Bill C-31 (Historical)

Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act

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

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

But there is a point there, Mr. Chair. My point in building up towards a need for consultation is that these are very clear examples why consultation is so critical. We've had this recent B.C. Supreme Court decision that talks about the fact that the Indian Act itself is discriminatory. It's going to be taken apart on a piecemeal basis. The justice herself is saying that striking down this section of the act is going to create chaos. I'm trying to make the point that without adequate consultation we're going to see some very serious problems.

I want to go on about the cost drivers project. The department itself said that in analyzing legislative change and disruption—and I'm referring back to Bill C-31—in the event of challenges to Bill C-31 there are over 45,000 applicants whose claims to registration have been denied, and an additional 30,000 whose claims have gone dormant. These individuals will quickly be included in the backlog and increase it by ten times its current size. Depending on the impact of the legislative change, there may be a requirement to review all of the 250,000 Bill C-31 applicants held at headquarters, or even review many of the registrations completed by the regional offices as well, which could number in the hundreds of thousands of cases.

Again, we're talking about significant impact on previous pieces of legislation that did not have adequate consultation in place.

We've had recent experience with matrimonial real property. The Native Women's Association issued a press release. This part is important, because some members have said that my motion was complex. It was complex deliberately so we could envision and cut off the kinds of things that happened around matrimonial real property. Under matrimonial real property, the Native Women's Association argued, in talking about the minister, that despite his assurances that NWAC would be fully engaged in the MRP process, NWAC has been completely excluded in the drafting of the legislative solutions and implementing non-legislative solutions to these serious issues. NWAC is also concerned about the minister's continued silence on ministerial representative Wendy Grant-John's comprehensive report on MRP.

Because of the very compelling testimony we've heard, I believe we should look at consultation. I can go through testimony from Wendy Cornet, Louise Mandell, Mr. Slavik, and any number of other people who talked about the duty to consult and what it would look like.

I know that there are other committee members who probably want to put forward their views on this, but I strongly urge the committee to look at my motion as a way to respectfully engage first nations in this very important matter of the repeal of section 67.

Thank you.

[Louise Mandell]

I just want to comment as well.

I think the efforts to amend the legislation, including the international engagement of human rights standards, in terms of the political radar among the aboriginal people, is largely keyed toward the colonial legacy of the Indian Act and the problems that creates. That's as opposed to the problems associated with the band councils' actions in implementing the Indian Act.

I really wanted to reinforce the question from the opposition, especially on the point about this two-tiered approach. I do think that if you went ahead and made challenges against the Canadian government and the legislation coming out of Canada a first priority, you would, I'm quite sure, capture a lot of the political sentiment in terms of Canada not living up to its own human rights standards and its legislation.

If I could, I'll just say one other thing quite quickly. I don't know how well it's been expressed, but I want to re-express the point that many of the problems associated with the band councils' implementation, which result in potential human rights violations on the ground, have their origin in the Indian Act. It's hard to unlock them. For example, taking the example of the Bill C-31 issue, you have the original 12(1)(b) becoming Bill C-31. Then, through Bill C-31, you have the severing of status and band membership and a lot of aboriginal people passing membership codes that are inclusive. And then you have the federal government's allocation of moneys to bands that cover only status Indians. So a band that includes in its membership non-status spouses and children has to deal with the scarcity of resources. The problem winnows itself back to the amendment in 12(1)(b) and the problems it creates.

Similarly, many of the human rights complaints we can expect to see derive from the Indian Act section itself. For example, I have just gone through the Indian Act and looked at where the rubber might hit the road. You might have, for example, some bands with property tax bylaws levelling property taxes on commercial and non-member residents but exempting resident members from paying property tax. That all has its origin in the Indian Act and is now possibly the subject of a challenge. Or in the context of wills and estates, it might be the Indian Act preventing heirs not entitled to live on reserve from inheriting rights to possession on reserve. The band council simply mirrors what the act tells them to do. The complaint would be against the band council, because they're the ones making the decision, but the origin of the problem is in the Indian Act.

Similarly, certain Indian Act exemptions for taxation and protection from seizure of personal property on reserve, again, only for people who can meet the requirement of being registered status Indians, signals the chances of there being an attack and raises human rights issues.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for coming and presenting a very coherent approach to how we might look at this legislation.

I just want to make a couple of comments.

First of all, one of my colleagues talked about pressure. I want to make it clear that the pressure is coming from the government for us to pass this.

What we've heard almost universally from the witnesses is yes, they support the repeal of section 67, as do New Democrats. We absolutely support the repeal of section 67--but after appropriate consultation. What we've heard quite strongly is that this legislation should not be passed prior to consultation. That's been quite clear.

There are a couple of points I wanted to pick up on. You mentioned Bill C-31, Mr. Slavik, and that's come up a number of times. People have been very concerned about Bill C-31, which reinstated women's status, but which in effect, with its second-generation opt-out clause--section 6.2--is going to lead to assimilation across this country. Many of the witnesses who appeared before us talked about the fact that the lack of appropriate consultation before the implementation of that bill has had unintended consequences in communities. The department itself has done an analysis on the impact of Bill C-31 on potential court cases that could come to the government, and they're saying they could ultimately end up with up to 250,000 cases. Now, that's the department's own analysis.

Could you tell me if there's any good reason why we would agree to go forward with this bill prior to consultation? I struggle to see why we would do it, knowing all the things we know. Is there any argument for going forward without consultation that would make sense, when we've got the time and the space to do consultation?

Is there any argument?

[Chief Rose Laboucan]

I had a hard time hearing the first part of your comments.

I recommend that we create a task force to address the concerns around collective versus individual rights, and to look at dealing with the outcomes. We don't want to be stuck again in the realm of Bill C-31, the consequences of that, and how it played out. We need to examine this and look at the outcomes. I think that would be a good starting point.

[Chief Rose Laboucan, Driftpile First Nation]

Good morning to everyone. I thank you for the opportunity I almost didn't have, but in saying that, I don't feel I should have any more drama than my plane ride and the responsibility and accountability to be here to speak on behalf of first nation women and children in my community, and that's the reason why I'm here.

I want to say that when I initially took this opportunity to speak, I didn't want anything in writing, because I think from my oral history I'm able to voice my concerns without having to write them down. So I didn't pass out any documentation.

The one thing that I saw in this process, the first flaw I saw, was that no genuine consultation occurred. In 1977 there was a promise broken, because the federal government said they would engage prior to the application of the Canadian Human Rights Act regarding any changes that were to be made. That was not my promise; it was the promise that was made.

So even from that point of view, I don't know how I'm going to be able to say that my human rights and my benefit are being reassured by the changes that are going to occur on section 67.

As the leader of a small community in northern Alberta where the collective rights when it comes to the land base supersede the human rights, I have no other option but to protect that small piece of land that has been designated to me as a reservation. And knowing that and knowing that the collective and individual rights issue is going to be an even bigger burden to us than you will ever know, I can't begin to say how the matrimonial real property rights issues and the other issues stemming from the land management act.... All of these are connected to the repeal of this bill, and I want to be consulted. I want to know what the future outcomes are going to be in this process. I want to know how to address those prior to that.

When Bill C-31 was imposed, no one looked at the future and the impact of that bill. In this case, I definitely want to be reassured that any financial burdens are not on me, because when you look at individual human rights and issues that will come forth, you can see there will be a financial burden to that. There's no way anywhere in my budget that I can accommodate that.

Do not get me wrong. I am for the women. I am for the children and the protection of the children. I'm a mother, I'm a grandmother, so no one can deny me that opportunity and say that this is not about those rights. It definitely is.

As for the principle of Bill C-44, the repeal of section 67 I don't have a problem with, but let's talk about the process and what has to occur prior to that, instead of ramming something down my throat again. I say that as a first nations person who has had to live under the Indian Act all my life.

I just want to say that there are other things I would like--definitely the transition period. There are other accommodations that could be made to this bill before it's passed in the House, but number one and foremost, without consulting me you have already violated my human rights as an individual. You can't have both, You can't have your cake and eat it too, and say collective rights are only this part of me, and individual rights are only this part of me. No. It's either that they encompass me as a whole individual or not. And don't strategize so that I'm isolated on one part of my human rights and not the other.

I know it's a really big issue, so when we look at it and we look at the land base and we look at the collectivity of our way of life, I need more time. I need to talk about this more openly and discuss all the alternatives and strategies that I could bring forth in this process.

It is from that perspective that I chose to come to speak to you today. Hopefully when there's a question and answer period, we'll get into more detail about it.

That's where I'm coming from. I just want the opportunity to have these discussions and move forward.

Thank you.

[Esther Sanderson]

I would like to comment on that first.

At one time in our communities, we had our own membership. We were allowed to have members join our communities, and they were put on the band list. Somewhere along the line, something happened. I guess it started with the Indian Act, regarding who could be an Indian and who couldn't be. That's when the injustices began in our communities.

Given the opportunity, we could do that again with the human rights in our communities, because it was done fairly. It was done as a process as to who could be a member and why they should or shouldn't be a member. In my mind, it would be the same process. The issues will probably come out the same in terms of membership, and that's what we were talking about in Bill C-31.

I'm also someone they call a Bill C-31, and I hate the way we define ourselves in our communities, where we're numbers and initials instead of people.

That's what Bill C-31 has done to us. It was a termination clause for all of the Indian people. Those consequences were bad. I would not like to see something like that happen again with Bill C-44.

We're adamant that we want a consultation process, so that our voices can be heard in Parliament and adequately addressed.

[Doris Young, Advisor to the President, University College of the North]

Good day, everybody.

[Witness speaks in Cree] I'm saying greetings to all of you in my language, which is Cree.

My name is Doris Young. I'm here to talk about this very important section of Bill C-67. I am a first nations woman and a member of the Women's Advisory Council of Manitoba; of the Keewatinook Ininew Okimowin, or MKO; and the Opaskwayak Cree Nation Women's Council, which is my community. I understand the MKO was here last week speaking to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development about this issue. I work at the University College of the North, in The Pas, Manitoba, as adviser to the president, and I live on the Opaskwayak Cree Nation.

First of all, I want to say that the government's plan to repeal immediately this section 67 without a commitment to ensure that there is adequate consultation and engagement of first nations is something that we cannot support, because if it's repealed without proper consultation it impacts on the lives of first nations communities, and in particular, native women. It will impact us in a negative way more than it would benefit us.

We believe, as northern first nations women, in our right to be protected against discrimination, and we also support the idea of empowerment, which is what this bill is designed to do. But empowerment really means to us the ability to make decisions on relevant information, which we don't have. We haven't received any information, there was no consultation with first nations women in Manitoba, and no information has been provided to us about this bill. We are therefore not able to make an informed decision about it, and that's why we can't support it.

I want to say a little bit about this colonization process and the residential school experience, which I myself have been affected by, and we've been personally harmed by both of these--first of all, colonization, and then residential schools. These laws that were passed were not really ours, but nevertheless we were forced to accept them, and it's caused us a lot of misery. Possibly this section 67 will have the same consequences if no consultation is made and no input on our behalf is given to the government about the effects.

We do believe that discrimination should not be occurring to native women, and neither violence nor abuse, because it harms our families and it harms our communities. We are dedicated to our families and we know collectively what is good for them and for our communities. We have the strength, courage, and of course the resilience to continue fighting for our place in society and to plan for the enjoyment of a good future for our children and our communities. This is why this issue is so very important for us.

One of the issues that need addressing is that it's really imperative that measures are in place so that our collective and human rights are protected, and they include our customs, our practices, and our languages. There must be assurance that our ability to create our own human rights laws and decision-making bodies is enhanced, not weakened. There must be provisions in place to ensure that first nations women are meaningfully engaged in the development and implementation of first-nations-driven human rights mechanisms, and there must be adequate resources available to us to be involved in this process.

Twenty-two years ago, in 1985, when Bill C-31 was passed, we did not have the knowledge of or insight into its impact on our future generations. We were so happy that at last the prospect of discrimination would end. Of course it didn't happen.

Now 22 years later, in 2007, the Canadian government is imposing a bill, Bill C-44, that is designed to empower first nations people when seeking redress against discrimination. Those of us living and working on first nations territories are not permitted to seek redress under section 67 of the Human Rights Act. We have no protection against discrimination under the Indian Act.

Bill C-44 is theoretically designed to end that situation. Once again, when we heard that, we were hopeful, but we're really more cautious about this today because of the unintended consequences that resulted from Bill C-31.

The intent to end discrimination is a sound idea, but there's no process in place right now to assess the results of repealing section 67. Native women are the ones who will most likely feel the results. We're the backbone of our communities; we're the daughters, the mothers, and the grandmothers. Whatever decisions are made impacting our community, it's always the women who bear the greatest amount of work in maintaining familial kinship and communal systems.

As noted earlier, we have experience stemming from Bill C-31 and are now beginning to feel its impact. Today we are fearful of its consequences because of our inability to continue to pass on our legal rights to future generations. You heard Dawn mentioning some of the direct impacts on her family. This inability to pass on our rights has a domino effect on the legal and political future of all first nations and its impact on our governments, our lands, our housing, our education, and our other rights. We don't want to enter into another situation that will jeopardize us.

There's another issue that's related to discrimination and first nations women living on first nations territories, and that's accessing protection against discrimination through the Canadian human rights legislation. We can say at this time that this present legislation does not serve us well. It's not a good option for a number of reasons.

It doesn't provide us with adequate due process.

The problem is in the way the tribunal currently operates. Decisions made by the tribunal take too long. It's too cumbersome, too expensive, and the tribunal process will be removed from first nations areas.

The tribunal decisions that are made are not made by first nations and generally are not related to relationship building, which is really an important value for first nations. This results in more alienation, resentment, and very often does irreparable damage to families and the kinship system.

The process is also not understood by first nations women on the reserve, and therefore they'll likely not use the Canadian human rights legislation.

That's another fundamental injustice that needs examination, the fact that there is no safe place for us to get redress from any government. For example, Bill C-31 and the Canadian human rights legislation: first nations women sought redress, and the result did not end discrimination, as stated earlier. On first nations territories, discriminatory practices are prevalent against women in areas such as housing, education, and the right to remain in the family home when a relationship breaks down or when the death of a spouse occurs. In this particular area, lack of adequate community resources often perpetuates these unfair situations.

In spite of all these obstacles, first nations women continue to strive to be involved in the system so we will be able to maintain healthy communities and a balance and justice for all of us.

We need education, resources, and time. We need to educate ourselves about this issue so that we can make informed decisions. We need resources in order to educate ourselves and to be able to meet. We need time to consult with first nations women on the reserves so that their human rights are protected and the discrimination is properly addressed.

Given the opportunity, we could be involved in developing first nations human rights legislation that would help resolve discrimination in our communities. We believe that this process would give us the opportunity to reflect our time-honoured values and beliefs in fairness and justice. Also, this process would not compromise first nations jurisdiction.

Finally, first nations women must be part of this important process. We must be part of the solution to end discrimination.

[Witness speaks in her native language]

I'm saying thank you for the opportunity to come and speak to you on my relations.

[Ellen Gabriel, President, Quebec Native Women's Association]

I will tell you just a little about the association I represent. It's a non-profit organization that began as a grassroots movement in 1974 by aboriginal women, and it is the only organization working today on behalf of aboriginal women in Quebec. Our mission is to support and encourage local initiatives for improving the living conditions of aboriginal women and their families.

The socio-economic situation of aboriginal people, especially aboriginal women, is one of the consequences of colonization. Before the arrival of Europeans, the aboriginal nations were independent, as reflected in their own customs, languages, legal and government systems, and cultures. Following contact with the Europeans and the colonization that ensued, the traditional systems of aboriginal society were compromised. Legislative measures, especially the Indian Act, and other government laws and policies were imposed upon aboriginal people that led to the loss of their independence.

The value of aboriginal women in our society today has diminished to where, as Amnesty International has stated, we have become a commodity in society in general. Aboriginal women were decision-makers; we were equal to men in our societies, and now we are forced under a system that promotes male leadership and not female leadership. There is no gender equity in the kinds of self-government negotiations that presently exist. The role of aboriginal women has been extremely marginalized, which is ironic, considering that feminism got their idea from aboriginal women in the Americas.

I'd like to state two references from literature:

It was through the attack on the power of Aboriginal woman that the disempowerment of our peoples has been achieved, in a dehumanizing process that is one of the cruelest on the face of this earth

This is from Armstrong in 1996.

When women were deprived of their traditional role and responsibilities, whole Aboriginal nations were weakened as traditional structures and systems were eradicated

That is Fiske et al, 2001.

I can read to you statistics that you already have within your possession. I'll read a couple of them just to emphasize the point I'm trying to make and the seriousness of economic security for aboriginal women.

Today we have the fastest growing population. A large portion of our population is under the age of 35, and in some communities, 61% of the population is under the age of 25.

In Quebec, aboriginal women account for 8% of the total female population, and the majority of aboriginal women live off reserve, and that's at 72%, while 28% live on reserve.

Rodolpho Stavenhagen, special rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, wrote about this situation in his report that he submitted upon his visit to Canada. It reads as follows:

Economic, social and human indicators of well-being, quality of life and development are consistently lower among Aboriginal people than other Canadians. Poverty, infant mortality, unemployment, morbidity, suicide, criminal detention, children on welfare, women victims of abuse, child prostitution are all much higher among Aboriginal people than in any other sector of Canadian society, whereas educational attainment, health standards, housing conditions, family income, access to economic opportunity and to social services are generally lower.

The life expectancy of aboriginal people is lower, according to the royal commission. We experience more health problems, and social problems ranging from violence to alcoholism are more widespread in aboriginal communities. Water supply systems, waste water systems in aboriginal communities are more often of poorer quality. And a smaller portion of aboriginal people have jobs.

Aboriginal people want the Canadian government to know and acknowledge that all of these social problems are primarily due to the loss of lands, resources, legal systems, governments, economies, and social institutions, as well as to the negation of their identities, languages, and cultures. What aboriginal people are seeking above all is to gain control of their lives and assume responsibility for their own future.

In terms of education, statistics show us that four of every ten aboriginal women have not completed high school. In 2001, only 7% of aboriginal women had earned a university degree, compared to 17% of non-aboriginal women. On the other hand, the percentage of aboriginal women with a college diploma or certificate is practically the same as that of non-aboriginal women.

I'm no expert on statistics. They make me dizzy, so sometimes I wonder what the actual situation is. I do know that the majority of people in post-secondary education are aboriginal women when we're talking about the aboriginal population.

On reserve, we see that the majority of employees in education and social services who are teachers and secretaries and sometimes band managers, if they are allowed, are women, but they are not involved in the majority of the decision-making positions in our communities.

Aboriginal women earn on average $12,300 per year. The average income of aboriginal men is $15,500. The average income of aboriginal women living on reserve is much lower. It's under $11,000.

The jobs for aboriginal women are poorly paid, and aboriginal women are less likely to be in the labour force than non-aboriginal women. In 2001, 47% of aboriginal women had jobs, compared to 56% of non-aboriginal women. Unfortunately, it is not always easy for anybody to find jobs, but that is particularly so for aboriginal women, who often face discrimination and racism in their search for work. Other factors obviously come into play, such as education, experience, linguistic and cultural differences, age, and absence from work due to domestic violence. In some cases, domestic violence can lead to dismissal.

Unemployment for women living on reserves and in rural regions is standing at 22%, compared to 14% among aboriginal women living in urban areas. One of the predominant factors that affects aboriginal women is violence. Surveys show that aboriginal women are more likely than non-aboriginal women to be subjected to severe violence that puts their lives in danger, such as being beaten, strangled, threatened with a firearm or knife, or sexually assaulted. They are also more likely to be victims of psychological violence than their non-aboriginal counterparts.

Violence brings with it numerous psychological impacts, such as disturbance and frustration, and we can go on and on. However, there is a lack of resources available for these victims, who are often forced to leave their communities for an urban centre, only to experience racism at the hands of the general public. Aboriginal women who are victims of violence are also confronted by isolation and linguistic, cultural, and geographical barriers.

Aboriginal women who are in the urban areas are also there because they are not welcomed by their communities, due to the fact that Bill C-31 did absolutely nothing to resolve the issue of women who face sexual discrimination because of the Indian Act.

As long as the aboriginal peoples of Canada remain bound by the Indian Act, and as long as the federal government has full power to make legislation on aboriginal issues, we will not be able to truly speak of aboriginal peoples’ active participation in the social, economic, and political life of this country. Aboriginal women would like to participate in the implementation of education and training programs, including school programs that are adapted to aboriginal culture. They would like to participate in discussions leading to solutions that will give aboriginal people skills that meet labour market needs. They would like to participate in the creation of institutions that will support job and business creation. They would like to obtain recognition of their education to allow them to receive a decent income.

I want to tell you of my experience with women who have PhDs. They have been told by their non-aboriginal counterparts that they have only received those PhDs because they are aboriginal persons, that they did not earn their PhDs as others did. So women who have an education face racism even from the other so-called educated people.

We would like to recommend the following in order to promote economic development of aboriginal peoples and to increase the standard of living.

We'd like to intensify discussions and negotiations leading to self-government or to self-determination agreements that will allow aboriginal people to take charge of their own destiny, improve their social conditions, and participate in the social and economic life of this country. We'd like to include aboriginal people in all discussions and negotiations to ensure their participation within the decision-making structures on the basis of gender equality; conclude agreements allowing aboriginal people to obtain ownership and control of their lands and resources--right now we only have a certificate of possession--develop and implement educational occupational training programs; and implement cultural sensitivity programs at all levels to address the stereotypes and misconceptions about aboriginal people.

[Sherri Helgason]

Thank you so much.

Well, I can try. Hypothetical examples are just that, but there are many instances out there that could form the basis of complaints that have not yet come to us. This is just a very brief account.

You've asked about potential complaints against government. There are sections of the Indian Act itself, for example, that are shielded from human rights scrutiny, that govern who's eligible for status, who's eligible to be a member. A person currently can't file a complaint on the basis that those membership criteria or status criteria are discriminatory on the basis of race, colour, age, sex, family status—things of that nature. That's one example of a kind of complaint: the eligibility for status, for membership.

In addition, section 67 exempts from scrutiny such decisions regarding housing, education—such things as, let's just say hypothetically, Commissioner Langtry mentioned. A woman who was reinstated through Bill C-31, who had been living off-reserve for a number of years but has been a band member, might apply for housing. If she's denied that housing or is put very low on the list, she currently can't bring forward an allegation that the decision has been made in a discriminatory way.

Or take, for example, an application for education or funding for education. A person can't bring a complaint that they've been denied in a discriminatory way.

There's a plethora of examples. I would be pleased to discuss this further.

[Erin Wolski]

I think it goes back to the issues with colonialism and the legislated discrimination that's happened in Canada for the past 200 years with respect to residential schools and outlawing traditional ceremonies and trying to quash the languages.

It's so encompassing. There's the sixties scoop. There's legislation that exists today—the Human Rights Act, for example, Bill C-31, the Indian Act. The discrimination is legislated. What happens as a result of that is a sense of helplessness. The net effect of what's happened over generations sometimes is a lack of ability to cope.

Westbank First Nation Self-Government Act

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I talk about how accommodating the bill is and they say they have agreed with that. If that is the case, I believe the self-government regimes put forward by the Tlicho bill and this bill are visionary. They are futuristic, they are far reaching.

The bill addresses what the members are always complaining about. They want aboriginal people to be accountable, to be responsible, to assume responsibility for their lives, economically, socially, politically. They ask why people are not doing that. This will allow that. This is an empowering document. This is a tool that will allow it. Bill C-31, the Tlicho bill will do that also. It will give them an opportunity to demonstrate to the member and the rest of the world that it is possible for them to be self-determining.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Western Arctic, NT]

The member from the NDP and I stood up and we were both talking about representation.

This government has no lack of work to do. We are also doing Bill C-31, the bill for the Tlicho self-government agreement. I visited the members opposite weeks ago to ask for unanimous consent to put that bill through. They would not give it.

I do not want to hear this from those members. That is fallacious. That is false. Those members are playing games and they know it. I spoke to a member and that member told me they would not do it. She said, “This is politics”. Those were the words of the member.

I went to beg with them and the Tlicho people sat in the gallery and watched as I tried to negotiate with them. They said no, they would not do it. Those members need not talk to me about filibustering because I know. I went there in earnest. I would not say this without having tried.

On the Prime Minister's performance, the Prime Minister has put the government in a situation where we have no deficit. We have paid down the debt. We have implemented a number of bills far in excess of what was done before at this point in time.

I cannot believe that members of the opposition would be saying the things they are saying when I listened to every speech here the other day on the Westbank agreement.

Chief Robert Louie sat in the gallery and listened to that garbage. We are lucky that those leaders have the vision they have because this is what they have to put up with. This is not the real--

[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.

Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act

[The Speaker]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the second reading stage of Bill C-31.