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

[Mary Eberts, As an Individual]

Thank you very much for inviting me. I also offer thanks to the Algonquin Nation, which hosts all of us on its territory.

I have been counsel in many cases where women or women and their children have sought to challenge the denial of status under the Indian Act. I have also made representations to this House and to the Senate on behalf of the Native Women's Association of Canada and on behalf of Indian Rights for Indian Women on the issues relating to registration and women.

On this occasion, I appear as an individual. I do not speak for any client.

I would like to add some recognitions to those offered by Dr. Palmeter. In the Descheneaux case, two other plaintiffs were also women: Susan Yantha and her daughter Tammy. They challenged the inability of a woman to pass on her status to a child born out of wedlock in certain circumstances. I would also like to recognize or complete the recognition of Mary Two-Axe Earley by recognizing Jenny Margetts and Nellie Carlson, who helped found the western branch of Indian Rights for Indian Women.

I have two points to make today. Bill S-3 is under-inclusive, and the process being used for amending the registration provisions by way of Bill S-3 is not in accordance with the recommendations of Madam Justice Masse.

I begin with some comments on the origins of discrimination against women, which I ask you to bear in mind as you consider whether to endorse a narrow approach to remediation of this law, as has been installed in Bill S-3, or a broader approach to remediation of the law, as has been recommended by Dr. Palmeter, Sharon McIvor, and others.

It's crucial to remember that one of the main purposes of the Indian Act was to hasten the “civilization”—meaning assimilation—of aboriginal people. One of the primary mechanisms for achieving assimilation was the definition of “Indian” included in the act. Anyone not within that definition was, because of that exclusion, assimilated, that is, no longer the responsibility of the Government of Canada.

Why was this done? We should never forget. Even when there was a treaty about land, the first nation was assigned its land and the land was administered under the Indian Act. The connection between Indian land and the Indian Act has a key consequence. If the number of status Indians could be reduced to zero, then the connection between aboriginal people and their lands would be severed. There has always been a link between the disentitlement of women from conferring status in their own right and the coveting of Indian land.

Historically, women were the primary targets for exclusion from the act. One reason for this was the male privilege that reigned supreme in the Victorian era, when the act was first conceived. Another was the willingness to override indigenous laws about membership. These two reasons acted together. The Indian Act enforced the Victorian family with its paterfamilias, overriding the rules of many indigenous cultures that had the woman as the source of membership in the nation. For example, the Tsimshian “stick law” provided that a woman and her children were always members of the nation, welcome back even after they had separated from it through marriage or for other reasons.

The one exception to this male hegemony over status was the right of the Indian woman to confer status on a child whom she bore out of wedlock. This was not an unqualified right. It was possible under many versions of this legislation for the child's entitlement to status to be challenged. When the case of Martin v. Chapman held that a male Indian could also confer status on his child—namely, his son born out of wedlock—that right did not carry with it any possibility that someone could protest that the father was not an Indian.

This, too, is a sign of disproportionate power for the male under the Indian Act system. Simple acknowledgement of the child as his own, whether or not it's true, would confer status on the child. In the “unstated” or “unacknowledged” paternity rules under the present act, we see a powerful restatement of this male privilege, where withholding that acknowledgement, or the impossibility of getting it, prejudices the child's acquisition of full status.

Each time reform of the Indian Act holds back on giving full rights to women, either in the present day or vis-à-vis past rules, we are perpetuating the system that used disinheritance of women and their children as a tool of assimilation. If we continue this assimilationist approach in the construction and administration of the Indian Act, we are continuing the approach of the colonizer, so well summed up in this statement by Duncan Campbell Scott, then deputy superintendent of Indian Affairs. He said this in 1920:

Our objective is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic and there is no Indian question, and no Indian Department, that is the whole object of this Bill.

Let me mention some areas of under-inclusiveness. Let me begin by saying I agree with Dr. Palmater and Sharon McIvor about the practicability and the wisdom of amending 6(1)(a) for all purposes. I also agree with the CBA in its recommendation about clause 8. I would refer you to the brief of the Grand Conseil de la Nation Waban-Aki for some further instances where Bill S-3 does not fulfill its mandate.

If I may, I have one last point about consultation. I agree with the witnesses who have said that consultation is not appropriate in a case where you are remediating violations of equality rights. Bill C-31 was the product of consultation and we see now, 30 years later, people are still litigating the unconstitutionality of what that consultation produced.

Thank you.

[Lynne Groulx, Executive Director, Native Women's Association of Canada]

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, committee members, and distinguished witnesses and guests.

My name is Lynne Groulx. I'm the executive director of the Native Women's Association of Canada. My colleague Amy, who is with me here, is a senior manager at NWAC. She's also a researcher par excellence, and she will probably be able to answer many of the questions that you might have on this subject.

First, I'd like to acknowledge the Algonquin peoples on whose traditional territory we are meeting today.

Thank you for the opportunity to present. I am a Métis woman of mixed Algonquin and French descent. I bring with me the voices of my ancestors, the concerns of aboriginal women from across Canada, and the hopes of our future leaders, our youth.

NWAC is the national aboriginal organization in Canada that represents the interests and concerns of aboriginal women and girls. NWAC is made up of provincial and territorial members' associations from across the country. Our network of first nations and Métis women spans north, south, east, and west, into urban and rural on-reserve and off-reserve communities.

We've all read the staggering headlines reporting the high rates of suicide among aboriginal youth, including some girls as young as nine years old. In light of these recent tragedies, I encourage all of you to join me in picturing someone in your life who you deeply care for, whether it be a family member, a friend, or a colleague. For me, I envision my own daughter, a 17-year-old aboriginal woman full of potential and enthusiasm for life. It is devastating to hear on the news that another one of our communities is struggling with this issue of youth suicide. The thought of losing my own daughter to suicide is absolutely unbearable.

In Canada, we must act quickly and compassionately to address this urgent crisis occurring in our aboriginal communities. We must allow the reality and the impacts of these suicides not only to touch our hearts but to drive us to take action now. I cannot stress this enough. Every single life matters.

The forced assimilation through discriminatory government practices such as the Indian Act, residential schools, the sixties scoop, and Bill C-31 have tremendous negative impacts on the health and well-being of aboriginal people. Socio-economic and cultural factors that contribute to the suicide crisis among aboriginal people include but are not limited to: poverty, unemployment, lack of access to health and social services, substandard housing, food insecurity, and the loss of culture, language, and the land.

Many continue to suffer the impacts of these policies generations later, including my own daughter. Aboriginal women and girls, their families, and their communities continue to experience anxiety, depression, homelessness, post-traumatic stress, and other mental health problems and illnesses that can contribute to harmful behaviours such as drug and alcohol abuse, self-harm, and suicide.

For decades, researchers have been reporting and continue to report various high suicide rates among adults and youth in our aboriginal communities that are several times higher than rates among non-aboriginal peoples. In the past year, the community of Bearskin Lake First Nation in northern Ontario declared a state of emergency after a series of deaths, including that of a 10-year-old girl. Then, the Pimicikamak Cree Nation in northern Manitoba, over a three-month period, had six youth suicides. In the month of March, Attawapiskat First Nation in northern Ontario declared a state of emergency after 100 people had attempted suicide since September 2015 alone.

In the latest news reports, Stanley Mission, La Ronge, and Deschambault Lake in northern Saskatchewan lost five young girls aged 10 to 14 within a week, because of suicide. These innocent children, who should be outside playing and enjoying their youth, have lost hope and are choosing to end their lives. For many isolated aboriginal communities, suicide or attempts at suicide have become normalized behaviour.

Recently, NWAC collaborated with Statistics Canada on an article, “Past-year suicidal thoughts among off-reserve First Nations, Métis and Inuit adults aged 18 to 25: Prevalence and associated characteristics”. Some of the key results do not come as a surprise. At 27%, the prevalence of lifetime suicide thoughts among young adults was almost double that of their non-aboriginal counterparts, at 15%. Most interestingly, aboriginal young women in particular showed a trend towards a higher prevalence of lifetime suicidal thoughts and were more likely than men to report mood or anxiety disorders and a bullying environment in school.

Research shows that high self-worth, strong family ties, strong social networks, and education can help prevent suicide in our communities. Also, in 2008, research by Chandler and Lalonde found that community and individual empowerment, control over personal lives, connection to culture, participation of women in local band councils, and the control of child and family services within the community protect against suicide.

The remote first nation of Bella Bella in British Columbia is a great model for preventing youth suicide by reconnecting the youth with land and culture. They built a youth centre to run youth programming 14 hours a day, seven days a week, which focused on traditional songs and culture, hunting and fishing activities, language revitalization, and education on their history and community.

There's also another indigenous youth program in terms of southern Treaty No. 3, which has identified five key priorities for moving forward. Those priorities are listed in a report and come from the youth themselves: one, the need for support to learn how to be a healthier family; two, crisis support workers; three, support around death, loss, and suicide; four, access to elders and culture; and five, safe spaces. We think this is a very interesting and informative report.

It's time to act on the knowledge and the need for change as voiced by our communities. We need to develop gender-appropriate and community-driven youth programs and services to help build self-esteem and self-worth and rebuild the connection among our youth to land and culture.

We acknowledge the Liberal government's recent commitment of $70 million in new funding over the next three years to address health and the suicide crisis involving indigenous peoples living on and off reserve territories. However, long-term solutions, improved resources, and gender and culturally aware mental health services, both on- and off-reserve, are urgently needed to effectively address the crisis and the underlying systemic issues contributing to the risk of suicide and suicidal thoughts in aboriginal youth across Canada.

It is too often easy for leadership and governments to forget about these matters as long as they do not occur on their doorsteps. If Canada refuses to spend the necessary funds on aboriginal communities, thereby denying children access to clean water, safe housing, education, and equitable health care, Canada is essentially deciding by doing so that aboriginal families and children matter less. This institutional form of racism allows for disproportionate spending.

On January 26, 2016, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal issued a landmark ruling that found the federal government guilty of racially discriminating against first nations children in its delivery of child welfare services on reserves. The Canadian government was ordered to take immediate action to ensure its program budget responds to the unique needs of first nations children and their families and to apply Jordan's principle to all first nations children on- and off-reserve.

It has been nearly one year since that decision, and still the Liberal government has not adequately responded to the discriminatory underfunding of child welfare services and is also failing to properly implement Jordan's principle. Cindy Blackstock has stated that equity in social services can reduce the tragedy of youth suicide, but still the Canadian government has not acted on this.

Canada is a wealthy country, and our children deserve better. We must continue to work together to realize our children's potential and to help them have hope so that they can begin to accomplish their dreams. That requires us to take bold and immediate steps forward to create the change necessary and to make it a reality.

Let's show them that we are a caring and inclusive society where the future is bright. Thank you.

[Teresa Edwards]

For me, the idea isn't that I would not want the words “Indian residential school“ removed from the act. What I am cautious about is any history being taken from the Indian Act that demonstrates what occurred with Indian residential schools at a time when the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is under way and in the process of making ongoing recommendations about implementing strategies that could heal the generations who currently exist.

I would hate to think that the Indian Act would be amended in a piecemeal fashion, striking out the section on Indian residential schools so that we could thereby look back, without an alternative in place, and say that never happened. We already have many members of Parliament and Canadians who say that was 100 years ago, when in fact it wasn't. The last school closed in 1996. This is a very real issue.

I respectfully submit that despite the MP’s personal experience, Michèle and I, as first nation women, have lived the personal experience that we have been advocating about for some 30 years, and we've been personally affected by Indian residential schools. We've been impacted by Bill C-3 and by Bill C-31. However, I would never propose that I have the solution or would never come forward to tinker with the Indian Act in a piecemeal fashion for my personal benefit when I know, even as a lawyer, that any case that goes forward to the Supreme Court of Canada is a huge risk because it's not only about my case but also about the 633 first nation communities and hundreds of thousands and millions of people who will be impacted by this legislation and by cases that go forward and are decided by the Supreme Court of Canada.

With all due respect, personal issues aside, we still need to proceed in a manner consistent with the UN declaration, in a manner consistent with how it's been set out in the Supreme Court of Canada decision.

[Clément Chartier]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, we talk about the historic Métis Nation, a distinct people who emerged primarily in western Canada, but also extend into Ontario—with a common history and common language, Michif, and with a flag—having all the indicia that make a people a people. So we're not talking about mixed ancestry people; we're talking about a people.

And we do extend into the Northwest Territories, and at this time, the Métis in the Northwest Territories are not affiliated with the Métis National Council, through their choice.

Part of the criteria we have for joining the Métis National Council is that you have to have the ballot box selection—one person, one vote—and it has to be Métis only. In 1994, the Métis Nation of the Northwest Territories decided that, no, they were going to continue with their way of electing people, and also retaining non-status Indians or Bill C-31 members. I'm not quite sure where they are right now. They are part of our nation but they're not part of our governance and infrastructure.

You asked about the Métis in eastern Canada. Well, I don't know of Métis in eastern Canada. I know there are people of mixed ancestry, and I do know they call themselves Métis, but they're not part of the historic Métis Nation homeland, or part of the Métis Nation itself, so they wouldn't be Métis Nation citizens. But we're not going to go out there and say that they can't identify or express who they are. They're just not part of our nation, in the same way that the Blackfeet are not part of the Cree or not part of the Haudenosaunee. We're a distinct people.

How many of our people are registered? I don't have those statistics, but we've been going through a process. In 2002, we adopted criteria to make clear who the citizens of our nation are, and in 2003, the Supreme Court of Canada basically reaffirmed that. Since 2004, the federal government has provided us with money to do a registry of our people, and we're still in the process of doing that.

For example, I think in Saskatchewan we had about 40,000 people who had signed up for membership prior to that. Now they're going through the whole process. We need everyone to reapply because there may be some who don't fit the criteria. They may be of mixed ancestry, but they may not be descendants of the historic Métis Nation.

The Supreme Court of Canada, again, has been very clear on that. And this year, in the Cunningham case, dealing with Métis settlements, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that settlement lands were set aside for the Métis, and the purpose is so that.... The land is important for the identity and culture of the Métis. It stated that removal of people who have taken Indian status under Bill C-31 is a legitimate exercise. So basically, we have some confirmation from the highest court and recognition of our existence as a distinct people.

We are in the process, and it'll take us several more years, and perhaps longer, of coming to an exact number of who we actually represent, because the benefits that people get from joining are the right to vote and the right to participate in our democratic processes. But there is no real benefit attached to it, as there is with Indian status for non-insured health benefits, and so on and so forth. I'm sure if we had that, more people would probably register, but we're hoping people register because of the affiliation they want. But it's not a requirement. They're still Métis, we still represent them. So we can't give you an accurate number. We could always find a number for where we're at in re-registering our people, but I couldn't give you that today.

In terms of the relationship with the provinces, we have the protocol. At the Council of the Federation meetings, I've asked the five premiers, from Ontario westward, if the federal government invited them to the table, would they come. They said yes, to deal with issues. So based on that, in September—a couple of months later—Minister Strahl and I entered into this protocol for a bilateral relationship. But there's also a permissive multilateral relationship where we would invite the provinces to engage with us, including on a number of issues—health, education, and economic development.

Thus far the five provincial governments have engaged with us on economic development. We've had two Métis economic development symposiums. Our last one was where the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, who is also the federal interlocutor for the Métis, sat with the five ministers of aboriginal affairs and our leadership. We did this in December, and we've agreed that our senior officials will continue meeting, and in 2013 we'll come back to principles with a national economic development strategy for the Métis. So we're in that process.

I've written a letter to Minister Aglukkaq and raised it with the Prime Minister—I believe that was in February—that we'd like to have a similar process with respect to health, asking the federal minister to invite her provincial counterparts to come to the table with us. We see a big role for the provinces in this; we're not saying the federal government has to carry the full load.

In terms of legislation and legislating our constitution, a big issue is the financing of our governance. We want to move toward block funding. Currently we get 30 to 40 agreements at different times for small amounts, and most of our time is taken up doing reports and looking at these things. Treasury Board guidelines have permitted block funding for about four years now, so we are engaging again with the federal interlocutor to look at these issues.

What impact would the constitution have on our provincial affiliates? Basically the Métis National Council comprises the five provincial affiliates, or governing members as we call them. As we talk about our own constitution we're also looking at their constitutions to see how they will fit. At the very end we should at least have a division of powers, and jurisdictions would be very clearly spelled out, similar to the Constitution Act of 1867 with the division of powers.

They are very supportive. We are in a two-and-a-half year process. We hope by December 2013 to adopt internally a constitution and then move to the next stage. This process is being funded by the federal government.

Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the bill. I am supporting Bill C-3, but I am supporting it with considerable reluctance and certainly not with much enthusiasm.

There should be no doubt that Bill C-3 moves the agenda forward on addressing gender discrimination in the status provisions of the Indian Act, but it is only one very small partial step toward full equality for aboriginal women and their descendants.

The government has brought forward these amendments as a response to and because of the efforts of Sharon McIvor of British Columbia. In my previous remarks on Bill C-3, I paid homage to the other brave aboriginal women who have fought the battle for full equality and have pushed the courts to recognize discrimination under the law and subsequently pushed Parliament to remedy the injustice. I would like to do so again today.

These women are Mary Two Axe Early, Jeannette Corbiere Lavell, Yvonne Bédard, Sandra Lovelace and, as I mentioned earlier, Sharon McIvor. Yet in acknowledging these individuals, I feel great sadness for them that the battle for full equality is falling to yet another generation of aboriginal women. We can be sure it will be the battle for aboriginal women. Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination and at some point we must take it upon ourselves as parliamentarians the responsibility to fully eradicate all gender discrimination in the Indian Act.

When Bill C-31 was passed in 1985, Parliament and the government of the day knew that the residual discrimination would remain. I want to read into the record some of the comments made. It is important that we know this because 25 years later we are poised to pass a bill that also leaves residual discrimination.

In April we heard in committee from Martin Reiher of the Department of Justice. He said Bill C-31:

—is a very focused answer to the McIvor decision, given the limited time we had to develop legislation in response to the British Columbia Court of Appeal decision of April 9, 2009. There are other issues that have been raised in litigation that are not dealt with by this bill at this time. Depending on subsequent court decisions, obviously, the government might have to consider how to respond to these other decisions.

I also want to read from Sharon McIvor, an increasing hero of mine, when she said to the committee in April:

—But when the act was changed in 1985, parliamentarians knew there was residual discrimination. [Former Minister] Crombie's records show that they understood that some of us would still suffer from the residual discrimination....yet they forced someone like me to take it through the courts and have the courts decide that it was discriminatory....I am here today to ask you, to plead with you, to include all of those women and their descendants who are discriminated against, not just the narrow view that the B.C. Court of Appeal addressed. As parliamentarians you know that the court does not draft legislation. They just put it back into your lap so you can do what is right.

A final quote from April that I will cite is from Gwen Brodsky, who is counsel to Ms. McIvor. She said:

—the 1985 act was--failed remedial legislation. Bill C-3 is a set-up for yet another instance of failed remedial legislation, for disappointment to aboriginal women and their descendants, who have been waiting for a long, long time for Parliament to do the right thing. That must be dealt with immediately.

Earlier this year the Liberal Party tried to end the cycle and address all the remaining residual discrimination in the Indian Act's provisions concerning entitlement to status. When Bill C-3 came before the aboriginal affairs committee, we introduced amendments that would have granted descendants of status Indian women born prior to April 17, 1985, full status under the Indian Act, exactly what had also been given to the descendants of status Indian men.

These amendments, although passed by committee through the unanimous support of the opposition parties, were ruled inadmissible by the Speaker after Bill C-3 was returned to the House.

We need a comprehensive legislative remedy. The amendments were ruled out of order as being beyond the scope of Bill C-3, which reads “provides a new entitlement to Indian registration in response to the decision in McIvor v. Canada”.

Again, I want to emphasize what others have said about the need for a comprehensive remedy.

Chief Jody Wilson-Raybould said in April at committee:

With respect to discrimination in any form, I do not agree with it whatsoever. I believe that it would be the position of any reasonable person, as you say, to eradicate discrimination wherever and whenever possible in today's age.

Jeannette Corbiere Lavell, president of the Native Women's Association of Canada, said again this year that if all discrimination was eliminated:

—then I would think that as aboriginal women, as an aboriginal women's organization, maybe part of our work would be done. We could move on to other things. But that would be really good to see if it took place in the very near while.

One last quote, although I have many comments, is by Betty Ann Lavellée, national chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. In April of this year she said:

—I want to see any and all forms of discrimination end once and for all, so that our children are not having this same discussion 25 or 35 years from now.

It is unfortunate that the government chose to write Bill C-3 in a way that responds solely to the narrow reading of the B.C. Court of Appeal in the McIvor case without providing the option to Parliament to address further residual discrimination through the legislation.

This regrettable choice has forced all stakeholders and opposition parties to make an extremely difficult choice regarding Bill C-3. How can we say no to equality for some when saying no means equality for none? What we can do, and we have tried, is to improve the bill, but as I will try and explain, the government has made this impossible.

I would like to remind the House that the B.C. Court of Appeal was only able to rule on the gender discrimination in the Indian Act experienced by Sharon McIvor and her son. That was the case before the court, not the full gamut of gender discrimination under the act.

While the court acknowledged that other types of discrimination most likely existed, its decision in the McIvor case could not apply a remedy to those issues as well. Therefore, the court ruled narrowly in favour of McIvor and left it to those of us in Parliament to craft a more fulsome response. Let me repeat, it was the government that then decided what this response would look like.

The government could have chosen to provide a legislative remedy to the McIvor situation, while also leaving the door open for Parliament to expand the legislation through amendments in order to get rid of the residual discrimination. If it had conducted a fulsome consultation with aboriginal leadership, aboriginal women, women's groups and communities, it would have heard a resounding desire to end the discrimination once and for all. That is certainly what we heard at committee. Instead, Bill C-3 was introduced without any real consultation and in a matter that meant all amendments would be out of order.

This is how Bill C-3 came to be, a bill that takes one more step in the long and arduous battle for full equality for aboriginal women, a bill that would extend status to approximately 45,000 aboriginal women and their descendants, but a bill that will leave the fight for full equality once again yet to another generation. Very soon we will be voting on Bill C-3, but at some point, as parliamentarians must decide when we are going to right this wrong.

We are now faced with Sharon McIvor taking her case off to the UN. Sharon announced that she would file a complaint against Canada at the United Nations. She has contended that Canada continues to discriminate against aboriginal women and their descendants in the determination of eligibility for registration as an Indian.

As she said, in taking this case forward:

I contested this discrimination under the charter. It took 20 years in Canadian courts, and I achieved only partial success. Now I will seek full justice for Aboriginal women under international human rights law. Canada needs to be held to account for its intransigence in refusing to completely eliminate sex discrimination from the Indian Act and for decades of delay.

She went on to say:

Because neither Canadian courts nor Parliament have yet granted an adequate and effective remedy for the sex discrimination which has been a hallmark of the Indian Act for more than a hundred years, I will take my case to the United Nations Human Rights Committee.

I would contend that it is unfortunate and, perhaps some might describe, shameful that this case has yet to go to the UN human rights committee. It will undoubtedly result in a further rebuke to Canada in the international arena, something our country and the government does not need.

As I said at the beginning, I am supporting the bill. I am doing it with reluctance, not with much enthusiasm. I look forward to seeing it move through Parliament.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Elmwood—Transcona is absolutely right. What we have had in place in this country since 1995 is a 2% funding cap, and that cap has already left first nations communities seriously behind because they have had a population growth in some cases of up to 11%. So do the math; 2% funding cap, 11% growth in population, and we see that there is a crunch happening on reserves.

Now we are talking about adding up to 45,000 more people, potentially. We know there are going to be increases, so I would argue that rather than having a study to see what the numbers might look like, we could at least put in place some plans around incremental funding that could be ramped up as the numbers become more apparent. We know there are going to be a number of people, based on our 1985 experience about the number of people under Bill C-31 that regained status. We already know that is going to happen. We know there is already a funding crunch on reserves. So we should be putting in that incremental plan to deal with it, not waiting for the results of another study.

Motions in Amendment

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I would say there was a similar clause about the same time the charter came into being in 1985. It did not stop certain challenges at that particular time; it did not provide the clarity the member speaks of.

I would say that the greatest clarity we can have in this House and the greatest clarity we can provide to first nations women across this country is to end gender discrimination once and for all. We have the ability as parliamentarians to do it. The government can withdraw Bill C-3 and come back with something that makes sense and puts this debate to bed once and for all.

Why do we want another generation to have to fight sections of Bill C-31 and the residual discrimination that will continue to exist under the Indian Act?

Bill C-3--Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I caught about half of the remarks of the member opposite who is also a great contributing member to our committee, I might add. But on the question in terms of trying to expand the scope of the bill to, as she says, address some of these discriminatory issues, would she not agree that in the past, as in 1985, as with the lower Court of Appeal, the presumption that some of these measures will in fact address those gender issues? We have seen in the past where they have actually given rise to other unintended consequences. The very issue we are dealing with today was for all intents and purposes an unintended consequence of Bill C-31.

Therefore, would it not behoove the House to proceed in a measured and guarded way in line with what the Court of Appeal has given us and then use the secondary exploratory process to get a more broader examination of these issues?

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to the motion of the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan who, I must say, makes a tremendous contribution to our committee work through her knowledge and experience that she lends each and every day that we are in committee.

Today we are dealing with a very complex question, as I am sure hon. members know. It is a question that has peaked our interest these last few weeks and has been an ongoing claim before the court,s particularly from Ms. McIvor, but there are others as well who wish to address some of these provisions of the Indian Act that raise difficult questions relating to membership and registration.

Last month our government was proud to introduce Bill C-3, the gender equity in Indian registration act. The primary objective of the legislation is to remove a cause of gender discrimination under the act.

The second objective is to meet the deadline imposed upon Parliament in a ruling of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia. That is an important point because initially the court gave Parliament until April 6 to correct this. It ruled certain sections of the Indian Act invalid, discriminatory and having no effect, but allowed Parliament one year. It then understood, as we resumed the session early in March and that provided Parliament was getting to work on these amendments, that it would see to it to give us an additional three months.

We all realize that there is a time limit and we need to get the bill through the House to at least address the critical issue that the Court of Appeal identified for us.

Rather than have its decision take effect right away, the court suspended the effects of the decision until this year and required us to enact effective legislation to solve the problem. The court has given us until July 5, but if we fail to meet this deadline, a key section of the Indian Act, which is the one that spells out the rules related to entitlement to registration, also known as Indian status, will cease to have legal effect in British Columbia.

This takes us right back to the question I just asked the hon. member for Halifax. The consequences are the area of question, the almost limbo that it would put the whole essence of registration in British Columbia, but it also calls into question the fact that paragraphs 6(1)(a) and 6(1)(c) that would be reinstated under Bill C-3, if they are not reinstated it would not take too long I would suspect before other decisions would come forward in other provinces that would throw those registration provisions into question. Should the two paragraphs of section 6 cease to have legal effect, it would lead to uncertainty and would produce a legislative gap that would prevent the registration of individuals associated with British Columbia bands.

In many ways, this is the crux of our approach to Bill C-3. It is essential that we respond as directed by the decision of the B.C. Court of Appeal and also that we implement this response, which is Bill C-3, with extremely tight timelines, as I have just described.

The legislation now before us proposes to change the provision used to confer Indian status on the children of women, such as Ms. McIvor. Instead of subsection 6(2), these children would acquire status through subsection 6(1). This would eliminate the gender based discrimination identified by the court.

I believe that every member of the House stands opposed to discrimination based on gender, of that we are all well aware and it is clear. Despite this conviction, however, I expect that all members appreciate that equality between men and women is difficult achieve. Bill C-3 would take Canada one significant step closer to this important goal. This issue is all about the ongoing effort to eliminate gender discrimination, and it is ongoing, as I will describe.

The government's approach has always been to act in collaboration with the people directly affected by these issues at play. Bill C-3 is no exception. Last year, following a thorough review and analysis of the court's decision, departmental officials had technical briefings with representatives of five aboriginal organizations to discuss the decision and Canada's proposed response.

Following those briefings, 15 engagement sessions were held throughout the country to present Canada's proposed response to the McIvor decision and to solicit feedback. To help focus the sessions, the Government of Canada researched, published and distributed copies of a discussion paper. Hundreds of participants came to the engagement sessions and many written submissions were received.

Several common themes emerged during the sessions and in the written submissions. Many people were expressing concerns about broader issues of registration, membership and citizenship. We know that the broader reform on these matters cannot be developed overnight or in isolation, least of all just within the context of a parliamentary committee with a short timeframe.

Based on the views expressed during that engagement process, we have announced that these broader issues will be considered in another exploratory process, a process that will extend beyond the scope of this bill before us and that will be taking place over the next few months.

I think all members should recognize that this is something that came directly from those who were involved and participated in the consultations in advance of Bill C-3. This is not something that was just picked out of the air as a way to create a more expeditious route for the adoption of Bill C-3. This is something that was recognized, suggested and recommended by the leadership of various aboriginal groups right across the country.

This will be done in partnership with national aboriginal organizations. It will involve the participation of first nations groups, organizations and individuals at all levels. The findings of the exploratory process will inform the government's next steps regarding initiatives on these issues.

Far from being conclusive, Bill C-3, by its very nature, recognizes that it will solve the question and the problem of the case of McIvor v. Canada that was before the B.C. Court of Appeal. It was necessarily narrow and concise in its scope so as to solve that problem but to not give up on the question of moving forward to address some of these other issues around membership and citizenship.

I am confident that the exploratory process will provide an opportunity for a comprehensive discussion and assessment of these broader issues. This work, however, as I pointed out, will be done separately from the legislation. It allows us to focus our attention on the legislation that is now before us and the solution that it offers to the specific concerns that were identified by the B.C. Court of Appeal.

As important as this work might be, it cannot take precedence over Bill C-3. It must not lose sight of the fact that the legislation now before Parliament responds to a very specific court ruling and a prescribed deadline, as I said earlier, of July 5. The ruling and the deadline informed the very design of Bill C-3 and it is for this reason alone that the proposed legislation is, as I say, very precise, very compact and focused.

Not for one minute have any of the members, certainly not the members around our committee, suggested otherwise, that there are not other issues that need to be dealt with. As a matter of fact, none of the committee members, although I cannot speak for all of them, would have been surprised by what we heard from the witnesses. The member for Labrador commented earlier this morning about what we heard from the witnesses. He is absolutely correct. None of us were surprised by that because we knew, even through the consultation process, that these discriminatory issues existed and needed to be dealt with. However, we also had the urgency of the McIvor question, something the court handed to us that we had to deal with urgently.

As Bill C-3 proceeds through the process, we must and will continue to work in partnership with first nations and other aboriginal groups and organizations to identify and discuss these critical issues. This is a process we have talked about that will remain separate, and we will proceed on that basis.

Bill C-3 is progressive, responsive and measured. It is rooted in the principle that all citizens should be equal before the law. Bill C-3 represents a timely and appropriate response to the British Colombia Court of Appeal's ruling. It proposes to eliminate a cause of unjust discrimination and ensure that Canada's legal system continues to evolve alongside the needs of aboriginal peoples. In essence, Bill C-3 represents a forward step by a country committed to the ideals of justice and equality.

I know there have been a number of comments and discussions by members in questions and comments and, through the course of this debate, it has been identified that there are other areas of membership and registration that members and the government should be considering in terms of making the Indian Act more responsive to these gaps and questions that continue to be raised by aboriginal leaders and individuals across the country.

I would encourage members, certainly those members on committee, to read, if they have not already read it, the B.C. Court of Appeal's decision to see what the appeal judge said in respect of why the Court of Appeal narrowed the scope of that decision, because it had some justification to do that. It was looking at Bill C-31, which was passed in 1985. This legislation, at that time, had been around for 24 years, and because it had been in place for such a long time, people, in this particular case aboriginal people, had become acclimatized to the provisions of that bill. Families and aboriginal organizations had each made decisions based upon that legislative regime that existed.

When a Parliament comes along and decides to change and amend the very regime by which people had made decisions and existed in the course of 24 years in this case, there is no question that one can look back and say that yes, some discrimination occurred there. The court clearly has upheld that assertion that there was discrimination there.

However, once we go back and amend it, we need to be careful, because what we might also be doing by conferring rights and privileges to one group of people is upsetting the equality and certainty that existed among those families that were there.

It is a rather interesting principle to get one's head around, but I would like to read one section of the decision that I think squarely hits the nail on the head. In this case, the Appeal Court judge is talking about Bill C-31. It reads as follows:

The legislation at issue has now been in force for 24 years. People have made decisions and planned their lives on the basis that the law as it was enacted in 1985 governs the question of whether or not they have Indian status. The length of time that the law has remained in force may, unfortunately, make the consequences of amendment more serious than they would have been in the few years after the legislation took effect.

Contextual factors, including the reliance that people have placed on the existing state of the law, may affect the options currently available to the Federal government in remedying the Charter violation. It may be that some of the options that were available in 1985 are no longer practical.

That gives us a sense of the difficulty that we have with amendments to the scope of Bill C-3.

Members will know that Bill C-3 was passed at second reading, and by our own procedural rules we are not allowed to expand its scope. Indeed, that is the very reason we are here today: we are discussing the question as to whether the House would consent to allowing the committee to expand the scope of the bill.

This is a question that deserves serious consideration. We have to tread very carefully. Committee members know that the kinds of issues brought to us by the witnesses we heard are legitimate. As the member for North Vancouver mentioned, there is far from being a consensus of opinion. There are differences in what we heard in terms of how some of the registration provisions would be implemented, particularly at the community level.

The member for Labrador mentioned, for example, the remarks of one of our witnesses, Pam Palmater, who is from Ryerson University. I must say that Ryerson is my alma mater as well; I had to throw that in.

Ms. Palmater was very clear. She brought a different perspective to our committee because she spoke as an aboriginal person who did not have status and lived off reserve. She had a perspective different from what we heard from people who came from a different experience, having lived on reserve all their lives.

There is no doubt that anyone would be challenged in trying to understand some of the intricacies in the bill, but what remains clear is that we have a mission in front of us to carry on.

As I outlined, the first thing we need to do is address the issue that the British Columbia Court of Appeal put in front of us in regard to the weaknesses in Bill C-31 as they apply to the McIvor v. Canada case. That is before us and that is what Bill C-3 does.

We recognize that there are other issues. That is the exploratory process that we now need to put in place. We need to bring some certainty to the registration provisions, sections 6(1)(a) and 6(1)(c), so that we have a position that people can depend on going forward. We need to continue to work with aboriginal groups right across the country to refine some of the citizenship and membership questions.

I will leave it at that. I invite questions from members. Some members will actually be working together in committee this very afternoon on this question, and I know the discussion will continue.

I must say that it has been a fruitful discussion. This is an issue that we do not always get a chance to talk about, particularly here in the House. It is a rare occasion when we can have such a full debate on a question that is very important to aboriginal people right across the country.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to speak to the motion put forward by the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan to expand the scope of Bill C-3 so that a grandchild born before 1985 with a female grandparent would receive the same entitlement to status as a grandchild of a male grandparent born in the same period.

There are a few problems with Bill C-3. For example, it attempts in section 9 to take away the right to sue. It is a bit problematic. Some witnesses came forward and said we really need to look at this section again.

Quite a number of witnesses are concerned about the fact that there may not be resources to process applications in a timely way. We saw that when Bill C-31 was enacted. That is another area where there is a bit of a problem, and we need to look at it.

The motion we are speaking to deals directly with the fact that under Bill C-3 there is still gender discrimination, despite the government's attempt to address gender discrimination as a response to the McIvor decision. The Assembly of First Nations made a good comment specifically about this. It said that this legislation would defer discrimination to one or two generations later. It would entrench differential treatment of women.

The AFN is also concerned with other problems, like increased financial pressure, the creation of divisions within some communities and families, and declining status.

Let me get back to the motion before us. The AFN has been very clear that Bill C-3 would not adequately deal with the differential treatment of women.

Permit me to give the House a quick overview of this situation.

This stems from a case that Sharon McIvor brought forward. Ms. McIvor was born in 1948 and was not a registered Indian. She married a non-Indian in 1970. Ms. McIvor did not believe she was entitled to status under the Indian Act, but regardless she would have lost her right to status under the Indian Act when she married a non-Indian.

When Bill C-31 came into force in 1985, Ms. McIvor applied for Indian status on behalf of herself and her children. This was an incredibly long process, but after many years she obtained Indian status. But her son Jacob Grismer was not able to pass his status on to his children because his wife was not a status Indian. Mr. Grismer and Ms. McIvor challenged the 1985 amendments to the Indian Act on the basis that the status provisions contained residual discrimination based on sex. They won their case at the B.C. Court of Appeal.

Even though they won their case, we still find ourselves standing here in the House of Commons debating what is essentially the same issue, residual discrimination based on sex.

Let us look at the government's response to the McIvor decision.

A really good presentation was done at committee by the Canadian Bar Association. It encapsulated the government's response.

The federal government scheduled several sessions with national and regional aboriginal organizations. It accepted written comments prior to the introduction of Bill C-3.

The government has now come up with this bill. There are quite few pieces, but the main amendment proposes the addition of section 6.(1)(c.1) to the Indian Act. It would provide status to any individual whose mother lost Indian status upon marrying a non-Indian man, whose father is a non-Indian, who was born after the mother lost Indian status before April 17, 1985 unless the individual's parents married each other prior to that date, and who had a child with a non-Indian on or after September 4, 1951.

The CBA pointed out, and it is a bit puzzling, that a woman would have to have a child for this to be triggered. It seems there is a bit of discrimination here based on family status because a woman would actually have to have a child to fall under this section of the act. This is a bit odd to say the least.

To look at what this actually does and what this actually means, we can go back to the CBA brief. It put together an excellent chart. Conceptually, this might be a hard thing to think about and navigate in the mind to understand what this means in reality. But it is not actually rocket science. It is pretty clear if we can wrap our heads around the concepts.

The CBA has put together this beautiful chart listing this proposed amendment by Bill C-3. It has two examples: Sharon McIvor, married to a non-Indian man, and a hypothetical brother who is married to a non-Indian woman. If we follow this chart down and see what happens to their children and grandchildren and whether or not they have status, with these changes proposed in Bill C-3, the bulk of the situations would be actually the same. That is great. There would not be any discrimination.

Her son, married to a non-Indian woman, has status. The son of the hypothetical brother married to a non-Indian woman has status. That is great. They are all on par there. Sharon's grandchild, born after 1985, has status. That is great. The hypothetical brother's grandchild, born after 1985, has status. Again, everything is on the up and up.

This is where it comes a bit off the rails. For Sharon McIvor's grandchild, born before 1985, there is no status and therefore continuing discrimination. However, the hypothetical brother has a grandchild born before 1985 too and that grandchild has status. We are not talking about strange, adverse effects, discrimination that is hard to figure out or differential impact. We are not talking about hidden discrimination. This is overt. If we follow the lineage, the grandchild of the brother gets status while the grandchild of the sister does not. It is pretty straightforward if we think about it that way.

I would like to read from a submission of the Grand Council of the Waban-Aki Nation. They put together a great submission about the siblings rule and give a different situation. We have Sharon McIvor, and they talk about a woman named Susan Yantha. Susan Yantha was born in 1954 from a common-law union between Clément O'bumsawin, an Abenaki affiliated with the community of Odanak, and Anita Paradis, a non-Indian. At the time of Susan's birth, the Indian registration rules did not allow for the registration of “illegitimate” daughters of an Indian father and a non-Indian mother.

At the beginning of the 1970s, Susan married a non-Indian with whom she had a daughter, Tammy. Born from non-status parents, Tammy obviously had no right to be registered in the Indian register at the time of her birth.

In 1985, the federal government adopted Bill C-31 in a stated effort to eliminate discriminatory registration rules from the Indian Act. Pursuant to the new rules, Susan only had a right to section 6(2) “non-transmissible status” because she only had one Indian parent, her father. As a result, her daughter Tammy had no right to be registered. It goes without saying that Tammy's daughter, now aged four, has no right to be registered either.

Let us compare Susan's situation and that of her descendants to that of a hypothetical brother of hers, born in the same circumstances, and the situation of his descendants. That brother, whom we will call Arthur, would have had the right to be registered at the time of his birth. While the Indian registration rules did not allow for the registration of “illegitimate” daughters of an Indian father and non-Indian mother, they did allow for the registration of their “illegitimate” sons.

If Arthur had married a non-Indian, as Susan did, his wife would have acquired Indian status by marriage. Had Arthur and his wife had a child at the same time as Tammy was born, that child would have had the right to Indian status as a legitimate child of a status male, but would have lost that status upon reaching the age of 21 years because of the double mother rule.

With Bill C-31, Arthur, his wife and their child would have each been conferred transmissible 6(1) status in 1985, the goal of Bill C-31 being also to preserve the “vested” rights of those who had Indian status at the time the new rules were introduced. As to Arthur's child, his status would have not only been preserved but also enhanced, since under the new rules he would have enjoyed status indefinitely, not only until the age of 21, and could have passed on his status.

As a result, the child of the child of Arthur, or Arthur's grandchild, would have the right to non-transmissible section 6(2) status. This blatantly discriminatory treatment was described by the Minister of Indian Affairs in a letter written to Susan Yantha in 2002. As I said, that was a submission of the Grand Council of the Waban-Aki Nation.

It is pretty obvious there is discrimination. Also, to be blunt, it is obvious there is a solution and it is right in front of us. There have not been changes to the Indian Act concerning this issue since 1985. This is the golden opportunity, in 2010, to make sure the act does not discriminate against any women who fall under the Indian Act. The solution that has been brought forward by government is so narrow in its scope that all it does is address the injustice in which Sharon McIvor found herself. What we are going to have to deal with 25 years from now is the injustice that the next Sharon McIvor in a different situation will have experienced.

I would like to talk about solutions. My colleague from Labrador talked about how at committee witness after witness has come forward and has said that they know how to fix this. Witness after witness has said that there are some problems with funding and how to process applications and there is a problem with section 9, but at the very least, can we at least get the discrimination piece right?

There was a submission made by LEAF, the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund. It has followed this case through its entire history. It made a submission to committee. LEAF confirms its support for an amendment that will achieve the goal of eliminating all forms of discrimination against aboriginal women and their descendants. LEAF submits that the committee has the jurisdiction to propose amendments to the bill to achieve this end and believes the committee has jurisdiction because the bill is very broad in its scope. LEAF stated, “It is an act 'to promote gender equity in Indian registration' by 'responding' to the BCCA”--B.C. Court of Appeal--“decision in McIvor. The response by government can and should be comprehensive and should fully eradicate any vestige of inequality in the determination of Indian status”.

That is pretty straightforward. LEAF does have a legal eye and calls into question whether or not the committee has the jurisdiction to deal with this issue. It is important that LEAF raised this. It says that if it does have the jurisdiction then this is what the committee should do, but of course, it talks as well about if there is not the jurisdiction. In the event that the committee determines it is beyond its scope to propose amendments to fully eliminate sex discrimination, LEAF submits that consistent with the submissions made by aboriginal women and their organizations, the bill should be withdrawn and a new bill which fully redresses the discrimination suffered by aboriginal women should be introduced.

I find that very interesting. I am in agreement with the idea that the committee does have the jurisdiction to amend it. We can amend, but if the committee finds it does not have that power, then why are we only responding to the very narrow situation in which Sharon McIvor found herself? Why are we waiting for the next court challenge to come down the pike to deal with the residual discrimination in the act?

On that note, Dr. Pamela Palmater, a Mi'kmaq woman from New Brunswick and also the chair of Ryerson University's study of indigenous governments made a submission to the committee. I would like to read part of her submission about the conclusion. She said:

Part of the problem with Bill C-3 is how to respect gender equality in practice and not just the law. Delayed equality is not full equality. Canada fought the McIvor case for over 20 years and now proposes a minimal amendment that would require another person like Sharon McIvor to spend another 25 years to seek gender equality on essentially the same facts. An undefined joint process that does not have a specific mandate, clear objectives or identified funding for widespread participation does not provide any real comfort that gender discrimination, or any discrimination, will be addressed any time soon.

On that point, we have heard from the parliamentary secretary several times about this process to which Ms. Palmater referred. There is nothing bad about this further exploration process. That is fabulous. Let us explore away. Let us come up with great ideas. Let us be visionary and think about the future.

We do not need to actually envision the future when it comes to this bill. We do not actually need to pull in the best ideas on how to make this bill better because they are already here. All of the best ideas were put forward in committee about how to actually address gender discrimination under this section of the Indian Act. It is stunning to me that we are not seizing this opportunity.

I had the pleasure of sitting in on committee either last week or two weeks ago when the Canadian Bar Association appeared. I read its recommendation. It even drafted the section for us on how we could make the bill better and stronger. Of course, when it made its submission and I saw the writing in black and white about how to change the act, I thought it was a great idea, that those CBA folks are pretty smart and thank goodness they came because now we are going to fix the bill. I certainly was wrong and I am surprised because I find it mind-boggling that we would not actually bring in that provision.

I want to read the end of Ms. Palmater's submission to the House:

Let's try to get it right this time - my children are counting on you to uphold Canada's commitment to gender equality and human rights both in the letter and in spirit.

That says a lot. Those are very heartfelt words from Ms. Palmater about what we need to do.

In conclusion, I strongly support this motion by the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan. I am thrilled she brought it forward and applaud her for doing so. It was the smart thing to do and the right thing to do. I am completely baffled as to why we are not actually implementing the recommendations.

As my colleague from Labrador said, every single person who came forward in committee said this has to change and we can seize the moment and address gender discrimination. We are not doing it and I stand here wondering why. I hope my colleague is successful in this motion.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak in favour of the motion put before this House by the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan. I thank her for taking the opportunity to do that and for giving us an opportunity to debate an issue during what really is an historic time not only within the House but within our committee and the country.

Significant changes to the Indian Act do not happen often. The last time that such significant amendments were being debated was in 1985, 25 years ago. Those particular amendments came about because of huge and momentous court battles and struggles before the United Nations by some very courageous women, women like Corbiere-Lavell, who is now the president of the Native Women's Association of Canada, and Sandra Lovelace, who is now a senator.

Subsequent to 1985, another 25 year legal battle took place to once and for all get rid of sex discrimination within the Indian Act. We as parliamentarians are at an historic crossroads where we have an opportunity, once and for all, to rid the very archaic and parochial Indian Act of all sex discrimination.

This motion says that we should instruct the committee to allow the committee to go beyond the scope of the bill to make significant amendments. Why would we do this? We would do it because every witness who appeared before committee said that there would be residual discrimination. Government witnesses tacitly said that this was so. They never explicitly said so, but there was a tacit assumption on the part of even the government's own witnesses, such as lawyers from the Department of Justice and those who work within the Department of Indian Affairs, that there would be residual discrimination.

Beyond those particular witnesses, national organizations, such as the Assembly of First Nations, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, the Native Women's Association of Canada and the National Association of Friendship Centres, put forward possible amendments to the bill at committee and encouraged us to once and for all get rid of sex discrimination. Each of them in their submissions said that there would be ongoing sex discrimination under the Indian Act.

Regional organizations, such as the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and the Quebec Native Women Inc., also made presentations. I will go through some of their specific comments as we debate this in the House.

Legal organizations also came before us, such as the Canadian Bar Association, which represents over 30,000 legal minds in this country, and the Bureau du Québec. These organizations also said that there would be ongoing residual discrimination.

We also heard from individuals, experts, people with their doctorates in the Indian Act and people like Pam Palmater, who came with not only a professional opinion but one also imbued from her studies and from what she had learned throughout her time and in her own family. She brought a personal experience to this issue and she said that there would be residual discrimination.

The person who has waged battle for equality for the last 25 years, Sharon McIvor, came before committee and said that even with Bill C-3, even with what the government has presented to this House and what we are now debating in committee, there will be no true equality under the Indian Act for her and her grandchildren as compared to those in the male line. She also said that there will be continuing gender discrimination.

With all of that evidence in front of the government, why would it want to continue sex discrimination? Why would it not want to now take the opportunity to rid the Indian Act of gender inequality? Why would we as parliamentarians not rise to the task to end gender inequality when we see it and when we know it exists by virtually everyone's admission? The government sometimes talks a good talk about gender equality for women but we do not see it walk the walk. We do not see it step up to the plate.

I will go through what some of the witnesses told us, sometimes through written submissions. I will quote the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund because it lists out three specific examples where gender discrimination will continue to exist, even with Bill C-3. It said, “Aboriginal women and their descendants who regain status under Bill C-3 are not entitled to equal status with their male counterparts. Descendants of women born before 1951 will not be entitled to status, whereas descendants of men born before 1951 are entitled to status. Descendants of women in common-law or other non-marital unions with non-status men are not entitled to status”.

It goes on to say, “Bill C-3 does not address the existing Indian Act policy, pursuant to which all cases of unconfirmed paternity are presumed to be non-status. In response to Bill C-3, individual aboriginal women, aboriginal women's organizations, aboriginal governments and chiefs, including the Assembly of First Nations and legal experts, have demanded the eradication of all sex discrimination under the Indian Act”.

It emphasized the point right in B.C where some of the members opposite like to say that this will have the greatest impact because the B.C. Court of Appeal did apply specifically to the Province of B.C., but the proposes amendments under Bill C-3 would apply across the country.

The Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, when it appeared before the committee, said that Bill C-3, Canada's response to the B.C. Court of Appeal decision in McIvor v. Canada, was a limited approach which continues discrimination under the Indian Act against indigenous women and their descendants. It went on to say that we should make a number of amendments to eradicate sex discrimination and gender discrimination from the Indian Act, and it lists them.

The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, a national organization, also came to the committee and admitted that there would still be gender discrimination under the Indian Act. It said that it wanted to make some changes. One of them was that, as an interim measure, Canada should amend section 6.1(a) of the Indian Act to include the following words, “Or was born prior to April 17, 1985 and was a direct descendant of such a person to Section 61(a) of the Indian Act”.

That is not in Bill C-3. That is in direct contrast to what is in Bill C-3. This would broaden it and get rid of many forms of discrimination. Of course, there were others dealing with other issues, but it was the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples that made that particular submission.

Members of the Quebec Native Women Inc. came to us and said that while they recognized the need to amend the archaic nature of the Indian Act, which is of itself discriminatory, they deplore the restrictive vision of the federal government focusing solely on a patchwork remedy to the specific problem of discrimination brought to light in the McIvor case. They went on to say:

This is a missed opportunity for the Government of Canada to finally eradicate the historical and institutionalized forms of discrimination that Aboriginal women and their descendants have been subjected to under the Indian Act since 1876. The Government’s proposal to amend the Indian Act will indeed cause further destructive divisions within families.

I mentioned earlier that individuals came before the committee presenting testimony. One was Pam Palmater who has a unique family situation with various parentage for various kids within her family and she outlined it to the committee. Under Bill C-3 they would be treated differently. There will be different status for different children just because their grandmother was a woman. They do not come from a paternal line, but from a maternal line, and she outlined that very clearly. She also wrote to the committee. She was quite succinct, but this is how she summed it up:

Canada has introduced a minimalist amendment to the Act and is seeking to deny compensation to those Indian women and their descendants who were wrongfully denied their identities,--

She went on to say:

The Court of Appeal in McIvor found the discrimination to be newly created in 1985 and not prior to the coming into force of the Charter.

So she is also bringing in the issue of the charter that came into force after Bill C-31 and the type of remedy that would be available to people admitting that there was discrimination between 1985 and the present.

She said and I am paraphrasing, to not once and for all get rid of the discrimination is to perpetuate the very negative stereotypes against Indian women that McIvor and others fought against, that they are less worthy, less aboriginal and less able to transmit their aboriginality to their children simply by virtue of being aboriginal women.

She went on to make a further argument that they must be allowed the opportunity to bring forward a charter challenge based on the discrimination that existed since 1985 to the present even with Bill C-3 brought in because we know there will be residual forms of discrimination.

Then we had presentations by the Canadian Bar Association. It has a section entitled “Continuing Discrimination”. It said:

Unfortunately, Bill C-3 would not completely eliminate discrimination from the registration provisions of the Indian Act. The proposals do not address discriminatory aspects of the “second generation cut-off rule” enacted in 1985, which the parties and the court studiously avoided in the McIvor case. Perhaps more important, Bill C-3 would not sufficiently address the source of discrimination identified by the BC Court of Appeal; sections 6(1)(a) and 6(1)(c) violate the Charter to the extent that they grant individuals to whom the “Double Mother Rule” applied greater rights than they would have had under the former legislation.

I have only taken excerpts from certain presentations by witnesses that were made before the aboriginal affairs committee, but I believe this whole debate comes down to the motion. Why not allow the committee to have its scope broadened on the bill and to allow us to make the amendments?

There are probably going to be amendments introduced even later today in committee and someone will rule whether they are in order or they are not in order. We will vote subsequently to that, but why not give the committee the opportunity and the latitude to introduce amendments based on what witnesses have brought before the committee to once and for all end gender discrimination? Why would the government not want that to happen?

I understand that this motion, brought before the House, will give the committee more latitude, more of a breadth of opportunity to make amendments that bring gender equality to all aboriginal women when it comes to provisions of the Indian Act.

Why would the government want to deny us that simple opportunity? Then we can take the time in committee to propose those amendments and once and for all get rid of gender discrimination. Why would the government want to perpetuate gender discrimination when it has the opportunity to eradicate it?

In 2010 we have as parliamentarians, almost at any age I suppose, these opportunities and we should take them and not deny them.

This is all we are asking the government to do. We think it is a sensible approach. The government talks about its extension from the B.C. Court of Appeal where the court granted one year and now it is going until the first week in July. The B.C. Court of Appeal said in its decision that if the government wanted more time, because it knows how significant these issues are and how complex they can be, it would have granted that time to the government.

However, the government talks about the deadline, but when its lawyers come before the committee, the government admits that it really did not have any legal obligation to even bring in Bill C-3. If Bill C-3 falls, who says it will bring in another bill.

If the government is true to its words, true to what it says, it will eliminate gender discrimination. But if Bill C-3 fails, I would ask the government, is it going to bring in another bill to deal with all of the sex discrimination that exists under the Indian Act? If it will not, why would it not? If it has taken the opportunity and made all these arguments about Bill C-3, I would think that the government would live up to its own rhetoric and bring in another bill in a very quick timeframe to deal with the residual discrimination.

It cannot use all of the arguments and rationale for bringing in Bill C-3, then have it fail and say it is not going to bring in another bill. I do not think the government can have it both ways.

I would say to the aboriginal caucus members of the Conservative Party of Canada to fight within their party for the change that is required. They should fight within their party to ensure that the committee can do its work today and for the aboriginal women who have fought so hard for many generations, or else what is an aboriginal committee or a caucus for if they do not fight those battles within their own party.

This is a historic time. It is an opportunity for us all to join together as parliamentarians and end gender discrimination and sex discrimination under the Indian Act once and for all. There is nothing that stands in our way. The House has been given an opportunity to vote on the motion that will allow the committee to do its work and the committee to respond to the witnesses that came before us. If we cannot respond to the witnesses who come before us in committee, what is the use of committees?

We hear witnesses because they are supposed to be able to influence us to make the appropriate changes. There has been unanimity from witnesses who came before us to make changes to end gender discrimination. Why would we not allow the committee the opportunity to do just that?

I am glad to speak to this motion. I invite questions. In speaking here today I want to honour those like Sharon McIvor and other women who have stood with her and indeed many Canadians who have stood with her for the last 25 years to once and for all get rid of gender discrimination. It is the right thing to do.

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

So it's status.

So people have two options at this point with the repeal of section 67. They can go through the court system or they can file a complaint. You indicated in your presentation that we can wait for it to unroll case by case. Let's assume they win. We can piecemeal, case by case, amend the Indian Act and potentially end up with unintended consequences, as we did with Bill C-31.

Or, as you've suggested, we need to do a more comprehensive approach. Can you talk a little bit about specifics around that? Because the exploratory process you mentioned is not necessarily getting widespread support; it's not deemed as consultation. Is there something you can recommend? Again, it may be outside of your area of expertise. If you can't recommend something like that, can you talk a little bit about remedies? Because the remedy won't necessarily change legislation, right?

Motions in Amendment

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Delta—Richmond East covered a number of points that I know I will not have time to address, of course, but I will touch on a couple of them.

One is that it is always interesting to me that in this House we have discussions in which it is said that first nations must be held to different standards than the rest of Canada.

When it comes to environmental concerns, I just need to point to the fact that I know the Department of Fisheries and Oceans was considering two mining permits that were going to kill freshwater lakes, which fish reside in, as tailing ponds. Therefore, on the one hand we have the non-aboriginal population that continues with environmental impacts that affect us, whether it is the tar sands or tailing ponds, so I am not sure that it is a legitimate argument.

When it comes to overlaps, the member is absolutely right. There are some concerns with overlaps. Certainly, the Penelakut, the Cowichan people and the Sencoten have all signalled some concerns around overlaps.

I know that the Penelakut and Cowichan have been quite actively working with the Tsawwassen to address some of the concerns around the overlaps. The government has provided some additional funding, both provincially and federally, certainly to Penelakut, to help with some of the research, background and negotiation around that. The overlaps are a concern. I know from speaking to people from Cowichan and Penelakut that they are working to try to resolve some of those concerns.

When it comes to off reserve people having a say, we have a court decision which recognizes that people who belong to a particular nation have the right to have a say in what happens on their traditional territories. We know that Bill C-31 from 1985 recognized that women who had married out of their community had the right to be reinstated to their communities, but they were impacted, as they were not allowed to return to their communities because there simply were not the resources to allow them to return.

So now what I am hearing people say is that because these people, largely women and their families, could not return to the reserve because of a lack of resources, they should not have any say in what happens. That is a much larger question around where governments choose to put their time, energy and resources.

Canadian Human Rights Act

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

Mr. Speaker, this is an important day in the House as we bring back the amended Bill C-21. Specifically, we are dealing with a couple of amendments.

Unfortunately, this bill has been decades in coming. I will share just a bit of history around this bill. Originally in 1977 an exception was provided that first nations living on reserve could not file complaints under the Canadian Human Rights Act against anything in the Indian Act. Part of the history around that so-called temporary exemption from 1977 being put in place was of course that there were discriminatory provisions in existence in the Indian Act.

One of those discriminatory provisions was around the fact that first nations women who married non-aboriginal men were actually excluded from living on reserve or maintaining their status. The report that came out in 2005 from the Canadian Human Rights Commission, “A Matter of Rights”, talked about the impacts on the community. I have a quote from that report about what happens to families:

The effect of this discriminatory provision was the effective banishment of over one hundred thousand women, their spouses, and their children from their communities and traditional homelands. This caused great psychological, emotional and economic suffering. This was especially true in cases where marriages broke down and First Nation women were not allowed to return home.

What we had in place was a system that disenfranchised thousands and thousands of women and their families. Because the department of the day knew this discriminatory provision was in place and was not at that time prepared to deal with that discriminatory provision, it asked for this exemption and it was put in place.

Subsequent to that, this particular part of the Indian Act was repealed and women were granted their status. I am going to come back to that in a minute, because that was Bill C-31 from 1985, which was one of the reasons that so many people who came before committee were so vocal about wanting some of the amendments that were put in place.

I am not going to read all the recommendations from “A Matter of Rights”, but there were five key recommendations. Part of what the Canadian Human Rights Commission recommended in 2005, before legislation was developed, was that consultation take place with first nations and that “an interpretive provision”, which would take into consideration the rights and interests of first nations, be put in place, and that there would be a transitional period of at least 18 to 30 months, and so on. There were a number of other recommendations.

However, part of the challenge that this House and the committee faced was that when the piece of legislation came before the committee, it was of course a very simple piece of legislation and did not include any of those elements. The bill was developed without consultation with first nations communities.

Therefore, to the Conservative government's surprise, there were a number of concerns raised by witness after witness who came before the committee. People were saying that in the past governments have passed bills in the House that have had some unintended consequences, and they did not want to see that happen.

The committee listened quite respectfully to the witnesses and subsequently proposed a number of amendments, which included an extended transitional period for 36 months. They included an interpretive clause and a non-derogation clause. The amendments we are dealing with today have done some refinement on the non-derogation clause and on some additional wording around gender principles.

I want to come back for a moment to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and why the committee faced some challenges around needing to hear so much more information, because the report of the Canadian Human Rights Act Review Panel, “Promoting Equality: A New Vision”, made a number of specific recommendations with regard to the repeal of section 67.

The panel said specifically,“Any effort to deal with the section 67 issue must ensure adequate input from Aboriginal people themselves”. We saw what happened when that did not happen: it took months for us to get to the place where there was some agreement in getting the bill back in the House.

The panel talked about resources. To go back to Bill C-31, one thing was very clear in Bill C-31, and in a minute I will quote the Native Women's Association of Canada. What was very clear under Bill C-31 was that there were inadequate resources once women regained their status in their communities. There was not enough housing. There were not enough other support services for women who could have returned to their community.

Therefore, one of the things that the Human Rights Commission recommended was that these resources be put in place. It said that resources must be put in place so that people actually have access to any redress mechanisms that might be deemed suitable once a complaint was filed.

It talked about the fact that there should be cultural recognition and said:

At the same time, the Act should permit a balancing of the values of the Aboriginal people and the need to preserve Aboriginal culture...These points raise huge questions about the social and economic structure of Aboriginal life and its legal underpinnings. Such matters deserve far more study than we have been able to give them. So again, there is a need for adequate consultations.

It talked about the balancing provision and stated:

The Panel believes it is highly important to balance the interests of Aboriginal individuals seeking equality without discrimination with important Aboriginal community interests. A balancing provision means that a Tribunal would actually hear evidence and representations on the issue of whether the interests of the individual and the community are properly balanced.

It talked about self-government and said:

The Panel believes something more should be done in order to ensure greater say in the human rights roles that apply to Aboriginal governments. This would be consistent with the principle of self-government.

Thus, the Canadian Human Rights Commission itself acknowledged the fact that there needed to be a number of other mechanisms put in place in order to make sure that this piece of legislation did not have the same kind of impact that Bill C-31 has had. Bill C-31 has had some difficulties in terms of the fact that when women were reinstated there were not the resources that I referred to, but there is also a second generation cut-off.

The second generation cut-off means that people whose parents were not both first nations could end up losing their status by the time the second generation is born. That is an unintended consequence. A report did some analysis on key reserves across the country and did some estimates on when the last status person would be born on those reserves. Some would say that quite cynically the government is not dealing with that provision because then first nations people would come under the guidance of the provinces rather than the federal government.

Bev Jacobs, president of the Native Women's Association of Canada, said in a press release:

Twenty-five years after having the Charter, NWAC is well aware that having rights on paper does not guarantee the ability of all individuals to exercise those rights. NWAC believes that consultation with Aboriginal peoples and specifically, Aboriginal women, is necessary to ensuring the rights are meaningful and exercisable. We are also well aware that membership provisions under Bill C-31, off-reserve rights, health, housing and education policies as well as the continuing lack of a matrimonial real property law regime that applies on reserve are issues that the federal crown will most likely see complaints filed about.

She goes on further in that press release to say:

--It is important for both the CHRC and First Nations communities to have the resources to build a relationship that acknowledges and respects human rights.” This is the only way equal rights for all can be promised.

We know that this very important piece of legislation, the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which does provide the right for first nations people on reserve to file complaints under discriminatory provisions under the Indian Act, in itself will not guarantee human rights unless there are resources in place.

The Native Women's Association of Canada talked about resources around education and housing. We know, of course, that the children from Attawapiskat are here on the Hill today, talking about how their human rights are being violated by the fact that they do not have access to a school. They do not have access to the education that every other Canadian child off reserve expects as a fundamental human right. When Ms. Jacobs from the Native Women's Association of Canada talks about this, she knows full well that many communities simply do not have those resources that would make sure that their human rights were not violated.

In a brief that the Native Women's Association put forward to the committee on the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, it talked about the fact that governments, both the current Conservative government and previous Liberal government, should not have waited so long, and again quotes the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which said:

However, the Commission would prefer that the Government take a proactive approach to preventing potential discrimination and not wait for complaints to be filed and potentially lengthy proceedings to take place. The Commission, therefore, urges the Government, in consultation with First Nations, the Commission and other relevant bodies, to review provisions of the Indian Act and relevant policies and programs to ensure that they do not conflict with the Canadian Human Rights Act and other relevant provisions of domestic and international human rights law. Such a review should focus in particular on the impact of Bill C-31....

In conclusion, I am very pleased that the House has decided that it would support Bill C-21, the repeal of section 67, and I urge the government to ensure that the resources are put in place to deal with potential human rights complaints and also to ensure that the resources are available to the Canadian Human Rights Commission so it can go out and work with first nations governments to ensure this understanding is in place.

Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member's question reflects the frustration of many people, not just in this House but within the first nations communities as well.

I would like to remind the member, though, about one of the things that I think happens in this process. For over 100 years, first nations people have had their lives and their rights trampled upon through a process of colonization. As for what is important about the duty to consult, I disagree with the member. We cannot underestimate the importance of the duty to consult.

What first nations people are saying to us over and over again is that they need to be part of the process and they need to be ensuring that our aboriginal treaty rights, as entrenched in the Constitution of this country, are respected. I do not even understand this concept of entrenching them in the Constitution if we are not going to respect them. The duty to consult is paramount in how we move forward.

In fact, we have had over 100 years of colonization and the imposition of policies and laws that have devastated our lives, most recently as Bill C-31, which I know the member is really aware of in terms of the implications. That is now going to the Supreme Court of Canada. The B.C. Supreme Court ruled in favour of the woman whose rights had been abused through the process of Bill C-31. This is going to have a huge impact in terms of status Indian roles in Canada.

This is really critical. This is what first nations women are saying in the dialogue sessions. They are not just saying that they have issues like severe housing issues. One of the primary issues, and I have to make this statement, is that they are concerned about their families. Through every system for first nations families, whether it is health, education or child welfare, they are not being provided money for prevention to ensure that their families stay together. And then we have the housing crisis.

Yes, all those day to day issues are issues that we have to hear about, but we need to hear from the women themselves.

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. I hail from a riding that is largely dominated by aboriginal parties, the Innu, the Inuit and the Métis of Labrador.

It is a genuine honour and privilege for me to rise in the House to speak to this legislation. Bill C-31 is no ordinary piece of legislation. The bill puts into effect the Tlicho land claims and self-government agreement. This is an historic step for the Tlicho people of the Northwest Territories and a milestone in the history of aboriginal peoples in Canada.

The word milestone is entirely appropriate, for the Tlicho land claims and self-government agreement represents the accumulation of a long journey, one that has demanded patience, determination and conviction.

As this journey has now reached the House of Commons, I would like to offer my congratulations to the Tlicho people for achieving this momentous agreement. I am proud to declare my support for the agreement and for Bill C-31.

The benefits of aboriginal self-government are many. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has made this fact abundantly clear on numerous occasions. In the time allocated to me today, I would like to touch on just one of these benefits: strengthening economic development in aboriginal communities.

This is an area of which I am deeply concerned. I am very proud to see our aboriginal peoples move forward and to see the Tlicho people, as well as the aboriginal people that I represent, starting to do so very well in economic development.

The question is, why does the promise of economic development for the Tlicho people deserve special attention? As the House will recall, the government made a plea in the recent Speech from the Throne to foster such opportunities for aboriginal communities, to see aboriginal peoples participate fully in national life on the basis of historic rights and agreements, with greater economic self-reliance and improved quality of life.

The land claims and self-government agreement signed by the Government of Canada, the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Tlicho people helps fulfill that commitment by recognizing the jurisdiction of the Tlicho people over their land, resources, language and culture.

Economic growth can occur only when people have their freedom to cultivate it. Most Canadians take this truth to be self-evident but I was struck by a comment made by the Tlicho elder, Mary Ann Jermemick, upon the signing of the Tlicho agreement last August. She said:

We were always told what to do and what we couldn't do. We could have somebody doing mining…right next to our house and we have nothing to say about it. Now at least we have some say about what's going on in our community and our land.

I think that is a very important statement and one that speaks well of aboriginal people throughout Canada and a statement that could be used by almost any aboriginal person. These are profound words spoken by a wise elder. With this agreement, the Tlicho people will now have the freedom to cultivate economic development. They will possess the authority to not only identify new and important opportunities but also to promptly and decisively pursue them.

How will they accomplish these worthy goals? Under the Tlicho land claims and self-government agreement, the Tlicho people will gain additional governance and administrative tools to strengthen their economy. Using these levers of prosperity, the Tlicho expect to create an entrepreneurial climate that will encourage investment and pave the way for new jobs paying good wages. Through the land, resource and financial benefits they receive from the agreement, the Tlicho will be in a better position to undertake new business ventures and forge profitable partnerships.

As new economic ventures get underway, other opportunities are sure to follow. With these exciting new possibilities on the horizon, it is important to remember that the Tlicho people are no strangers to entrepreneurship. In fact, they have provided an excellent example to other groups, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike, of the benefits of hard work, the strength of partnership, and the value of innovative thinking.

The Tlicho people were the first aboriginal group in the Northwest Territories to develop their own hydroelectric project. Developed in the 1990s, the Snare Cascades hydroelectric project was a joint venture with the Northwest Territories Power Corporation and represented the largest economic project undertaken by the Tlicho. A vital component of the regional power grid, the Snare Cascades project now generates more than four megawatts and supplies 7% of the territory's power. Labrador could probably help a bit because there are 5,500 in Great Churchill Falls.

The Tlicho also built, independent of any government funding, an airport in the aboriginal community of Rae-Edzo. The airport, which enables airlines to provide direct flights to Edmonton and Yellowknife, is sure to bolster a variety of industries in the region as traffic steadily increases.

The Tlicho currently partner with some of Canada's largest engineering companies, including Procon and SNC-Lavalin. The Tlicho nation is party to impact and benefits agreements with Diavik and Ekati, two prominent diamond mining companies in the region. Through these accords, the Tlicho have negotiated for guaranteed training and employment at both mines, enhancing the chances for increased employment and improved standards of living for the Tlicho well into the future.

It is no secret that the mining industry is the leading employer of aboriginal people in the Northwest Territories. In the early 1990s, aboriginal people accounted for only 10% of full time mining jobs in the north. Direct employment since then has tripled to about 30% largely due to the aboriginal hiring and training initiatives at the two diamond mines.

In fact, at the end of 2001, 683 aboriginal employees, or 30% of the operation's workforce, worked for the Ekati mine or its contractors. At the end of 2002, 36 of Diavik's operating employees were aboriginal. Diavik anticipates that aboriginal workers will account for at least 40% of the company's northern workforce when the mine reaches full capacity.

The mine is well on its way to reaching this figure following a recent agreement signed between Diavik and I&D Management Services, a consortium of aboriginal groups. Under this agreement, I&D provides 100 employees to the mine, of whom half are aboriginal. These workers operate many of the ore haul trucks, excavators, dozers and other heavy equipment essential to the mine's operations.

A new school, for instance, now provides Tlicho youth with a broader range of career and lifestyle options than those enjoyed by previous generations. These increased opportunities are encouraging many more students to remain in school and graduate. Dropout rates have plummeted. Many young people are now going on to post-secondary education, and in June 2006 the school will graduate its first university bound students. That is a very important milestone.

The spirit of entrepreneurship is also reflected in the rapid growth of the local business community. Today, more than 200 aboriginal owned businesses in the region, with annual revenues in excess of $100 million, are employing some 1,000 aboriginal people. These figures represent unprecedented growth in aboriginal entrepreneurship in Canada's north.

Here is more evidence of this growth. In 2001, Ekati spent $105 million of its $400 million operations support budget with aboriginal owned firms, a 62% increase over the previous year. At Diavik, by the end of 2001, the company had $726 million in contracts with northern companies, including $500 million with aboriginal joint venture firms.

These firms provide a variety of support services to the mines, namely, pit haul operations, explosives manufacturing, camp management and food services, employee recruiting, construction, engineering, and environmental management. Mining companies are fast recognizing that contract aboriginal firms in the region makes, above all else, excellent business sense.

I believe that I have made it clear that the spirit of entrepreneurship is alive and well among the Tlicho people. I have no doubt that the land claims and self-government agreement will help bolster the regional economy even further.

The agreement gives the Tlicho people greater and more immediate decision making powers to capitalize on business relationships and expand their entrepreneurial horizons. As those horizons expand, the range of work experience available to the Tlicho will continue to broaden. And it is precisely that breadth of experience that will foster ongoing economic development and innovation.

In this way the Tlicho agreement benefits all Canadians, by providing a model of economic self-determination that others might emulate, and by strengthening the central role played by an aboriginal community within a broader regional economy.

I want to offer my personal congratulations again. This agreement and the people represented in this agreement rivals the kind of support and the kind of development I see in my own riding of Labrador among aboriginal peoples. I wish to offer my sincere congratulations.

It is for these reasons, and many others, that I urge all members to lend their support to this historic piece of legislation, to see its passing, and to ensure that the economic promise of the Tlicho land claims and self-government agreement is made real.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-31, the Tlicho land claims and self-government act.

The principal component of this legislation is a tripartite agreement negotiated by the representatives of the Tlicho people and the Governments of Canada and the Northwest Territories. It is incumbent upon us to look at the collaborative approach adopted by the Tlicho and to go ahead and approve Bill C-31.

Close collaboration is vital to the national interest. I believe it is only through genuine participation and partnership between the government and the first nations that aboriginal communities can achieve effective self-government. It is only through open, transparent and accountable governments that the first nations will be able to build a strong, robust economy and develop healthy, enduring societies for the generations that come after us.

I am convinced that enacting this legislation will benefit not only the Tlicho but also the people of Canada. Strong, self-reliant first nations have much to contribute to Canada. They contribute economically, socially, as well as culturally.

Consider for a moment the potential impact of the current demographic projections. Perhaps members already know this, but Canada's aboriginal population is relatively young. Approximately half of all aboriginals are under the age of 25, and the birth rate among aboriginals is about twice that of the general population. With this growth comes immense opportunity: expanding markets for goods and services, a fresh supply of workers, as well as an increasing class of entrepreneurs.

Recent statistics indicate that aboriginal youth are much more likely than other young Canadians to start businesses. Today aboriginals own more than 30,000 companies, and that number increases every day. By nurturing this entrepreneurial spirit among aboriginal youth, I am convinced that we can virtually guarantee Canada's long term prosperity. The key is to ensure that aboriginals play an equal role in the planning and in the executing of economic development projects.

By enacting Bill C-31, the Tlicho will be able to increase their participation in the economy. Furthermore, by ratifying this legislation, the Government of Canada will send a clear message about honouring its commitments to aboriginal and first nation communities. In fact I am confident that negotiators working on land claim and self-government agreements across Canada will follow the progress of Bill C-31 with considerable interest.

I encourage all my colleagues to bear this scrutiny in mind as they consider the many merits of this very important legislation.

A close examination of Bill C-31 reveals how it will foster accountability and create self-reliance for the Tlicho. The Tlicho would form a democratic, responsive and representative government. Investors will appreciate the consistency and the certainty that this will provide. Ownership and control of resources will be transparent and it will be unambiguous. This will enable entrepreneurs to attract new business partners and also encourage investment in these new unfolding enterprises.

Under the terms of Bill C-31, key decisions would be made by the people most familiar with and most affected by local issues. The Tlicho government could enact laws in areas such as aboriginal language and cultural issues. They could develop social services. They would also have a key role and a say in the management of the land and the resources on Tlicho land.

The Tlicho would also be guaranteed representation on the land issues dealing with water and issues dealing with renewable resource boards, which would approve development activities within the settlement area. This kind of active role and opportunity to decide what the decisions will look like is absolutely key as we go forward.

The Tlicho gain the freedom to establish partnerships. They have freedom to conduct business according to their needs, while at the same time respecting the interests of the already existing businesses and structures.

In short, the Tlicho will establish and maintain a democratic government within the constitutional framework of Canada. This government will respect Canadian law and it will recognize the Tlicho, like Canadians everywhere, are subject to the Criminal Code, as well as protected under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Tlicho have demonstrated that they know how to manage their affairs responsibly and can do it profitably. This is, after all, one of the more prosperous and successful aboriginal groups we have in the north. The Tlicho built and maintain their own airport. They help to manage their schools. They run a senior citizens' centre, as well as a long term care facility. The Tlicho have also negotiated service delivery agreements with the government of the Northwest Territories.

The Tlicho have also signed a number of mutually beneficial agreements with private sector firms. More than five years ago, an impact and benefits deal was struck with the Ekati diamond mine, which is located on the traditional lands of the Tlicho, and a second agreement was negotiated for the Diavik mine. This is good news. These deals have delivered a wealth of economic and social benefits to the Tlicho, such as jobs and opportunity for training. The money flowing into Tlicho communities as a result of these deals supports a wide range of social services.

The legislation before us will inspire new partnerships and will enable the Tlicho to honour their proud tradition of self-sufficiency.

This agreement also provides for a constitution that was created and ratified by the Tlicho before the agreement was signed. I think this is very significant. The constitution is critical. It is critical because it enshrines the community's governance structures and processes. These range from electing officials to drafting budgets to creating new laws. It also sets out the community's governing principles and guiding philosophy. Most significantly, the constitution was developed by the members of the community. The document reflects the wishes of the Tlicho. It does not reflect the views of consultants and lawyers.

The agreement is also the product of the Tlicho's consultative approach. Community meetings were held, ideas were put forward, issues were discussed and they worked through problems. This consensus building strengthened the agreement, and it will also improve the governance. As we know, people are far more likely to respect laws and to participate in governance structures that they themselves helped create.

Through this collaborative process, the Tlicho have shown that difficult issues can be overcome. They have been overcome through thorough consultation and with genuine understanding. They have demonstrated that an agreement can be tailored to fit local circumstances and that the rights and interests of everyone involved can be respected. They have been able to foster better relations with their neighbouring aboriginal groups. For instance, the Tlicho have successfully negotiated overlap agreements with the Sahtu Dene and the Metis, the Gwich'in, the Deh Cho and the Akaitcho Treaty 8 Dene.

The Tlicho are clearly ready to fulfill their obligations. They have been working toward this agreement for more than a decade. They have staged hundreds of information sessions. They have consulted broadly. They have secured the support of a range of public and private sector groups.

Enacting Bill C-31 will send a strong and positive message to other aboriginal communities. As the first agreement in the Northwest Territories to combine land claims and self-government, it demonstrates Canada's commitment to negotiate as the most effective means to achieve reconciliation with aboriginal people. The agreement's numerous distinctive aspects proclaim the government's determination to ensure that the unique needs of the aboriginal peoples are met. When I look at this agreement, I cannot tell members how proud it makes me to be a Canadian.

Many members of the House were members on April 1, 1999 when Nunavut, our third territory, came into existence. How many Canadians have stopped to think that the map of the world has been forever changed and it was done by the Canadian government, with the aboriginals and the citizens of a territory of Canada through negotiation? There was no civil war. Nobody bore arms. We negotiated and we found an agreement.

The bill before us has those same markings. It is about negotiation. It is about consultation. We can also hold up the Tlicho nation as a community that is responsible and is providing effective self-government. It can be used as a best practice, which I think is one reason why the members of the House need to take this incredible legislation to absolutely bind at the local level to a process to effect something that meets the needs of the Tlicho people.

When I was preparing for this speech I came across some statistics which I found really remarkable. We often talk about the lack of participation in the democratic process. I think it is something with which all members of the House are concerned. One only has to look at what these people went through for over 10 years and at the kind of participation they had for voter turnout. They had somewhere in the neighbourhood of, I believe, 83% ratification and the participation of those who were able to vote was extremely high. It speaks to the kind of empowerment that the government needs to create, not only with its aboriginal peoples but with Canadians right across Canada. We have empowered this group through their own hard work to manage their own resources.

I think back to when I was parliamentary secretary to the minister of the environment and we were dealing with the species at risk legislation. The aboriginal groups were very impressed that we were able to have meaningful dialogue with them and to build into a piece of legislation a reverence and an acknowledgement that aboriginal traditional knowledge had much to teach all of us about protecting species at risk and safeguarding their habitat; that the people on the land, the aboriginals, the trappers, the ranchers, the farmers, knew more about these species on their land than any scientist going in; and that it would be through this kind of partnership that we would be able to protect some of our most precious resources.

I encourage all members to become familiar with the legislation and to support it. This is an agreement where a total of 93% of the eligible voters participated in the vote and 84% of the eligible voters voted in favour of this agreement. This can be held out as a best practice, an example for all other aboriginal groups to bring together the best that is possible in partnership with, in this case, the Government of the Northwest Territories, as well as the Canadian government, to bring about the kind of structures which the people themselves have bought into.

I encourage all hon. members to support this very important bill.

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

Madam Speaker, in our increasingly complex global economy, a sound educational system is crucial. Knowledge is the key to self-sufficiency, quality of life and success of all Canadians. This is no less true for aboriginal people.

Three years ago I had a large group of young, aboriginal people from northwestern Ontario who went through the school system, left the reserves, came into the larger communities, completed their high school programs and then were so stimulated they went on to get college degrees, certificates in special activity areas, as well as university degrees.

We brought these people together, approximately 150 young people between the ages of 20 and 35. Every one of them were extremely successful individuals in the field of endeavour that they chose. Many of them became business people but they did not operate businesses on the reserves. They operated businesses throughout northwestern Ontario and Manitoba.

I was delighted to see these young people. It was too bad that story could not have been told to all Canadians, that these people are not lost. They will not be drifting up there forever. Where there is a will there is a way and if that will can be stimulated to the point where they can actually react to it, cross that threshold and carry on with their educational system and their pattern of programs, they will be successful.

Although much has been done in the past two decades to improve education outcomes for first nations young people in Canada, a significant gap in achievement still remains between aboriginal and non-aboriginal. However the gap is not only true for aboriginals and non-aboriginals. That gap is also true between those children who live in huge metropolitan areas with all kinds of facilities, services and programs built within the community, such as museums, parks and everything else, and the non-aboriginal people who live in small communities. They do not have all of these programs, facilities and enticements within the community to enrich the lives of our young people as they grow up in them.

Yes, the people in the bigger cities, even though they are crowded, have far more for the young children of today than many children have in the isolated small communities scattered throughout the country.

Due to their small size and geographical remoteness, many first nations schools are unable to deliver programs comparable to those offered in provincially run schools. Aboriginal students without access to on-reserve education often have to travel a great distance to attend schools. Historically, these factors have led to higher dropout rates and lower educational achievements among aboriginal youth.

We have a very large high school which was turned over by the Lincoln Board of Education to an aboriginal school authority. This school has several hundred students in it from all over northwestern Ontario. There is no residence for these children, but these young people, going from grade 9 to grade 12, are billeted in a multitude of homes throughout the community. I can tell hon. members that the relationship between the students in the school and the non-native students within the community, with whom they associate, is a very positive one. It is one of the best examples of helping these young people to make the adjustment.

Some of these young people come from areas of the country where they do not have the facilities and the services. Therefore we have to set up special programs for them to quickly acclimatize and adjust to the new environment which they find in the city.

Many people are not aware of the fact that many of our aboriginal people have only one place in their community to shop. It could be a Hudson Bay store and everything has to be in there. When they come into the city there are all kinds of stores: a store to buy clothes; a store to buy medicine; a store to buy hotdogs and hamburgers; a store three blocks away to buy doughnuts or whatever; a little further away a store to buy shoes; a store to buy cookies; and a store to buy vegetables or anything else. That is not like on the reserve. There has to be training and adjustment for many of these young people.

The agreement at the heart of the bill includes self-government for the Tlicho people, the transfer of a parcel of land and a payment of approximately $150 million over 14 years, not one or two years but the next 14 years. The Tlicho have chosen to use this money wisely to repay debts accumulated during negotiations and to invest in social, educational and economic development. Approximately $500,000 a year for the next 14 years will be set aside for scholarships, helping to ensure that aboriginal young people will have access to the same high quality, culturally relevant educational opportunities enjoyed by non-aboriginal Canadians. That to me is a significant part of the bill.

The Tlicho have a long history of commitment to education. When Chief Jimmy Bruneau shook hands 35 years ago with then Indian affairs minister, Jean Chrétien, he recognized that the Tlicho needed to make a concerted effort to prepare for the future and protect their way of life from rapidly spreading cultural and economic influences.

Chief Bruneau spoke of the need to blend northern and southern cultures, to “be strong like two people” and to learn from aboriginal and non-aboriginal traditions. The chief also realized that to achieve this goal, the Tlicho would need access to schools that delivered culturally based education to aboriginal children in their communities. That was a very wise move.

In 1971, Chief Bruneau's dream began to come true when a school bearing his name opened in the Tlicho community of Rae-Edzo. Today that school is one of five in the Tlicho community, all overseen by the Dogrib Community Services Board.

It is widely accepted that aboriginal communities know best how to meet the educational needs of their young people. This is why the Government of Canada encourages and facilitates co-operation between aboriginal communities, national and regional education organizations, provincial and territorial ministries of education, and other stakeholders to establish and support an effective first nations education system.

Such systems are positive and important steps toward aboriginal control of their children's education, not like the educational systems we have in every single province where we have special egg crate kinds of structures and a group of children are put in tiny cubicles.

From some centre, like Toronto, Ontario, the fee that we have to pay for those little chicken coops is decided by a group of people sitting in Toronto 2,000 miles away from the school who have no clue about the needs of that community or of the people and children who live in that community. That has to be force-fed to those children in there.

Today it is even worse in Ontario. Programs are fed to kids all over the province and then they are tested on whether or not they digested them properly. Why not use a computer instead of trying to make a computer out of the child? Let the child live wholesomely in his or her own environment.

These aboriginal people have the answer. Parents work with the teachers within the educational system and they decide how to enrich the lives of their children within that community.

I did my PhD in this area in other parts of the world. Wherever that is taking place, success is astounding, especially in the areas of education, people's attitude toward others in that environment, their attitude toward people in their communities and the world at large, but above all, their attitude toward themselves. I really have to give these people way up north in this isolated community a fantastic amount of credit.

I hope they will provide leadership in curriculum development and parental involvement in developing their educational lifestyle and programs for these children for years to come, throughout the entire country, and get rid of this nonsense that is taking place in a province like Ontario at the present time.

Bill C-31 will give the Tlicho formal control over education and social services, a control that the Tlicho people, through the Dogrib Community Services Board, have already demonstrated they can exercise with care and compassion.

Much like the man after whom it was named, the Chief Jimmy Bruneau School is innovative and offers culturally based education to young people. The school is proud to bear more than the chief's name: it also lives up to the spirit of the chief's dream. The school strives to meet the challenge of educating these young men and women to be “strong like two people”, and it is succeeding in teaching Tlicho culture and language, along with science, technology and other skills young aboriginals need to succeed in today's workforce.

The school provides these young people with a broader range of career and lifestyle options than those enjoyed by previous generations. These increased opportunities are encouraging many more students to remain in school and graduate. Indeed, dropout rates have plummeted. More young people than ever now go on to post-secondary education, and in this community in June 2006 the school will graduate its first university-bound students.

As the economic prosperity of this community increases dramatically over the years in the future, a higher quality of life will be added to the lifestyle of all the people within that area, because many of these young people will continue with their education. Job opportunities will be generated and will increase in number in a very sophisticated manner, and in very professional areas too. They will come back to work with their people, serve their people and live with their people.

Helping young Canadians, including aboriginal youth, to stay in school is of paramount importance not only to the Government of Canada but also to the Canadian economy. A high school diploma is essential to a bright future. The alternatives can be devastating. Many high school dropouts end with a string of dead end jobs, chronically unemployed, unable to fit into the new economy and meet their full potential.

I do not have to belabour those points. We have had so much information--statistics galore by the bushelful--brought into this chamber to tell us time and time again that we have to do everything in our power to help the provinces to get those children who are dropped by the wayside. They fall between the cracks and miss this golden opportunity in this wonderful country of ours to really pull themselves up by the bootstraps and become very happy and productive individuals in our society. If that does not happen, if they do not go through the educational system, the chances of them ruining their lives and maybe even ruining the lives of others are enhanced dramatically.

That is why the Government of Canada continues to make significant investments in education and training for aboriginal secondary and post-secondary students. These investments are designed to encourage these young people to remain in school, graduate and reap the lifelong benefits.

It is not just the young who will benefit from this agreement and the money that Tlicho people are setting aside for post-secondary scholarships. Tlicho men and women who have graduated from the Chief Jimmy Bruneau School and have gone on to further education are already returning to the community, bringing with them the benefits of the education they received outside. They are showing the community's youth what can be achieved through education.

They are also proving the wisdom of Chief Bruneau's original strategy. Men and women who graduated from the school that bears his name now own and operate dozens of successful business in the north. Others are part of the Dogrib Power Corporation, which operates a hydroelectric facility on Snare River. One young graduate who went on to earn two degrees has now returned to Rae-Edzo as the community regional post-secondary support coordinator. Accomplishments like this could be read out in the House for many years to come.

I will not be able to complete my lengthy presentation, but I would like to say congratulations to all those leaders of the community and to Chief Bruneau who had the foresight, the intelligence and integrity to stick to and hang onto his dreams and to make sure they are carried out. Congratulations, I say.

[Rick Laliberte, Liberal, Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill C-31, the Tlicho land claims and self-government act. This bill represents the aspirations of a principled and trustworthy people determined to honour commitments made by their ancestors.

[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Cree]

(English)

What I have said in my language is that it is a great honour to look at a region that was ascertained by Treaty No. 11 and to look at the treaty signatories of these communities, the ancestors, and the youth, with their aspirations for the future. This will be a public form of government. Not only will it be inclusive of aboriginal people, the Tlicho, the Dogrib people of Treaty No. 11, but the Tlicho are making provisions for all people who live within their territory to be a part of that governance.

That kind of vision is very welcome, for my people in the northern half of the province of Saskatchewan. I urge them to look at that sort of governance. Aboriginal and non-aboriginal people can work together, coming together as one, and create a governance structure that can serve all our needs.

For more than a decade, the Tlicho have led a comprehensive process of consultations and negotiations. The fruit of those efforts, the Tlicho agreement, forms the centrepiece of the legislation that is now before us.

Today we are considering a bill that would significantly influence the destiny of a people. In the interests of the Tlicho and all Canadians, I believe we must give our wholehearted support to this legislation.

The agreement at the heart of the legislation is significant in many ways. It marks the first agreement in the Northwest Territories to include comprehensive land claims and self-government. It would provide certainty for the exercise of aboriginal and treaty rights within the traditional territory of the Tlicho, almost 20% of the Northwest Territories itself.

Within their traditional area, the Tlicho would gain ownership of a parcel of land, 39,000 square kilometres in total, along with self-government powers and control of land and resources within that area. The amount of money involved is also substantial. Approximately $150 million would be paid out over several years. The Tlicho would also be guaranteed a share of the revenues generated from resource development in the Mackenzie Valley.

The process that led to the agreement was remarkable and comprehensive. Consultations and negotiations went on for over 10 years. Hundreds of sessions were held, involving dozens of private and public sector groups and thousands of people. The tripartite agreement that emerged from these efforts involves Canada, the Tlicho and the Government of the Northwest Territories. In fact, the territorial assembly has already passed legislation to ratify this agreement and will enact two other related pieces of legislation in the near future.

To ensure that the tripartite agreement respects the interests of all other aboriginal groups, the Tlicho negotiated separate overlap agreements with the Sahtu Dene and Métis, the Gwich'in, the Deh Cho and the Akaitcho Treaty No. 8 Dene.

As my esteemed colleagues have recognized, the Tlicho have gone to extraordinary lengths to secure an agreement suited to their unique situation. To appreciate the significance of the agreement's particular future, it is important to know a bit of Tlicho history.

The Tlicho are a Dene people. They are of the Dene nation. They are nomadic, historically using and occupying vast tracts of land near the Mackenzie River, Great Bear Lake and Great Slave Lake. They lived off the land and often followed migrating herds of caribou. The land was revered because it provided sustenance, and its value was incalculable.

European explorers called them the Dogrib, a name that stuck with them for a century or more. Explorers brought new diseases such as measles and influenza, which decimated the aboriginal population, but the Dogrib found a way to survive and to maintain their relationship with the land.

When oil and gas were discovered in the 1920s in the north, treaty negotiations that followed quickly gathered momentum. At a ceremony in Fort Rae in 1921, Treaty No. 11 was signed by Chief Monfwi. Annuities were paid to 440 members of the Dogrib Band. More than eight decades later, the anniversary of the signing ceremony is still celebrated in the Tlicho communities. Ceremonies of the treaty's signatory should also be celebrated by Canadians. This historic agreement created our country, and Canada is truly a treaty nation.

When Treaty No. 11 was signed, Chief Monfwi traced the traditional lands of his people on a map. The boundaries, as he described, are identical, almost nearly to the line, of what is included in Bill C-31 today. The vision of the chief and the vision of his people was exact.

The treaty is also culturally significant to the Tlicho. In recognition of this, a unique provision in the agreement incorporates two aspects of the original treaty: payment of annuities and teachers' salaries. Education has always been a high priority for the Tlicho.

Given the geography and lack of development, the treaty did not result in the creation of Indian reserves, as in other regions of the country, or the disturbance of the Dogrib from their traditional lands as they moved around from lakes to rivers to all the traditional hunting and gathering regions of their territory. The treaty was seen by the Dogrib as a treaty of peace and friendship rather than one involving land issues.

The region's history informs the substance of our debate here in countless other ways as well. For instance, how the Tlicho reacted to the expansion of mainstream culture. As non-aboriginal society moved northward, some of the Tlicho began to feel that their traditions were being threatened.

Chief Jimmy Bruneau called on the Tlicho to “be strong like two people”. To strive in the changing world, the Tlicho would need to learn the aboriginal and non-aboriginal cultures alike.

The strengths of the Tlicho were tested during the 1970s when a northern pipeline became economically feasible. The Berger inquiry was commissioned to investigate the potential social, environmental and economic impacts of this pipeline.

The inquiry proved to be a major turning point in the aboriginal relations. Television and newspaper coverage brought home stories of ancient cultures threatened by external developmental pressures. Berger's report predicted that the social consequences of a pipeline were not only serious, but also potentially devastating. His report recommended settling land claims before developing plans ahead. This has been the preclusion to the land claim negotiations that have been taking place.

Land claim negotiation processes were established to address this and to clarify land and resource rights and protect cultures. This is an integral part of this agreement. Land claim agreements were reached with the Inuvialuit in 1984, with the Gwich’in in 1992 and the Sahtu, Dene and Metis in 1994. Over the past decade, the Tlicho pursued their agreements based on land and self-government rights.

Three decades after the Berger inquiry, first nations and Inuit communities are better able to benefit from resource development projects in the north. As well, there has been evidence that development does not need to be postponed until land claim agreements and negotiations are fully completed. It is possible for aboriginal communities, with their leadership, to participate in development and build economic capacity while land claim negotiations proceed.

When diamonds were discovered on traditional lands, for instance, the Tlicho negotiated an impact and benefits agreement and implementation plan with the mining companies. As a result, the Tlicho gained access to a range of jobs and training opportunities, delivering even more opportunities to the Tlicho.

This is continuing with other developments that are taking place on their traditional lands and they will be taking the leadership role for negotiating for their people, the land and resources, and the water resources that exist within their territory.

Threads of recent Tlicho history are also woven into Bill C-31. The legislation would guarantee the Tlicho a role in deciding how the resources of the Mackenzie Valley might be developed through participation in public environmental review boards.

The entire Mackenzie River was ascertained as Canadian territory by both Treaties Nos. 8 and 11. The significance of this is difficult for many Canadians to appreciate, but the history of our country is based on treaty.

In the north, where large scale resource developments can have such negative impacts on the environment, participation is essential and respect of the peace and friendship treaties is critically fundamental.

The bill also calls for establishment of a democratic Tlicho government. This would be a public form of government that would include all residents of the Tlicho territory. The bill would empower the government to pass laws safeguarding their culture and protecting traditional lands, and respecting policies of resource management and protection.

Under the terms of the legislation, key decisions would be made by the people most familiar with and most affected by local issues. I am convinced that this will lead to substantial improvements in housing, employment, education, social activities and the quality of life for all northerners, not only the Tlicho. Their vision is to include all people who live among them.

The Tlicho leaders believe their improvements are best accomplished by the Tlicho themselves, through a representative and effective government capable of exercising law-making authority and assuming new responsibilities. They also recognize that this objective will need to be achieved through partnership, partnership with industry in resource development, partnership with territorial government in the delivery of social programs and services and partnership with the federal government for a greater development of our Canadian north.

I agree with them wholeheartedly that the bill now before the House will help establish precisely these conditions and the foundation for a better future for their people and their nation. It would enable the Tlicho to become self-governing and assume jurisdiction over and responsibility for their own affairs.

It is very important that we highlight responsibility. There are huge responsibilities in dealing with their children, the raising of their families, the protection of their language, culture, their traditions as hunters and gatherers, their relationship with the animals, the fish and also the water. The life sources for many years for their people and their nation need to be respected and recognized into the future.

They also take up their rightful roles as landowners, administrators and entrepreneurs. This is a vigorous and vibrant, prosperous north and they will be inclusive of these kind of activities, not only trading within the domestic regions of provinces and territories of the Canadian north, but also into southern Canada and internationally.

The Tlicho will play an important part in establishing these partnerships with their territorial government, the federal government and the private sector, and participating in the future growth and development of the entire Northwest Territories, and also the Canadian north.

Today, we have been entrusted with the aspirations of a people, the Tlicho and the Dene nation. I ask that the House support the Tlicho as they strive to realize their potential. I am encouraged by the vision that the Tlicho have brought us to consider.

In my language I would like to speak directly to some of the provisions in the agreement so the people in my communities can understand because I would like to encourage them in regard to this type of agreement based on treaty, our Treaty No. 11 and Treaty No. 8. My constituency touches on the Mackenzie River system as well.

[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Cree]

(English)

It is a great honour to see from the far north that the Dene Nation and its people, the Tlicho, have seen a vision of governing their territories in a cooperative manner, that all people living within their territories will be part of their governing structure. It does not matter from what part of the country or the world people come. If they live among the Tlicho, there is a place for them in their governance.

That vision was created with Canada as a treaty nation. A peace and friendship treaty was established; a blanket of peace and friendship.

A very noble visitor, the Dalai Lama, is visiting our country at this time. Peace and friendship has been his message all along. Maybe that is why he finds Canada so generous and open. The very foundation of the country was on peace and friendship.

The original nations of this land have to be given proper respect as well as the Tlicho and the Dene Nation to which they belong. The Dene Nation has to be celebrated in these houses as well. There is Cree Nation, the Mohawk Nation, the Blackfoot Nation, the Haida Nation, the Oneida Nation, the Innu Nation, the Innuit Nation and the Metis Nation. These are the original nations of this land, and they have to be a part of this governing structure.

Here is a self-government model that the Tlicho, the Dene people, have negotiated and drafted. They have included all people, all Canadians who live in their territory to be part of their governing structure.

To me it was very astounding that they had signed a treaty already. They knew that living under the Indian Act was not sufficient, that they had to draft something more. This gives me great honour to share with the House and also with the people back home who are listening.

That is what I envisioned for my region of the country. My region is governed by villages and reserves, municipal boundaries and reserve boundaries. Outside of that we do not have what southern Canada has as municipalities or counties, where the agriculture communities can put their minds together and create a democratic system of governance and representation.

The north does not have that. This self-government model addresses that. Any resource management or any resource development issue will be conducted in a democratic government. This is a self-government, a democratically elected government that will involve all residents of that region. Therefore, I celebrate this and I share this for all other regions of Canada to consider. Here is a Dene Nation that entered into treaty to share its land, to create a beautiful country, a treaty nation called Canada.

Now they have come to us. They need the provisions, the tools and the law-making powers. This is it. This is the Tlicho agreement, the self-government agreement. It is not only for their people. They are not selfish. They are drawing this self-government model for all people who will be living among them. I celebrate that. I congratulate them and I also send heartfelt greetings, through you Madam Speaker, to the elders, the women, the men and the youth who have been involved in this.

A huge level of support came from their communities for this to be achieved. In the Northwest Territories, there is a huge number of aboriginal representation. Their world view took place. This was ratified by the territorial government. I congratulate the territorial government for allowing this kind of vision, this kind of self-government to take place.

Today, I encourage my colleagues in the House and in the Senate, where this law will also be considered, to entrust the vision that took place in creating this self-government model. It is a model that is truly Canadian. It includes all of us. We must be one country. The original nations and the new peoples who have come here, come here as one nation. To create laws and territorial and self-government models that involve all of us is truly a time of celebration.

This is truly a visionary document that involves many hours of work. It is very heartfelt. The Tlicho people are sacrificing and taking risks of their aboriginal title and rights. They are also putting them on the table to be shared with all others.

I congratulate them for that kind of vision and confidence in themselves as a nation. I celebrate--

[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Cree]

(English)

There are many people who have travelled to many corners of the world to find Canada as their home. My vision of Canada is that we are a nation of rivers. This river aspect through Treaty No. 11 and Treaty No. 8 ascertained the entire eco-region of the Mackenzie River system.

These treaties are like a patchwork blanket of river systems. Treaty No. 6 in my area was the Saskatchewan River system. Treaty No. 10 was the Churchill River system. All these river systems make up a country. We are also a river of nations. We must be proud of our ancestors, no matter who or where they are. We must be proud that we are one country. We must flow as one.

For the Tlicho people, I celebrate the vision of their self-government concept. I encourage all my colleagues in the House to support this bill.

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support Bill C-31, the Tlicho land claims and self-government act. While my hon. colleagues have addressed specific aspects of the bill, I would like to take a broader view and situate the bill in a northern context.

I am convinced that Bill C-31 will have a significant and overwhelmingly positive impact on Canada's north. Unprecedented prosperity is already underway in the north and for the first time aboriginal people are participating as full partners. There is no doubt in my mind that these trends are definitely linked. I am also convinced that Canada's long term prosperity depends upon continuing to foster growth in the northern economy. To ensure that this growth benefits all Canadians, northerners must be directly involved.

The Tlicho seek to increase their participation in the economy. Through Bill C-31, the House has the power to grant them their wish and advance Canadian prosperity. Simply put, the legislation before us today gives the Tlicho people the legal status, tools and resources they need to access an equitable share of northern prosperity. The legislation would create the democratic institutions of local government which would ensure that future generations can protect Tlicho culture and safeguard traditional lands.

This legislation has arrived at a favourable time in the history of the north. Allow me to explain by citing a few facts. Canada will soon become the world's third largest producer of diamonds, thanks to the successful mining operations in the Northwest Territories. This success is made sweeter by the partnerships struck between first nations and the mining companies.

One of the first agreements was struck between the Tlicho and Ekati. Other deals involve aboriginal trucking and facilities companies. As a result of these agreements, northern communities are benefiting significantly from the diamond projects. In 2002, aboriginals accounted for more than 30% of the workforces at Ekati and Diavik.

A study conducted in 2003 by the Northwest Territories and Nunavut Chamber of Mines estimated that at least 200 aboriginal businesses now operate in the mining sector. These businesses generate revenues in excess of $500 million per year. Similar projects are underway across the north: to mine nickel near Voisey's Bay, Labrador, and to extract and develop oil sands in Alberta.

All of these projects will generate substantial profits for investors and deliver significant benefits for first nations and northern communities. I am convinced that partnering with aboriginal organizations in these projects is key to Canada's long term prosperity.

My belief is based on two concurrent facts. First, the natural resources of the north are vast and relatively untapped and, second, many aboriginal communities concentrated in the north are keen to participate as equal partners in the development of these resources. However, many of these communities face significant barriers. Ownership of resources and legal status are often in doubt, forcing potential investors to take their money elsewhere.

The Government of Canada has an important role to play to ensure that the vast economic potential of the north is realized in a sustainable and inclusive way. By devolving certain powers to the territories, for example, we help ensure that decisions about resource development are made by the people most affected. By negotiating land claims and self-government agreements, for instance, we help ensure that aboriginal communities can access resources and develop their economies. We help create the conditions that attract other partners.

Bill C-31 is a case in point. The centrepiece of the legislation is the Tlicho agreement, a tripartite agreement negotiated during the past decade by Canada, the Northwest Territories and the Tlicho. While several clauses of the agreement are complex, their overall effect is relatively simple: the Tlicho will become a self-governing entity with the tools to enable it to raise capital and develop infrastructure.

Under Bill C-31, the Tlicho will have the authority to collect taxes, levy resource royalties, license businesses and manage their lands and resources. The Indian Act will no longer apply. The Tlicho will still be subject to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and all federal laws of general application, including the Criminal Code.

The Tlicho have clearly demonstrated that they are ready to exercise these powers wisely. Although comprised of only a few thousand members, the Tlicho manage their own schools and a long term care facility. They have built and now successfully operate an airport. They have negotiated social service delivery agreements with the government of the Northwest Territories.

The Tlicho are ready, willing and able to play a larger role in the northern economy. We must ensure that the Tlicho have every opportunity to succeed in this role.

Modern land claims agreements have provided aboriginal people with the means to become partners in the economic development of their regions. Makivik Corporation, which represents the Inuit of northern Quebec, concluded a land claim agreement in 1976. They have supported and developed the traditional economy of their communities while at the same time becoming major partners in the broader economy. They own a major airline and a construction company and are partners in northern shipping ventures and commercial fisheries.

Overall, these agreements provide aboriginal groups with governance, economic tools and land and resource benefits, which are contributing to their self-reliance, cultural well-being and successful participation in the broader economy.

I believe that the success of partnerships between private sector companies and aboriginal groups has forever altered the business climate in the north. Diamond mines in the Northwest Territories demonstrate the advantage of this new operating environment.

Diavik and BHP Billiton have adopted a stewardship approach that demonstrates tremendous respect, both for the environment and for local communities. Diavik, for instance, signed an impact and benefits agreement with the Tlicho before the company opened the Ekati mine.

Today the majority of the mine's workforce is comprised of northerners and nearly 50% are aboriginal. The mine buys 70% of the goods and services it needs from suppliers based in the Northwest Territories. Tlicho Logistics, a company created to provide services to Ekati, employs more than 106 aboriginals.

The partnerships with diamond companies enable first nations to realize community goals. By taking advantage of training opportunities, residents are acquiring the skills they need to develop and manage their own businesses. As a result, young people in the north can look forward to a more prosperous future. As a result, the number of Tlicho people enrolled in post-secondary studies has increased sixfold in the past four years.

The mining companies also benefit by tapping the knowledge of the people most familiar with the fragile environment of the north. In addition, the people of Canada benefit as strengthened aboriginal communities contribute socially, economically and culturally.

I believe that the Government of Canada must encourage businesses in northern communities to form respectful, mutually beneficial partnerships. Clearly this approach will stimulate new levels of economic activity in the north and produce tremendous advantages for all Canadians.

This House has an important role to play in ensuring that these advantages are realized. By adopting Bill C-31, we can support the considerable efforts of the Tlicho to contribute to Canada's economy. I urge hon. members to grant this legislation swift passage.

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

Mr. Speaker, I take great pride today in giving my support to Bill C-31, which puts into effect the land claims and self-government agreement signed last August between the Tlicho and the governments of Canada and the Northwest Territories.

I would first like to offer my deepest congratulations to the Tlicho people for achieving this monumental self-government and claims agreement. It comes from years of hard work by many people.

I wish to acknowledge and remember with deep respect and fondness one individual in particular, Chief Eddie Paul Rabesca, who was still with us in the final stages of this claim. Chief Rabesca passed away a few months ago after a life devoted to the Tlicho people. He was involved in this land claims and self-government initiative from the beginning and worked both politically and personally all of his life for the betterment of the Tlicho people. I know that his fellow negotiators on the team, as well as Grand Chief Joe Rabesca, who was a very close colleague of his, and the other chiefs who worked alongside him in the communities appreciate beyond words their working relationship and his contribution.

I also would like to recognize that for as long as I have been a member of Parliament, which is 16 years, through the major comprehensive claims process the Dogribs aspired to a claim. This was not meant to be under that arrangement and they have pursued their own regional claim, which has resulted in the Tlicho agreement. I know that they have worked on this long and hard.

When we know the nature of the negotiations of a major claim, we know that these people divest themselves of their personal lives. They divest themselves of the time they would give to their families and communities and dedicate themselves to a goal that perhaps totally consumes their whole personal life and work life. This is what the negotiating team for the Dogribs has done, along with its legal consultants.

These people bear mentioning: Grand Chief Rabesca, along with his chiefs, both teams, including the negotiating team, which consists of John B. Zoe, the chief negotiator, as well as Eddy Erasmus and James Washie, the self-government specialist. It is the first time that we are embedding a self-government agreement within the body of a claim. This is the work of those individuals, as well as Ted Blondin and the elders that accompany them generally. Everything is done on a consensus basis and there is a seldom a period when the elders are not there. The elders, like Alexis Arrowmaker, who is the former chief and is well known to many politicians across the country, have been there to support the negotiators.

It would be remiss of me not to recognize the legal team, Rick Salter and Art Pape. They have dedicated themselves to providing the best legal advice that is available to the Dogrib team and to come up with an innovative document that addresses so many issues.

The other individual who I think bears mentioning--and I am sure the Dogribs will appreciate this--is our one federal negotiator, Jean Yves Assiniwi, who is well known in many parts of Canada on constitutional, as well as other legal issues. He worked very well alongside the Dogribs.

I wanted to start out with a preamble saying that the people who are involved in this are not involved in a casual or cavalier manner. It is a very dedicated process. It is a very detailed process and involves many months and years of travel. For as long as I have been in cabinet, which is 11 years, I know that the Dogribs have worked very hard. The credit really goes to them and to the people who saw fit to cooperate with them to make sure that this happened.

Many people along the way have contributed. There have been many ministers and officials. They are to be thanked, as well as all of the other people who were involved, but mainly the people on the Dogrib negotiating team. They worked hard for their people and brought home a document that was broadly accepted by their people.

We are in the House today to discuss the various aspects of this claim, but I think it is important to recognize what goes on behind the scenes and what happens. A document did not miraculously appear in the House of Commons at second reading without the work of those people.

The Speech from the Throne stated that aboriginal Canadians must participate fully in all that Canada has to offer, with greater economic self-reliance and an ever-increasing quality of life based upon historic rights and agreements that our forefathers signed long ago but that are not forgotten. Bill C-31 will allow the Tlicho people to do just that.

As the Prime Minister said yesterday at the opening of the first Canada-Aboriginal Peoples Round Table, “Canada would not be Canada without the aboriginal peoples. Their distinct traditions, cultures and languages enrich Canada immensely.”

I am a proud member of the Dene First Nation of which the Tlicho are also a part. Their traditions are unique, however, and the Tlicho have made every effort to preserve their culture and language and continue to teach the young Tlicho their traditions. The majority of Tlicho speak the Tlicho language which is still taught in Tlicho schools. This legislation will help to preserve this priceless heritage.

The Government of Canada enjoys a longstanding and respectful relationship with the Tlicho people. In 1921 the Tlicho entered into a treaty relationship with Canada when they signed Treaty No. 11, the last of the historical numbered treaties signed with aboriginal peoples in Canada.

Due to the remoteness of the Northwest Territories and the limited aboriginal presence in the treaty area, however, many of the provisions of Treaty No. 11 relating to reserve lands and other measures were not implemented. In addition, the aboriginal peoples of the region regard Treaty No. 11 as a treaty of peace and friendship rather than one dealing with land.

For these reasons and because of differing views of the treaty, its limited implementation and legal challenges to its interpretation, the Government of Canada agreed in 1981 to enter into negotiations of a comprehensive land claim agreement with the Dene and Métis of the Northwest Territories to achieve certainty with respect to land and resource rights.

The agreement reached is the first of its kind in the Northwest Territories, and the first of its kind in Canada to combine land claims and self-government since the Nisga'a treaty.

When Bill C-31 becomes law, some 3,000 Tlicho people will have the power to protect their way of life and control their land, resources and lives.

Under the Tlicho agreement the Tlicho government will be created. Through it the Tlicho people will own a 39,000 square kilometre block of land between Great Slave Lake and Great Bear Lake, and the largest single block of first nation owned land in Canada.

The Tlicho government will receive about $152 million over 15 years. This will be used as a type of investment fund to promote social, cultural, educational and economic development in the area, as well as an annual share of resource royalties that the government receives from development in the Mackenzie Valley.

The Tlicho government will replace four local band councils and the Treaty No. 11 council now in the region. Tlicho legislative bodies will regulate daily life and have powers such as tax collection.

Under the bill the federal and territorial laws and Tlicho laws will be concurrent with laws passed by other governments.

When this bill becomes law, the Tlicho will finally be allowed to play a significant role in the management of land, water and other resources in most of their traditional territory.

Not having had claims has not deterred the Tlicho from success and from the opportunities that abound in their back yard. They are full partners economically. They have not only developed organized political bodies, but they have also organized an economic arm through the Dogrib groups of companies to reap the benefits of resource development that abound in their region. Even without a claim they have done that. Now that they have the mechanism of a claim, none of the opportunities will escape their capabilities to reap the benefits from anything that happens around their area.

Under this bill the Tlicho will have access to governance tools needed to safeguard culture, improve social services and bolster the economy. A central Tlicho government will oversee culture, land use and other matters. Community governments elected by all residents, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, because it is a form of public government, will deliver municipal services.

I also want to stress that the bill we are considering today enjoys clear support among the Tlicho. It is the culmination of an agreement in principle reached in January 2000 and overwhelmingly approved by the Tlicho in a vote on June 26 and 27. A total of 93% of Tlicho participated in the vote and over 84% were in favour of the agreement.

The Tlicho also conducted hundreds of consultations and information sessions on the agreement. Consensus has always been a part of the process. That is highly recommended on such an important issue. They secured the support of the Government of the Northwest Territories which will soon enact bills establishing new relationships with the Tlicho. This was not a bilateral process. There were many complicated and sensitive negotiations that the Tlicho underwent with other levels of government to achieve this agreement.

Economic growth can occur only when people have the freedom to cultivate it. Most Canadians take this truth to be self-evident, but I was struck by a comment made by Mary Ann Jermemick'ca upon the signing of the Tlicho agreement last year. She indicated:

We were always told what to do and what we couldn't do. We could have somebody doing mining right next to our house and we would have nothing to say about it. Now at least we have some say about what's going on in our community and our land.

The Tlicho have never been hesitant to speak their minds and to provide leadership for their people. This is a governing tool that will help them very much. It will enhance the leadership that is there.

The bill will finally give the Tlicho a say in the development of their own community. Under the Tlicho land claims and self-government agreement the Tlicho will gain additional governance and administrative tools to strengthen their economy. Using these levers to prosperity, the Tlicho expect to create an entrepreneurial climate that will encourage investment and pave the way to new jobs paying very good wages.

Through the land resource and financial benefits they receive from the agreement, the Tlicho will be in a better position to undertake new business ventures and forge profitable partnerships. As new economic ventures get underway, other opportunities are sure to follow.

It is important to remember that the Tlicho are no strangers to entrepreneurship. In fact, they provide a sterling example to other groups, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike, of the benefits of hard work, the strength of partnership and the value of innovative thinking.

The Tlicho were the first group in the Northwest Territories to develop its own hydroelectric project. It was developed in the 1990s. In fact the former premier of the Northwest Territories, Nellie Cournoyer, and I in my earlier years as a parliamentarian attended the event when they opened the Snare hydro project.

The Snare Cascades project, developed in the mid-1990s, is a joint venture with the Northwest Territories Power Corporation and represents the largest economic project yet undertaken by the Tlicho. A vital component of the regional power grid, the Snare Cascades project now generates more than four megawatts and supplies 7% of the territory's power.

The Tlicho also built, independent of any government funding--actually that is not totally true--an airport in the aboriginal community of Rae-Edzo. They provided most of the support and funding actually. The airport enables airlines to provide direct flights to Edmonton and Yellowknife and is a sure way to bolster industry in the region as traffic steadily increases. The impetus for building this particular airport was to bring workers back from the diamond mines and to ensure that they had the immediate contact with family upon finishing their shifts in the two diamond mines that are now operating. There is one that is being developed and under review.

The Tlicho currently partner with some of Canada's largest engineering companies, including Procon and SNC-Lavalin. The Tlicho are also party to impact and benefits agreements with Diavik and Ekati, two prominent diamond mining companies in the region.

These accords and impact benefits agreements are unlike anything that indigenous groups have encountered around the world. They have set a template for groups in other parts of the world for indigenous people to look at and to follow. Through these accords, the Tlicho have negotiated for guaranteed training and employment at both mines, enhancing the chances for increased employment and improved standards of living for the Tlicho well into the future.

As most members of the House know, the mining industry is the leading employer of aboriginal peoples in the Northwest Territories. It should be noted that the Northwest Territories has the second highest employment growth rate in Canada. It is 68%, next to Alberta which is 69%. That is very progressive. We also have the third or fourth highest GDP positive growth rate in Canada.

Some 60% of the jobs and contracts from our mines still go to Ontario, Quebec and to southern provinces. What we are doing in the north is not just good for the north, or just good for one particular group, it is beneficial to all of Canada. Our projects are international projects, they are domestic projects, and they are Canadian projects that benefit all of Canada.

The Tlicho have negotiated guaranteed training and employment at both mines, enhancing not only employment, but improving the standards of living for the Tlicho. Most members in the House will know also that there have been very strong partnerships forged with the Tlicho in an entrepreneurial sense.

Up until the early 1990s however aboriginal people accounted for only 10% of full time mining jobs in the north. Direct employment since then has tripled to about 30%, largely due to the aboriginal hiring and training initiatives at the Ekati and Diavik diamond mines. In fact, at the end of 2001, 683 aboriginal employees, or 30% of the operations workforce worked for the Ekati mines or its contractors.

Diavik for its part now anticipates that aboriginal workers will account for at least 40% of the company's northern workforce when the mine reaches full capacity. There are those who would aspire to make that even more so. Indeed, the mine is well on the way to reaching this figure following a recent agreement signed between Diavik and I&D Management Services, a consortium of aboriginal groups that promotes the employment of its people. Under this agreement, I&D provides 100 employees to the mine of whom half are aboriginal. These workers operate many of the trucks, excavators, dozers and other heavy equipment essential to the mine's operations.

It is not just individual aboriginal workers who are benefiting from this employment growth. Aboriginal communities in the region such as Wha Ti, Wekweti, Gameti, Rae-Edzo, Dettah, Ndilo and Lutsel K'e are reaping rewards as well. Living standards in these communities have risen as improved social services follow in the wake of economic growth.

The spirit of entrepreneurship is also reflected in the rapid growth of the local business community. Today, more than 200 aboriginal owned businesses in the region with annual revenues in excess of $100 million are employing some 1,000 aboriginal people. These figures represent unprecedented growth in aboriginal entrepreneurship in Canada's north. We must encourage and support this growth. Bill C-31 will do that.

It will give the Tlicho greater and more immediate decision making powers to capitalize on business relationships and expand its entrepreneurial horizons. As those horizons expand, the range of work experience available to the Tlicho people will continue to broaden. It is precisely that breadth of experience that will foster ongoing economic development and innovation.

I would like to say a few words with regard to this piece of legislation on how it will improve educational outcomes for Tlicho young people and deliver additional benefits to all Canadians.

We all know that in our increasingly complex global economy, a sound education is crucial. Knowledge is key to self-sufficiency, quality of life, and success for all Canadians. This is no less true for aboriginal people.

Although much has been done in the past two decades to improve educational outcomes for first nations young people in Canada, a significant gap in achievement still remains between aboriginal and non-aboriginal children.

Due to their small size and geographical remoteness, many first nations schools are unable to deliver programs comparable to those in provincially run or territorially run schools. Aboriginal students without access to on reserve education often have to travel a great distance to attend school.

Historically, these factors have led to higher dropout rates and lower educational achievement among aboriginal youth. Clearly, this is an unacceptable situation for any group of Canadians. It is widely accepted that aboriginal communities know best how to meet these challenges and the educational needs of their young people.

I would like to conclude by saying that the Dogrib people were the first group to run an educational institution for their people. They engendered the culture, the language, and the aspirations of their people in doing so.

I want to congratulate Chief Jimmy Bruneau School that offers culturally based education to the young people of the Tlicho. We have many more graduates and the numbers are increasing. We have university graduates. People are moving on. We have many challenges.

This is a successful document that will speak to a great future for the Tlicho people.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have just a few words to say on the bill before the House today, Bill C-31. It is an agreement with the Tlicho people of the Northwest Territories, the former Dogrib people, and was signed some time ago. The prime minister of the country at the time, Jean Chrétien, was in the Northwest Territories on August 25, 2003. In his speech, he remarked that this was a very historic agreement of great importance to the aboriginal people of that part of our country.

I just wanted to say in a very few words that we support this bill. It is a recognition of aboriginal rights, of the inherent rights that the aboriginal people have in the Constitution of Canada.

I remember the constitutional process of 1982. I remember the negotiating that we in the New Democratic Party did--I was the constitutional critic at the time--to make sure that treaty rights and the royal proclamation were both included in the patriation package.

In the first package that came from the Trudeau government, there was no reference to the aboriginal people, to treaty rights, or to the royal proclamation. As we tried to develop a national consensus for a constitution with a charter of rights, that was part of what was put into the package. That was a very controversial time.

At that particular time, I had a great many problems with the initial package brought out by the then prime minister. It did not have an amending formula that treated all provinces equally. It had no reference to aboriginal rights and so on. Throughout the process, there were some improvements in the constitutional package, and one that was made was for first nations people, so now there is a constitutional recognition of the reality of first nations people. There is also a reference to Métis people in our Constitution. It does give them some recognition that they are peoples.

I also agreed with former Quebec premier René Lévesque, who signed the agreement with the native groups, 11 nations in the province of Quebec, if I remember correctly. This recognition of them by the province was something very important.

This kind of recognition has been happening over the last number of years, and what we are seeing now are the fruits of some of what was done about 20 years ago. There are many land entitlement agreements that are yet to be fully negotiated. This is also happening. I hope that this is just another example of a positive thing for aboriginal first nations people in our country.

I think that most of us want to see the full negotiation of self-government and a third order of government in our country. We have the federal government, the provinces, and then we have first nations governments. Those negotiations are under way.

I want to conclude by saying that this is a step in the right direction. First nations people in general have a living standard that is a lot lower than that of any other Canadians. Infant mortality rates are very high. Crime rates are high. Alcoholism rates are high.

Few first nations people have access to education and job opportunities, but recently there has been some improvement in terms of the access to education. I remember back about a year and a half ago going to the law school in Saskatoon and being very pleasantly surprised that about 15% of the law students were from aboriginal backgrounds, which is a very positive thing in the province of Saskatchewan.

With that, I want to endorse the bill before the House today and say that we are moving in the right direction with this bill, plus the Westbank bill, which we have dealt with already. I hope we will have more successful negotiations with our first nations people, our Métis people and the Inuit people of this country.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member of the government party.

As I indicated during oral question period yesterday, the Government of Quebec, which at the time was the sovereignist Parti Quebecois, signed an historic agreement with the Cree people, known as the peace of the braves. This agreement respects the nation-to-nation approach.

That is why the Bloc Quebecois supports 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.

In order to help our constituents understand this bill, we must explain who the Tlicho are.

The Tlicho are a people native to Canada whose ancestral lands are in the Northwest Territories. There are 3,000 members of the Tlicho First Nation, which was previously known as the Dogrib. The grand chief of the Tlicho is Joe Rabesca.

Under the three-party agreement of August 2003, involving Ottawa, the Northwest Territories and the Tlicho people, the Tlicho First Nation obtains administrative control over a territory of about 39,000 square kilometres between Great Slave Lake and Great Bear Lake.

This region has the only two diamond reserves in Canada. In addition to ownership of natural resources and significant control over their development, the agreement includes a new self-government system for the Tlicho.

What about the bill? The enactment gives effect to the Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Agreement and the Tlicho Tax Treatment Agreement. It includes related amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and consequential amendments to a number of other acts.

Representatives of the Dogrib Treaty 11 Council and representatives of the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Government of Canada signed the Tlicho Agreement on August 25, 2003.

This is the first combined land claim and self-government agreement of its kind in the Northwest Territories. The agreement will create the largest single block of first nation owned land in Canada, and provide new systems of self-government for the Tlicho First Nation, who were previously known as the Dogrib, as I mentioned earlier.

Treaty 11 is the last of the numbered treaties and covers most of the Mackenzie District. The land in the area was deemed unsuitable for agriculture, so the federal government was reluctant to conclude treaties. Immediately following the discovery of oil at Fort Norman in 1920, however, the government moved to begin treaty negotiations.

The agreement gives the Tlicho the tools for becoming financially self-sufficient. The agreement also gives them more power to protect their way of life, to further economic growth, and to increase community well being.

Under the agreement, the Tlicho Government will be created, and through it the Tlicho people will own a 39,000 square kilometre block of land, the Tlicho lands, including the subsurface resources. Tlicho lands will surround the four Tlicho communities of Behcho Ko or Rae-Edzo, Wha Ti or Lac la Martre, Gameti or Rae Lakes, and Wekweti or Snare Lakes.

In the years to come, the government of the Tlicho will receive a sum of money in compensation for non-compliance with Treaty 11 of 1920, along with a portion of the annual royalties collected by the government on resource operations in the Mackenzie valley.

The Tlicho will gain fee simple ownership of approximately 3% of the land of the Northwest Territories, which represents approximately half the area of New Brunswick.

Implementation of the Tlicho agreement ought to enhance the certainty and clarity of the ownership and management of lands and resources in the North Slave region, which covers about 20% of the NWT. The agreement's clarification of Crown ownership of the land claim will put an end to the legal uncertainties.

The Tlicho agreement was ratified by Tlicho eligible voters on June 26 and 27, 2003. A total of 93% of the Tlicho participated in the vote, and over 84% of Tlicho voters were in favour of the Tlicho agreement. If the agreement is to become reality, federal and territorial enabling legislation must be passed, which is the reason for Bill C-31.

Now, what is the Bloc Quebecois position on this? The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of the bill to implement the Tlicho agreement. There are three main reasons for our position. First, the Bloc Quebecois wholly subscribes to the concept of aboriginal self-government, and this agreement puts their right to self-government in concrete form. We support the underlying principle behind that treaty, if only for that reason.

Second, the Tlicho have come out in favour of this agreement in a majority referendum vote of 84%. This is totally democratic.

Third, the agreement constitutes an excellent example of self-government.

More generally speaking, the Bloc Quebecois is concerned about aboriginal claims for self-government. It acknowledges the aboriginal peoples as distinct peoples with a right to their own cultures, languages, customs and traditions, as well as the right to direct the development of their own identity.

Bill C-31 is the last stepping stone in giving effect to the tripartite agreement between the Tlicho, the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Government of Canada.

Given the nature of the bill to implement the Tlicho final agreement, we think the role of Parliament should be to debate, accept or reject this bill. It is not our place to amend the bill. It has been duly signed by the three parties who negotiated it. Amending the bill would be paternalistic, and we refuse to adopt that attitude.

I would like to point out that the Bloc Quebecois has supported most of the recommendations of the Erasmus-Dussault Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. That commission's approach to the concept of self-government was based on the recognition of native governments as a type of government with jurisdiction over issues concerning the good governance and well-being of their people. In addition, the entire report was based on the recognition of indigenous peoples as autonomous nations occupying a unique place within Canada.

In closing, I would like to say, to the members present in this House and the public following this debate, that the signing of the peace of the braves initiated by the Parti Quebecois was an eloquent example of the way a sovereign Quebec would treat the first nations, a respectful agreement based on a nation-to-nation approach.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to support Bill C-31, the Tlicho land claims and self-government act. The principle component of the legislation is a tripartite agreement negotiated by representatives of the people, the Government of Canada and the Northwest Territories, as all of us would know.

The agreement is remarkable for a number of reasons. Let me remind the House of the reasons why it is so.

It will provide certainty for the exercise of aboriginal and treaty rights within the traditional territory of the Tlicho, almost 20% of this great land mass of Canada, namely the Northwest Territories. Within their traditional territory, the Tlicho people will own an unbroken parcel of land of some 39,000 square kilometres and they will have all the rights and responsibilities that come with self-government.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-31 is a land claim and self-government agreement between the Tlicho, earlier known as the Dogrib, the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Government of Canada, and makes amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, and consequential amendments to other acts. Because it is a land claims agreement as well as a self-government agreement, it is constitutionally protected. As well, this is enabling legislation to give effect to the Tlicho tax treatment agreement.

I have many general observations about all this.

The federal government has been essentially carving up the north since the 1980s with the creation of Nunavut, the comprehensive Yukon Indian agreement for the 14 Yukon first nations, and the Gwich'in, the Inuvialuit and the Sahtu land claim agreements in the Northwest Territories. Essentially there are two areas not yet covered with a land claim in the north after the Tlicho, and they are the Akaitcho and Dehcho in the Northwest Territories which border to the south and west of the Tlicho, the agreement we are talking about, which is just north of Yellowknife. I hope that puts it in perspective for some people.

The impression I and others get from reading this agreement is that the federal government is trying to be all things. In the process it has agreed to provisions that contain some contradictions and a deliberate lack of clarity.

To give a bit of background,Stephen Kakfwi, the former premier of the Northwest Territories and the former holder of the aboriginal portfolio as well, promoted a very strong aboriginal and northern ownership agenda. In August last year he suggested that within five years virtually the entire Northwest Territories would live under some form of aboriginal governance. We have had a lot of land claim agreements but we have not had aboriginal governments until this agreement.

Jim Antoine, another longstanding MLA, as the Northwest Territories' resources minister stated that aboriginal governments will become allies in the territories' fight to win control of its resources and the associated royalties from the federal government. That was last August as well.

That gives a little of the flavour of where the territorial government is coming from in respect to this whole issue.

The agreement gives the 3,000 Tlicho people claims to subsurface resources, law-making authority and the power to tax, levy royalties and manage resources on 39,000 square kilometres laying between Great Bear and Great Slave lakes north of Yellowknife. That is an area roughly half the size of New Brunswick. It is bounded on the north by the Sahtu, on the east by Nunavut, and on the south and to the west by the future Akaitcho and Dehcho territories.

I talked a little in my question to the parliamentary secretary about the concurrence issue. I think he explained that reasonably well.

This agreement consumed $27 million in negotiation costs for the Tlicho. This has been a tremendously expensive process and one which I do not think demonstrates a proud record.

I still remain very concerned. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to the Tlicho government in respect to all matters within its authority. That is clear in the agreement. However the agreement states:

protections for Tlicho Citizens and for other persons to whom Tlicho laws apply, by way of rights and freedoms no less than those set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

That gives me some difficulty.

There are two operating diamond mines in the Tlicho territory that are specifically excluded from the land claim area but remain within the territory. Any future subsurface extraction on Tlicho lands would be subject to a Tlicho royalty regime.

As it stands right now, under the Mackenzie Valley resource sharing agreement the Tlicho get 10.5% of the first $2 million of mineral royalties received by the federal and territorial governments for subsurface resources within the five regions of the Mackenzie Valley and a further 2.1% after the $2 million figure is raised. This brings in about $3.5 million a year to the Tlicho government from the whole basin of the Mackenzie Valley.

The royalties from the existing diamond mines that are specifically excluded from the Tlicho lands, contribute to that formula, which is also shared by the Sahtu, the Gwich'in and others in the Mackenzie Valley region.

The proposed route of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline would not traverse Tlicho lands and therefore is not an issue at this time.

The band is involved in hydro development and is likely to become self-sufficient and a net contributor to the grid for the Northwest Territories.

The largest of the four Tlicho communities, Rae Edzo, is located along the Fraser Highway and the Tlicho government is planning an all-weather highway to link the other three communities, which are Lac la Martre, Snare Lake and Rae Lake.

Taxation provisions of the agreement are a little bit unclear since there is no concluded taxation agreement between Canada and the Tlicho government, although one is to be concluded.

Tlicho citizens would pay GST and income tax. Tlicho government corporations would not pay either tax when conducting business on Tlicho land.

The Indian Act would no longer apply to Tlicho citizens and Tlicho lands would not be considered reserve lands.

Tlicho citizens would have continued access to all federal programs for status and non-status Indians and Metis. The Tlicho government would receive taxes paid to the federal government from Tlicho residents.

The Criminal Code would continue to apply.

There are several other areas I would like to talk about but I will summarize where I will go next time. The first area relates to the provisions for governance and the setting up of a renewable resources board, a land and water board and some of the financial costs and funding details.

This is an agreement that has a $152 million cash settlement to be paid out over 15 years and the Tlicho government will pay off its $27 million negotiating loan in the first six years.

In addition, there is a one time payment of $5 million to an economic development fund to be managed by the Tlicho government. That fund comes from the federal government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very excited to be able to rise today on such an auspicious day as the day of the aboriginal summit, where 70 first nations leaders from across the country, at the invitation of the Prime Minister, met and talked about moving the partnership and the agenda forward.

To move this forward, we have a perfect example of that spirit of today in action as we bring Bill C-31 to the House. I think there is general support for the spirit of self-government and land claims among first nations so I think today is an exciting day for everyone in the House.

I rise to support Bill C-31, which would give force to the Tlicho land claims and self-government act. By enacting this legislation, we honour Canada's longstanding and respectful relationship with the Tlicho people.

Last year, following more than a decade of negotiations among the Tlicho and the Governments of Canada and the Northwest Territories, an agreement was signed. This agreement is the central feature of the bill before us today.

Bill C-31 will achieve certainty for the exercise of the Tlicho aboriginal and treaty rights within their traditional territory, over almost 20% of the Northwest Territories. It will resolve outstanding land claims, which have been a barrier to economic development, and it provides the Tlicho with self-government powers and control of land and resources, which will enable them to become true partners in the growth and development of the Northwest Territories.

Under Bill C-31, the Tlicho will gain control of 39,000 square kilometres of land, which represents approximately 19% of their traditional territory. The legislation will also ensure that the Tlicho play a significant role in the management of land, water and other resources in most of their traditional territory.

This legislation enables the Tlicho to realize their inherent right to self-government. Bill C-31 would see the creation of the Tlicho government, democratically elected and accountable to its citizens. The Tlicho government, elected by Tlicho citizens, would have jurisdiction over social and cultural issues and use of Tlicho lands and resources.

In essence, Bill C-31 provides access to the governance tools needed to safeguard culture, improve social services, and bolster the economy. I am convinced that the Tlicho leaders, given their astute approach to development, will put these tools to good use.

The Tlicho have entered into a 10 year intergovernmental services agreement with the Governments of the Northwest Territories and Canada to harmonize delivery of social programs and services to all residents of Tlicho communities through the creation of an agency to be established under territorial legislation.

Under the terms of the Tlicho agreement, community governments will be created by territorial legislation, in each of the four Tlicho communities, to exercise municipal types of powers. Much like municipal councils across Canada, these governments would operate water and road services and enact zoning bylaws.

Not all residents of these communities are Tlicho. To ensure that the interests of all citizens are represented adequately, the agreement includes specialized election rules and regulations. For example, non-Tlicho citizens can qualify to vote, and 50% of council seats will be open to non-Tlicho candidates.

The legislation before us would guarantee Tlicho representation on the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board, alongside other aboriginal peoples. The Tlicho would also receive a share of royalties from resource development in the Mackenzie Valley.

The legislation includes a payment of approximately $150 million over the next 14 years. The Tlicho wisely have chosen to use their initial payments of this money to repay debts accumulated during negotiations and to invest approximately $500,000 per year in post-secondary scholarships for local students. This careful, long term strategy is rooted in Tlicho tradition. At the heart of this ancient culture is a capacity to adapt to change, an ability to thrive under challenging conditions.

Several years ago, a former chief, Jimmy Bruneau, recognized that the Tlicho needed to make a concerted effort to prepare for the future and protect their way of life from a rapidly spreading flood of powerful cultural and economic influences. Chief Bruneau spoke of the need to “be strong like two people”, to blend northern and southern cultures and to learn from aboriginal and non-aboriginal sources.

Today, the wisdom of Chief Bruneau's strategy is evident in the success of several Tlicho endeavours. Local businesses, for example, are earning substantial revenues by serving the diamond industry. A committee services board ensures local control of schools in four Tlicho communities and the Tlicho have also developed a run of the river hydroelectric generating facility, an airport and a long term care facility. Each of these accomplishments resulted from the Tlicho's ability to negotiate successful partnerships with governments and private sector organizations.

The Snare Cascades generating plant, for instance, was made possible by an agreement between the Tlicho and the territorial power utility. Many of the social services enjoyed by the Tlicho are delivered through a deal with the government of the Northwest Territories. This collaborative approach has also led to significant economic development.

The Tlicho negotiated an impact and benefits agreement with both Diavik and BHP, the two largest diamond mining firms in the region that support this claim. These agreements have helped provide jobs and training opportunities for Tlicho people and contracts for aboriginal firms. A partnership between Nishi-Khon and SNC Lavalin recently received a prestigious engineering award for work on the Diavik mine site.

Diamond mining in the Northwest Territories continues to draw the attention of international investors and companies not only for the quality of gems extracted, but also for the calibre of local contractors. The partnership formed among the aboriginal and non-aboriginal companies are helping to build capacity in northern communities, ensuring a sustainable and stable economy.

Today, aboriginally owned companies in the Northwest Territories generate more than $100 million in annual revenue and employ more than 1,000 people. This economic activity has a significant impact on Canadian prosperity. Stable, self-reliant aboriginal communities are able to participate fully in the national economy. As many people said today at the summit, everyone is interdependent and what helps any of us, helps all of us. The success of Tlicho serves as a model for other first nations, inspiring them to realize dreams of their own.

Thirty-five years ago Chief Jimmy Bruneau and the right hon. Jean Chrétien, Indian affairs minister at the time, shook hands. That event was captured on film and came to symbolize a turning point for both cultures. Today Canada works in partnership with aboriginal communities to help them fulfill their aspirations. The Tlicho, in turn, partner with private and public sector groups to realize culture and economic goals.

The legislation before us would continue this tradition and in fact has already fostered several new partnerships. Prior to finalizing the deal at the centre of Bill C-31, the Tlicho negotiated overlap agreements with its aboriginal neighbours. These agreements clearly delineate the rights and responsibilities of all parties.

A close examination of Bill C-31 would reveal that the Tlicho people have done their homework. They have conducted hundreds of consultations and information sessions. The Tlicho people voted overwhelmingly to ratify this agreement. More than 93% of the eligible voters cast votes and more than 84% opted for the agreement. In October 2003 the Government of the Northwest Territories also ratified it.

I am convinced that Bill C-31 will usher in a new era of improved relations among first nations and Canadian governments. The signatures on the agreement confirm that the comprehensive claim process works, that careful negotiation can produce a deal that satisfies the needs of aboriginals and non-aboriginals alike.

I would like to express my appreciation for the care, perseverance and initiative of the Tlicho leaders during 10 years of negotiations. By consulting with aboriginal communities, stakeholders and the general public, they have helped make the agreement more powerful, relevant and effective.

The agreement at the heart of Bill C-31 is significant for a number of reasons. It is the first of its kind in the Northwest Territories and the first in Canada to combine land claims and self-government in a single document since the Nisga'a treaty. The Tlicho agreement is sure to inspire renewed confidence at negotiating tables across the country. First nation leaders will consider Bill C-31 an important milestone that provides a clear way forward under Canada's inherent right policy.

The bill demonstrates that the Government of Canada can work with aboriginal people to arrive at agreements tailored to the specific needs of each community. This agreement was signed on behalf of the people of Canada and I believe it is incumbent upon us to do our utmost to ensure that a decade's worth of hard work will not be in vain.

At today's aboriginal summit Phil Fontaine talked about a study by Harvard University and what was needed for success among communities. It was found that genuine self-rule which provides first nations with the power to control what happens on first nations lands and capable governing institutions that exercise power responsibly and reliably are the key.

That is exactly what the agreement in Bill C-31 would do. We have been entrusted in the House of Commons with the aspirations of a people. Today, I ask the House for its support in providing the tools needed to build the community envisioned by the Tlicho people and I ask the House to adopt Bill C-31.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

moved that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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.

Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act

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

moved for leave to introduce 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.

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