Bill C-11 (Historical)

Westbank First Nation Self-Government Act

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

Supply

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Order please. Before we hear the next speaker, I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

May 6, 2004

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 6th day of May, 2004, at 10:00 a.m.

Yours sincerely,

Barbara Uteck

Secretary to the Governor General

The Schedule indicates the bills assented to were Bill C-7, An Act to amend certain Acts of Canada, and to enact measures for implementing the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, in order to enhance public safety, Chapter 15; Bill C-17, An Act to amend certain Acts, Chapter 16; and Bill C-11, An Act to give effect to the Westbank First Nation Self-Government Agreement, Chapter 17.

First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention that I have already spoken to the Group No. 1 amendments. I am supporting all the amendments that have been tabled, those in Group No. 1 and in Group No. 2.

I would like to take this moment while we are talking about the first nations financial authority. Yesterday in my constituency a young woman was found dead in the community of Zeballos. She was a very popular 13 year old girl. The community of Zeballos is obviously in great shock. It is a very tight-knit community of about 200 people. The Ehattesaht band and the community of Zeballos are essentially one community, Zeballos being the smallest incorporated municipality in the province of British Columbia.

A lot of things have become apparent with twenty-twenty hindsight. I was in the community on December 16 with RCMP representatives from Vancouver, Victoria, Nanaimo and Port McNeill. We met with community advocates and the mayor. What has become very apparent is that the rule of law, the whole enforcement of laws and the policing presence are all very difficult questions now in some of our communities that have been hard hit, those small communities with a financial situation that is not as good as it was.

I know that everyone at home feels very bad about this. No one is pointing fingers, but on the other hand I think it is important that we in this House all recognize some sensitivity to the fact that resource allocation for these kinds of issues for those smaller communities is something that should be receiving some real priority. They are sometimes overlooked when we look at dislocations from softwood restructuring and other things. In actual fact, it may not be infrastructure that is our crucial need. It may very well be a continued presence of the traditional medical, police and other government institutions that are so very important.

I thought I would take the opportunity to talk about that and now I will also of course address Bill C-23.

In my view, the group of amendments we are discussing deals with some fairly straightforward items. Obviously there are some motions to correct errors in French. How long can we talk about that? That is very straightforward.

There is a decoupling from the first nations governance act, which now has been killed and buried by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. That was an essential move. There were some clarification amendments dealing with borrowing laws, the debt reserve fund and the credit enhancement fund. They are all quite supportable.

The last time I spoke, on the first grouping of amendments, I chose to spend some of my time dealing with the whole issue of property rights. I did that in the context of this bill, because the bill tries to take us from a situation where band level governance cannot effectively be master of its own house as long as it is operating under the Indian Act. This is one more of those measures that attempts to change all of that.

Last time, I pointed out a publication produced by the Skeena Native Development Society and called Masters In Our Own House , which makes it very clear that its analysis comes to this very same conclusion. “Economic mastery” is simply not available under the Indian Act. The society has come to some very clear conclusions, which I happen to share and which I think are essential in the development of what many would probably call civil society.

Civil society requires entrepreneurship, individual freedoms and good governance, and it requires the ability to develop long term plans that are deliverable from the status of owned revenues as opposed to dependency on the federal or other authority, whose priorities can change from month to month or year to year. We are all quite aware of that.

It has been a breath of fresh air to realize that there actually are source materials, literature and analyses that have come to these kinds of conclusions and have done some very good research background material. And it is coming from within the native community itself. I have found this material to be a very strong bit of background material that I enjoy quoting at some length.

I have talked about certificates of possession, the closest thing to fee simple on reserve lands in Canada. Even the traditional certificate of possession, which is in current wide use, is not even formulated under the Indian Act. It is left to ministerial discretion. Therefore, the certificates are changed by the changing policies of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, policies that in turn are affected by changing judicial interpretations.

These are not sufficient property rights to facilitate entrepreneurship. That is why there has been a move to go beyond that. That is what was so important about the private property precedent set within Bill C-11, the Westbank agreement, which received third reading approval in the House this week.

That is something that was anticipated but not clear at the time of the publication of this document, which was last May, 11 months ago. These are very powerful things when individual property rights can be acquired on Indian lands outside the Indian Act. There are actually five ways in which that is occurring in this country right now.

One is through these customary holdings on reserve, the COP, certificates of possession. The second is the Sechelt agreement in British Columbia, in which fee simple title was transferred for the entire reserve land base in 1986. Another is the Westbank first nation agreement, which creates the strongest individual property rights regime in Canada under a certificate of possession, completely managed by self-government as opposed to the minister. Under the Nisga'a treaty there is a very strong, small land component in that category as well. Those are the main categories that I wanted to address.

Westbank First Nation Self-Government Act

[The Speaker]

The House will now proceed to a deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading of Bill C-11.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act

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

Mr. Speaker, the public is perhaps wondering what we are talking about here. Bill C-23 is designed to strengthen first nations real property tax regimes, create a first nations bond financing arrangement and in the process would create four institutions: the first nations tax commission, which would replace the Indian Taxation Advisory Board; a first nations financial management board; a first nations finance authority; and a first nations statistical institute.

There were 18 amendments tabled by the minister. We are speaking to one grouping of the two groupings that were created by the Speaker.

They accomplished several things. One thing they did not accomplish was that they did not separate the statistical institute from the rest of the bill. That was a significant request that had been made by a broad range of interests, including the Conservative Party. I find that somewhat unfortunate.

We will be supporting Group No. 1 amendments because there was widespread concern and desire to have this act ascertained as an optional exercise for the band level governments and this clearly specifies that. We are in pretty good shape that way.

I have been speaking about private property and have been looking at quite a bit of literature in relation to private property on reserves in Canada. There has been some very good literature produced recently. I will specifically make reference to a publication called Masters In Our Own House , published by the Skeena Native Development Society in May of last year.

The book talks about three cornerstones that are required in the way of bringing success and prosperity to first nations. We are making great progress on this front from the standpoint that there is some real leadership that is starting to be exhibited. Sometimes this cannot be one gigantic step but a series of smaller steps.

It is worth referencing that we have had taxation power available to bands across the country for about a dozen years or so. Today, 25% of the bands in British Columbia are exercising the authority and about 10% nationally. When we include the fact that British Columbia has almost a third of the bands in Canada, we can see that very few of those bands that are taxing are outside British Columbia. It is something that has led us to things like the bill we are discussing today.

The authority has been delegated to the bands under section 83 of the Indian Act and it would allow them to carry out this taxation scheme.

There are three cornerstones of successful governance; first, the market system must be allowed to function, it must be enabled; second, there must be an ability for the people to control the use and development of their lands to enable capital formation; and third, entrepreneurial thinking needs to be enabled for effective entrepreneurship to flourish.

I found this publication, produced by the Skeena Native Development Society, to be pragmatic and practical in terms of pursuing those three cornerstones within the context of the Indian Act and the other sort of albatrosses that have pre-empted that from occurring. The Indian bands are trying to go somewhere important, and I think we went somewhere important last week when we talked about Bill C-11 in the House, the Westbank first nation self-government agreement. This publication talks quite a bit about that and I want to shed a little light to that whole subject at this time.

When this group looked at the problems inherent in developing the first nations, they actually talked about going from a command economy to a market-based economy. The Indian Act has created a command economy where the Government of Canada, through the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, has been the one that was entrusted with all of the decision-making in almost every way. One can view that, as they did, through the lens of communist China. I will quote right from the document which states:

They were struck by the parallels between the economic development problems experienced during theChinese transition to a market-based economy, and those presently confronting native communities.

This brought them to some not startling but pretty important conclusions because they were coming to those conclusions themselves. They were not conclusions that some academic or someone else in some other community was imposing upon them. These were conclusions they arrived at themselves and it was leading to major progress that would have major economic consequences downstream. They went so far as to quote from Hernando de Soto that:

The single most important source of funds for new businesses in the United States is a mortgage on the entrepreneur's house.

They went on to say:

Without this fundamental capability, will the financial institutions continue to avoid providing mortgage funds to First Nation entrepreneurs? In many ways, the ability to mortgage is the litmus test of property rights.

The irony is that in Canada we now have many native individuals with the earning power to afford to carry a mortgage and build a home off reserve, but they cannot get the banks to lend them funds because they cannot collateralize the loan on the reserve because of the lack of simple title. There is a clear recognition about the concern about clear and enforceable property rights, which is compromising transactions both on and off reserve.

I would like to conclude by saying that this concern has been addressed partially by the first nations land management act, more wholly by the Sechelt agreement in British Columbia, more wholly again by one small part of the land allocation to the Nisga'a, and almost completely by the Westbank agreement, Bill C-11, before the House.

Criminal Code

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

Madam Speaker, in case this member was not here, I sat in here most of the day watching the Liberal government filibuster Bill C-11, which we have agreed should be hurried and should get done, and then she dares to accuse me of suddenly getting up to speak on this bill, which I have not spoken to since it was initiated.

I am going to take the opportunity to speak to it because this is my first kick at it and I want to express some things. There is one thing I really want to express to the member, who must be a lawyer, because only a lawyer would stand at her seat and constantly agree that we need a clause like “public good”, because I will guarantee that this clause will bring case after case to the courts. It will be a lawyers' haven. Boy, will they have a lot of work to do to determine if there is any public good in child pornography.

I would like any member, any lawyer in the country, to tell me that it is worth spending hours and hours and tons and tons of money to determine whether a piece of garbage like we have witnessed, and like what the police are going through, is for the public good of any kind, of any nature.

All I am asking for, and all we have ever asked for from the beginning, is some legislation that would remove the defence from these people who exploit children.

Maybe I left it out, but the member knows very well that it was in the motion: to eliminate “all defences”. Also, if she was listening, I suggested that we protect our law officials, doctors, medical people and educators.

What are her priorities? Her priorities appear to be to get everything in the proper legal terms, which most people will not even be able to understand, to make sure that the courts will be filled with people who are going to make claims so they can be protected under the public good while they are exploiting our children. The police are going to have continue to spend hour after hour going through all this material to determine if there is any possibility that there is any public good, like they had to do for the artistic merit work. It is no wonder that people like John Sharpe, along with other pedophiles across the country, cheered when this legislation came through.

The trouble is that this particular member, as well as too many members in here, lives on a higher plane, above average Canadians, because 90% or so of average Canadians would say, “For heaven's sake, get rid of that garbage and get rid of it in the firmest way you possibly can”.

And yes, my suggestion might even go against the charter of rights, because it would take away the right of some idiot out there to use this material for his own personal use or whatever.

I am telling this lady and this House and this country that it is time today to stand up and say they are not going to use the charter to exploit our children or to protect themselves and that we are going to put in laws that will protect children. That is more important than protecting the rights of these idiots who would produce, distribute and use this to damage young people.

The government needs to get firmer and not give me any more legal garble and babble-gabble about what may happen. I know what is going to happen. It is going to be in the courts constantly because the government does not have the fortitude to put the law in place and mean business about it.

Westbank First Nation Self-Government Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

Accordingly, the vote on Bill C-11 is deferred until the end of government orders next Monday.

[Jim Abbott, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I noted with some interest that the member said that she was asking for the support of the House. I think she would know that in the vote last evening indeed there was overwhelming support for this bill.

Therefore, could she help me understand if there is some kind of strategy that her government is presently undertaking with respect to this debate that perhaps she could enlighten us on? I do not know if it is correct or not, but I should mention that I believe we have some people even in this chamber who are watching us who are very interested in seeing this bill go ahead.

What we find perplexing is that in spite of the overwhelming support of the House for this bill, the fact that there is very limited opposition and indeed any of those issues have been fully vented in the course of this debate, that the government continues to filibuster its own bill. We are rather confused about that, particularly when I for one happen to agree with the member that we should be getting on with the business of the House.

Would it have anything to do with the fact that the Prime Minister and the government are not prepared to govern at this particular point? For example, let us look at the other bills that will immediately follow this bill should debate collapse. Bill C-10, the marijuana bill, is at third reading, which means that we could have a debate on that and get that through. Bill C-11, the Westbank bill, certainly is one that we could dispose of right now. Bill C-12, child protection, is a bill that is at third reading and could be disposed of fairly quickly. Bill C-15 concerns the transfer of offenders.

The House is trying to get these bills through. Indeed in ordinary procedure one would have the opposition trying to stop things, or the opposition trying to bring forward particular points of view, which is just fine. That is what the parliamentary process is about.

Considering that the Liberals' legislative cupboard is completely bare as a result of the Prime Minister having no idea of where he wants to take Canada, is that the reason, in the judgment of the member, she herself, unimaginably, would actually be part of the filibuster of this very important bill that the people of Westbank want to go ahead?

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Minister of State (Children and Youth)]

Mr. Speaker, today I feel very honoured to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-11, the Westbank First Nation self-government act.

I want to begin by offering my congratulations to the Westbank First Nation people who have worked for so many years to arrive at this very practical and workable agreement.

In a very broad sense, in response to the candid language in the Speech from the Throne, the government's objective is to close the socio-economic gap that exists between aboriginal people and other Canadians.

I must say that this has been a banner week for aboriginal people, starting with the round table where all aboriginal peoples' leaders or representatives participated in a round table that dealt with education, health, social development, political leadership and moving the agenda forward for aboriginal people in general. It also included women and all the representative groups, as I mentioned.

We have also brought forward Bill C-31, the Tlicho agreement, which is an agreement for the Dogrib people of the Northwest Territories, 3,000 people who have achieved their claim. The agreement embeds self-government within the body of the claim. It is the first time that this has ever happened, and it has many other features as well. Before that, we introduced the Westbank self-government act, which I think is very comprehensive and very complementary to the objectives we have in working with aboriginal people.

This is the direction in which we want to go. We do not guide ourselves by the words of other people who have their own academically inclined opinions or biases. This is government policy we are dealing with. This is very deliberate and very intentional. This is something we mean to do and this is something that we, with the aboriginal people, mean to implement.

As a country we see too often what the Speech from the Throne called “shameful” conditions faced by too many aboriginal people in this country. This situation is not something over there or removed from our experience as Canadians. It is something within the fabric, may I say, of the family of Canada. When I say that the situation faced by aboriginal people is not something removed or distant, I mean that the situation is one that touches all of us. We all share a responsibility.

As part of our response, we need to change our perceptions and approaches.

I am going into my 17th year as a member of Parliament and always have been part of a committee, either in cabinet or as an ordinary member, on the Constitution and whatever front there was to advance the aboriginal agenda. I take a great deal of pride in that. I meant to do that and I have done that with so many of my colleagues on all sides of the House over the years.

I know that we need to take a collaborative approach with first nations people and Inuit and work in partnership on shared goals. We also need to change our thinking that the answers to longstanding issues will be found exclusively in Ottawa or in a provincial or territorial capital. That is not the case. Rather, we need to come together. Governments, parliamentarians, aboriginal people and others need to come together in common cause to find solutions to what we agree are unacceptable conditions. Speaking on the bill before the House today I think gives clarity to the fact that we have come together as individuals to share our views on this. We are not necessarily of the same mind in terms of policy, but we all have opinions on where we should go.

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

When a community undertakes a self-government agreement or finishes a claim, there are many beneficiaries. Many of them do not belong to those groups or those nations. There is a shared prosperity in the completion of claims and in the arrangements that aboriginal people make for themselves.

This agreement gives Westbank leaders the tools they need to develop their community. It will enable the Westbank First Nation to create government structures that are both effective and representative.

It will foster economic growth in the community by helping local entrepreneurs continue to attract 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 the people most familiar with and most affected by local issues. I am convinced that this will lead to further improvements in housing. There is a huge housing crunch, a fact that was brought forward on Monday by aboriginal leaders, and it has been brought up successively. It is a major challenge.

What is the best approach to this? Obviously the best way is partnership and collaboration. Involving aboriginal people in the design and the implementation of any policy or any major project is the only way that we will be able to resolve this issue. I am convinced that it will lead to improvements in employment and in the quality of life in general for aboriginal people.

Westbank is confident that these improvements are best accomplished by governing themselves with a representative and effective government capable of exercising law making authority and assuming new responsibilities.

There are those who have concerns within the context of this discussion about how all people within Westbank will be represented. Let us look at the section that talks about the self-government agreement gender issues. The Westbank First Nation self-government agreement negotiating team received direction from a committee composed of Westbank members and elders, et cetera, of whom approximately 70% were women. The committee, acting at arm's length from the chief and council, also provided direct input into the development of the Westbank First Nation constitution.

The Westbank First Nation has been cognizant of gender related issues and the importance of having them addressed in the negotiation process. The Westbank First Nation sought the representation of women in key aspects of the decision making process. Their input in both the negotiations and the development of the Westbank First Nation constitution has been sufficient to ensure that gender issues have been considered.

The broader Westbank First Nation membership, including those off reserve, has also had the opportunity to raise gender related issues throughout the negotiation process. Perhaps it is because their experiences have been a bit coloured by things that may have happened in the past.

Public information sessions, town hall meetings and direct mail-outs to homes and businesses formed part of an intensive information campaign. I think that this is really important. Westbank First Nation has in the past been a focal point for gender issues. In 1986, the Supreme Court ruled on a case. I think the leadership, in its vision and in its direction, has taken the direction of those people and has been visionary in accepting and designing a process that would include those issues. Most of all, I am convinced that this self-government agreement will lead in dealing with sensitive issues such as that.

Westbank is confident that these improvements are best accomplished by governing themselves, including all people, and having an effective government capable of exercising law making authority and assuming new responsibilities.

Provisions were made for municipalities that are very much like those that were made here, but there are those who would say that the Westbank people are getting preferential treatment. That is not so. Treating everybody the same does not spell equality. It spells sameness, not equality. Sometimes we have to take extra measures to ensure that equality is reached because people are at different levels.

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

Not only are our policies our own, but our policies are designed to empower people, not to weaken them, to empower them and make them a force that can be self-sustainable economically, socially, culturally and politically. That is the goal of every community across this country.

Let us look at the association of municipalities. The goal of the municipalities is to take more power, apply it locally and make it work for themselves. Why should it be different for Westbank? Westbank should have the same opportunity to be self-sustaining, to be economically viable, and to assume political responsibility.

In short, Westbank will establish and maintain a democratic government within the constitutional framework of Canada. People should hear those words: “within the constitutional framework of Canada”. This government will respect Canadian law and recognize that all members of the first nation, like Canadians everywhere, are subject to the Criminal Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In order to foster better relations with non-member residents on Westbank lands, Westbank First Nation will create a mechanism to ensure that non-member residents can have input into laws that affect them directly. This marks a significant improvement over the Indian Act situation. This is no different from the way aboriginal people have traditionally welcomed outsiders to their lands, the way they welcomed the first Europeans to join them in this country. There is no difference. This is an accommodation of the same kind in another era.

Under this self-government agreement, the first nation will have a range of powers. Eventually the first nation will enact laws in areas such as land and resource management and aboriginal language and culture. This is so important: we are our culture and we are our language. I speak my own language. I am not from Westbank, but I admire those people. In fact I almost killed myself getting over here when I was in my office and the time had almost expired and I thought I would not lose another opportunity to speak on a bill that affects aboriginal people. It really goes to show I would do almost anything for the people of Westbank. I made it here but I am actually a bit out of breath.

I want people to know about these priorities. To have jurisdiction over and responsibility for managing land and resources is huge. It is empowering. That is the way it should be. If we do not deprive people of their language and culture but instead enhance them and preserve them, that is an even better thing. It is especially good for the children, and for the elders and of course everyone else too, but I think of it that way because I was a teacher in a previous incarnation.

It is in these areas that a key feature of the agreement lies. With these new powers, Westbank assumes control of its resources. The first nation powers under the agreement include the right to grant interests and licences on its land. This is a good thing. My grandparents and I lived on a piece of land that became Norman Wells. Imperial Oil had resources there for over 75 years. My family never benefited from that. My family lost its property to those companies. We still live in the vicinity but our families were moved. We were never compensated, and that is fine, but it should not be that way. It should not happen that way. It does not happen that way with farmers, and if it does, it should not. It should not happen to anyone.

Under the agreement, the community gains the freedom to establish partnerships and conduct business according to its own needs while at the same time respecting the interests that already exist. Westbank First Nation already has demonstrated that it knows how to manage its affairs responsibly and profitably. After all, this is one of the most prosperous and successful aboriginal communities in Canada, and one of the most beautiful, I must say.

Westbank of course is blessed with a spectacular natural beauty, located as it is 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 the most of these advantages. It is a tourist's dream. It is a place where tourism and ecotourism should bloom and prosper.

The first nation and its members have opened lands to development, making the first nation a busy land manager. Today, Westbank's 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 land manager, a trustworthy partner and a reliable neighbour. People have nothing to fear from this agreement. We should not be fearmongering. We should not create paranoia where there is none, where there is a willingness to include, where there is a willingness to engender a good relationship and partnership. People should not work at making it something negative and to be paranoid about.

What is perhaps most striking about Westbank's success is that much of it was accomplished under the limitations of the Indian Act. Now the 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 people of Westbank are clearly ready to fulfill their obligations. They have been working toward this agreement for more than a decade. They have staged more than 400 information and consultation sessions. They have secured the support of the municipal and regional governments, chamber of commerce, labour unions and a broad range of special interest groups whose concerns and goals are closely linked to those of the first nation itself.

Westbank also drafted and approved a constitution that sets out governing structures, assigns duties and clarifies band memberships. I am convinced that the community consultation process that produced Westbank's constitution will lead to stronger, more effective self-government. Community leaders, after all, participated in every phase of the constitution developed and will contribute to its institutions.

The constitution and the self-government agreement will also establish a valuable reference point for treaty negotiations between the governments of Westbank, Canada and British Columbia. Of course we all know that B.C. has one of the most complex set of arrangements, or in some cases lack of arrangements, that exacerbates the situation.

Enacting the Westbank agreement would certainly have a positive impact outside the province. Although it is British Columbia's third self-government agreement and the 17th in Canada, it is the first stand-alone self-government agreement under Canada's inherent right policy. This is an important milestone. The agreement demonstrates that the Government of Canada can work with first nations to arrive at agreements tailored to the specific needs of a community.

I want to say that I will do my share, my utmost to make sure that a decade's worth of hard work will not be in vain, for we are entrusted with the aspirations of these people. We are entrusted with their goals and dreams. It is not that they want to work against Canada; they want to be and work with Canada.

Today I ask the members of the House for their support in providing the tools needed to build the community envisioned by the Westbank First Nation. Clearly the progress Westbank has already made on governance has put the community on a path toward self-reliance and prosperity.

I have to refer to the documents. There is a section for almost everything in this agreement. One section talks about protection of other Okanagan first nations and non-members. It is a very accommodating document. It talks about Westbank government, the application of laws, agriculture, self-government agreement within the Canadian legal context, gender issues. It also talks about government to government relationships. It talks about culture and language, education, environment, health services, lands and land management, licensing regulation and operation of business. It talks about membership in Westbank First Nation. It talks about public order, peace and safety, prohibitions of intoxicants, public works, community infrastructure and local services resource management, traffic and transportation, wills and estates, enforcement of Westbank First Nation law, financial arrangements, financial management, and implementation of the Westbank First Nation self-government agreement.

This will not be done on an ad hoc basis. This is systematic. This is planned. This is deliberate. This is an awesome document. This is an attempt by a people to be what they should be: equal with the rest of Canadians and have the opportunity to be self-sustaining and prosperous. We should all support this document.

[Rick Laliberte, Liberal, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is truly an honour to speak in favour of Bill C-11. In large part we have heard the debate take place and opposition members not rising. The bill is worthy of being discussed. We need dialogue on the Westbank situation not only in this chamber but throughout Canada.

This region of the country, as I mentioned in previous debates, is unsettled territories. These are treaty lands that the entire country has negotiated for the territory to become a country as a Canadian crown, or what we call crown lands. However, in this region the treaty process has not been complete. The treaty process would need partnership between the province, the federal government and the first nations themselves. We hope that process will come to its conclusion in the very near future.

My colleague who spoke previously mentioned that this was a self-government deal that was needed now so the community could have the law-making powers on education and culture, finances, land use policies, land lease policies and on resource development within their lands.

This self-government deal is an opportunity for Canada to look into other opportunities. There are many other arrangements, as we experienced yesterday with Bill C-31 and the Tlicho in Treaty No. 11. This is another self-government agreement within the treaty boundaries of an existing treaty. However, this is a self-government deal without a treaty. It is an historical point in our country to reach out to these first nations that wish to seek a better administrative structure and a better decision making structure away from the Indian Act.

I welcome any opposition to speak against this. This is the time and place to debate it, not collapse the debate. Let us hear it out. Let us find out what the opposition is.

This also is an opportunity to look at statements that have been made by some individuals who were opposed to the bill. They talked about taxpayers' rights and representation. I believe the country should have citizens' rights.

Many of our young people may not be deemed or labelled taxpayers. What rights do they have? Is it the level of taxes people pay that measures how much influence they have? I dare say that is a totally wrong definition of democracy and not what the world should be looking at. Democracy should be based on the rights of citizens. We are all Canadians. All Canadians should have a right in the House of Commons, not only the tax paying public. This is an opportunity for us to have this type of a debate in the House.

I also think it is an opportunity for young people who may not be taxpayers because they are unemployed. They may be people in hard times. They may not be contributing toward taxes because they have been unable to afford property and then pay property taxes.

There is a whole different realm and reality in Canada that should be taken into context as a true nation.

When the debate comes as a taxpayers' federation dialogue or mantra or lobby, that is the wrong perspective of democracy. Democracy should be based on equal citizens no matter where we are. The original nations presided on this land way before any crown or any other European country discovered the new land called North American or Turtle Island, as it is perceived in our stories.

The whole story of the self-government deal in the Westbank First Nation is an historical time to reflect on Canada's history and its future. It has been deemed that there were two founding nations of France and England which came to terms to create a country. I say the treaties that came into being created this country.

There were original treaties with the French nation. There were original treaties with the English nation. They knew that to ascertain this territory, they had to make agreements, sacred accords with the original nations. They were the keepers of this land. They were the true owners of this land.

I dare say the definition of ownership because, in large part, it is our belief that this land was a responsibility for us, not a right. To exercise that responsibility, here is a self-government model where these people will be electing their leaders. There will be 7,000 or 8,000 non-members of the Westbank First Nation living among them.

There will be laws and provisions to help guide them in their decisions for the future. The House should be making provisions for the first nations or the original nations to be part of the decision making of Parliament. That is why I speak about a third house of Parliament where the real first nations, the original nations of this land, not the band councils as defined by purview of the Indian Act. would sit. I am speaking of the Okanagan Nation, the Cree Nation, the Mohawk Nation, the Wyandot Nation, the Haida Nation. All these nations are missing today in 2004. They are not being respected or properly recognized.

I think the indigenous decade is coming to a close. Canada has an opportunity to pay respect to this, as my region did in Treaty No. 6 and Treaty No. 10. They celebrate their treaty every year when a day is set aside as treaty day. Canadians should be celebrating the existence of the treaty in our country, like we celebrate Canada Day. The country was created by a peace and friendship treaty.

Today we have a very renowned visitor, the Dalai Lama, within the realms of the House. He has been spreading the word of peace and friendship throughout the world. I think he celebrates and feels the peace and friendship on which Canada was founded. I think he feels at home here because we have the peace and friendship initiatives of our nations. They want to live among us. There is no need to fight. There is no need for opposition. There is a need for consensus and a need to find ways to live among one another.

I always coin it as a river of nations. We are here from all corners of the world, as well as the original nations. We have to find ways to live together as one nation, as one country. This is an opportunity where the people of the Westbank First Nation can be given the self-government tools and means to make their own decisions on issues such as finances, culture, education, social well-being and the future of their children, and to find a place within the community of Kelowna, within the province of British Columbia and within this nation of Canada.

Let them speak for themselves. Let them express themselves on the world view, with the gifts that they have as an Okanagan nation. Let them express themselves in their language, in the way they have been brought up. There are harsh realities within that parched, semi-desert region. However, there is also the beautiful aspect of orchards, the river and the sacred responsibility to life that will continue in the future. All this comes into play.

This is a time for Canada to debate this, to share this world view of our country. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this. I commend the leaders of the Westbank who have brought this forward. I commend the democratic process that they have chosen. It is not perfect. There is no perfect democracy that we can find as an example in this world right now. We are trying to push democracy in other regions of the world, the war conflict countries of this world. Maybe through the self-government practices of the original nations of Canada, they will start practising the original governance models.

As we live in Ottawa, there is the Algonquin nation to the south, from where the hon. Speaker comes. The original six nations of the Iroquois confederacy live within the Great Lakes. We should let the original governance structures be practised. Let them be celebrated. Let them make their mistakes. If mistakes are made, they will correct them. However, these models of governance may some day transform the House into a new governance model.

Maybe some day the Westbank experience will bring forth an enlightenment to the legislature in British Columbia to change its governing structure within British Columbia. Maybe their governance structure or governance model might supercede what the Kelowna mayor and council are practising right now under the municipal governments of Kelowna.

Those governments may have the perfect opportunity of a well-described democratic community governance. Maybe Kelowna will adopt these models of governance. Maybe the model of governance by the central Okanagan regional district that surrounds the communities is imperfect. Maybe the people of the Westbank First Nation will be practising a governance model that will improve all our lives.

We all must have faith that these people will make their decisions appropriately for their people and that they will incorporate their decisions with the people who will live among them. This self-government agreement is certainly a vehicle that they wanted and one for which they have strived. We must allow them that.

This is a democratic country. They have democratically spoken with their voices. I believe the true nature of the original making of this country, a peace and friendship country under treaty, was through our sharing and teachings of the two row wampum, where the vessel of the original peoples was bound together with the vessel of the newcomers.

This self-government model is their vessel. We must allow them this journey of life, this river of life, with the vessels in unison with the municipal, provincial and federal governments. We may eventually have three orders of government that will parallel what we call our three orders of government: federal, provincial and municipal. Maybe they will have a national, tribal or first nation community band level government.

This is an opportunity for them to practise and show us their ways but without example how can we judge? Let them show us by example.

I challenge the members of the House, if there are any conflicts or arguments they have on the self-government deal, to please express them in the House and allow other Canadians to digest a different perspective.

Here is an opportunity to allow a first nation, which has duly negotiated through the proper processes under the government's policy of self-government, under the auspices of section 35 of the Constitution, the inherent right to self-government, the opportunity in a modern context to govern themselves in the ways they wish.

At the same time, those ways of governance are not in any way to be judged lesser or greater but maybe a sharing of those forms of governance might transform our country into a better and greater place where more people of the world, as they discover our bountiful gifts, our resources and water, may also discover Canada has bountiful gifts of knowledge and that knowledge is carried by the original nations.

Those original nations have a great responsibility and great respect that this can be carried and nurtured by them, not to be given away to somebody in their caring, that they can find their way under an Indian agent away from the Indian Act, that they can bring that responsibility home.

This is what the Westbank First Nation is all about. It is an exercise of its right to govern itself. It is an exercise of international respect of an original nation within the boundaries of a country to exercise, in its language and its world view, a way of governance that may some day influence our system of governance, as imperfect as this House is and as imperfect as the provincial houses are.

Maybe allowing these first nations to govern themselves under these structures, under their laws and their ways, is a way for Canada to mature into the truly beautiful nation that was envisioned between the original founders, the crown and the French nation that came in. It is a river of nations and a nation of rivers.

This is their opportunity and we must allow them. I beg all my members to support the bill and give these people a proud place in this corner of Canada in a beautiful part of British Columbia. Allow them to exercise their way of governance as they have negotiated. Allow them to make the changes that they will make into the future and allow them to seek assurances and certainty through the treaty-making process that they are continuing to strive for, that the treaty process will take precedence very soon. I hope it takes formality and finalization in all of British Columbia.

The nation must rest assured that we can live among each other and that it is no longer a battle of us and them. Let us come together as one nation.

I will conclude my speech by saying that this is one time that I can beg for the support of all the members. Allow the Westbank First Nation to seek its way of governance by passing the bill into law.

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I too stand to speak in support of Bill C-11. The first thing I will note is that I have been here much of the day and have heard many of the speeches, and I think we must be careful to acknowledge that this is in fact what I would characterize as a pilot project. We ought not to engage in hyperbole to say that this is the answer, because the answer is very complex and the situation in many first nations across the country is radically different from what it might be in the Westbank region.

Having said that, let me say that Bill C-11 would give effect to the Westbank First Nations self-government agreement. This agreement is the first stand-alone self-government agreement negotiated under the government's inherent right policy, and this is a process which has come to the House after some 14 years of discussion on the ground.

This is a policy that attempts to reach decisions on a local basis because it is local decisions which best reflect what people want and what people need. As a result, this agreement would lead to improvements in many areas for the first nations people of Westbank, certainly including housing and certainly including employment.

In this place many of us will know of the history of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. From a historical perspective, we know about what were called Indian agents who were there to supervise bands, who were there in fact to superimpose the view of the Indian affairs department on first nations people. This agreement does away with that. In fact, this agreement is 180 degrees in the other direction.

Crucial to the ratification by members of the Westbank First Nation was a comprehensive negotiation process, which has resulted in this agreement and for which many of the speakers here today have indicated there is real support. We have to emphasize that this was negotiation. In fact, the negotiation started out in certain quarters, I am told, where there were many people who were hostile to the agreement, some of whom have come on side. Like it is with any other agreement, there are always those who at this time will remain opposed to this agreement, but what is certain is that it was a real negotiation process.

We have a word that we toss around in this place, but I am trying to avoid it. That word is consultation. I am trying to avoid it because I must say that I have arrived at the point where I no longer know what consultation means. In fact, it is my belief that consultation has no meaning whatsoever. We have a lot of consultants running around consulting through consultations and what it all means in the end I do not know. But this is about negotiations, about real people sitting down and having a framework for negotiating, and over a period of time in fact coming to an agreement.

This negotiation process has ended positively. It has clarified the relationships between the provincial government and the federal government and the first nations with respect to laws, and it has set up public advisory and accountability to members provisions.

As I said earlier, the negotiations between the Westbank peoples and the Government of Canada began in 1990 and continued through the tenure of two band councils and, as we would say here, through the tenure of two governments.

Westbank brought people together from many communities, many lifestyles and many occupations to try to come to some common understanding of where they were going.

It is interesting to note that there was an advisory council set up to represent the 7,500 or 8,000 people who live on the reserve but who are not aboriginal people. In cooperation with this council, Westbank is in the process of developing a law to formalize the advisory council as a permanent institution under the legal regime of Westbank.

This first nation also worked hard to achieve strong and cooperative partnerships with neighbouring communities. Memoranda of understanding have been signed with both the Regional District of Okanagan and the City of Kelowna. Westbank has also met with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, a treaty negotiation advisory committee, organized labour groups and homeowners' associations. What is clear is that there were a lot of discussions that this was not the imposition of a “deal” on attractive land. Westbank went out into the surrounding areas to contiguous communities and contiguous landowners and had discussions so that there was a level of comfort.

That does not mean there is complete agreement. It does not mean that everybody is happy, but there is clear understanding as to where this is going. In fact, I have been told that there were more than 400 information sessions and discussion sessions which were held to talk about the details of the agreement and what it would mean, not only for the aboriginal people, the Westbank First Nation, but for the 7,500 or 8,000 non-aboriginal people on Westbank lands and for the neighbouring communities, the contiguous communities.

Information was distributed in many ways, through the media, through local radio and discussion sessions, and through meetings such as those that are often held by groups such as a chamber of commerce. They allowed people to ask questions, receive answers and put forward their ideas.

Once again this is not to say that the events leading to the signing of this agreement on October 3 of last year were smooth. These things are never smooth. Sometimes the discussion was heated. I will say that sometimes people disagreed, because it is clear that not everyone was or is in favour of the agreement. What is certain is that in terms of these public meetings where discussions took place, everyone had an opportunity to speak, and not only to speak but to be heard. Those people who wished to appear and speak were allowed to, whether they were band members or from neighbouring communities.

What is clear is that this is an open process and it is a democratic process in that sense. It encouraged many of those who either voted against the agreement or were in fact from a neighbouring community and were in opposition to the agreement to accept the outcome in an open way.

I think that is because this is a cooperative community in Westbank. Westbank allows people to speak. People can disagree but they understand that they can still reach some form of consensus or agreement. Westbank has been described, for members from that part of the world, as one of the most progressive first nations in Canada.

It is through this process that the Westbank First Nation has shown us that there are many forms of democracy and that this process can in fact be democratic in that it allows wide and open participation. Everyone who wants to is allowed to have their say, and not only to have their say but to be heard and to have some possibility of impacting the outcome of this agreement. It is my belief that such a process can only be good for governance structure, particularly around first nations, because I think that first nations government structures, as is often referred to in this country, have had a long history that is often characterized as tortuous.

The self-government agreement also calls for a Westbank constitution which was ratified by members at the same time as the agreement. Constitutions are the cornerstones of a legal regime. In this case, it will determine the community's governance for everything from the election of officials, budgets and how laws are made, and it sets out a set of core, or in this case, community principles.

I believe that the constitution that has been worked out in the case of Westbank is significant because it was developed locally and it has local application. The constitution, as constitutions must, reflects the wishes of the people rather than having it imposed by a bunch of consultants, lawyers, or worse yet, by a bunch of people from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

This constitution is a product of the Westbank First Nation's approach. It is a group of community people who worked for almost a decade to draft the core laws. Community meetings were held to discuss issues. They worked through problems and they put forward ideas. It is not complete.

I understand that the issue of matrimonial property has not been resolved at this point, but the fact is that they have a mechanism in place. They have enough goodwill that they are going to arrive at a point where the business or issue of matrimonial property will be worked out.

It is also important to understand that those who live on the reserve but are not aboriginal also shared their views. They got involved. When an agreement was reached and a draft constitution was ready, it was distributed, and once again, everyone was able to have his or her say, to be heard and to impact the outcome.

This form of agreement building or deal making has strengthened their constitutional outcome and will ultimately improve the way they are governed because people are, and this is not a very profound observation, more likely to respect and obey the laws, and participate in organizations that they intimately know because they were there and were part of the creation of both these laws and institutions. People in this case have a distinct sense of ownership.

A constitution formulated locally in this way will only lead, I would think, to improved governance of this first nation and will in turn lead to a better local municipal structure. It has important impacts, if this is a success, on other first nations.

Through their constitution the Westbank First Nation people have shown that what seemed like impossible, or maybe I can characterize it as difficult issues, could be overcome. I think this is a case of a community demonstrating that an agreement can be tailored and should be tailored to fit local circumstances, that agreements that are national in scope and that are imposed locally often, or perhaps one could say usually, fail because they do not fit local circumstances. In the end, the rights, and more importantly, the interests of everyone who is local can be respected because they were part of it.

The negotiators from the federal side recognized the potential, and I would like to think the value of this pilot project, of the Westbank approach. And that in fact the agreement that was reached was fair and had widespread public support in that part of the world.

In conclusion, I would like to say that there is widespread local support. There are people, still today, in that part of the world who are opposed to it, but what is clear is, even from the members who represent abutting ridings or who represent a riding where this property is, there is agreement.

The agreement has been built on foundations of discussion and consensus that have been driven locally, not by Ottawa. We are told that it meets the needs of the first nation's people there, but equally important, it meets the needs of this 7,500 or 8,000 non-first nation people who live on this first nation's property. It also meets the needs of members in abutting contiguous communities.

As I said in the beginning, I like to think of it as a pilot project. It is a first time agreement under the policy framework which was laid out more than 14 years ago. An agreement of this nature, where it is driven locally, has buy-in and cross-community agreement, will lead to a good local governance, to a strong local community, and of course, to what I think all Canadians want, wherever they are, which is a good local economy where there is economic opportunity, where there are jobs, and where there is local harmony among all the communities.

[Lawrence O'Brien, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is the second time in two days that I have had the opportunity to speak to a first nations agreement. Yesterday we voted and today I am speaking to the Westbank First Nation self-government agreement, Bill C-11, which is enabling legislation.

The bill has two main features: it gives the force of law to the Westbank First Nation self-government agreement; and it makes consequential and coordinating amendments to other federal acts.

At the outset I would like to emphasize that this agreement is not a treaty. In other words, it is very similar to what I am used to in Labrador. We have the Labrador Inuit agreement, which is going for ratification this spring and, hopefully, will become law in the next 12 months. We have the framework and the ratifications of another agreement coming forward with the Labrador Inuit Association, and we have a pending claim with the Labrador Metis nation. Therefore I am very familiar with this subject area of first nations agreements.

This agreement is the first stand-alone self-government agreement negotiated under the federal government's inherent right policy to be presented to Parliament. This policy recognizes the inherent right of self-government as an existing aboriginal right under section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982. The policy and the agreement based on the policy do not, however, define the inherent right to self-government, as only the courts may determine its nature, scope and content.

In this regard, the Westbank First Nation self-government agreement sets aside the debate regarding who has such a right and the scope and content of such a right and focuses rather on setting forth practical arrangements for a number of jurisdictions where Westbank First Nation may exercise law-making authority.

The agreement clearly states that the parties do not consider the agreement to reflect any definitive legal views with respect to how the inherent right of self-government may be defined in law. Further, for greater certainty, section 8 of the agreement states that “nothing in the Agreement shall be construed as recognizing or denying any aboriginal right, recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982”.

This agreement does seek to change the relationship between Canada and the Westbank First Nation, representing a break with the existing Indian Act regime which has created a dependency relationship with first nations and has undermined the relationship between the first nation leadership and the band members. I think that is a very important point because I believe the Indian Act is greatly outdated. Putting terms into the agreement that are different from some aspects of the Indian Act shows that we are in the mode for modernization.

Under the terms of the Westbank First Nation self-government agreement, the Westbank First Nation would act as a government primarily accountable to its members. The federal government would be removed from the day to day operations of the Westbank First Nation and its reserve lands.

The agreement requires the Westbank First Nation to establish a constitution that would provide for a democratic and legitimate government and institutions that would be fully accountable to Westbank First Nation members. The Westbank First Nation constitution must provide for, among other things, democratic election of council members, conflict of interest rules and appeal mechanisms.

The Westbank First Nation developed and ratified its constitution in May 2003. Upon implementation, the constitution would be a law of Westbank First Nation and, as with any other Westbank law, would not be approved by Canada.

The agreement sets out rules applicable to the Westbank First Nation government, its constitution and the exercise of law-making powers in a number of agreed upon subject matters, including: agriculture; culture and language; education; environment; health services; lands and land management; licensing, regulation and operation of business; membership; prohibition of intoxicants; public order, peace and safety; public works; resource management; traffic and transportation; and wills and estates.

Except for membership in the Westbank First Nation, the law-making authority would only extend to matters on reserve and would not include matters that are not specifically addressed in the agreement, such as social services, child and family services, policing and creating a court. Also, the agreement specifically excludes criminal law, protection of health of all Canadians, intellectual property regarding all matters under federal jurisdiction, as well as broadcasting and telecommunications from the jurisdiction of the Westbank First Nation.

The agreement is a bilateral agreement between Canada and the Westbank First Nation that replaces most of the provisions of the Indian Act. As the Westbank First Nation exercises its law-making power over a subject matter covered by the agreement, the corresponding provision of the Indian Act will no longer apply. However, certain elements of the Indian Act, such as Indian status, taxation and certain regulation-making powers of the governor in council, were not the subject of negotiations and are therefore retained. For example, the agreement does not confer any taxation powers on the Westbank First Nation and, accordingly, existing property tax related bylaws will continue in accordance with section 83 of the Indian Act.

Upon implementation of the agreement the fiduciary relationship would be maintained but, as the Westbank First Nation exercises its jurisdiction, Canada expects that its fiduciary obligations would diminish.

Canada's full legal framework is reflected throughout the agreement, which is premised on the concurrent application of federal laws and first nation laws passed in accordance with the parameters of the agreement. Provincial laws of general application will also continue to be treated in the same fashion as they are under the Indian Act. The Westbank First Nation government will be bound by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The Westbank First Nation represents an unusual profile in that, in addition to its 386 members living on reserve, there are approximately 8,000 non-member residents living on Westbank First Nation lands. Non-members will continue to be protected by the charter and the Canadian Human Rights Act. The agreement stipulates that leases to non-members created, granted or issued pursuant to the Indian Act would continue in accordance with their terms and conditions.

The agreement also requires that, following the effective date, the first Westbank First Nation law must establish a mechanism providing non-member residents with a formal statutory right to provide input into matters that significantly and directly affect them. With this future obligation in mind, the Westbank First Nation consulted with non-members and established an interim advisory council in 1999.

Furthermore, the agreement requires that the Westbank First Nation constitution establish an appeal mechanism and provides that the Westbank First Nation may establish administrative bodies to resolve administrative disputes under Westbank law, including landlord and tenant issues.

In closing, the current Indian Act regime tends to undermine the relationship between the Westbank First Nation chief and council and band members. Implementation of the agreement would modify the relationship between Canada and the Westbank First Nation such that the Westbank First Nation would assume increased responsibilities and develop governance structures outside the Indian Act that respond to the individual needs and aspirations of the Westbank First Nation.

Business of the House

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, tomorrow and Monday, we will continue with the business listed, namely third reading stage of Bill C-11, an act to give effect to the Westbank First Nation Self-Government Agreement, this reading of Bill C-12, an act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act, third reading of Bill C-15, an act to implement treaties and administrative arrangements on the international transfer of persons found guilty of criminal offences and third reading of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Contraventions Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

We will also continue with the report stage of Bill C-23, an act to provide for real property taxation powers of first nations, to create a First Nations Tax Commission, First Nations Financial Management Board, First Nations Finance Authority and First Nations Statistical Institute and to make consequential amendments to other acts, as well as debate on the motion to refer committee before second reading Bill C-29, an act to amend the Criminal Code (mental disorder) and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Tuesday shall be an allotted day.

On Wednesday, we hope to be in a position to take up the final stages of Bill C-9, an act to amend the Patent Act and the Food and Drugs Act. I understand that there are some discussions under way that could make it possible to deal with this bill a bit earlier. The government would be prepared to cooperate with any such desire.

I hope that my colleague across the way, and all of his colleagues, are in excellent shape, because we have a lot on our plate.

Westbank First Nation Self-Government Act

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Aboriginal Affairs)]

Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying that I am very pleased with the level of discussion in the House and certainly with the tremendous support the agreement is receiving.

Let me also congratulate Chief Robert Louie and the councillors for their hard work. I know this must be a fairly emotional moment for them and for the people they represent.

Bill C-11 is an act to give effect to the Westbank First Nation self-government agreement. The agreement at the heart of the bill is the first of its kind and sets a valuable precedent for future relationships between Canada and the aboriginal people.

The agreement focuses on self-government. It is not a treaty or a land claim settlement. Pursuant to this agreement, Westbank First Nation will exercise a specific set of legislative powers and assume new responsibilities, putting the Westbank First Nation firmly in control of its economy, culture and community.

I believe that Bill C-11 represents an important step in the history of relationships between the Westbank First Nation and Canada. To appreciate the significance of the bill, one first needs to understand a bit of Westbank history.

Long before Canada became a country, several communities of the Interior Salish people, known as the Okanagan, lived on a large tract of land in south-central British Columbia and northern Washington. When white settlers began to farm in the region in the 1800s, they lived peacefully alongside the local aboriginal population. The Government of Canada established reserves in the region in the early 1900s.

Westbank First Nation, across the lake from Kelowna, split from the Okanagan band, an amalgamation of several tribes, in 1963. Westbank leaders felt they could better meet the particular aspirations of their community by working independently.

Since then, the city of Kelowna has grown and prospered, presenting several economic opportunities to Westbank. The first nation's ability to capitalize on these opportunities is limited, however, by the Indian Act, which requires the band to secure permission from the federal government before it negotiates leases or other agreements. The Indian Act limits not only the power but also the accountability of Westbank's band council. In essence, councillors cannot be held legally liable for their actions.

This combination of weak local government, resulting from deficiencies in the Indian Act, and growing prosperity led to a series of scandals and troubles in the 1980s. Charges of conflict of interest were levelled at some councillors and a climate of mistrust hampered Westbank's ability to grow.

These problems prompted the Government of Canada to order a formal investigation in 1986. This resulted in the Hall commission, which found that the problems of Westbank arose because the governance of the Westbank Indian band had been that of “a government of men and not a government of laws”.

In seeking to resolve the problems and to establish a government of laws, the commission made recommendations for change and ultimately recommended the pursuit of self-government legislation for Westbank. The Westbank First Nation self-government agreement reflects most of the recommendations of the Hall commission, including the requirement to establish a constitution providing for democratic and legitimate elections of government, internal financial management and accountability to members, and conflict of interest rules.

Since then, the people of Westbank have worked hard to realize their aspirations. Formal negotiations between Westbank and the Government of Canada began in 1990 and proceeded throughout the tenure of successive band councils.

While this process continued, Westbank moved to improve the local economy and enhance social services. To foster economic development, the band started two businesses, WFN Development Corporation and Nu-Arc Construction. Under government supervision, the first nation has also become a busy landlord, leasing lands to hundreds of businesses and homeowners. In the 1990s, the band began to collect property taxes in accordance with the Indian Act.

Westbank's growing prosperity has benefited all members of the first nation. The first nation owns and operates its own school and community centre, a provincially licensed day care and early education centre, and an intermediate care facility for the elderly. Westbank also maintains several recreational facilities, including beaches, campgrounds and baseball diamonds.

Westbank has successfully negotiated several agreements with the private and public sectors. Sewer services are provided through a partnership with regional government. The Bank of Montreal collaborates on a loan program for homeowners.

The first nation's approach to self-government followed the same cooperative approach. Westbank leaders worked long and hard with members to develop a community constitution, with non-members to address the creation of an input mechanism, and with neighbouring communities to achieve strong and collaborative partnerships.

Memoranda of political relationship were signed with both the Regional District of Central Okanagan and with the City of Kelowna. Westbank, along with the federal government, also consulted with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, labour groups and homeowners' associations.

During the past few years, more than 400 information and consultation sessions were held to communicate details of the self-government agreement and what it means for the first nation, for the Okanagan Nation Alliance, to which Westbank belongs, and for non-member residents and neighbouring communities. People were encouraged to ask questions and suggest ideas. These consultations inspired a number of improvements to the proposed agreement, such as the strengthening of the provisions regarding non-member residents.

The agreement was ratified by Westbank First Nation in May 2003 by a double majority. This is a higher threshold than the members of the House of Commons must meet at the ballot box. A majority of Westbank First Nation voters also approved a constitution for Westbank that sets out electoral procedures and governance structures.

The agreement between Canada and the Westbank First Nation is now in our hands. I believe we must ratify the legislation because it gives the people of Westbank access to modern, effective government.

Together, Bill C-11 and the agreement represent a vast improvement over the Indian Act and will strengthen democracy in the community. Councillors in the first nation's government will be subject to much more stringent accountability requirements, established in Westbank's constitution. Under Westbank's new constitution, voters can recall elected officials and councillors who spend money without authorization can be held personally liable.

In addition, Westbank's government will no longer be exempt from civil action, as it was under the Indian Act. Under the provisions of Bill C-11, Westbank's government becomes a legal entity that can sue and be sued. Other improvements include strict accounting and financial management practices. Westbank's books will be open to public scrutiny.

For the first time, people residing on Westbank lands who are not band members, approximately 8,000 in all, will have a formal statutory mechanism to influence decisions made by the first nation government. The agreement calls for the establishment of an input mechanism for non-members to safeguard their interests. The agreement requires that the first Westbank law following the effective date of the agreement establish this input mechanism.

The agreement also provides a number of other protections, both for members and for non-members. Westbank First Nation's government and its institutions are bound by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Further, any decisions or laws of the Westbank First Nation may be challenged in the Province of British Columbia's courts.

The net result of all these provisions will be greater public trust in government and a clearer decision making and dispute resolution process. This will help to attract additional investment in band projects, leading to more opportunities for Westbank.

In short, by putting the first nation firmly in control of its destiny, Bill C-11 will enable Westbank leaders to realize the band's goals of self-sufficiency and transparency. In the words of Chief Robert Louie:

Self-government is about the future; it is about... creating a stable community where hard work and initiative are rewarded. The objective is to create a safe and vibrant community with a clear [idea] of who we are and where we are going.

The legislation before us today carries the principled and worthy aspirations of a people. I urge my hon. colleagues to lend their support to Bill C-11. I think this is a realization of a long term project that is going to benefit not just the Westbank First Nation but all Canadians.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to express, on behalf of the NDP caucus, our enthusiastic support for the bill at this stage of debate in the House of Commons today.

As the spokesperson on aboriginal affairs issues for the NDP caucus, it is a pleasure to deal with such a positive issue in the House of Commons when so often we deal with issues that are controversial. This is one bill that we should all be able to feel very good about. If we are about to wrap up this Parliament and go into an election, perhaps we can conclude this 37th Parliament on a positive note and on something for which we can all be proud.

I will begin my remarks by paying tribute to and recognizing the patient, hard-working and dedicated chief of the Westbank First Nation, Chief Robert Louie, and some of the councillors who I met personally in their patient lobbying on the Hill. They were always available as a resource to all of us. Councillor Larry Derrickson was one of them. I also want to thank the negotiators who patiently steered the process through the various stages in what must have seemed like an agonizing and painstakingly slow pace. I do admire the patience and dedication they showed, specifically Mr. Tim Raybould and legal counsel, Micha Menczer. Without the passionate and enthusiastic participation of those individuals, I think it would have been very difficult to navigate the bill through some of the obstacles, not the least of which is a seeming wilful blindness on the part of some people to see this bill for what it is.

I would like to explain in the short time I have, not only the positive aspects of the bill but to try and put to bed some some of the myths that have grown up around this bill by the very small minority of people who do still find fault with it.

I feel that we should have been a lot further along with the bill. The government side sought unanimous consent for the bill to proceed last November but consent was denied by one individual who I do not think was even objecting to the specifics of the bill so much as he had problems with the aboriginal B.C. fishery. It really was not fair to the people of Westbank to delay the bill because of some grievance on another aboriginal issue that was not even related.

By way of prefacing some of the things I will be raising, I would like to recognize that this Westbank self-government agreement is groundbreaking, in a way, for several reasons.

First, it represents a major milestone in the effort to negotiate a self-government agreement in that it is the first stand alone self-government agreement. I say that because there is no land claim element to this agreement. It is the first time that a self-government agreement of this nature has been negotiated under the 1995 inherent rights policy. This is what makes this a significant and noteworthy day.

By moving closer to self-government, we believe the Westbank First Nation will have a stronger governance regime and, contrary to some of the speakers who we have heard from on this bill, it will be more accountable and transparent to its members.

If the theme and the buzzwords of this 37th Parliament are “transparency” and “accountability”, this is something that members in the House should be able to celebrate. I think the jury is in and there can be no doubt that under this new governance regime there will be more transparency and accountability to not only the members of the Westbank First Nation but the non-member residents of this geographic region and other interested parties, frankly the business community, the town council, the mayor of Kelowna, and the many speakers we heard who were not actually status Indians and supported the bill.

I will be happy to debate any member of the House, in any setting or forum, on the subject of accountability and transparency. We know the bill enables transparency and accountability.

The agreement has the solid support of Westbank's neighbours and on-reserve residents who are not first nation members. They recognize that the agreement will provide greater certainty in the exercise of governance and jurisdiction for all levels of government.

With the introduction of the Westbank First Nation self-government act, parliamentary approval is being sought to bring the Westbank First Nation self-government agreement into force and effect. What we are doing today is only giving the enabling legislation to finally put into full force and effect an agreement that already was ratified through an exhaustive consultation and ratification process by all the affected parties, the first nation members being only one of them.

I believe there is broad agreement in the House that the Westbank agreement is local democracy at its best. At the signing ceremony in October 2003, local members of Parliament from the Okanagan and Kelowna area were there and spoke favourably. The former Progressive Conservative minister, Mr. Tom Siddon, who was responsible for getting the negotiations going, was there. It was nice that he could be there to observe the ultimate fruition of this long 14 year process.

We believe that many aspects of the agreement are positive and clearly outweigh any objections that might be raised. Misinformation does abound, however, so I want to dispel one or two of those points.

We have heard from some critics that this is a copycat of the 1999 Nisga'a agreement. I would like to point out that this agreement is fundamentally different from the Nisga'a agreement. I will be able to explain that better when I go through some of the legal arguments that have been made.

I want to start with the inherent right of self-government. As I noted, this is the first agreement negotiated under the 1995 inherent right of self-government policy which finds its origins in section 35 of the Constitution. It must be understood that this agreement was negotiated in the context of the aboriginal inherent right of self-government. The agreement was negotiated by Canada based on this 1995 policy which clearly states:

The Government of Canada recognizes the inherent right of self-government as an existing Aboriginal right under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The policy calls for negotiations with first nations leading to agreements that will recognize the jurisdiction and authority of first nations governance.

Notably, not all self-government agreements are required to be in a treaty as the policy contemplates non-treaty self-government agreements. This Westbank First Nation self-government agreement is clearly not a treaty. This should be established and recognized right at the outset.

The aboriginal right of self-government is recognized by the Canadian legal system under the constitutional common law of Canada and also under section 35. While section 35(1) is an inherent point of origin, as a matter of current status it is held in Canadian law.

Those who do oppose the legislation, like Mr. Mark Milke who has written his opinions in the Calgary Herald , and Mr. Gordon Gibson who has expressed his reservations in an article in the Vancouver Sun and elsewhere, cite Campbell, the British Columbia Liberal government's appeal or challenge to the Nisga'a treaty.

Those who oppose Bill C-11 base much of their analysis on the general assumption that no aboriginal right of self-government can exist because all legislative powers are divided between Canada and the provinces under the Canadian Constitution.

While the Campbell ruling categorically throws out this point of view, aboriginal rights and in particular the right to self-government, akin to legislative powers to make laws, survived as one of the unwritten underlying values of the Constitution outside of the powers distributed to Parliament and the legislatures of 1867.

Mr. Milke and Mr. Gibson object to that legal ruling in the Campbell case. Given their view that all legislative powers then rest with Canada or the provinces, they see only mechanisms for a first nation jurisdiction as flowing from the delegated form of jurisdiction. In other words, a first nation jurisdiction can only stem from those powers delegated to it by the Government of Canada or by the provincial governments.

We, in the NDP, oppose that point of view. We feel it is far too narrow and we believe it is legally inaccurate. We embrace the opinions expressed by the royal commission on aboriginal people. Our interpretation, I suppose, is more in keeping with the federal government's in that we uphold and support the inherent rights policy as articulated in the 1995 policy, at least until such time as true meaning and definition can be given to section 35 of the Constitution.

I am one of those who believe that this is a necessary first step to a broader cross country settlement of outstanding self-government issues. I believe that rather than leaving it up to the courts to tell us what aboriginal and treaty rights mean, it is the role of Parliament and the House of Commons to take one step back and give meaning and definition to section 35 so we do not have this divisive struggle and expensive process, sometimes a 20 year process, to find a definition on a case by case basis.

I want to comment on some of the aspects of the Westbank First Nation self-government act on which I believe there has been some misunderstanding. An agreement we believe should be celebrated, is actually being criticized more by misinformation than by any solid and tangible reasoning.

Under this bilateral self-government agreement, Westbank will assume jurisdiction for most matters now regulated under the Indian Act. If there is one thing on which we can all agree, it is that the Indian Act is an outdated, obsolete and fundamentally flawed oppressive piece of legislation that we should all be committed to eradicating at the earliest opportunity. These jurisdictions will be phased in over time and as they are exercised, the related provisions of the Indian Act will no longer apply. In other words, this is the emancipation of the first nation of the Westbank region from under a colonial piece of legislation that has no business existing in the modern context.

In the category of laws, Westbank will have the jurisdiction to make laws in such areas as land management, aboriginal language and culture, resource management, the environment, et cetera. We should make it abundantly clear, if there is anyone under any misconceptions here, that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms shall, will and does apply in the context of this self-government agreement. I do not know how we can express it any more clearly. Those who are spreading this misinformation are those who may oppose the bill on the grounds that somehow the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not apply. I point out and I urge those members to look at section 32 of this agreement where clearly the opening lines of the section says:

The government of Westbank First Nation and Council in respect of all matters under its authority are bound by the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms....

I do not know how we could be more clear to satisfy anybody who has any concerns about whether or not the charter applies. For additional clarity and certainty, the final part of that section reads:

--the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter are enforceable in respect of the government of Westbank First Nation and the Council.

These statements in my view make it absolutely clear that the charter applies. Yet we find one legal opinion arguing that. Mr. Harvey, acting on behalf of some people who oppose the bill in the Kelowna area, points to the reference in section 32 of the agreement to section 25 of the charter, which deals with having regard to aboriginal and treaty rights in the interpretation of the charter. However, he fails to acknowledge that section 32 of the agreement is merely a statement of what is already in the charter, and the charter must be read and understood as a whole, not cherry-picking isolated sections. I hope that is the last we hear about it in this debate. I do not see how anyone could in any way argue that the charter does not apply.

Regarding non-members of the band, the charter states:

Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.

Therefore, individuals can always have recourse to the courts in that case. I hope we have satisfied some of the misconceptions that exist regarding the application of the charter.

I will not dwell on this very much longer. I think we have clearly stated why the NDP is firmly in favour of the bill. We look forward to the speedy passage of it.

In closing, it has been said by people wiser than I that aboriginal nations whose rights and interests in this bountiful land predate the treaties are in fact Canada's foundation. Canada's complexity and diversity derive not only from its array of people who have arrived from other lands, but also from the original inhabitants with their many cultures and languages.

To view Canada merely as a shelter society, ignores and denies the important and lasting roles of aboriginal people in Canada's legal and political foundation. There is no need for reminders of our tragic past, but that past can be put behind us with a philosophical shift acknowledging the mistakes made in the past and moving forward with progressive self-governance initiatives such as the Westbank First Nation self-government act.

Therefore, I am very proud to say that the NDP caucus will be voting in favour of the bill. Again, I wish to pay tribute, honour and recognize the herculean task it has taken on the part of Chief Robert Louie, his councillors and the negotiators to bring the bill to the stage it is. I extend my congratulations to them and I hope we can unanimously pass the bill at the appropriate time in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to speak to Bill C-11 at third reading.

I will paint a little picture for members. The Westbank First Nation is adjacent to the city of Kelowna in the Okanagan Valley of British Columbia. As a band, it has rightfully gained a reputation as one of the most progressive bands in the country. There is some opposition to the self-government agreement. However, that opposition flies in the face of the evidence.

There are 7,500 non-band members, and one-quarter of all non-band member residents in Canada who live on reserve live on the Westbank reserve. These residents, as well as 200 businesses, have chosen to locate on Westbank land because they view the Westbank First Nation government as being competent, predictable and stable and, therefore, is a very secure place to invest.

The Westbank First Nation has been collecting property tax since 1990, and non-band members have full access to the financial reporting of these property tax accounts. Westbank has implemented a system of independent property assessment and assessment appeal mechanisms similar to off reserve municipalities. The B.C. assessment authority has been contracted to carry out these functions and this has made it very easy to translate for the real estate industry. Therefore, it has a very simple process. It can recommend Westbank investments, and it does.

The implementation of this taxation policy 14 years ago, under the provision of section 83 of the Indian Act and the subsequent opting into the First Nations Land Management Act, was instrumental in the rapid growth of non-band members residing on Westbank land. None of this property tax regime under section 83 of the Indian Act will change as a consequence of this agreement. The self-governance will actually improve the ability of individuals to manage these transactions under that self-governance because it will not require the extra step and impediment of the Department of Indian Affairs.

Elsewhere in British Columbia we have a shining example. The Sechelt Indian band achieved self-government and taxing power in the 1980s. Virtually, without exception, it is held up as a successful model for self-government and economic development. The Sechelt and Westbank agreements share a provision that non-native residents are represented by an advisory group to chief and council.

Critics of the agreement also like to point to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, claiming that the Westbank agreement will change this application as it applies to the Westbank government and residents.

We have had some debate in the House on this and it is the full intent of this agreement that the charter apply. It is my very strong opinion and the opinion of many in the legal profession that any difficulties there might be in that area are due to the Canadian Constitution and the charter, certainly not due to a piece of legislation such as Westbank. We all know that our charter and our Constitution are supreme, so I need say no more.

The net effect for non-band members living on Westbank lands is that the application of the charter is the same whether the Westbank First Nation is operating under the provisions of the Indian Act, as it is now, or operating after this agreement receives royal assent.

The Westbank band is on course to be responsible for its own governance and its own future. The bill creates a government which is a legal entity that can sue or be sued. In contrast, Indian Act chiefs and councils are protected from legal liability. To me, it is quite surprising that the democratic and financial accountability provisions and the private property provisions so central to the Westbank agreement have virtually been ignored by the critics of the bill.

Critics also complain that Westbank laws may prevail over federal and provincial laws. In reality, current chief and council bylaws across Canada prevail over provincial legislation as a consequence of section 88 of the Indian Act. The Westbank agreement adopts the same provision. Westbank laws prevail over federal laws only in some specific areas.

We have to recognize also that because these are federal lands there is a vacuum in some areas that are normally under provincial jurisdiction, such as landlord tenancy and some other areas. The Westbank band, either prior to now or as a consequence of this agreement, has taken care of those vacuums in the law, and this has added to the certainty and security for investors.

I find it very interesting that the Westbank band has done very enlightened things because of a vacuum in the law, yet it has been criticized for occupying that vacuum. However, the real reasons were never associated with the criticism. I thought I would point that out.

One example that people should be aware of deals with the area of intoxicants. Westbank may create a dry reserve. It has priority over federal law in relation to Okanagan language and culture, K to 12 education, the practice of traditional Okanagan medicine and Westbank law enforcement procedures, as long as they are comparable but not greater than those set out in federal or provincial legislation on similar subject matters. Business licensing, traffic and transportation, public works and wills and estates of Westbank members are all areas that are largely without criticism.

Once again, it seems to be the principle that is attacked but the specifics are not attacked. I think once we look at the specifics, that these are actually areas that are non-controversial.

In addition, the Westbank First Nation has jurisdiction over the renewable resources on Westbank lands, excluding fish and fish habitat. Jurisdiction is also extended to non-renewable resources such as minerals and gravel. The Westbank band can manage resources on Westbank lands as if it is a private property owner, although ownership resides with Canada. There is some difference between the Westbank and Sechelt. In the case of the Sechelt band, its lands were transferred in fee simple title. They are no longer federal lands.

The adjacent city of Kelowna, British Columbia's third largest city and according to many of the residents, British Columbia's most important city, and the regional district that encompasses Westbank First Nation have endorsed the agreement.

The Westbank agreement should be looked at in its entirety. It should be supported and encouraged as the model for other bands.

I have had some significant history with self-government and other legislation. This bill was tabled in the House last November, I believe. In January I had meetings with the regional district representatives, the mayor of Kelowna, the chief and council from the Westbank, and the Westbank advisory group. This gave me a very good feel not only for the legislation but for the communities.

As part of my background in aboriginal affairs, I will go back to 1997, two ministers ago. At that time, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development had been minister for the entire 1993-97 Parliament. As that Parliament was winding down, there was a First Nations Land Management Act for which, in typical government fashion, an attempt was made to rush it through at the last minute. I resisted that. That bill did not pass until 1999.

I would like to say at this time that I was wrong about that piece of legislation. That legislation has turned out to be very important and progressive legislation. It has brought many of the merits of self-government, without necessitating self-government, to the leasing of lands. Fourteen first nations were part of that, I think, and Westbank was a signatory. This ability under the First Nations Land Management Act was responsible for a significant amount of the growth of non-native residency at Westbank.

Also as a part of my history I did represent the Sechelt area on the British Columbia coast for that 1993-97 Parliament. That was prior to a rearrangement of my riding as a consequence of the 1991 census. It was very clear when I represented the greater community there that there was great support for the Sechelt Indian band self-government agreement, which has been in place since 1986. I am sure that this will be mirrored in the experience with Westbank in the Okanagan.

There is one area that I think is very significant for many people. They have very strong feelings that this area needs to be addressed. It is another one of these vacuums in legislation. The question relates to matrimonial property. Matrimonial property law in Canada is a provincial jurisdiction. Each province deals with this in its own way.

In the case of federal reserve lands, there is no matrimonial property legislation. There is no legislation dealing with marital assets after death or divorce or marital separation. This is an area that has been brought forward repeatedly over at least the last 20 years in the House of Commons Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and in other venues. I know the Senate is looking at this issue and has been for quite some time. We have had native women's organizations tackling this area and pushing for change. I think everyone wants to see it fixed, but it is a difficult area and it has not been fixed.

I want to say that the first people living on reserve in Canada who will be covered by matrimonial property law will be the Westbank, almost undoubtedly, because another part of the agreement specifies that within 12 months of the agreement coming into effect this area must be covered off. There must be law brought into place to cover the Westbank membership and that law must not discriminate on the basis of gender.

I know that there has been some preliminary work done and some consultation has been done and that will proceed. I think that whatever occurs with the Westbank on that front will be very useful as a model for others to look at and perhaps will expedite the resolution of that issue for the other 632 bands in Canada. I am certainly hopeful that this will be the case.

Recently there has been a suggestion that because the Westbank First Nation ratification vote required three attempts in order to locally ratify this agreement, it somehow means that we have a community divided unto itself and it taints this whole exercise. I want to make it clear that if we want to form a municipality, for example, and incorporate in the province of British Columbia, what we require in order to express that will is 50% plus one of those who turn out to vote yea, by referendum or by ballot.

In the case of the Westbank, there were three votes. All three have expressed a clear majority who want to see this ratified, but in their idealism in the first attempt they wanted a super majority, in other words, 50% plus one of people on the voting list, thinking that it would be very achievable. Of course it did not happen. And on one of those first two occasions, it did not happen by two ballots, I think.

What it means is that everybody who does not show up or is incapacitated or cannot get to the ballot box is counted as voting no. Westbank basically has put its voting system in line with what everybody else does. It is a simple majority of those who vote. So I do not think this process it tainted at all, quite the contrary.

My time is up, so I will wrap up by saying that this is a very enlightened agreement. It is an attempt to achieve all of those things that will be good for the people and good for the residents of Westbank. I think they have valiantly succeeded.

[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?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I must begin by saying that I disagree with the previous arguments and I will outline my position.

First of all, the first amendment to the bill is a complete deletion of clause 3. Basically, we cannot delete clause 3. We cannot delete any clause, actually, because this is an agreement between the Government of Canada and a first nation. We have negotiated this agreement for years and to remove an instrumental clause, which of course the Government of Canada has agreed to put into law and which is what we are doing in Parliament, would abrogate the whole agreement and we would be back at stage one.

The effect of this amendment would be that Canada would not ratify the Westbank first nation self-government agreement. With this amendment, members of Parliament are being asked not to approve the Westbank first nation self-government agreement in its entirety. Clause 3 would give the force of law to the Westbank first nation self-government agreement. Clause 3 is the substantive provision of Bill C-11. Without this provision, the Westbank first nation self-government agreement would not be given effect.

Both Canada and Westbank first nation must ratify the Westbank first nation self-government agreement for the agreement to come into effect. Pursuant to the Westbank first nation self-government agreement, Canada's ratification procedure requires that Canada sign the agreement and that Canada enact federal legislation giving effect to the agreement. Canada signed the Westbank first nation self-government agreement on October 3, 2003. Bill C-11, and in particular clause 3, is the proposed federal legislation that would give effect to the Westbank first nation self-government agreement.

With regard to the specific argument that we had in relation to clause 3 and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, basically, in summary, I would say that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will apply to the Westbank government and to the people of Westbank. The Government of Canada is committed to the principle that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms binds all governments in Canada so that aboriginal peoples and non-aboriginal Canadians alike would continue to enjoy equally the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the charter.

The charter, through section 25, is designed to ensure a sensitive balance between individual rights and freedoms, and the unique values and traditions of aboriginal people in Canada. This is stated in the Government of Canada's federal policy, “The Government of Canada's Approach to Implementationof the Inherent Right and the Negotiation of Aboriginal Self-Government”. Section 32 of the Westbank self-government agreement is in conformity with this policy.

It is the view of the Government of Canada that the Westbank first nation government and any Westbank laws passed pursuant to the Westbank first nation self-government agreement will be subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in its entirety. One cannot make one provision of the charter apply more forcefully than any other.

With regard to providing Westbank with specific self-government inherent rights, this is a general right that is applied across the country. It is the same in all our self-government agreements. It is not specific to Westbank. It is not a specific right.

The references to an inherent right in the Westbank first nation self-government agreement are general in nature and do not constitute a specific recognition of any specific Westbank first nation aboriginal right to self-government. The Westbank first nation self-government agreement and its references to an inherent right of self-government are in accordance with the federal government's inherent right policy, which recognizes that the inherent right of self-government is an existing aboriginal right within section 35 of the Constitution Act.

In case the people who are watching want to know what we are debating in section 25 of the Charter, I will read it. It 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 including

(a) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and

(b) any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.

This is a general protection and reference in the bill. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms will continue to apply to aboriginal people across the country and to the people on the Westbank reserve. Of course, the sensitive clause 25 will ensure that rights are acknowledged.

I want to now talk about Motion No. 3 and the clause respecting additions to reserve. The amendment basically suggests that adding land to the Westbank First Nation reserve would require the consent of the City of Kelowna. While land has already been added to the Westbank reserve through our general policy, when additional land is added to reserves, there are consultations and agreements with the provincial and municipal governments. This is already in our policy.

The authority to add land to reserves is a federal authority and that authority is applied across the country, including the Westbank. With or without this agreement, there is authority to add to the reserve. However, the amendment would take away from the Westbank people something that would be available to all reserves across the country, and that would obviously be unfair.

We are not here today to take away or lessen one particular first nation from a power. However, we had a lengthy debate about this section in committee and at that time assurances were given, and that is Canadian policy is that when additions are made to reserve, the municipalities and provincial governments will consulted. Therefore, this should not be a concern.

The Westbank First Nation, like all other first nations in Canada, may concurrently access additions to reserve policy, which is a national policy. Upon implementation of the Westbank First Nation self-government agreement nothing would change for the Westbank First Nation with respect to the federal government's additions to reserve policy.

The additions to reserve policy requires that the first nation and the municipality in question negotiate in areas such as joint land use planning, bylaw harmonization, tax considerations, service provision and future dispute resolution. In practice Canada has insisted that these matters be dealt with to the satisfaction of all parties. As a result, in many cases lands are added to reserves only after years of negotiations. This has been demonstrated in the addition of what are known as the Gallagher Canyon lands to the Westbank First Nation reserve in 2000, 17 years after the Westbank First Nation first initiated an addition to reserve request.

Any amendment denying the Westbank First Nation the right to access the federal government's additions to reserve policy in whole or in part would set the Westbank First Nation apart from all other first nations, including those that have self-government agreements or those that have concluded treaties. This would place an undue burden on the Westbank First Nation. Further, the additions to reserve policy is within the purview of the federal government's jurisdiction to deal with all matters relating to Indian lands.

As stated above, in practice the additions to reserve policy does not permit the addition of lands to reserve without the consent of surrounding municipalities. In this regard the proposed amendment requiring the consent of the City of Kelowna prior to any further additions to Westbank First Nation reserve lands merely states what is already the case.

Nevertheless, the proposed amendment would cede the federal government's power, expressed through the granting of an order in council with respect to additions to Westbank reserve lands, to a municipal level of government. Additions to reserve, a federal jurisdiction under the Canadian constitutional framework, would no longer be entirely within the prerogative of the federal government.

The additions to reserve are granted pursuant to an order in council by the governor in council. It is recognized that additions to reserve proposals may potentially impact on provincial and municipal governments, and thus the federal government's addition to reserve policy requires that these levels of government have an opportunity to express their interests.

Provinces and municipalities must be advised in writing of an additions to reserve proposal within their jurisdiction and have three months to respond in writing to identify any issues with an additions to reserve proposal. Third party interests must be identified and dealt with before an additions to reserve proposal may proceed.

I will not have time to go any further, so I will just summarize by saying, of the two amendments, the first one basically would abrogate the whole agreement. It is the primary clause that puts it into effect. It basically is yes or no on Westbank. The last one I do not think is necessary. First, the City of Kelowna is already guaranteed under the present policy. Second, we could not take a right away from one first nation in Canada. If people want to change that, they should lobby to change the entire government policy, not just one clause in the agreement.

[John M. Cummins, Canadian Alliance, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, simply put, the agreement gives the Westbank government an umbrella to shield itself any time a resident seeks to reign on its arbitrary actions with a challenge under the charter.

The lawyer for the Westbank, Micha Menczer, when challenged in the House of Commons committee studying the Westbank bill and agreement, claimed that critics must not believe in the charter, that their complaint was really with section 25 of the charter rather than with the agreement. He stated:

I think that's a misreading. More importantly, section 25 is part of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Westbank and the Government of Canada have no power to change that, either by an agreement or even by legislation. That is a matter of constitutional change.

A convenient lawyer's trick, but no, the problem is with the agreement's action to make the Westbank government an aboriginal right triggering section 25 and knocking out the protection of the charter for Westbank residents. The problem is not section 25 of the charter.

The problem is the sections in the agreement that state that the agreement is both a recognition and an implementation of the aboriginal right of self-government. It is those sections of the agreement that trigger section 25. It is the aboriginal right of self-government provisions of the agreement that effectively allow the Westbank government to shield itself from the application of the charter any time it wishes to do so.

In a paper entitled “Westbank self-government agreement will strip away fundamental Canadian rights”, Tanis Fiss, Director for the Centre for Aboriginal Policy Change of the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation, observed:

This is a disastrous piece of legislation. If Members of Parliament pass this agreement, Canada's elected officials will deny certain Canadians the right to vote in community elections and in so doing will strip the fundamental rights of Canadian citizens.

The proposed Westbank Self-Government Agreement, Bill C-11, will shield the Westbank government from application of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. By doing so, Westbank laws would be immune from a Charter challenge. In other words, Westbank laws could discriminate between residents of Westbank based on their race, religion or gender and the victim of discrimination could not use the Charter to strike down the offence.

Once entrenched in the Constitution based on the premise of an “inherent right” to self-government, this means Section 25 of the Constitution will also apply to the Agreement. The equality rights of the Charter do not apply to Aboriginal communities under Section 25 of the Constitution. This will be the case no matter what is written in the Agreement because the Constitution is the supreme law of Canada.

The federal government plans to use the Westbank self-government agreement as a template for further negations. This piece of legislation will set a precedent which other Indian Bands will follow. Clearly, this Agreement will have national repercussions for generations of Canadians.

Incredibly, all parties in the federal parliament plan to support the measure and have supported it through the first two readings. Given the many flaws of this Agreement, Canadians can only hope their elected Members of Parliament come to their senses and vote against the Agreement.

Mark Milke, in an article in the Calgary Herald entitled “Native agreement flawed”, stated:

One significant problem with the Westbank agreement is that it will deny natives and non-natives some of their charter rights. Defenders already claim that because one section in the Westbank document references it as bound by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that such freedoms are thus secure. No, they are not. The same section of the agreement the defenders will point to also has this caveat about such charter freedoms: “with due regard for Section 25...”

That's a tip-off. Section 25 grants aboriginal and treaty rights immunity from legal challenges launched from other charter sections.

Christopher Harvey, a lawyer who analyzed the agreement, argues that the new Westbank deal infringes on charter rights and does so through a clever (and improper) juxtaposition of aboriginal claims to self-government combined with the Section 25 rights noted above: “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. It is surprising to see basic legal rights which have been acquired gradually over many years of political struggles being so abruptly discarded”.

If Parliament intends residents to have the right to use the charter to challenge the Westbank government, it must ensure that those sections of the agreement that refer to the aboriginal right of self-government are not brought into law. If Parliament intends to give the Westbank government an umbrella to shield itself from challenges under the charter, then it should pass Bill C-11, the Westbank law act, into law without amendment.

However, a healthier choice of action dictates that Parliament consider the serious implications of shielding the Westbank government from the charter. Westbank residents, like Canadians everywhere, deserve the protection of the charter. It is the right of Canadian citizenship, yet they will not have charter protection if this bill is approved in its present form.

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

moved:

Motion No. 3

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.”

[John M. Cummins, Canadian Alliance, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-11 be amended by deleting Clause 3.

[The Speaker]

There are three motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-11.

Motion No. 2 will not be selected by the Chair as it could have been presented in committee.

The remaining motions have been examined and the Chair is satisfied that they meet the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendment at the report stage.

Having heard submissions from the hon. members in respect of that matter, Motions Nos. 1 and 3 will be debated and voted upon.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 and 3 to the House.

Business of the House

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we shall continue debate on Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 23, 2004. If this is completed, we will commence second reading of Bill C-28, an act to amend the Canada National Parks Act.

Tomorrow, we will debate a motion to refer to committee before second reading Bill C-25, an act to establish a procedure for the disclosure of wrongdoings in the public sector, including the protection of persons who disclose the wrongdoings, and hopefully deal with the Senate amendments to Bill C-8, an act to establish the Library and Archives of Canada, to amend the Copyright Act and to amend certain acts in consequence.

When the House returns on April 19, any of this business that is unfinished will be taken up, along with Bill C-11, an act to give effect to the Westbank First Nation Self-Government Agreement, Bill C-12, an act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act, and Bill C-10, an act to amend the Contraventions Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, Bill C-15, an act to implement treaties and administrative arrangements on the international transfer of persons found guilty of criminal offences, Bill C-28, an act to amend the Canada National Parks Act, Bill C-23, an act to provide for real property taxation powers of first nations, to create a First Nations Tax Commission, First Nations Financial Management Board, First Nations Finance Authority and First Nations Statistical Institute and to make consequential amendments to other acts, and the bill introduced yesterday, Bill C-31, an act to give effect to a land claims and self-government agreement among the Tlicho, the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Government of Canada, to make related amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

I should like to wish my colleagues a happy and pleasant holiday period and to express my hope that they return refreshed and ready for a full legislative agenda for the spring.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to answer the Thursday question.

This afternoon, we will continue the budget debate. Tomorrow, we will begin consideration at the report and subsequent stages of Bill C-3, the Canada Elections Act, followed by a motion for referral of Bill C-25, the whistleblower bill, to a committee before second reading.

Monday and Tuesday we will continue with the budget debate. Wednesday, we will have votes on ways and means motions. We will then resume consideration of any bill that did not get finished on Friday, Bill C-11 in particular, plus of course, if possible, Bill C-9 on drugs. Next Thursday, I hope we will be able to start second reading of the budget bill.

As for the committees, all I can say is that I am pleased the Standing Committee on Public Accounts will be able to make some progress during the week we are not sitting here in the House.

Committees of the House

[Rick Laliberte, Liberal, Churchill River, SK]

[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Cree]

(English)

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources regarding the order of reference of Thursday, February 12, Bill C-11, an act to give effect to the West Bank First Nations Self-government Agreement.

The committee has considered Bill C-11 and reports the bill with amendments.

Westbank First Nation Self-Government Act

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-11, an act to give effect to the Westbank First Nation Self-Government Agreement.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to special order made earlier, I wish to inform you that this bill is in the same form as Bill C-57 at the time of prorogation of the previous session.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)