into question.

This would be shielding the Westbank government from the charter by saying that it would not have to adhere to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 25 of the charter states:

The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada...any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.

Basically, it says that the laws made up in that third level of government supercede all other laws. The people living there do not have to adhere to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which was given to all Canadians. We believe that this is simply wrong. I want to quote from a paper that I have here. It says:

A Westbank Law, for example, which discriminates between persons residing or working in Westbank on the basis of their race, or some other analogous ground, could not be struck down as a contravention of the Charter.

So much for the idea of equality. So much for the idea of certain freedoms that would be allowed.

Debate is good. Our country is great. One of the outstanding values and one of the outstanding rights that we have is to be able to stand and debate pieces of legislation; however, let me again say that we must be careful before we enshrine a new third level of government.

Self-government within the parameters of a municipal government is something that we would certainly encourage; however, a third level of government is something that we must be very cautious about approaching.

Members should cast aside the political considerations and consider what is right for our country. Let us consider what is right, given the principles of freedom, democracy and equality.

[Rick Casson, Canadian Alliance, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to speak to these amendments that have been brought forward. I want to address most of my remarks to Motion No. 3 which was brought forward by the member for Vancouver Island North.

The amendment asks for some clarification in legislation that had been asked for and referred to by the chief of the Westbank First Nation and also by the mayor of Kelowna. As we get into debating the relevance of the bill and the whole aspect of what this would bring to the table and what it will do to governance right across the country, we have to deal with this amendment very closely. We need more debate and analysis and some more time to look at what the ramifications would be of what is being proposed in Bill C-11.

There are other issues. One that is really important to note is that the member for Vancouver Island North brought motions to committee to have the committee travel, to hold hearings in Kelowna, in the Westbank area, to allow people closely associated with this issue the opportunity to appear in front of the committee to allow their thoughts and ideas to be heard. That is what hearings are about. It is to allow Canadians a chance for input on the issues that are being debated. That was refused. I feel that is very unfortunate because that could have served as a very useful platform to allow many people on both sides of this debate to bring forward issues and to clarify their positions. Without that opportunity being made available in the area where this issue is going to have the most effect was a wrong decision by the government.

The people who did come to committee in Ottawa brought forward some ideas and some issues. Some of the testimony that was brought forward at committee by the mayor of Kelowna and also by Chief Robert Louie is what prompted the amendment by the member for Vancouver Island North. We can zero in on the last sentence. It has to do with the expansion of reserve lands and the governance of the band regarding purchase of land in downtown Kelowna and that it can only be turned into reserve land upon the consent of the city of Kelowna.

In referring to the presentations made at committee and in response to a question from the member for Vancouver Island North, the chief responded:

I can assure you very clearly that the self-government agreement would apply to reserve lands and if we were to look [to] downtown Kelowna, let's say, look to you and say to you, Mayor, council members will you agree to give us 10 acres of reserve here in downtown Kelowna, I would expect, as you've clearly indicated, that your answer would be no. What would happen is we would need to approach the province of British Columbia. The province is required to give their consent and according to the additions to reserve land policy, they would be required to come to you and to the city and to local government, the community, to ask whether or not you would agree.

If the city of Kelowna did not agree, then the province of British Columbia would not agree. This is a roundabout process where this kind of approval would be necessary. What the chief and the mayor of Kelowna are asking for and what the amendment would bring to the bill is the certainty that the consent would have to be given by the city of Kelowna. Without that, it leaves too much in the air. There is a good relationship now between the chief and the mayor, between different levels of government, but as we know, and as some of us hope, governments do change from time to time.

Councils change, mayors change, bands and chiefs change through the electoral process. An agreement that may be here today--a gentleman's agreement or an agreement amongst all parties--could quickly go away if there is a change at any one of those levels. If it gets to be an adversarial approach after that, instead of working together, then there has to be something in the bill to deal with that issue because that is a huge concern to people on both sides of this debate.

I want to put into the record what Mr. Gray said in response to what the chief had to say. He said:

I hear Chief Louie, and of course we know one another. He has a lot of credibility,--

I refer back to the fact that these people understand and appreciate each other's assets. He went on to say:

--we certainly have no issue with the current chief or council, but as elected officials, we all know that elections and people come and go. What we're looking for is some sort of certainty.

Here we have it from both sides. They want some clarification on the issue. This amendment would give that clarification. I hope it is supported when it is brought to the floor because it is exactly what has been asked for

The mayor of Westbank First Nation said:

We certainly don't want to stand in the way of progress. In fact, the contrary is true. We want to cooperate.

Why will the government not consider an amendment to a bill that would allow that cooperation to take place, allow that certainty to be embedded, and allow this mutual respect and this mutual working together for the mutual good of both areas so this issue is clarified? I am going to quote again from the committee:

--the point we want to make is that there has to be some assurance, whether it's within this agreement or some other way, that we would not be creating two classes of property owners in the city of Kelowna--

That is the mayor's concern. This means that property owners who pay taxes, all of those property owners who currently exist, face the possibility at a future date of a property owner with Westbank first nation reserve status becoming a non-tax paying property owner. He went on to say:

I am not entirely sure that we get to tell the province or the federal government or the federal minister that we don't want something and therefore it won't happen.

The mayor is asking for that certainty. He is unclear at this point in time whether his position would be accepted by other levels of government.

There are a lot of issues that need to be addressed. It would help put aside a lot of the debate that is going on, particularly on the property rights issue, if this amendment were looked at for what it was intended to do.

The members for Vancouver Island North and Macleod, and I had an opportunity this past winter to meet with native people at the Friendship Centre in Lethbridge. We had two days of informal hearings where we heard a lot of very interesting and sometimes very troubling testimony from grassroots natives. Some would not appear because they were afraid to do so, and that says a lot about some of the situations that these people face.

One of the issues is the property rights issue and the ability for people on reserves to own their property, to have equity in that property, and to be able to engage in financial situations that the rest of us are entitled to. The other issue was the rights of native women. We heard a lot about these two issues, but I am not sure that Bill C-11 would deal with them in a direct way.

If we have an opportunity as a legislative body to bring some clarity to a controversial issue, then why would we not? I believe we should. I believe the government should look at this amendment and accept it in order to bring certainty to the people involved so that in the future when this issue does arise, it will be clearly stated that permission would not be granted to have reserve land in the middle of the city without the consent of the City of Kelowna. It is clear and plain, and it is something the House should support.

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-11 on the Westbank agreement.

I want to comment on some of the heartfelt remarks that my colleague made and the good work that he did for the party. We went into the aboriginal communities and talked to the people who live there to find out the situation and what they thought, rather than just taking the views of representatives of the aboriginal community who make a living out of lobbying the government.

As representatives of the people in this place, we are their only voice when it comes to government legislation. We often forget that role. We get taken in by the government bureaucrats' position. We are presented with a finished product and we either approve it or reject it. We forget that we are here to speak for the people out there who will have to live with the legislation.

I spent 15 years in Canada's north living with the aboriginal community. I have some very real experiences of the differences between the aboriginals who happen to be registered with the government and those who for whatever reason were never registered. The difference in the way they are treated is incredible. Members of one part of the aboriginal community, and many of them share the same bloodline, are given almost everything they require and the others are given nothing.

I was employed by the government of Alberta for a period of time to bring self-government to that aboriginal community that was not registered with the Government of Canada. It was part of my responsibility to prepare that aboriginal community for self-government, how to run its own community, how to handle the ownership of property, because the Alberta government did give ownership to a community that had squatted on Crown land for generations.

There is a lot more to it than just a piece of paper and writing things in a statutory way. There are cultural differences. There are lifestyles. There are expectations and emotions. They all become part of being ready for self-government.

My hon. colleague from Wild Rose mentioned that not all of the aboriginal community agree with the direction in which the government is taking them, but they have lost their ability to express their concerns. We forget that it is our job to represent those concerns here before the bill is passed. We try in whatever way we can to say there are concerns and problems but once it is written in statute, it is very hard to undo, to change.

It is going to be very difficult for the people who find themselves somehow left out of this agreement. They are not going to have the same rights as all Canadians. They are not going to have the ability to own land. Many of the people who live on that reserve are not going to be able to vote for the taxes that they are going to be asked to pay, or for the representation that is going to supposedly represent their interests. How are they going to address some of the outfalls of this legislation? It is very important at the end of the day, whether we win or we lose, that this enter into the debate.

It is unparliamentary for members of any party in this House to think or to accuse that there are other motives when an individual, representing whomever, raises issues. Our job is to bring up all the issues and represent all sides of the question.

I would like to express some concerns that I have. Once again, the federal government, as my colleague from Wild Rose said, is rushing to sign on the dotted line to make something statutory. We are not looking far enough down the road and the what direction we should be taking with all Canadians, aboriginal communities and non-aboriginal communities. We should be looking at the broader, bigger picture of equality of all Canadians. We should be making sure that we do not have communities, whether they are aboriginal or non-aboriginal, living in poverty.

I have hands-on experience of the situations about which the member for Wild Rose spoke. I went to communities that I could only fly into. In the wintertime maybe they could drive, if the ground was frozen thick enough. These communities had a health nurse that came maybe every two or three weeks, if the nurse could get in.

I remember arriving at an airport in one community and a man was waiting for a ride out, if he could hitch one. Up in the north people hitch airplane rides, not car rides. He had a gash on his face that was taped together with Scotch tape. It was a deep gash that required stitches, but the health nurse would not be back for another couple of weeks. These people do without the help that we all assume is our right.

I brought potable water into the communities, and treated the water that they used for drinking and cooking purposes. These communities had high incidences of sickness because people were drinking the water from the lakes. In these communities all the houses are built around the lakes. For years, garbage and sewage and whatnot have been going into the lakes. The people drink the water from the lakes or rivers which is a problem.

In trying to deal with their health issues, we were trying to bring them services which we take for granted. Many of these communities do not have roads to connect one community to another. This is what the people want. They want to be able to contribute their opinions and run their communities.

I think the majority of them really do not care about the statutory framework that is being developed by government to allow them to run their communities. These people want to know that they can vote for their representatives. They want to know that they can own property. They want to know that they can develop their communities, develop a fire response team, develop a recreation board, develop good services. They want to be part of that.

They do not want a statutory document stating the parameters, that they will not be able to own their own homes; that we are not going to protect their charter rights, because for whatever reason we might be leaving them out of the charter; that we are not going to guarantee them a democratic government where they get to vote; that we are not going to guarantee any protection for the non-native people who live on the reserve.

I have had first-hand experience where people who had lived on a reserve for 50 years, for two or three generations, automatically overnight were kicked off the reserve for no good reason. No one protected them. It happens. It happened in Musqueam in Vancouver. Situations change overnight and affect the residents.

A statutory declaration or document is not going to protect the people. It may prevent them from developing and growing and running their own community in a natural course of events with people helping them to get to that level without it being a statutory document that encumbers them.

I want to share a story with the House. Senator Walter Twinn represented the area where I spent a good number of my adult years. Walter Twinn's success depended on his finding a loophole in a statutory document that allowed the aboriginal community to get its funds and decision making abilities out from under the control of the federal government. He went on from there to grow his community, to make an income, to hire them to create business and to take his reserve out of poverty. He did it because he found a way to get out of the statutory confinements that were created by the Government of Canada.

I would encourage the government to stop narrowing its thinking by one contract to another and to start looking at the big picture. What do we need to do to free our aboriginal people? I will not make the distinction between registered aboriginals and non-registered aboriginals. To me they all deserve an opportunity to become part of the mainstay of the Canadian population.

I urge the government of the day to think broader, to look longer term and to stop restraining communities through statutory documents.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak to this bill today and to the amendments that have been proposed, which I support fully. I listened intently to the last speaker from the Liberal Party, who obviously speaks from the heart and, in the tone that he spoke, means things for the good of the country. There is no doubt in my mind about it. I believe that he is very sincere about this.

The entire debate has been troubling to me for a number of reasons. I would like to point out some of these things in regard to why the Liberal government of today would be so willing to push this bill through so quickly and bring it to an end.

These are the things that bother me the most. First, it is my understanding that on the reserve the vote was 195 to 170, so obviously there is a split feeling on the reserve itself as to what direction we should be taking. I find it difficult to understand why the government would immediately side with the 195 and why it would not be willing to say, “Wait a minute, there are quite a few people on that reserve who are opposed to this direction”, and then ask itself what it knows about why they are opposed and what they could suggest that would make this thing better. I do not hear that debate happening.

I think we are having a debate to try to draw out all the pros and cons of this bill today. I think that my two colleagues who proposed these amendments have some serious concerns, which I think are reflected in the hearts of a number of Canadians. We are looking for that change to come, but why have we not considered what is happening on the reserve itself? It does not appear to me that we have. It does not appear to me that the Liberal government has, because it is willing to ignore the 170 people against 195, which is a very close vote. That does not make sense to me.

Something else also troubles me. I do not know what the real relationship is between this bill and what was proposed in the Charlottetown accord. I do not remember the particulars of the Charlottetown accord, but it almost appears to me that these documents are very much the same and that this bill is proposing what Canadians rejected in a big way through the Charlottetown accord.

A number of people in my area indicated to me that they were opposed to the Charlottetown accord because of what the elites had done in trying to correct the situation with treaties and first nations and all of that. Yet that was rejected, not only by people of one race, but by all groups. The natives themselves rejected the ideas that came out of the Charlottetown accord.

Why does the government want to move so quickly on getting this bill processed, completed, to third reading and into law without considering the fact that there are quite a few people out there, including natives themselves from that reserve, who are not quite happy with what is going on? What is the rush?

Is it not better to have a good, open debate about this issue in the House, on the reserve and in the communities in order to get a good feel for what we need to do--if we are going to do anything--and at least make every effort that we can to make it right? Obviously it must not be very right because of the great debates that are taking place not only in Canada as a whole but on the reserve itself.

Why is the government so adamant about pushing forward legislation when obviously, in the minds of a number of people in this country, we are not ready for it without further discussion? I do not mean the kind of discussion that the fool from the Regina area gave us from the NDP in his speech when he did not refer to the bill at all but just went into name calling and did not contribute anything whatsoever to the debate. I wonder if he feels the same way about the 170 people on the reserve who are opposed to this bill as he feels about the Conservative Party members who are opposed to this bill.

I wonder if he feels that way. Would he have the guts to stand up somewhere in this country and tell those 170 people what he tried to tell us this morning? What a bunch of nonsense. People like that should be left totally out of the debate. They contribute nothing.

I am really fearful that we are moving in this direction when there are too many people, including natives, who are not satisfied with this Bill C-11. Why are we pushing it so quickly? Is it not better to keep the debate going, open it up more broadly and, if we are going to do something, when we do it, we do it right? Is it not better to take the feelings of this Liberal member who just spoke into account, along with those of all the other people who are involved and concerned about it? Then we can put it together and see if we cannot come up with a decent package. Obviously the government now does not have a package that is very acceptable.

Why do the Liberals want to support it when so many people are speaking out against it? Never mind just the Conservative Party; let us talk about the other folks as well.

The member from Vancouver North made a very strong point this morning. For 50 years now, we have watched poverty grow and conditions worsen on the reserves to the point that they are in third world conditions. We still have not fixed that problem. Over the last 10 years it has been no better. In fact, it has become worse on many reserves.

I was assigned by Preston Manning, our first leader, to go into the reserves and do a study on this issue. For nearly two years, I visited people in their homes, their huts and their tepees, you name it. I know what those conditions were. If the government over there has such brilliant ideas and is so wonderful, then why has there not been some improvement in those conditions? Why have we not made accountability on the reserves a very major concern in the country?

Lo and behold, it is starting to come to light. When the government does not even have accountability in its own cabinet and we must have hours and hours of debate in committee about the accountability of this government, how can we expect anything good to happen outside the government when it is in control?

It is time for us to really sit back and say that there is something totally wrong with the big picture. This big picture needs to be addressed and we are not doing a very good job of it when the reserves that I went into in 1994 are worse off in 2004. Unemployment is higher. Homelessness is higher. Addiction and abuse rates are higher. Crime rates are higher. And this government wants to brag about all the wonderful things it is doing?

Now it wants to shove through a bill that 170 people, an almost fifty-fifty split on the reserve itself, are not satisfied with. What in the world is the rush? Surely the government should take a serious look at the amendments and ask if they improve the situation. Maybe it should go out and ask the people on the reserve what they think of the amendments and ask what else we can do to make it better.

No, that outfit over there is going to have a vote on the bill very soon. It wants to get it passed. For what reason? For all the wrong reasons, as far as I am concerned. Until we get a lot more support for the action that we are taking in this building, why do we want to be in such a rush? I am really puzzled by all of that.

Last, but certainly not least, why would we ever want to live in a country where 93% of a population in an area is being taxed without representation? Why would we want to live in a country with a democracy of that type? Have we forgotten the number of countries in the past--let us talk about the history of the world, as a matter of fact--whose citizens fought and died on the bloody grounds of war, fighting for representation? Taxation without representation in Canada? Whoa, I am not sure I like that at all. Those members over there should think about it. They should think about it before jumping up to support something that would allow such a thing to happen. Where do we live? I say, let us give this some considerable thought. I ask them, in the name of democracy, to give it some serious, considerable thought.

[Darrel Stinson, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today we are speaking to the amendments to Bill C-11, the Westbank agreement. I have some concerns with the bill, and I am in full support of the amendments.

I often read as much as possible about what is happening in Canada. I read a headline in an article stating, “Ottawa continues to blunder its way into the future in its British Columbia operations”. This was an editorial regarding the Westbank legislation, and it raised concerns with me.

First, we were sent here to draft the best legislation we possibly could for the benefit of the Canadian people. I decided to look a little farther. With regard to the Westbank agreement, the Westbank members themselves were very split on this legislation coming forward. I want everybody to realize that there were grave concerns among the Westbank people about the agreement. It actually took three votes by the Westbank members to agree to this.

It took three votes and it was successfully passed on the third vote because they reduced the required majority to a simple majority vote. Of the 430 eligible Westbank voters, 195 voted for and 170 voted against. That should be enough to raise concerns in the House right now. We are talking about an almost even split. To put it in another perspective, we have a divided community on this.

Another large concern is 7,500 residents were not allowed to cast a ballot on this. That native population is not registered on the band registry as eligible to vote. This also raises a major point. We are talking about people who will now be living on these lands, who will be subject to taxation for services, but who absolutely have no say in the matter.

I want to make it clear that the present band administration in Westbank is very progressive, and that is a good thing. They have a reputation as being excellent managers. They are not the first band members in the Westbank to be so acclaimed. Previous band administrators have also been so acclaimed.

In this party we believe that aboriginal people have a right to self-government, but not under the level of government we are trying to set up here. We have grave concerns, concerns which we hear from the people.

My learned colleague from Okanagan—Coquihalla is not concerned about the rights under the charter, but it is a concern with a number of us. I have concerns with how far the protection of the charter will apply under this agreement, and it is of grave concern to the public. I have had a number of calls, e-mails and faxes in regard to what will happen if this is allowed to go through without being properly addressed.

The fundamental right of all Canadians is protection under the charter. I also believe that we would not be in this mess if we had been more insightful in the past in regard to private property rights. I strongly believe that all individuals have the right to own private property, either on reserve or off reserve, which includes individual members on reserve.

I know I will have disagreement from all sides of the House on that and there will be disagreement from natives who live on and off reserves as well. Some will agree with me and there will be some who definitely will not agree with me. That is the way it is, but I strongly believe that all individuals have that right.

I also believe that it is the fundamental principles of a democratic government that those governing must represent the people to the extreme with regard to laws. That means that those who govern are elected by the people in most cases. That principle should apply to all government levels, as it does federally, provincially and municipally. That right will be taken away by this agreement, and that concerns me.

Laws and regulations apply to those who are elected. They must be Canadian citizens and be 18 years or older. They must not have a criminal record even though criminals are allowed to vote now in Canada, which I find highly distasteful.

The Westbank self-government agreement divides residents on Westbank land into two groups: those who are on the Westbank membership roll and those who are not. Those who are on the roll may vote and the others may not. To be on the roll, one must be registered as an Indian under the Indian Act. Any residents on Westbank land who are not on the membership roll are disenfranchised, in my opinion. Of the approximately 8,000 residents who live on Westbank land, about 500 are on the roll and 7,500 are not.

The practical impact of this is that any law, regulation, administration act, or band council decision is determined without electoral representation on that council or about 93% of the people who reside there. I find this hard to accept as I would imagine the people who live there do as well.

In the day to day operations of any self-government or any band, laws will be made and implemented with regard to property taxes, licensing fees, user fees, development cost charges, permit fees, infrastructure and local services. Those who live there for the large part have no say on those matters, and I find that highly questionable.

We should look at Motion No. 3 very carefully. I would like to read this motion to the House because it is important for people to understand the concern that this agreement is causing local communities. It reads:

That Bill C-11 be amended by adding after line 13 on page 2 the following new clause:

4.1 Despite section 102 of the Agreement, lands acquired by the Westbank First Nation that are contained within the limits of the city of Kelowna, British Columbia, may be transferred to Canada for the purpose of being set apart as lands reserved for Indians under subsection 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867, or as reserves within the meaning of the Indian Act for the use and benefit of the Westbank First Nation, only with the consent of the City of Kelowna.

That is an excellent amendment. It would offset many concerns with regard to portions of land sitting within the city of Kelowna and how the bill impact on that area of land within the city. It has many people concerned as it would apply to those people who live on that land within the city limits.

I urge members of the House to take the amendments into consideration. They are good amendments and should be looked at very carefully. As I said at the beginning of my speech, the Westbank community itself, the aboriginals themselves who reside there, are almost evenly divided on this issue.

[John Bryden, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to take this debate in a slightly different direction than it has been so far this morning and comment on clause 16 in the bill before us which is a related amendments clause. It says:

Subsection 13(3) of the Access to Information Act is replaced by the following:

(b) the council, as defined in the Westbank First Nation Self-Government Agreement given effect by the Westbank First Nation Self-Government Act.

Well, Mr. Speaker, section 13 of the Access to Information Act requires the government to keep in confidence information it has received from either a provincial government, or a foreign government, or an aboriginal government. Mr. Speaker, this section basically denies public access, particularly as we read here, to the debates, the exchange of information with the council of the Westbank nation.

The reason why section 13 exempts foreign governments is obvious but the reason why it exempts provincial governments from the application of the Access to Information Act and the requirement for transparency that is therein contained is that provincial governments, that other order of government, all have freedom of information legislation of their own.

Municipal governments across the country are subordinate to provincial governments. It varies from province to province, but if provincial governments want to require municipalities to have freedom of information or access to information legislation, then the provincial governments can impose it. Indeed, if I may say so, in come cases provincial freedom of information and privacy legislation is better than the federal law.

However, what we see here is an instance where the federal legislation is creating an exemption for all aboriginal governments. We can see the problem. For some reason the federal government has decided that aboriginal communities and aboriginal governments will be excluded from the requirement for transparency and accountability that is required of every other order of government and indeed just about every other institution that is subordinate to government in the country.

So we have this again, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is something that every Canadian should be very concerned about, we have a situation where because it is an aboriginal community, it is given, shall we say, a benefit of secrecy that is not accorded to non-aboriginal communities and non-aboriginal orders of government.

We need to be very concerned about this. We know from our own experience, anecdotally perhaps, that those institutions that operate without transparency, those institutions that have money to spend and influence to use, to apply, in order to benefit friends, to benefit people who should not be benefited, where transparency does not exist in these groups, abuses do occur.

The difficulty is that I think most of us who have had any experience with aboriginal communities at all know that some of the problems that exist in aboriginal communities have to do with the fact that the leaderships of those communities are not accountable and do not have requirements of transparency.

The previous Liberal government attempted to address this problem in a broad sense by something called the corporate governance bill. That bill would have required aboriginal communities to meet standards of governance, standards of transparency, standards of election and disclosure that were at least parallel to the same standards that we would find in the municipalities across Canada, that we would find in school boards and in any other political or quasi-political institutions in the land.

I regret to say, Mr. Speaker, and I really regret to say that the current government, under this Prime Minister, has not carried forward on that important legislation. Many of us who have long experience on the aboriginal affairs committee and many of us who have had experience with aboriginal communities in our own ridings know that one of the fundamental reasons for poverty and distress on Indian reserves and in Indian communities across the country has to do with the fact that there is not the level of transparency, there is not the level of accountability, and the money is getting to the leadership in too many cases and not getting to the people. It is a management problem that could be addressed by transparency, which would lead, I think, to increased efficiencies.

Really, we should not, anywhere in this country, want to see any kind of political entity operating without the legislated requirement of transparency. If there is an inherent right of all Canadians, it is the right to be able to see how we are governed, to see how those who govern us spend our money.

What we have done in this legislation, in this Bill C-11, is that the federal government, on its initiative--on its initiative, Mr. Speaker--has excluded the Westbank nation from coverage under the Access to Information Act, even though everywhere else in the country provincial legislation applies to municipalities. Those municipalities or school boards that do not have adequate transparency regimes are still subject to provincial law and could have them, but in this particular case aboriginal self-government is entirely subject to federal law and we have this instance where the federal government has chosen--I do not like to say this--chosen based on race to exclude a government from the proper regime of transparency that we expect of all other Canadians.

So, Mr. Speaker, I think this is a major flaw in the bill. It is very, very disappointing. Because of other circumstances my attention has been diverted in the last month and a half or so, but I am very, very sorry that I do not have an opportunity to move an amendment, because what we really ought to see in this legislation is that we ought to see the Westbank First Nation subject to the Access to Information Act.

I should tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the Access to Information Act is an act that provides protection for all kinds of confidences. The federal government, this federal government, operates very effectively under the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act, and so there is no reason why an aboriginal first nation government could not operate under the Access to Information Act.

So it is a disappointment, Mr. Speaker, and I think it does have to do with a weakness in the charter. I tend to agree with many of the speakers who spoke before me. It is too bad that the charter basically exempted Canada's first nations, Canada's aboriginals, from the application of the charter. It does so in section 25. I will read it, if I may, because I think it is important for Canadians to know what section 25 says. The rest of the charter describes all the protections that Canadians have, freedom of speech and democracy and so forth, and then section 25 goes on to say:

The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada--

In other words, what the charter does is put aboriginal rights, as defined by treaty or other means, above or beyond the charter. This is precisely the debate that we are carrying on today. Is it right, is it proper, for any aboriginal community or any aboriginal government to be able to operate outside the charter?

So, Mr. Speaker, I really do think that what is really necessary is not to repeat this type of situation over and over again. What is really necessary is for the government to rethink its entire strategy with respect to Canada's first nations and treat them in law like other Canadians.

[Andy Burton, Canadian Alliance, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address this very important issue.

I come from British Columbia and probably have a different view on the whole situation with regard to treaties, land claims and agreements. The B.C. situation is quite different from that in the rest of Canada. Elsewhere treaties have been in place for a lot of years. In B.C. there were only two very small treaty areas prior to the Nisga'a agreement of some years ago. B.C. is wide open and subject to setting a lot of precedents for the future perceivably right across Canada.

I want to say right off the bat that I am very much in favour of resolving this whole land claim and native agreement issue. It is something that is seriously impeding progress especially in British Columbia where any project now has to be vetted by the local aboriginal group. I do not have a big problem with that, except that the vetting process should not be a veto process, which it tends to become from time to time. Resource development projects, which is usually what they are in my part of the world, affect people who live in the area and it is only right that they should have input. I am very concerned when that input for all intents and purposes becomes a veto. This is a huge concern.

Bill C-11 is intended as an act of Parliament to give effect to the Westbank First Nation self-government agreement. The Westbank First Nation is an Indian band within the meaning of the Indian Act. Its principal reserves, IR 9 and IR 10, are located in an area known as Westside adjacent to the city of Kelowna and the unincorporated community of Westbank. The population of the band is 594, 383 of whom lived on the land as of December 2002 but there may be a few more now.

The land is about 24 acres and is partially developed prime residential and industrial land. There are about, and I think this is a really important matter, 7,500 non-Westbank First Nation people who either live or own businesses on the land.

The purpose of the bill is to incorporate by reference the agreement, approve it and give it the effect of law. The agreement is defined as including any future amendments to the agreement. Thus, the bill incorporates by reference and gives the force of law to a document, part of which is not yet in existence. That has to be a major concern. How can we put something into force of law when we do not know how it will be worded or implemented?

This is known as Westbank law. It is to be enacted from time to time by the Westbank council. Westbank law on numerous subjects may be inconsistent with and will prevail over laws passed by Parliament.

The Westbank First Nation has all the attributes of a self-governing enclave. Canadian citizens, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal, living or working there will be subject to a form of government that for most of them is not elected by them and is unrestrained by any of the checks, balances and safeguards that apply to other governmental institutions in Canada.

I quote lawyer Mr. Chris Harvey, who did a fairly significant indepth review of this agreement:

The substance of the act is contained in the agreement of some 84 pages which is referentially incorporated in the act. This is a remarkable piece of legislation. It amounts to an abdication of the sovereign law-making and executive authority of the Crown in Parliament. Its effect on the people residing and working in Westbank is to remove many of the fundamental political and legal safeguards that support their freedoms and security. This is completely out of character in a modern liberal democracy committed to equality of opportunity and individual rights. It is surprising to see basic legal rights which have been acquired gradually over many years of political struggles being so abruptly discarded.

Many of the provisions of this legislation are contrary to accepted norms of parliamentary practice in Canada. Some of the provisions are so clearly inconsistent with such norms that they may be said to be unconstitutional in law.

Every citizen of Canada, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike, is entitled to be governed by laws which are passed or authorized by a democratically elected parliament, provincial legislature, or town council for that matter. Law-making authority may be delegated down to subordinate institutions, but it is not acceptable in such an arrangement that the subordinate institutions be authorized to supplant Parliament and Parliament's laws by passing laws that are inconsistent with the laws of Canada and prevail over them.

The municipal style government is obviously very successful and is the closest form of government to the citizens of Canada. I was the mayor of a small town for a number of years and was on council for 24 years. I certainly understand how answerable to the people municipal style government is. It is the most direct and closest form of government. It is still delegated down from the province and the federal government.

It has long been held by the highest court in Canadian law that constitutional powers in Canada are wholly and exhaustively distributed between the federal and provincial governments. The concept of a third order of government, though much discussed in economic and political circles, has never gained recognition in Canadian constitutional law.

The academic debate as to whether there exists in law an inherent right of self-government is reflected in section 1(a) of the agreement which provides:

The purpose of this agreement is to implement aspects of the inherent right of self-government by Westbank First Nation on Westbank lands based on the recognition that the inherent right of self-government is an existing aboriginal right within section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The inference in this statement is that such a right was an existing aboriginal right when the Constitution was passed and that Parliament has been asked merely to recognize that fact in this section of the agreement. This is plainly incorrect.

In a recent case the Newfoundland Court of Appeal again affirmed the sovereignty of Parliament. In Dawe v. the Town of Conception Bay South, the judge stated that Parliament and the provincial legislature are established by the Constitution as the supreme and only legislative bodies and given that all power must be founded on the Constitution there is no remaining room for inherent powers of government.

A concern with the Westbank agreement is the protection under the inherent clause that basically would set aside any right for non-aboriginals to make any sort of claim or go to court based on a constitutional matter. That is a big concern.

Although the agreement is expressly not a treaty, it is brought within section 35 of the Constitution Act by the government's recognition of the inherent right of self-government, as I have already said.

It must be remembered that all those living and working on Westbank lands, approximately 90% of whom are not aboriginal or members of the WFN at present, have their full rights and freedoms guaranteed under the charter. Section 15 of the charter provides:

Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and the equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability.

The charter further provides:

Notwithstanding anything in this charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.

Without altering the legislative authority of Parliament or the provincial legislatures or the rights of any of them with respect to the exercise of their legislative authority, Parliament and the legislatures, together with the Government of Canada and the provincial governments are committed to promoting equal opportunities for the well-being of Canadians.

Although I have a lot more to say on this issue and hopefully will have the chance, I will close by saying that these fundamental rights which have been developed in Anglo-Canadian law and reach back to the Magna Carta are today more or less all grouped together in the charter. Rightly or wrongly, they are referred to as charter rights.

This is why Bill C-11 and the agreement need careful scrutiny. A simple amendment is needed to remove reference to the inherent right of the aboriginal right of self-government and to section 25 of the charter, so that all citizens would have unimpeded access to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-11, the Westbank first nation agreement.

My frustration with the entire bill and the debate is the fact that most of the discussions that centre on aboriginal affairs really do not deal with the fundamentals or the basic principles involved.

I would like to thank both the MP from Delta and the MP for Vancouver Island North for promoting discussion on this issue. I have noticed that it is primarily the Conservative Party that is discussing the pros and cons of it. However I think we need a bit more discussion on some of the basic principles that have to form the foundation for our dealings with aboriginal people.

The Prime Minister made some grand pronouncements in the last day or two about the need to address aboriginal concerns but he still refuses to get the basics right. I would like to explain what I mean by that.

Before I go ahead with that, I would like to read a bit of our party policy because it forms the basis for what I am going to say today.

The Conservative Party of Canada believes that self-government must occur within the context of the Constitution of Canada. To ensure fairness and equality, a Conservative government will ensure that the charter will apply to aboriginal self-government. Aboriginal self-government must not create a sovereign, third order of government.

The Conservative Party of Canada believes giving aboriginal government the power to raise their own revenues will reduce the cycle of dependency; and that the performance and accountability of aboriginal self-government is enhanced when those who receive services contribute to the cost of those services.

I will discuss the amendments put forward by my colleague from Delta in regard to that.

One amendment was disallowed, and that is primarily the one I want to discuss today. It was an important amendment and we should have taken another look at it.

Our policy statement says that the charter should apply and that aboriginal governments should have the power to raise their own revenues. We need to reduce the cycle of dependency. Let me focus in on that.

It is quite obvious that anyone who has been involved in this debate today cares about the aboriginal people. That is why we are here and that is why we are debating this. Except for some personal slurs by the NDP, I think we have stuck basically to the issues, and I appreciate that.

The point was made previously that there is within the bill the wording that the charter applies with due regard to section 25. That is a major concern for many of us who have looked at this.

I want to focus on the fact that our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is flawed because it omits one of the key essential rights needed in Canada and especially by those who are caught in the cycle of poverty and those who are living on reserves.

Poverty on reserves across Canada is a huge problem. I lived on a reserve for a couple of years so I have firsthand knowledge of how devastating this is to our aboriginal people.

The Department of Indian Affairs spends between $7 billion and $8 billion. If we were to divide this amount of money by the number of aboriginal people covered, it would likely come to more than $15,000 for every man, woman and child. What we need to know is where the money is going.

Aside from that, do we have the fundamental principles, on which these agreements should be based, right? I would argue that is not the case because we have omitted a very key element from our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. What is that key element? We have not included property rights in the charter. In 1982, when Mr. Trudeau brought the charter in, he intentionally omitted it. I think that is a huge flaw and I will explain why. I am going to explain how important that is.

In arguing my case, I will turn to one of the world's leading experts on this issue who, by the way, has the support of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister underscored the fact that the principles enunciated by this man needed to be brought to Canada and implemented in Canada. This man is also supported by another prominent person in the western world, Mr. Bill Clinton. So these principles are not to be dismissed quickly as principles enunciated by someone of a certain partisan persuasion.

The man's name is Hernando de Soto. He is head of the Peru based Institute for Liberty and Democracy. He has authored some excellent books which I would recommend people read who are in involved in the discussion on this Westbank agreement. Time Magazine and The Economist have all explained and pegged Mr. de Soto as one of the emerging voices of influence and someone whose ideas will form the basis for future agreements. His ideas are having a huge influence on the world. It is about time we got some of those principles right here in Canada.

In simple terms, Mr. de Soto argues that property conquers poverty and it is the poor people who benefit most from property rights. “A poor person's land assets should be identified and should be registered”, he argues, “and then they would have the assets on which to build wealth”.

I do not have time in 10 minutes to explain that in detail but if members would like to get more information on this, I would suggest people who are arguing this issue do that because they will see that what I am saying is essential in getting our fundamentals right.

Mr. de Soto's ideas have been called innovative but they have been around for a long time. I think they are innovative simply because they fly in the face of traditional ideas about battling third world poverty. We see that third world poverty on our aboriginal reserves. The notion, for instance, that capitalism is a bad word and that the market economy is the enemy of the disadvantaged is something that he clearly disputes and shows that is not the case.

Mr. de Soto's ideas have been tested in his native Peru. They helped to enact property registration laws and systems in the Peruvian government during the 1990s. He still oversees that whole program in Peru. It is a very successful program and one that we should take a close look at.

Let me read some of the things that he has said.

Mr. de Soto said:

These people should be able to produce wealth. It means that you've got to ask, like we ask, what happens to the property rights, have they really got the tools to produce capital? What can we do about getting banks, which are not interested in them, interested in them--not because their hearts are going to palpitate for the poor, but because they're going to become a lot more interesting.

So much of traditional aid programs rest on paternalism and condescension...

That would describe what is happening in Canada today.

Mr. de Soto went on to say:

The traditional thing, Canadian aid, is about saying, 'Oh my God, there's four billion starving out there, let's go and make a difference among 10 million of them.' In other words, nothing that's really leveraged, nothing that really allows you to bring in anything new.

I would like to say that we should take this man's ideas and build some proper agreements on which to deal with the aboriginal situation in our country.

I want to conclude by saying that about 30 aboriginal women visited Parliament Hill recently but, unfortunately, there was very little media attention or coverage of this event. However one of the things they said is that property rights was one of the key issues that needed to be addressed in Canada.

Dawn Harvard, who was the Ontario president of the Native Women's Association, questioned whether the cases would get more attention about abuse of aboriginal people if they were not poor, drug addicted or working in the sex trade.

A key thing she said was that provincial property rights that govern fair distribution of assets during divorce disputes are not enforced on the more than 600 reserves in Canada. I would argue by extension that we need property rights right across the reserves. It has to happen.

In conclusion, other MPs have made it clear that this agreement is a lawyer's dream because we will turn over to the courts the big issue, such as defining self-government and inherent rights. Before we pass this piece of legislation, let us get our Charter of Rights and Freedoms right. Let us include property rights. It is the most important right needed for our aboriginal people.

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise this morning and address the amendments at report stage to Bill C-11, an act to give effect to the Westbank first nation self-government agreement.

I would like to make a couple of statements at the outset of my remarks. To begin with, this bill is only some six pages long. It is quite a concise bill. There is not a lot to it. I think any member of the public could understand what it is that we are talking about today.

Specifically, I would like to address Motion No. 1 in the name of my colleague from Delta, which basically amends Bill C-11 by deleting clause 3 which is the implementation of the bill itself.

In consultation with my colleague from Delta, he was disappointed that his amendment dealing with the charter provisions was not allowed to proceed and instead, this amendment was the only one that he had submitted that was allowed to stand. He would have liked to have debated the issue of how the bill relates to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Indeed, we are not prevented from doing that within the confines of the existing amendments and I will refer to that a bit later.

During some remarks earlier in the debate, the parliamentary secretary for Indian Affairs and Northern Development said that if someone wanted to change this bill, they should lobby to change the entire government policy, not just one clause in this act. While I would agree with him, obviously, that is not the basis of the debate today. Indeed, that debate will be taking place probably fairly quickly. Whenever the Prime Minister calls the election, we can have a debate about replacing this failed government's policy in connection with aboriginal people.

I also want to make some reference at the outset to the NDP member for Regina—Qu'Appelle who used his 10 minutes to launch a vitriolic rant against Conservative members in the House of Commons and really did not address the bill or the amendments before us today whatsoever.

As my colleague from Okanagan—Coquihalla said, I do not think that adds to the debate for someone to stand up and just go on a personal rant against one member or a party, based on misinformation, I might add. I do not think that helps us with this debate.

To say that this issue is controversial would be stating the obvious. Last weekend I was in my riding as were the majority of MPs. I had the opportunity to man a booth at a trade fair in my home town in the City of Fort St. John where usually somewhere between 8,000 and 10,000 local citizens attend that fair over the three days of the weekend. A number of them expressed some great reservations about this bill. As their member of Parliament, I would like to raise those concerns in the debate today.

The first thing, as has been said by a number of speakers, are the deep concerns about the whole business of taxation without representation. When we look at the bill, we see that 8,000-odd non-native residents who are currently or will be living on a reserve will not have a say in the governing and in the passing of bylaws by that body that will govern that piece of property.

Something is inherently wrong when an act takes away people's right to vote for their own representation and to have some means to affect those who govern over them.

As has already been noted, there is provision for an advisory council but the key word there is “advisory”. This council would only be providing advice. I would argue that it certainly does not take the place of people having the right to mark a ballot. Just to make that point, I do not think too many Canadians out there would trade their right to mark a ballot in either a municipal, provincial or federal election for the right to appear before and make comments and suggestions to an advisory board. I do not think too many Canadians would willingly give up their right to cast their ballots for that type of process.

The second issue, to which a number of MPs on both sides of the House have spoken, is that the bill would institute an unconstitutional third level of government. I am reminded that I was one of those MPs who was quite active prior to my election to this place in 1993. We had a constitutional amendment called the Charlottetown accord in 1992 that was voted on by the people of Canada and resoundingly defeated.

While we all recognize that there were a number of reasons that people voted either yes or no, those who voted no to the Charlottetown accord might have picked different things that they opposed in the agreement. A lot of people in my particular riding in northeastern British Columbia opposed the Charlottetown accord because of the undefined third order of government that would have been instituted in the Charlottetown accord.

Yet now we have the government moving forward with the act for the Westbank First Nation that would effectively do that. It would enshrine in law another order of government that would have considerably more powers than do municipalities, whether it is power over language and culture, natural resources, agriculture, the use of intoxicants on their property, education, medicine and the list goes on, this governing body would have the power to bring forward law which a municipality does not have.

As I said, I know, in speaking to a lot of my constituents, that they have a problem with the government moving ahead to institute a third level of government without the approval of the people of Canada.

One of the things we hear from both sides of the House is that there is a force in our country today that wants to see fundamental change to the way in which we interact with the aboriginal peoples in Canada. One of the things I have heard, not only from our party but from other parties and, indeed, the governing party, is that we should do away with the Indian Act. We should get away from this archaic system of paternalism and move into a new era of how we deal with our aboriginal peoples. Our party, the Conservative Party of Canada, supports that wholeheartedly.

It seems rather ironic to me that at the very time that we should be questioning the way in which we structure reserves and the way in which we devolve power to reserve governments to hold the property unto themselves in commonality rather than in fee simple, to prevent the average aboriginal person in Canada from enjoying the pride that comes from owning his or her own home and property, that we seem to be moving away from that with this act. We seem to be moving away from what I would consider to be the inherent right to property.

I know we do not have property rights in Canada enshrined in our Constitution. It is one of the problems I have with our Constitution. I think we should have property rights and those property rights should be just as relevant for aboriginal people as they are for non-aboriginal people.

It seems to me that the legislation would move the aboriginal peoples of the Westbank First Nation further away from enjoying the same rights and privileges that other Canadians have.

For those three reasons I am voicing the concerns expressed to me by many of my constituents in Prince George--Peace River who have some very deep reservations about the bill.

[Werner Schmidt, Canadian Alliance, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to enter the discussion on Bill C-11 and the amendment currently before the House. I certainly support the amendment proposed by the hon. member.

With regard to Bill C-11 and the implementation of the Westbank self-government agreement, I would like to make it clear that I have the utmost respect for the current band council and its chief. They have done an exemplary job of developing and managing the band. I have had many occasions to talk with the chief and work with him. He is doing an admirable job. He is the current chief, but there has been a succession of good management in the Indian band.

That however does not mean I am in complete agreement with the provisions of the Westbank self-government agreement and Bill C-11, which gives effect to the implementation of that agreement.

The major concern I have is with the representation of those governed by those who are governing. Away back a president of the United States defined democracy as by the people, of the people and for the people. There is a provision within the Westbank self-government agreement that differentiates between those who can vote and those who cannot vote. The government structure is such that a group of people will govern the people on the Westbank lands who have not elected by all the people being governed.

Therefore, there is an element of disparity and inconsistency between what we have commonly accepted as the democratic principle; that those who are governed ought to have a voice in determining who will be charged with the governing of that group. My hon. colleague just pointed out that there is a provision for the advisory council. I will get into that in a little more detail later on.

Before I do that, I want to indicate clearly that those who are allowed to vote in this provision of the self-government agreement are those who are on the membership roll. To get on to the membership roll, it is absolutely important that we recognize that these people are “registered” as Indians under the Indian Act. Thus any and all residents on Westbank lands who are not on the membership roll are disenfranchised. They cannot vote. This means there are about 8,000 residents on the Westbank lands, about 500 of whom are Indians and 7500 who are not. Therefore, essentially 500 people will elect those who will govern the 7,500 as well as their own 500.

The practical impact of this is that any law, regulation, administrative action or band council decision is determined without electoral representation on that council of about 93% of the residents. In the day to day operation of the Westbank self-government agreement any law regarding property taxes, licensing fees, user fees, development cost charges, development permit fees, community infrastructure and local services are all without representation on the council. Yet that council determines all the issues with regard to these.

While there is a provision for that advisory council to provide consultation, and that is the word that is used, on behalf of the non-members of the Westbank Nation, it has no authority or power to make any decisions regarding the Westbank Nation governance affecting them. Yes, it can give advice and yes it can study the issues, and I think it is a wonderful provision, but it has no authority to do anything.

It is very interesting that yesterday I was given a copy of a document entitled, “Westbank First Nation Advisory Council, March 2004”, and there are a number of subsections in it. It was given to me with the understanding that it was the law that would cover the advisory council. There is a lot of very useful work in it, and I do not want to disparage it in any way, shape or form. However, my only concern is that it is incomplete.

I think we are moving in the right direction, but it is incomplete so I would like to perhaps get into some of the details as to what is in the document.

The creation of the advisory council is not part of Bill C-11 nor is it part of the Westbank self-government agreement. The constitution pertaining to that agreement really is all part of Bill C-11. The advisory council would be created after that agreement and subject to whatever the council at that time felt it wanted to do.

I have complete faith, but I have a dilemma. We have an excellent band council and chief, and I believe he will do this. However, I also know that Bill C-11 does not cover it. This is a result of actions taken by the council itself subsequent to the agreements if Bill C-11 is passed.

There is no description for example of the composition of the advisory council, how its members will be determined, what resources will be provided to them or what the advisory council relationship will be with the band. Yes, the general statements are there and there is provision that certain things will happen, but there is no guarantee that will be the case.

Some of these things are addressed in the document, however, the document is incomplete and its official status is unclear. Even if the advisory council were to function exactly as outlined in the document before me today, the advisory council would not meet the requirement of a democratic form of government. It is advisory only and really does not represent the electorate as such. It really does not have any legislative power. In my view, that is sufficient reason for the Government of Canada to recognize the excellent work that has been done in establishing the agreement thus far and recognize that we are moving in the right direction. However, at the same time, it must recognize that the work is not finished.

We need to go further. We need to explore some of the issues. The amendment with regard to the concerns expressed by the mayor of Kelowna is only one example. I have given another example of why we probably should take the bill off the agenda and look at it again. Probably a lot more work needs to be done so we can come to grips with and recognize the democratic principle to which we all adhere.

I have a lot of material and I obviously do not have time to cover it all. Therefore, I will move to the last part of my speech which has to with the prohibition.

It is very interesting that section 220(a) of the Westbank self-government agreement provides for the prohibition of the sale, barter, supply, manufacture or possession of intoxicants. However, section 220(b) allows the Westbank natives to make exemptions with regard to any of the above. On the one hand, we have prohibition of intoxicants and on the other hand, we have exemptions. In practical contemporary terms that means that marijuana could be exempted. Persons on Westbank lands would be able to grow, possess and supply marijuana in direct conflict with the current laws of Canada.

In the light of the forgoing, however, it goes even further. Section 221 states:

--in the event of a conflict between Westbank Law in relation to prohibition of intoxicants and federal law, the Westbank Law shall prevail to the extent of the conflict.

This agreement will create, if it is allowed to proceed as it is currently before us, a third level of government which gives to the Westbank nation the right to legislate in areas that are really under the authority of and the power of the federal or provincial government.

Our Constitution does not see any other powers. We are governed by the Constitution of Canada which clearly differentiates between federal and provincial law, and there is no other power. How can it now give power to another group--power which has already been given either to the federal or provincial governments?