Bill C-14 (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

This 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.

Export and Import of Rough Diamonds Act

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Senate bill, Bill S-36, is entitled An Act to amend the Export and Import of Rough Diamonds Act. This bill includes only a few clauses that are essentially of an administrative nature.

From the outset, the Bloc is quite sympathetic to this bill, but I would like to explain two important effects Bill S-36 will have.

First, Bill S-36 will authorize the government to compile and distribute data on international trade in diamonds. The adoption of this amendment, which would make the diamond trade more transparent and easier to control, is necessary for Canada to remain in compliance with its international obligations pursuant to the Kimberley process. I will say more on that later, but the Kimberley process is the action, past and present, taken by the international community to monitor the money earned from the mining of conflict diamonds.

Second, Bill S-36 will remove a formality associated with the Kimberley process as regards very small diamonds less than one millimetre in size. In number and in weight, the great majority of the diamonds dealt on the market are tiny. They are not used just to make jewellery, but have more of a utilitarian function. They are to be found, for example, in turntable needles, in watch-making or in certain industrial knives. Unlike large diamonds whose scarcity makes their price exorbitant, these diamonds are of no great value, and the administrative burden associated with the Kimberley process can be prohibitive. This proposed amendment will facilitate the diamond trade and is good news for the industry.

I might mention that Canada recently became the world's third largest diamond producer. In Quebec, even though no diamond mine is yet active, seven mining companies hold licences for such mines, mostly in Abitibi, Témiscamingue and in northwestern Quebec. Deposits of kimberlite, the ore in which diamonds are found, have been discovered in five sub-regions of Quebec.

As I said right from the start, the Bloc Québécois is not opposed to this new flexibility in principle, but it intends to ensure, in the course of review in committee, that it will not be introduced to the detriment of achievement of the objectives for which the act was passed, that is, the establishment of fairly tight control so as to prevent trade in what are and what must be called “conflict diamonds”. These amendments are the result of decisions made by countries adhering to the Kimberly process and are essential for Canada's continued compliance.

I want to take a few minutes to talk about the Kimberly process and conflict diamonds. I was associated with a study conducted by the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology. This study was the result of pressure by international NGOs that realized just how much conflict diamonds, as they are called, contribute to the development, maintenance and continuation of wars that should never have happened. However, these wars were fostered and fueled by these diamonds.

I want to quote Mr. Ian Smillie of Partnership Africa Canada, as he really puts things into context:

In 2000, the international diamond industry produced more than 120 million carats of rough diamonds with a market value of US$7.5 billion. At the end of the diamond chain this bounty was converted into 70 million pieces of jewelry worth close to US$58 billion. Of total world production, rebel armies in Sierra Leone, as well as in Angola and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), are estimated by De Beers to traffic in about 4 per cent. Other estimates place the number higher. Although not a significant proportion of the overall industry, four per cent of $7.5 billion—or whatever other estimate one might use—can buy a lot of weapons.

This is particularly true in countries in which merchants take part in this traffic in order to finance wars between developing countries.

The Export and Import of Rough Diamonds Act ensures that Canada is in compliance with the Kimberley process, an international agreement which has established a process for certifying the origin of rough diamonds. This was to ensure that any diamonds traded by or transiting through signatory countries were not conflict diamonds.

The Kimberley process is basically designed to limit the trade in conflict diamonds, which are sold by armed factions to finance their wars.

Because the diamonds are small and highly valuable, they are easy to market and can be very profitable

In the 1980s, this trade was a veritable scourge, and a major component in the funding of wars that displaced about 10 million people in Sierra Leone, Liberia, Angola and the Democratic Republic of Congo, to name just a few.

At first, only a few NGOs were concerned about these conflicts and critical of the lucrative diamond trade that bankrolled them.

In 2000, the UN published a report on the funding of the war in Angola, confirming everything that the NGOs had been proclaiming for years: the diamond trade was being used to finance the war.

Also in 2000, the RUF, the Revolutionary United Front, an armed faction in Sierra Leone, stepped up its attacks on civilians, making Sierra Leone the country with the largest number of displaced persons in the world.

With these two events, the African conflicts and their link to the diamond trade left the back pages and made the headlines.

That is when the countries and the companies that produce diamonds began to get involved. The moment that diamonds become synonymous with war, rape and murder and not with dreams, wealth and eternal love, they lose their essential value.

Responding to the invitation of two NGO groups, Global Witness and Partnership Africa Canada, 37 countries and the principal diamond merchants agreed to sit down together with the NGOs to find a solution to the problem.

The first meeting was held in May 2002 in the city of Kimberley, South Africa, hence the name, the Kimberley process

At the end of a series of meetings, they agreed that the best way to civilize the diamond trade was to put in place a system for certifying the origin of diamonds. Certification of the diamond's origin was the only way this group of individuals and businesses could find to ensure that diamonds from companies using them to fund wars were not getting into the legal diamond trade.

Under this system, all diamonds, without exception, exported from a country participating in the Kimberley process must be placed in a sealed container and accompanied by a government-issued certificate of authenticity called a Kimberley certificate. Note that I said all diamonds.

Importing countries that are participants in the Kimberley process may import only diamonds that are placed in a sealed container and accompanied by this certificate. They may trade in diamonds only with participating countries.

Today the Kimberley process has 45 participants—all to their credit—including the European Union and its 25 members, for a total of 69 countries. These countries account for 99% of the legal international trade in diamonds.To the NGOs which started this initiative and succeeded in transforming an awareness campaign into binding rules of international law, the Bloc Québécois says: well done. I hope Parliament will agree with me in congratulating them.

Without taking anything away from the other NGOs that have joined the movement and made it the success it is, the Bloc Québécois wishes to specifically salute the work, clear-sightedness and tenacity of the two NGOs which got this initiative under way, Global Witness and Partnership Africa Canada.

That is a short summary of the Kimberley process, which might help our viewers.

From what I have read, there appears to be a need to amend the Export and Import of Rough Diamonds Act and to pass Bill S-36.

From the outset, the Bloc Québécois has demonstrated keen support for the Kimberley process. In the fall of 2002, it lent immediate support to the bill on the export and import of rough diamonds, Bill C-14, which was intended to bring Canadian practice into compliance with the Kimberley process. The Bloc Québécois continues to support the Kimberley process and will support the initiatives to make it more efficient and effective.

Many of the amendments contained in Bill S-36 are the product of the discussions of the plenary session of Kimberley process participants held at the Lac-Leamy Hilton in Gatineau in 2004. Their adoption is necessary for Canada to remain in compliance with the Kimberley obligations. Most of the amendments in Bill S-36 are in fact designed to facilitate application of the process.

For these reasons, the Bloc Québécois supports Bill S-36 in principle and will vote in favour of it at second reading.

However, there are shortcomings in Bill S-36. Bill S-36 was introduced before Parliament could do a serious review of the current control mechanism. Events will no doubt help the process unfold, as the Bloc Québécois would have liked at the outset.

The Export and Import of Rough Diamonds Act requires the government to carry out a complete review of the operation and effect of the act three years after its coming into force and submit a report to Parliament. Next January, the act will have been in effect for three years. The government will therefore submit a complete review of the act, its operation and its flaws. That is what we are expecting at least.

By then, Bill S-36 will probably have already been passed—and then again, maybe not, and that may be for the best—but, at any rate, the process has to go on because some of the provisions must be in force by January 1 for Canada to remain in compliance with the Kimberley process and be able to continue exporting diamonds. There is a problem, however.

The government is in a minority situation and can no longer allow itself to think that a majority of members in the House are at its command and will pass anything it proposes, even without being provided with appropriate information.

The Bloc Québécois expects the government to release its review of the Export and Import of Rough Diamonds Act and to submit it to Parliament before Bill S-36 is considered in committee. We hope that will be done shortly.

However, even under Bill S-36, Canada is content with the minimum obligations under the Kimberley process. That is what we find unfortunate.

Let me explain why this is unfortunate.

The Kimberley process sets forth a series of minimum obligations that participating countries have to adhere to and comply with.

First, exported diamonds must be placed in sealed, tamper-resistant containers. Then, the certificates of authenticity must contain certain information, such as the origin of the diamonds, the identity of the merchant, and the total weight of the lot in carats.

In the Export and Import of Rough Diamonds Act, Canada decided to content itself with meeting the minimal obligations under the Kimberley process, although it would have been at liberty to go further. For example, with respect to the information required on the Kimberley certificate, Canada is content to require the total weight of the lot. However, we had been told that there could be major problems associated with this obligation alone. Let me explain. It so happens that 20 ten-carat diamonds are worth 30 times as much as 400 diamonds of 0.5 carats, even though both lots add up to 200 carats. Canada is content with asking what the total weight of the lot is.

At present, an importer can very easily buy a lot of small diamonds on the legal market, replace them with large stones bought cheap on the black market, then sell them again with no problem, since his Kimberley certificate does not contain the information that could be used to spot the swindle. This dishonest importer will be able to make an enormous profit, while at the same time laundering an entire lot of conflict diamonds.

This situation was described in committee when members heard from witnesses. Has this in fact happened? We cannot know. What we do know, however, is that in 2003 Canada imported rough diamonds valued at $730,820, from India. It exported nearly $200,000 worth of them to the same country.

The import value per carat was $162; the export value was $392. While this may simply be explained by the return of undesired gems of great value, or by exports unrelated to the imports, there might also be something fishy going on here. If the Canadian certificate contained certain optional information provided for in the process, such as the number of stones over two carats in size, this sort of stratagem would no longer be possible.

The Bloc Québécois is counting on the committee hearings to see if it might be possible to make the act more effective and whether all the parties might be interested in doing so.

The real weakness of a Kimberley process is the lack of resources dedicated to control in the poor countries and the lack of assistance the latter are being offered by the rich countries. I rarely say such a thing.

I just want to say, in the last minute remaining, that it is absolutely unacceptable that blood diamonds are being used to finance conflicts. We all agree on that. We must take the necessary precautions for the Kimberley process to be more than a semblance of assurance. It must guarantee assurance.

We are committed to the Kimberley process because we think that if we succeed in the conflict diamond issue, then we can learn from that success to promote fair globalization. Countries, companies and NGOs have been able to sit down, identify a problem and find solutions for developing countries to stop being cannon fodder and stop contributing to the wealth of companies that might come from Canada or other developed nations.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the context of the bill before us concerning the Export and Import of Rough Diamonds Act, I would like to begin by noting that it is often said that diamonds are forever. As a result, diamonds become a symbol of eternal love. Indeed, all of the ladies in this House, our colleagues, surely enjoy receiving a diamond as a token of love, but most certainly not a diamond produced by the atrocities of war.

It is in this context that Bill S-36 proposes certain amendments of a basically administrative nature to the Export and Import of Rough Diamonds Act.

Essentially, Bill S-36 will have two effects. First, it will authorize the government to compile and distribute data on international trade in diamonds. The adoption of this amendment, which would make the diamond trade more transparent and easier to control, is necessary for Canada to remain in compliance with its international obligations pursuant to the Kimberley process.

Second, it will remove a formality associated with the Kimberley process as regards very small diamonds less than one millimetre in size. In number and in weight, the great majority of the diamonds dealt on the market are tiny. They are not used just to make jewellery, but have more of a utilitarian function. They are to be found, for example, in turntable needles—less and less so, I am told—in watchmaking or in certain industrial knives.

Unlike large diamonds whose scarcity makes their price exorbitant, these diamonds are of no great value, and the administrative burden associated with the Kimberley process can be prohibitive. This proposed amendment will facilitate the diamond trade and is good news for the industry.

I might mention that Canada recently became the world’s third largest diamond producer. In Quebec, even though no diamond mine is yet active, seven mining companies hold licences on such mines, basically in Abitibi, Témiscamingue and the Northwest. Deposits of kimberlite, the ore in which diamonds are found, have been discovered in five sub-regions of Quebec.

The Bloc Québécois is not opposed to this new flexibility in principle, but it intends to ensure, in the course of review in committee, that it will not be introduced to the detriment of achievement of the objectives for which the act was passed, that is, the establishment of fairly tight control so as to prevent trade in conflict diamonds.

Allow me to quote Mr. Ian Smillie of Partnership Africa Canada who said:

In 2000, the international diamond industry produced more than 120 million carats of rough diamonds with a market value of US$7.5 billion. At the end of the diamond chain this bounty was converted into 70 million pieces of jewelry worth close to US$58 billion.

Of total world production, rebel armies in Sierra Leone, as well as in Angola and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), are estimated by De Beers to traffic in about 4 per cent. Other estimates place the number higher. Although not a significant proportion of the overall industry, four per cent of $7.5 billion—or whatever other estimate one might use—can buy a lot of weapons.

The Export and Import of Rough Diamonds Act ensures that Canada is in compliance with the Kimberley process, an international agreement which has established a process for certifying the origin of rough diamonds. The Kimberley process is basically designed to limit the trade in conflict diamonds, which are sold by armed factions to finance their wars. Because they are small and highly valuable, the diamonds are easy to market and can be very profitable.

In the 1980s, this trade was a veritable scourge, and a major component in the funding of wars that displaced about 10 million people in Sierra Leone, Liberia, Angola and the Democratic Republic of Congo, to name just a few.

At first, only a few NGOs were concerned about these conflicts and were critical of the lucrative diamond trade that bankrolled them. In 2000, the UN published a report on the funding of the war in Angola, confirming everything that the NGOs had been proclaiming for years: the diamond trade was being used to finance the war.

Also in 2000, the RUF, the Revolutionary United Front, an armed faction in Sierra Leone, stepped up its attacks on civilians, making Sierra Leone the country with the largest number of displaced persons in the world.

With these two events, the African conflicts and their link to the diamond trade left the back pages and made the headlines.

That is when the countries and the companies that produce diamonds began to get involved. The moment that diamonds become synonymous with war, rape and murder and not with dreams, wealth and eternal love, they lose their core value.

Responding to the invitation of two NGO groups, Global Witness and Partnership Africa Canada, 37 countries and the principal diamond merchants agreed to sit down together with the NGOs to find a solution to the problem. The first meeting was held in May 2002 in the city of Kimberley, South Africa: hence the name the Kimberley process.

At the end of a series of meetings, they agreed that the best way to civilize the diamond trade was to put in place a system for certifying the origin of diamonds. Under this system, all diamonds exported from a country participating in the Kimberley process must be placed in a sealed container and accompanied by a government-issued certificate of authenticity called a Kimberley certificate. Importing countries that are participants in the Kimberley process may import only diamonds that are accompanied by this certificate. They may trade in diamonds only with participating countries.

Today the Kimberley process has 45 participants, including the European Union and its 25 members, for a total of 69 countries. These countries account for 99% of the legal international trade in diamonds.

To the NGOs who started this initiative and succeeded in transforming an awareness campaign into binding rules of international law, the Bloc Québécois says: well done. Without taking anything away from the other NGOs who have joined the movement and made it the success that it is, the Bloc Québécois wishes to specifically salute the work, clear-sightedness and tenacity of the two NGOs who got this initiative under way, Global Witness and Partnership Africa Canada.

It is necessary to proceed with amendments to the Export and Import of Rough Diamonds Act. From the outset, the Bloc Québécois has demonstrated keen support for the Kimberley process. In the fall of 2002, it lent immediate support to the bill on the export and import of rough diamonds, Bill C-14, which was intended to bring Canadian practice into compliance with the Kimberley process.

The Bloc Québécois continues to support the Kimberley process and will support the initiatives to make it more efficient and effective. Many of the amendments contained in Bill S-36 are the product of the discussions of the plenary session of Kimberley process participants held at the Lac-Leamy Hilton in Gatineau in 2004. Their adoption is necessary for Canada to remain in compliance with the Kimberley obligations. Most of the amendments in Bill S-36 are in fact designed to facilitate application of the process.

For these reasons, the Bloc Québécois supports Bill S-36 in principle and will vote in favour of it at second reading.

However, there are many shortcomings in Bill S-36.

Bill S-36 was introduced before Parliament could do a serious review of the current control mechanism. The Export and Import of Rough Diamonds Act requires the government to carry out a complete review of the operation and effects of the act three years after its coming into force and submit a report to Parliament.

Next January, the act will have been in effect for three years. The government will therefore submit a complete review of it, its operation and weaknesses, by January. By that time, Bill S-36 will probably have already been passed, if that is the wish of the House of Commons. In fact, some of these provisions must be in effect before next January 1 in order for Canada to remain in compliance with the Kimberley process and be able to continue exporting diamonds.

This way of doing things, in which the government starts by introducing amendments to the act and only afterwards tells us about the weaknesses in it is not a normal way of proceeding. The government is in a minority situation and can no longer permit itself to think that a majority of the members of the House are at its command and will pass anything that it proposes, even without having the requisite information.

The Bloc Québécois expects the government to issue its review of the Export and Import of Rough Diamonds Act and submit it to Parliament before Bill S-36 is considered in committee. However, even under Bill S-36, Canada is content with the minimum obligations under the Kimberley process. This process sets forth a series of minimum obligations that the participating countries must meet. Exported diamonds must be placed in sealed, tamper-resistant containers. The certificates of authenticity must contain certain information: the origin of the diamonds, the identity of the merchant, the total weight of the lot in carats, and so forth.

In regard to the Export and Import of Rough Diamonds Act, Canada decided to content itself with meeting the minimal obligations under the Kimberley process, even though it was free to go further. For example, in the information required on the Kimberley certificate, Canada is content to require the total weight of the lot. However, 20 ten-carat diamonds are worth 30 times as much as 400 diamonds of only 0.5 carats, even though both lots add up to 200 carats.

At present, an importer can very easily buy a lot of small diamonds on the legal market, replace them with large stones bought cheap on the black market, then sell them again with no problem, since his Kimberley certificate does not contain the information that could be used to spot the swindle. This dishonest importer will be able to make an enormous profit, while at the same time laundering an entire lot of conflict diamonds.

Has this in fact happened? We cannot know. What we do know, however, is that in 2003 Canada imported rough diamonds valued at $703,820, from India. It exported nearly $200,000 worth of them to the same country. The import value per carat was $162; the export value was $392. While this may simply be explained by the return of undesired gems of great value, or by exports unrelated to the imports, there might also be something fishy going on here.

If the Canadian certificate contained certain optional information provided for in the process, such as the number of stones over two carats in size, this sort of stratagem would no longer be possible.

The Bloc Québécois is counting on the committee hearings to see if it might be possible to make the act more effective.

The real weakness of a Kimberley process is the lack of resources dedicated to control in the poor countries and the lack of assistance the latter are being offered by the rich countries.

The participating countries have all had to pass legislation to bring their trade practices into line with the requirements of the process. Unfortunately, controls are lacking. The state apparatus is often disorganized, and civil servants who are underpaid, or not paid at all, are vulnerable to corruption. In conclusion, even the most perfect system on paper cannot function if it does not have the necessary resources.

For example, in 2003 the Congo was suspended from the Kimberley process because its civil servants had issued certificates representing two and a half times the country’s diamond production. Clearly, many of those diamonds were from neighbouring conflict-ridden countries, probably the Democratic Republic of Congo.

The Congo was caught out, but how many other countries serve as transit routes for conflict diamonds from the Congo, Côte-d'Ivoire, Burundi or elsewhere? What is urgently required is a substantial increase in international aid to permit states to function as they should.

Furthermore, it is not by chance that wars are going on mainly in the poor countries. Where the population is living in the most abject poverty, the ground is fertile for the creation of armed factions and the onset of civil war. Even if Canada were to pass the best law in the world on the diamond trade, it would not stamp out the problem—not without a substantial boost to its international aid envelope.

In 1993, when the present Prime Minister became Minister of Finance, Canada was allocating 0.43% of its GNP to international aid, making it the sixth most generous donor in the OECD. When he left the Department of Finance in 2002, Canada was allocating only 0.23% of its GDP and had slipped to 17th out of a total of 29. At its current pace of increase, Canada will not achieve the UN target—which however it has accepted—of 0.7% of GNP for international aid until 2033.

The government can boast of its role in the Kimberley process, but not until it is a serious contributor to the war on world poverty can it say that it is playing a role in conflict pacification.

We must take inspiration from the Kimberley process to promote equitable globalization. In the commercial realm, the Kimberley process is a remarkable innovation. It introduces considerations other than commercial and economic ones into the trade rules. The NGO campaign has been such a success that it has become indecent to oppose it, to the point that the WTO had to amend its rules in January 2003, barely four weeks after the Kimberley process came into effect.

The amendments to the WTO rules allow member states to ban the import of conflict diamonds. Their rules do not, however, allow restrictions on the importing of products manufactured by children or by prisoners of conscience in labour camps or virtual slaves exploited in factories where basic labour rights do not exist, nor those produced with total lack of concern for environmental destruction.

For years now, the Bloc Québécois has been calling for the government to propose the inclusion of such humane, social and environmental considerations in trade agreements. For years now, the government has demurred, on the pretense that these non-trade considerations have no place in trade agreements.

Had that logic prevailed in connection with conflict diamonds, the Kimberley process would be illegal according to WTO rules. When will we see a Kimberley for child labour? For forced labour? For environmental destruction and the forced displacement of aboriginal nations?

The proposed amendments will, of course, be examined in committee. As I have said, we are favourably disposed to them but there is still much room for improvement.

[The Speaker]

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

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

February 10, 2005

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Marie Deschamps, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in her capacity as Deputy Governor General, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bill listed in the schedule to this letter on the 10th day of February, 2005, at 5:40 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Barbara Uteck

Secretary to the Governor General

The schedule indicates that royal assent was given to Bill C-14, 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,

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 third reading stage of Bill C-14.

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

[Jeremy Harrison, Conservative, Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, I have to take issue with the parliamentary secretary's characterization of my party's opposition to Bill C-14 as being in bad faith in some way. We put forward very constructive questions. We made our submissions in good faith. We have very real and very serious concerns with this and, to be quite frank, we have not received any answers to our questions.

I have stood in the House four times today asking about the reason for the inclusion, at the insistence of the federal government, of article 7.13.2. I still do not have an answer. I asked this question numerous times in committee as well. For the parliamentary secretary to stand up in her place and act like these submissions and these questions we are asking are in bad faith is completely beyond the pale.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have had the honour over the last four years of working for the Algonquin Nation in Quebec, a proud community that never signed any treaties with Canada and is still continuing their fight to get land deals worked out. In fact, one community I worked with started out with a 70,000 acre reserve. That reserve arbitrarily was moved down to 38,000 acres and then moved down to 9,000 acres.

That community is down to 4,000 acres today on the worst section of ground in a most beautiful agricultural region. That land will never come back to them. The damage this has done to that community has impacts on generation after generation.

I had the great pleasure of working with that community in trying to redress some of those historic grievances, so I am very pleased to hear the hon. member's words about the bill and the attempt to move forward with our first nation neighbours. Does the hon. member think that Bill C-14 might be a model for other first nation communities that have been left out and still need land deals settled? On top of that, how can we start to move these forward in a timely and just manner?

[John Cummins, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that it gives me a great deal of pleasure to address this bill today, but I am sorry I cannot. I am troubled by the bill. It is deeply perplexing. The bill in a sense is probably one of the first of over 600 bills which will be like this.

Before I embark on a critique of the bill and the problems that I see in it, I want to lay before the House the Conservative Party position on these issues because it is important. Our position on these bills is reasonable and shows an understanding of the problems that face native people in the country. If the positions we have taken were followed in the document we are debating today, there would be a glimmer of hope.

The Conservative Party of Canada believes that self-government must occur within the Constitution of Canada. That is an important point and one which I will address later in my speech.

We believe that the settlement of all outstanding comprehensive claims must be pursued on the basis of a clear framework that balances the rights of aboriginal claimants with those of Canada, and I might add with Canadians. The Supreme Court itself has stated that in any agreement reached with native people there has to be an understanding that others have acquired rights and there has to be a balance between the aboriginal right and the rights of other Canadians. I do not see that in the bill.

The Conservative Party believes that self-government agreements must be structured to ensure constitutional harmony so as not to impede the overall governance of Canada, which is another point that I will address more fully later.

To ensure fairness and equality, a Conservative government would ensure that the principles of the charter applied to aboriginal self-government, which is almost an impossibility as the House will see.

The Conservative Party believes in giving aboriginal governments the power to raise their own revenues. Aboriginal agreements reached with the federal government must represent a final agreement in the same manner as was achieved in Nisga'a. Let me correct that. Aboriginal agreements reached with the federal government must represent a final agreement, and I will stop there.

We are told the agreement is a culmination of two separate negotiations. The first was the negotiation of a comprehensive claim, which has been carried out pursuant to the 1986 comprehensive claims policy. In this respect, the agreement is similar to the Nisga'a agreement. Secondly, the negotiation of self-government arrangements are based upon the 1995 inherent right policy. In this respect, the agreement follows the Westbank agreement.

Before I go on with my comments, I want to bring to the attention of the House something that I think is critically wrong with the process that we are engaged in today. The bill and the agreement are being put before Parliament on an all or nothing basis. We are told that the government has received advice that Parliament lacks the capacity to amend the provisions of the agreement. It is for this reason that the legislation was introduced by way of a notice of ways and means motion on October 19.

To suggest that the agreement is beyond the capacity of Parliament to amend is a serious flaw in the process. Who negotiated the agreement? Who and what authority was given those negotiators? That is not clear. I am not aware of it. I do not know and I do not think there is a member in the House right now who could tell us who the individuals were that negotiated the agreement, what relationship they had with the area under discussion and what relationship they may or may not have had with the native bands involved prior to the negotiations. Who are they?

In my own riding, the Tsawwassen agreement will be coming forward for signing shortly. The negotiators are not familiar with my community. They regularly ignore the wishes of the local community, the Delta Council and others. They are just grey bureaucrats.

These grey and unseen bureaucrats have negotiated an agreement which in a sense is binding on all of us. Today we are either going to accept the total package or reject it. We have no right to say that we like a part of it, but ask people to go back to the table to some changes because this or that aspect of it may be unworkable. That is what we should be doing. We are here to represent the people of Canada, yet we do not have a say. Who gave the instructions and who detailed and told the negotiators what was on the table?

We are told that there are 39,000 square kilometres of land. That is half the size of New Brunswick. To put it in a way that people in British Columbia understand, that is 25% larger than Vancouver Island, and 3,000 people are involved. What were the instructions? Was the negotiator prepared to give away 60,000 square kilometres of land if the demand had been made? Nobody knows and in fact there are conflicting demands for the land.

That is a serious problem with the whole process. When these sorts of agreements come before the House, the House should debate them thoroughly, especially these first agreements, and establish guidelines that can give some direction to negotiators in these agreements and to negotiations that are ongoing. Instead, we are here to rubber stamp it, and we know that will happen. The government members will rubber stamp the bill and others, because they do not want to cause any kerfuffle, will agree with this as well. Many may do it thinking that this is the best way to go.

I do not. I oppose the legislation and I do so for a variety of reasons.

In the first instance, the bill lacks finality. In agreements signed in days gone by, the language was at the end of the bill: cede, release and surrender. In other words, the band which received its reserve lands and its governance, whatever way or nature that may have taken, signed off and said that it ceded, released and surrendered any further claims. That is not the way this bill goes. In fact, this is not the final draft.

If another band gets more, these folks can come back to the table and demand more. In other words, we are committing the Government of Canada, and Canadians, to continue this process for decades because there will be no end. There will always be that juggling to try to get a little more.

If anybody wonders how that works, just think back in British Columbia, for example, and the teachers' negotiations. Board A would come in and would be in negotiations. The smaller board would sit back, let the other guys go first and see what happened. Everybody would wait for the wealthy board to sign off, and it would become the benchmark. Everybody else then tried to reach it.

I guess that is collective bargaining rights, but does it really work? Does it deal with the marketplace in any way, shape or form? No. Yet that is what we face when the language is not final. All it means is that some day down the line, when somebody else comes up with a better deal, there will be a request to reopen the negotiations.

I mentioned in the beginning that there were two areas from which this agreement flowed, or two separate sets of negotiations, one being based on the 1995 inherent rights policy of the Liberal government.

This is a policy which has not really had the benefit of the scrutiny of Parliament. It is a policy which was created by the government but was not openly debated in this place. In fact, when the first bill that was negotiated on this came through this House last fall, the government tried to rush this thing through in one day. When it did return, there was not much in the way of discussion to really create an understanding of what was meant by this bill. That is the problem with everything that seems to be going on here.

What does this inherent right policy mean? How is it going to impact not only the governance in native lands but on other Canadians living in that particular area covered by the treaty?

Let us back up for a minute and put the notion of inherent right into perspective. Section 91 of the Constitution, if my memory serves me correct, lists the powers of the federal government. Section 92 lists all the powers of the provincial government.

The Constitution says quite clearly that there are no other powers available. The powers that are vested in the provincial government and in the federal government cover the spectrum of powers that are available. There is no room in the Constitution for other powers. Some may ask about municipal government, where does it fit in?

Municipal governments are a delegated form of government. Their authority flows from the provincial government. The provincial government gives municipalities certain powers which actually belong to it. It says these are local powers. These powers are better managed by local government than they are from Victoria, in the case of British Columbia, or from Edmonton, in the case of Alberta, to mention two of the finer provinces.

If the federal government takes all its powers from section 91, the province takes all its powers from section 92, and municipal governments derive their powers or operate with a delegated form of authority from the provincial government, where then does this inherent right power flow from?

When the government recognizes inherent right to self-government, it is saying that right flows from section 35 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In other words, the inherent right to self-government is not one which is delegated by either the federal or provincial government, but in fact it has equal footing. It flows from section 35 of the of the charter and that gives it the ability to trump federal or provincial law. It is as simple as that. This is not complex. This is simple stuff that is quite easy to understand for anyone who takes the time to think it through. How then does the charter apply? Government would tell us that the charter will apply. But how can it?

If the Tlicho government were operating because it has an inherent right, how then can we say that the charter would apply? That is an intrusion on the inherent authority of the Tlicho government. Therefore, it will likely be rejected in the courts.

The court will say, how on one hand can it be said that these folks have an inherent right to self-government and on the other hand say that they are constrained by the charter? It does not follow. It cannot be had both ways. We cannot say they have an inherent right and then at the same time turn around and say that their rights are constrained.

In fact, if we look at Bill C-14, it recognizes that very point. The bill says and contains this remarkable section relating to international matters. In article 2.2.9 of the agreement, it states:

Nothing in the Agreement shall be interpreted so as to limit or extend the authority of the Parties to negotiate and enter into international, national, interprovincial, and interterritorial agreements--

By implication this suggests that the Tlicho government has the authority to enter into international agreements.

In fact, if that authority does not exist in that manner, the Government of Canada is required to consult with the Tlicho when international treaties are going to impact on them. That is clear from reading the agreement. If an international agreement is going to impact on the Tlicho people, then they have a right to be consulted and to have their concerns addressed. However, how far does it go? That is not clearly defined.

Will the Tlicho people have the right to veto an agreement because it somehow impinges on their right? I think the whole issue is very confusing. However, the very broad language that is contained in this treaty puts a remarkable restriction on power that is constitutionally reserved for the federal government.

This is one agreement in over 600 that we are going to enter into in this country. I look at the Tsawwassen Indian Band, in my own neighbourhood, located a mile or so north of the international boundary at Point Roberts. There are ongoing issues between the province of British Columbia and the state of Washington, or in essence between Canada and the United States. There are fisheries issues there.

If we were to go right along the coast then, any band that says it has an interest in fish on the west coast of Canada, any band from Alaska down to the border at Washington state, would have an interest in fish, sign an agreement, and demand the same right that the Tlicho First Nation has. How do we manage this? Every band has a right to veto. Every band has a right to be consulted on a matter which affects all Canadians.

The Magna Carta was signed in 1200. Essentially, the signing was to limit the authority of the lords. It has grown from that point to the point where we are sitting here in this House of Commons, as members of Parliament, representing the people of Canada. The Government of Canada is supposed to be the authority over the lands of Canada and sharing that responsibility with a province.

This agreement sets up one group of Canadians and says that this group will have the final say on a lot of legislation that will be introduced in this place.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-14, the Tlicho treaty. The bill is important to Canadians for many reasons but particularly for the precedent it sets for other groups seeking land claim settlements and/or the power to self-govern.

It is necessary and right to be fair in such negotiating agreements, but it is also necessary to be accountable and to be practical. That is the only one way to ensure that the rights of all Canadians are respected and considered.

Bill C-14 would fix in law the Tlicho land claims and self-government agreement made more than a year ago between the federal government, the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Tlicho First Nation.

Ownership of land between Great Slave Lake and Great Bear Lake, about 39,000 square kilometres, would be transferred to the Tlicho First Nation and participatory regulatory authority would be given for an even larger area. This land agreement is combined with provisions for self-government.

To be clear, under Bill C-14 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 Métis, and the Criminal Code would continue to apply.

It seems the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would apply to the Tlicho government. However, even though the Tlicho constitution is intended to be consistent with the charter, it is in law the paramount authority.

The agreement does state that the citizens or persons to whom Tlicho laws apply will have rights and freedoms “no less than those set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms”.

I have a number of concerns about this agreement. For example, the preamble to the annotated agreement states:

Whereas the Parties have negotiated this Agreement in order to define and provide certainty in respect of rights of the Tlicho relating to land, resources and self-government...

This agreement provides neither definition nor certainty to a number of issues. It contains a clause to reopen negotiations if another Northwest Territories aboriginal group negotiates terms that are attractive to the Tlicho in a future agreement. It fails to do its most basic job: achieve a final settlement.

Looking to the future, there are literally hundreds of other native groups that could seek similar agreements. If none of these arrangements are finalized, it puts Canada in a position of confusion and uncertainty.

This is also an issue of particular concern and interest in my home province of Saskatchewan where natives make up an ever increasing portion of its population. By not limiting the authority of the Tlicho to enter into “international, national, interprovincial and inter-territorial agreements”, it appears the agreement recognizes the right of the Tlicho to enter into international agreements.

In addition, it puts the onus on the Government of Canada to consult with the Tlicho First Nation before Canada enters into an international agreement that “may affect a right of the Tlicho government, the Tlicho First Nation or a Tlicho citizen”. I am concerned about this very broad, vague language and how it constrains power constitutionally reserved for the federal government. By allowing this, the Canadian government would, in essence, be compromising its own sovereignty.

In a country where we already have a bloated administration, I do not believe additional levels of government are necessary or desirable. Yet that seems to be what is created in this agreement.

There is jurisdictional confusion in that the agreement describes three different hierarchies to determine which legislation is paramount in the event of conflict: federal legislation, territorial legislation, Tlicho laws or the agreement.

We must also consider that it is not clear that Tlicho citizens will have the benefits of protection under Canada's Charter of Rights in the event of conflict with the Tlicho constitution. This is the kind of clarification that I would have like to have seen come out of committee discussion so that we could avoid the future intervention of the courts, which will likely come about if this bill passes and the agreement comes into effect.

Self-government is a serious issue and it must be considered in a thoughtful way. When a country is divided into essentially sovereign groups, it affects not only the group in question but all Canadians.

I would like to quote from an author who wrote First Nations? Second Thoughts . Mr. Flanagan wrote that he holds certain core beliefs, including the following:

Society is a spontaneous order that emerges from the choices of individual human beings. The indispensable role of government is to make and enforce rules of conduct that allow society to function.... When government sorts people into categories with different legal rights, especially when those categories are based on immutable characteristics such as race and sex, it interferes with the social processes based on free association.

The Tlicho agreement does in fact divide people by race, even within the population it affects.

The agreement creates a category of citizens called Tlicho citizens who are the only people who may be elected as chiefs. Further, 50% of the elected councillors must be Tlicho citizens.

This racially based governance goes against fundamental Canadian values and would likely not withstand a Charter of Rights challenge, that is if the charter was not negated by Tlicho law. Again, the uncertainty is tremendous and I cannot in good conscience allow myself to support the bill.

Any other outstanding claims for land and self-government must be pursued on the basis of a clear framework which balances the rights of aboriginal claimants with those of this country. Such a framework does not exist in the context of the Tlicho agreement.

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for his work on the committee as vice-chair and as one who is very much involved with it.

I was interested in the fact that he raised the issue of having to deal with different groups within the water boundaries of our country on a sort of country-to-country basis, setting these people up as individual nations. If Bill C-14 passes, does he anticipate that we will have delegations to these different nations? Will we have ambassadors there? How will we actually manage the intergovernmental affairs vis-à-vis these individual groups as compared to the provinces and territories that we have now?

[Jeremy Harrison, Conservative, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak at third reading of Bill C-14, the Tlicho treaty. Bill C-14 ratifies the Tlicho agreement signed on August 25, 2003, between the Tlicho people and the Governments of the Northwest Territories, Canada and the Tlicho.

The bill would give the Tlicho First Nation ownership of 39,000 square kilometres between Great Slave Lake and Great Bear Lake, located in the Northwest Territories.

The bill is unique in that it gives effect to both a comprehensive land claims settlement and a self-government agreement.

The agreement is precedent setting in both respects and will guide future claims settlements and self-government provisions across the north. This agreement is a culmination of two separate negotiations.

First, the negotiation of the comprehensive claim has been carried out pursuant to the 1986 comprehensive claims policy, and in this respect the agreement is similar to the Nisga'a agreement.

Second, the negotiation of the self-government arrangements are based upon the 1995 inherent rights policy, and in this respect the agreement follows the path of the Westbank treaty.

It should also be noted that the bill gives force of law to the tripartite agreement of August 25, 2003, and accords the agreement paramountcy over the act itself. In other words, the approval of the act will bring into law the very complex provisions set out in the 208 page settlement agreement and the shorter tax agreement and will in essence incorporate the 208 page agreement into the Constitution of Canada through section 35.

In general terms, the agreement gives the 3,500 Tlicho people claims to subsurface resources, law-making authority, and the power to tax, levy royalties and manage resources on the 39,000 square kilometres of land laid out in the agreement. The Tlicho lands are bounded in the north by the Sahtu agreement, on the east by Nunavut, and on the south and to the west by the future Akaitcho and Deh Cho territories.

The Indian Act no longer applies to Tlicho citizens and Tlicho lands are no longer to be considered reserve lands. In terms of governance, the agreement creates four local governments consisting of a chief and council. The agreement provides that the chief must be Tlicho and further that 50% of the community council must be Tlicho citizens.

The Tlicho government consists of a grand chief elected at large by Tlicho citizens, the chief from each of the community governments and one councillor from each of the community governments. The Tlicho government has the power to enact laws in relation to things such as the use of Tlicho language and culture, traditional medicine, resources, and businesses and occupations on Tlicho land as well as taxation and enforcement powers.

When I first spoke on Bill C-14 during second reading, I pointed out a number of areas that I had concerns with. These concerns centred around a few specific issues, namely, the absence of finality in the agreement, problems with sections relating to the interrelationship of Canadian and international sovereignty and provisions of the agreement, and jurisdictional confusion within the agreement.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, I serve on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. Indeed, I serve as the vice-chair. I sincerely had hoped that once we had Bill C-14 at the committee perhaps some of the concerns enunciated during second reading debate could be alleviated. Unfortunately, they were not.

Regarding concerns about the absence of finality in the agreement, I pointed to article 27.6.1 of the agreement. The article reads, under the heading “Agreements for Equivalent Benefits”, as follows:

Where government provides, in legislation or in or under a land claims agreement or a self-government agreement, tax powers or exemptions to another aboriginal group in the Northwest Territories that are of greater benefit to that group than those provided to the Tlicho First Nation or the Tlicho Government...at the request of the Tlicho Government, will negotiate and make best efforts to reach an agreement with the Tlicho Government to provide equivalent benefits for the Tlicho First Nation....

In other words, this agreement can be reopened if greater benefits are conferred upon another group in later negotiations or if the Supreme Court or other court of competent jurisdiction discovers new tax benefit rights for particular groups of first nations in the Northwest Territories.

The second area that my party and I expressed our concerns about during second reading debate and in committee is with regard to the issues of jurisdictional confusion within the agreement and between the agreement and powers granted the federal government by the Constitution Act in 1982.

Without getting into great detail on the subject, I will refer hon. members to the second reading debate in which members of my party very eloquently and clearly laid out their concerns on this issue.

Broadly speaking, the agreement addresses inter-jurisdictional issues in three different areas and lays out potentially problematic hierarchies of authority. The general intent of the legislative scheme is that the powers of the Tlicho government are to be concurrent with those of the Government of Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories.

The problem is that there are multiple definitions of how to determine paramountcy in the event of conflict. The one area that I believe should be highlighted in this area is the hierarchy of authority as laid out in articles 7.7.2 through to 7.7.4.

These sections provide for the following hierarchy of authority: one, federal legislation of general application; two, territorial legislation implementing Canadian international agreements; three, Tlicho laws; four, territorial legislation of general application; and five, specific federal legislation relating to the Tlicho.

In other words, Tlicho laws prevail over territorial laws and over federal laws relating to the Tlicho, specific federal laws. Hence, after the passage of Bill C-14, the House will no longer have the constitutional jurisdiction to pass laws of specific application relating to the 39,000 square kilometre area described in the agreement.

A third area that I have very specific concerns with, and about which I worked hard in committee to extract answers from the government and the INAC bureaucracy, is with regard to article 7.13.2 of the agreement. This provision reads as follows:

Prior to consenting to be bound by an international treaty that may affect a right of the Tlicho Government, the Tlicho First Nation or a Tlicho Citizen, flowing from the Agreement, the Government of Canada shall provide an opportunity for the Tlicho Government to make its views known with respect to the international treaty either separately or through a forum.

At this point, I would like to make clear that I intend to split my time with the hon. member for Blackstrap.

As the Hansard record of the Bill C-14 committee hearing will bear witness to, I pressed very hard to get some answers as to what this provision would mean in practice and what the rationale was for including it in the agreement in the first place. I have further pressed on this today in the chamber during debate. I have asked the minister. Again we have had no answer to this question.

As to what the provision would mean in practice, I have some very serious concerns. The government itself does not seem to know what the provision means. My fear is that when it comes time for this section to be judicially interpreted, and that time will come, given the jurisprudential direction of the Canadian courts on these issues we will find ourselves in a situation whereby our nation's ability to enter into international treaties and agreements will be compromised; that we will in fact have given a de facto veto over our international sovereignty on certain issues to the Tlicho government.

To be blunt, this is a ridiculous state of affairs. The impression I have is that the government and bureaucracy have not fully thought through the implications of this section.

Even more strange, we discovered during questioning in committee that this section was included not at the insistence of the Tlicho negotiators but at the direction of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Why was it included? We did not get a straight answer.

Today we came into possession of the cabinet framework document governing this negotiation, from back in 1995, a document that was accepted by cabinet in 1995 and which made it very clear that there was not to be any abdication of Canadian international sovereignty in the process of negotiating these agreements. That does not seem to have been followed with this treaty.

For these reasons I have enumerated, I will not be supporting this agreement. My party has also made clear the reasons that our party will not be supporting this agreement. I thank hon. members for their time and their attention.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, we all understand that there are problems throughout Canadian society. The specific question here is that objections are being made to Bill C-14 because it is said that jurisdiction is being transferred in circumstances which are inappropriate. As the hon. member who preceded me said, we have legal opinions that say this is in accordance with the charter of Canada. We strongly believe that by transferring jurisdictions appropriately we enable people to get on with their lives. We enable people to exercise control over their own lives and become full members of society.

It would be helpful for us on this side of the House if the members opposite could tell us clearly what areas of jurisdiction being transferred they think are improper. Then we can properly answer the objections they have.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise, on behalf of the constituents of Fleetwood—Port Kells, to participate in the third reading debate on Bill C-14, the Tlicho lands claims and self-government act.

The proposed bill gives effect to the Tlicho land claims, the self-government agreement and the Tlicho tax treatment agreement. It amends the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and makes consequential amendments to a number of other acts. It ratifies the Tlicho agreement signed August 25, 2003, between the Tlicho and the Governments of Canada and the Northwest Territories that arose out of 12 years of negotiations.

The Tlicho, formerly the Dogrib First Nation, is one of the five tribes of the Dene people and has about 3,000 members. Band members ratified the treaty with a vote in June 2003. Of the eligible Tlicho voters, 83% supported the agreement. The agreement was approved in spring 2003 by the executive council of the government of the Northwest Territories. In August 2003 it was signed by former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and Grand Chief Joe Rabesca.

Bill C-14 would give the Tlicho First Nation ownership of approximately 39,000 square kilometres of land between Great Slave Lake and Great Bear Lake, an area almost the size of Switzerland. The band would have the rights to both the surface and mineral resources of this land. The Tlicho would receive 2% of revenues from three existing diamond mines, but the entire royalties from any future mining or oil and gas activity within the newly created region would go to the band. In addition to resource management, the band would be given power over areas such as traditional medicine, language and culture.

The Northwest Territories, the federal government and the Tlicho will co-deliver systems for education, health and other social services for the first 10 years the agreement is in effect. Criminal law still falls under federal domain. Once the Tlicho government has been established, it will succeed the Dogrib Treaty 11 Council, the four local band councils and municipal governments.

Four community governments will be made up of a chief and a council of between 4 and 12 councillors. The chief of a community government and at least half of the council must be Tlicho. Non-Tlicho citizens may fill no more than half of the council seats. The chiefs and some of the councillors will form the government to oversee the area.

The preamble of Bill C-14 refers to the Tlicho as being “an aboriginal people of Canada that has used and occupied lands in and adjacent to the Northwest Territories from time immemorial”. The agreement is stated to be a land claims agreement within the meaning of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Bill C-14 states that in the event of conflict between the agreement or this act and other legislation, the regulations made under this act will prevail. Under the agreement, Tlicho laws will not displace federal or territorial laws but will be concurrent.

Clause 7 of the bill directs the Canadian government to meet the financial obligations of the agreement, which gives the band $152 million over 15 years. The government will make a one time only payment of $5 million to an economic development fund established by the Tlicho government, the strategic economic development investment fund. The band will also receive a share of the government's annual resource royalties from the Mackenzie Valley, which are expected to average about $3.5 million.

Bill C-14 also would give effect to the Tlicho tax treatment agreement. Under the bill, it is not considered a treaty or land claim agreement within the meaning of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. It is an agreement dealing with the tax treatment of the Tlicho government, Tlicho capital trusts and Tlicho corporations. The Tlicho government would given tax collection powers and those taxes would be used to support Tlicho programs and services. The Tlicho government would be tax exempt in its government activities.

The proposed bill gives the Wekeezhii Renewable Resources Board the legal capacity, rights, powers and privileges of a person. The purpose of this board is to perform the functions of wildlife and habitat management as set out in the agreement. It will be made up of an odd number of people, not more than nine, including representatives from other aboriginal groups whose wildlife harvesting occurs in Wekeezhii, the Tlicho resource management area. The agreement gives the Tlicho full hunting and trapping rights.

The bill makes significant amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resources Management Act to reflect the new status given the Tlicho through this agreement. Tlicho rights related to resource management are given the same footing as those of other first nations that already have resource management boards under this Act.

Bill C-14 also makes consequential amendments to other legislation: Access to Information Act, Canada Land Surveys Act, Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, Northwest Territories Act, Payment in Lieu of Taxes Act and the Privacy Act. The Payment in Lieu of Taxes Act would be amended to include the Tlicho government under the definition of “taxing authority”.

It should be noted that although the agreement states that Tlicho citizens are no longer subject to the Indian Act, it is not stated in Bill C-14.

Bill C-14 is unique in that it ratifies both land claims and self-government agreements. This agreement will serve to set precedent for all future such agreements for as many as 600 first nations. Unfortunately, however, as I outlined during debate on this legislation at second reading, the bill seriously flawed.

The agreement lacks the basis requirement for all treaties or agreements: that of finality. It contains a clause that could reopen negotiations should future aboriginal settlements be reached in the Northwest Territories. In short, this agreement fails to achieve a final settlement. Also the agreement recognizes the right of the Tlicho under certain circumstances to enter into international agreements and to force the Government of Canada to consult with the Tlicho before entering into certain international treaties.

This is an encroachment of the federal government's ability to make decisions for the country, and it will affect Canada's international autonomy. Specifically, the agreement requires the Government of Canada to consult with the Tlicho before entering into any international agreement that may affect the right of the Tlicho Government, the Tlicho First Nation or a Tlicho citizen. This is broad language and a remarkable restriction on a power constitutionally reserved for the federal government.

The agreement would effectively create a third order of government which authority would be paramount to that of the federal and the territorial governments in certain matters. The jurisdictional confusion created by this new level of government is compounded by the fact that the wording of the agreement is not clear as to which legislation, federal, territorial, Tlicho or the charter, is paramount in the event of conflict with the Tlicho Constitution.

Self-government must occur within the context of the Constitution of Canada. To ensure fairness and equality, the principles of the charter must apply to aboriginal self-government.

Time is wasting. The slowness at which negotiations have been undertaken to further define aboriginal rights to land and resources is a disgrace.

Canada is one of the richest countries in the world. Yet our aboriginal people live in third world conditions. The plight of first nations is a painful embarrassment to Canada. The life expectancy of registered Indians is seven to eight years shorter than the national average. Suicide rates are twice the national average. Aboriginal peoples have an average income 75% less than the national average. Unemployment rates are 10 times the national average. School drop-out rates are higher and educational attainment is lower than that of any other ethnic group.

First nation reserves are rife with violence, physical and sexual abuse and suicide. Unhealthy living conditions and over-crowded housing with insufficient heating and inadequate water supplies are all too often a fact of life. First nation people are caught in a cycle of dependency and poverty.

The federal government annually spends some $7 billion on aboriginal peoples, yet their living conditions fail to improve. This is completely unacceptable. For those first nations currently lacking settlement of aboriginal title, there is the hope that an agreement may bring greater prosperity. The government should undertake measures to improve the employment and health situation of aboriginal people and to speed up negotiations on aboriginal land claims.

B.C. has over 68,000 status Indians representing 17% of all status Indians living in Canada. While there are no precise figures on the exact percentage of land in dispute, one report by the Fraser Institute suggests that 95% of the land mass in British Columbia may be in dispute. British Columbia's first nations deserve a timely resolution to their comprehensive land claims.

The Conservative Party supports a settlement for the Tlicho land claim and negotiations for a self-government agreement, but this agreement is poorly drafted and deeply flawed. Our concern is the future governance of Canada and the precedent that is being set.

It is an extraordinarily generous settlement. There are 632 first nations at the negotiating table. Are they all after the same bundle of powers? If they are, we will have a very different version of Canada than most Canadian citizens currently understand. While I am for the uplift of the first nations people and a speedy settlement of their claims, the agreement reached must be fair.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my fellow committee members who worked so diligently in reviewing Bill C-14, the Tlicho land claims and self-government act. Their thoroughness throughout the process has given this very important bill the careful consideration that it merits.

Not only would this landmark bill enact the first agreement to combine land claims and self-government in the Northwest Territories, but it would also give the Tlicho access to the tools needed to build prosperous and sustainable communities. Enacting this legislation would benefit not only the Tlicho but also the people of Canada. After all, strong, self-reliant first nations, Inuit, Métis, and northerners, have much to contribute to Canada, both economically and culturally.

Under Bill C-14 and the agreement that the bill would enshrine, the Tlicho would gain control of a vast area of land, 39,000 square kilometres in size. The legislation would ensure that the Tlicho play a significant role in the management of land, water and other resources within their territory. The Tlicho would also receive a payment of approximately $152 million over the next 14 years.

While the bill would grant the Tlicho substantial land, money and power, it would also give them the significant responsibilities of self-government and would put them firmly in control of their economy, their culture and their communities. I believe the Tlicho have demonstrated most amply that they are ready for momentous responsibilities and know how to manage their affairs conscientiously and profitably. As was mentioned earlier, this is one of the more prosperous and successful aboriginal communities in the north. They already operate their own schools, senior's residence and day care centre. They have negotiated successful agreements with a number of public and private sector organizations. They deliver social services through an agreement with the Government of the Northwest Territories.

Under the terms of Bill C-14, the Tlicho would be represented by two elected governments. The Tlicho government would gain greater control over social services and schools and would be able to enact laws in areas such as aboriginal language and aboriginal culture. They would also be guaranteed representation on land, water and renewable resource boards.

The Tlicho community governments in each of the four Tlicho communities, Wati, Gameti, Wekweeti and Behchoko, would oversee activities such as business licensing, roads and zoning.

In addition, for the first time, non-Tlicho citizens residing in Tlicho communities would be able run for office, vote in community elections and work to safeguard their own interests. However only Tlicho citizens would be able to run for and vote for chief. This level of self-government ensures that key decisions will be made by the people most familiar with and most affected by local issues. It also ensures that Tlicho governments will be established and maintained within the democratic and constitutional framework of Canada. It will respect Canadian law and recognize that the Tlicho, like all Canadians, are subject to federal laws and subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Tlicho have prepared to implement this agreement for many years, for it has been signed after more than a decade of negotiations among the Tlicho and the Governments of Canada and the Northwest Territories.

This agreement has already been ratified by the territorial legislature in Yellowknife and by the Tlicho. Furthermore, a comprehensive implementation plan is ready and the Tlicho have already drafted and ratified a constitution.

Prior to finalizing the agreement, the Tlicho people took it upon themselves to negotiate overlap agreements with their aboriginal neighbours. These agreements have not only helped to clarify the boundaries of traditional lands, but have also improved relationships among aboriginal peoples in Canada's north.

Through the lengthy consultative process, the Tlicho have shown us the power of democracy in action. I believe such an open and fair process can only bode well for the self-government structure that the Tlicho will put into place and inspire other aboriginal groups to similar achievements.

Surely the fact that the Tlicho are one of the most progressive aboriginal groups in Canada is linked to their consultative and collaborative abilities, their careful consideration of every voice, their willingness to accept dissent but still achieve consensus.

Today the Tlicho operate numerous joint ventures in a range of economic sectors. They have developed a run of the river hydroelectric generating facility and built and maintain their own airport. The Snare Cascades generating plant was made possible by an agreement between the Tlicho and the territorial power utility.

The Tlicho have also signed a number of mutually beneficial agreements with private sector firms in the mining sector. For example, more than five years ago an impact benefit agreement was negotiated with BHP Billiton, owners of the Ekati diamond mine.

A second agreement was subsequently negotiated with owners of the Diavik mine. A partnership between a Tlicho owned firm and SNC Lavalin recently received a prestigious engineering award for work at the Diavik mine site.

The importance of mining in the Northwest Territories should not be underestimated. The mutually beneficial partnerships negotiated among aboriginal and non-aboriginal companies have delivered a wealth of economic and social benefits, including job and training opportunities for Tlicho people and contracts for aboriginal firms.

Indeed, aboriginal employment in the mining sector has risen swiftly. Today numerous aboriginal businesses operate in the sector and generate $500 million in annual revenues.

Revenues from partnerships with diamond mining companies have been invested in Tlicho communities, in youth groups, in sports programs, in beautification projects and in physical infrastructure. Money has also been used to support traditional activities in which Tlicho people of all ages fish and hunt together and renew their laudable age old connection to the land that now provides new opportunities.

The impact that the Tlicho's economic activity has had on Canadian prosperity is significant. Stable, self-reliant aboriginal communities are able to participate fully in the national economy. Now the Tlicho want to strike a new deal with the people of Canada, a deal that will put them more firmly in control of their destiny. In the words of Tlicho chief negotiator John B. Zoe, it “recognizes our ability...to pass on those rights to future generations”.

The legislation before us today carries the principled and worthy aspirations of a people and provides a road map for other first nations, Inuit, Métis and northerners to follow. I hope I can count on the support of my hon. colleagues to help us move the legislation through to the Senate for final approval and give the Tlicho people the tools they need to build the future that they deserve and desire.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very timely question. We know that economic development and social progress is being held back by the stubborn refusal to conclude land claims.

There was a pivotal study on the subject of economic development in first nations by Stephen Cornell, from Harvard University, who studied first nations and their degree of development all over North America. He found, without any fear of contradiction, that there was an inexorable link between the level of economic development and the level of self-governance and self-determination of a first nation.

In other words, the only successful models of economic development are those communities that have achieved a certain amount of self-governance and self-determination, and virtually open-ended. This is not simply access to resources. This is the socio and cultural mindset that comes with being a free people, free to conduct their own affairs and self-determination. That is when progress blossoms.

Signing the Tlicho agreement 82 years to the day after the political forebearers had signed Treaty 11, former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien captured the emotion and the meaning of the moment with the following words. He said, “This is the glory of Canada where we can be what we are and at the same time be part of a greater Canada”.

In my view, as we pass Bill C-14 today, we are strengthening Confederation. We are not giving anything away. We are building a stronger country with the partnership of the Tlicho First Nation.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will use these last five minutes to summarize the views of the NDP caucus with regard to Bill C-14 and, in our view, to celebrate the emancipation of the Tlicho people as they, by this bill, come out from under the Indian Act which we believe resulted in nothing more than 130 years of social tragedy across the country.

Before question period I was pointing out that the Tlicho, under this agreement, will now hold complete surface and subsurface resource rights, full hunting and trapping rights, and control over renewable and non-renewable resource harvesting. This, more than anything else, is the worthy aspect of this document.

Finally the very people who prospered for thousands of years on their traditional territory will have the direction and control over the resources on that traditional territory. It was a misguided century that denied them that right. It is our opportunity by this action to remedy that historic injustice that denied them access to their own land, resources and renewable and non-renewable resources.

Let me say as well that democracy is alive and well in the Tlicho First Nation. There is no democratic deficit in the Tlicho First Nation as we might find here in Ottawa at times. The agreement in principle between the Tlicho and the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Government of Canada was reached in the year 2000 and was later approved by 80% of the 1,843 Tlicho voters in June 2003. In that referendum they wanted to be so abundantly sure that it was a democratic vote that any uncast ballots were counted as no votes. Even with that extra-superdemocracy, they still achieved 80% of the 1,843 eligible votes who voted yes on the agreement in principle. I thought that was noteworthy.

In the last few moments that I have I would like to talk about what I think are perhaps the most innovative aspects of the agreement. They are the provisions for Tlicho self-government and the right to strike and enforce laws through a traditional Dene justice system.

The former prime minister who signed the document on behalf of the Government of Canada stressed that the agreement will serve as a model for other indigenous communities and other countries. We approve of that, provided it is not viewed as a template or a cookie cutter approach. We believe all first nations have the right to negotiate their own terms and conditions. He added, “It defines rights and shows the world how diversity creates strength and how partnerships build success and is a model for implementing self-government”. That is a quote from the Right Hon. Jean Chrétien.

Among the 700 people witnessing the signing of the agreement was Tlicho elder Mary Ann Jermemick'ca, who travelled from Wha Ti mostly by canoe. Her quote upon witnessing the signing of this historic agreement was:

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.

This agreement recognizes the Tlicho authority and self-governing ability to collect taxes, to levy resource royalties, to regulate aspects of their lives, from fishing to family law, to the licensing of native healers However, contrary to the misconceptions perpetrated by those who I believe were raising mischief associated with this bill, federal and territorial governments continue to maintain health, education, housing and social assistance programs at the same level as elsewhere in the Northwest Territories. Also, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms remains in full force and effect and cannot be superseded.

Perhaps the most notable facet of the Tlicho agreement is not what it is, but rather, what it is not. It is not a conventional treaty. Largely 19th century artifacts, these treaties from the European and Euro-Canadian point of view often signalled an end to hostilities or were put in place for a specific European purpose, not for the well-being of the other party of the treaty, which is the aboriginal and first nations people.

The Tlicho Dene have lived from time immemorial in the region of the Northwest Territories that came to be bisected by two such treaties, treaty 8 in 1899, and treaty 11 in 1921, which split the Tlicho territory arbitrarily, denying them access to traditional territories and control of their own region.

The reason these treaties were struck was largely the direct result of events. In the case of treaty 8, it was the 1898 gold rush. This treaty was hurriedly forced into effect to look after the interests of people who wanted access to the gold fields, not the well-being of the first nations communities that they interrupted. Treaty 11, which came along in 1921, followed the oil strike at Norman Wells, Northwest Territories in 1920.

In a very hurried way the government had to quickly throw a treaty together to essentially make peace with the indigenous people in that area, so that it could access and harvest the very resources that sat under the feet of the original peoples. These traditional treaties were marred and tainted, as it were, as being very one-sided and self-serving.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the NDP caucus I am very proud to rise today and speak in favour of Bill C-14. I am proud to be a part of this. I think I can speak for the entire NDP caucus when I say that we share the same commitment and sentiment toward having the bill expeditiously pass through the House and on to the Senate, because we are very committed to getting this whole process through as quickly as we can.

I would like to begin by offering my recognition of and my thanks and heartfelt congratulations to the Tlicho people for having achieved this monumental point in their history, the product of more than decade of consultations and negotiations. The agreement between the Tlicho and the governments of Canada and the Northwest Territories is something for all of us here today to be proud of.

I would specifically like to recognize and pay tribute to a few people: Grand Chief Joe Rabesca, along with the chiefs from the various communities of the Tlicho territory, both his negotiating teams, with Mr. John B. Zoe, who was the chief negotiator, as well as Eddie Erasmus and James Washie, self-government specialists.

We believe that with the signing of this agreement we begin a new chapter in Canada's history today. I believe that with this agreement we are strengthening Canada's federation. We are in a way committing ourselves to a new north, one that represents the vision and the spirit of the people who live there. By doing so, I believe that we make our country stronger and better able to meet the challenges of the future.

This historic agreement is the first and the most comprehensive land claim and self-government agreement in the Northwest Territories. It can serve as a model, but not as a template, I caution, for other communities in Canada and in fact for other countries for implementing self-government, because this agreement defines rights and shows the world how diversity creates strength and how partnership builds on this model.

As a result of the agreement, the Tlicho will receive a block of land just slightly smaller than Switzerland. On this land the Tlicho will own the resources, which will give them the tools they need to strengthen their culture and their future. I believe that agreements such as this one provide the certainty and the security that all of us need to plan for ourselves and our future; certainty and predictable decision making that will interest investment and growth in the north.

I am very proud to be here as a member of Parliament, as a member of the New Democratic Party and as a Canadian. I am proud because the agreement represents what is best about Canada, I believe. We should and can lead the world in the recognition of aboriginal rights. In fact, we are the only country in the world to recognize those rights in our Constitution.

Our history and experience to date in recognizing and acknowledging aboriginal and treaty rights have been Canada's greatest failure and Canada's greatest shame. This is why I am proud to be able to stand in the House of Commons and celebrate with the Tlicho people; that for once, this one time, Canada is doing the right thing in recognizing aboriginal and treaty rights as they manifest themselves in this historic document and this bill today, which gives force to the Tlicho agreement.

Aboriginal and treaty rights are, I believe, an expression of Canadian values, and with this agreement we put these values into writing. We show how values that seem abstract and intangible can in fact make a difference, creating opportunity, prosperity, a stronger north and a stronger Tlicho people. The agreement will touch on all aspects of life. It is unique in that way. In addition to encouraging economic development and partnership, it also paves the way for new jobs and educational opportunities.

The Tlicho government will be able to put in place programs that promote the Tlicho language and the Tlicho way of life. I was pleased to see the strong support this agreement had within the Tlicho people and to see that in fact this agreement finds its origins in the best principles of democratic process.

Ninety-three per cent of all of eligible voters came out to have their say in this historic agreement. Of that 93%, 84% voted yes to the Tlicho agreement. We should have such voter turnout in the broader Canadian mainstream democratic process. To my mind, with no hesitation and no degree of uncertainty, we can say that the Tlicho people have spoken. They were consulted. They understood. They came out to vote. They exercised the democratic process. They have spoken.

It is our job now as members of Parliament in the House of Commons to give force and effect to that agreement and not stand in the way of it or block it in any unnecessary way. We must pass Bill C-14 so that the Tlicho agreement can come into full force and effect.

It is one of the ironies in Canada that it often takes us much longer to reconcile ourselves with the consequences of historic events than it takes for them to unfold in the first place. There are perhaps no people in Canada more painfully aware of this than the Tlicho Dene of the Northwest Territories.

The Tlicho, who number about 3,000, live in the four communities of Behcho Ko, Wha Ti, Gameti and Wekweti, Snare Lake, some of the oldest and most traditional aboriginal communities anywhere in Canada or in the north. They are also one of the most dangerously threatened aboriginal groups, having been devastated by disease from the outside world. By 1900, 1 in 10 Tlicho had died from measles. An influenza epidemic in 1928, and I quote one of the historical writers of the time, “left so many dead that in many camps there was no one left to bury them”. By 1940, many anthropologists felt that the Dogrib people could never survive, that they were on the road to extinction, an endangered species, so to speak.

The road back has been an arduous one and a journey of decades, but it has led to a settlement that sets proud new standards of aboriginal self-government, resource management and social services. In a nutshell, this agreement puts in force the conditions by which aboriginal peoples can control their own destiny.

I do not need to remind anyone of what we have heard in the House of Commons many times: that all the empirical evidence and all the studies indicate that successful economic development among first nation communities is directly proportional to their degree of self-governance, their degree of self-determination. Those are the successful models of the famous Harvard study by Stephen Cornell, who went all through the United States and showed which communities are making it and which are failing. The ones making it are the ones that have the highest degree of self-determination. That is what this act today and the Tlicho agreement give.

The first milestone on the road back from virtual extinction was the year 1970. It was then that the Trudeau government of the day approved in principle what one scientist had been calling the largest engineering venture ever undertaken by man, which was the construction of the Mackenzie Valley oil and gas pipeline. We know that the long term consequences of that pipeline were of great interest to people of the day, both in the north and in the south. There were great reservations about building this pipeline and about the effect it would have not only on the environment but in regard to the social and cultural impact on the people of the area.

There were many social concerns, of course, and at that time the Berger inquiry in 1975 led a royal commission into the proposed pipeline. After almost two years of hearings in every community along the proposed pipeline, Berger recommended a 10 year moratorium so that further environmental study could take place during the negotiation of native land claims as well.

It was Berger's point of view that northern aboriginal people, the Métis, first nations and Inuit, must become full and equal partners in any future development project and thereby reclaim former levels of aboriginal self-governance. I put it to everyone today that for 1975 this was radical thinking. This was an insight that was hard to sell and even more difficult for southerners to understand, but we can see now that there was great wisdom in what Berger wrote at that time. The moratorium was granted by the prime minister of the day, Pierre Trudeau, and the negotiations began in earnest. This, I argue, was the beginning of the road back.

At one time, really not that long ago, we talked about the northern trinity in northern Canada. The northern trinity meant that southern Canadians were the guardians of the north. The Hudson's Bay Company, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Christian churches constituted the northern trinity of southerners who were dictating how the north should develop and how it should unfold.

It really was not until the interest in the north generated by the Mackenzie Valley pipeline in that region finally broke this trinity that reason and logic and a different mindset in fact took over. That began the long and arduous process which has resulted in the coming to this debate in the House of Commons today at third reading a bill that will give manifestation to an agreement that represents a generation or more of historical progress, I would say, for aboriginal people in that region of Canada's north.

This treaty is the latest and perhaps the most innovative example of cooperation and consultation today among the three levels of government: territorial, federal and aboriginal. Many MPs here would be interested to know that the original claim that was contemplated was 230,000 square kilometres, roughly the size of the Yukon territory. This was the traditional territory called Monfwi gogwas ndeniitle and was first legally identified by Tlicho chief Monfwi at the Treaty 8 signing in 1921. This was the origin and the starting point for these long processes of negotiations.

In the final agreement, instead of the 230,000 square kilometres that constitute the traditional territory of the Tlicho people, we have ended up agreeing upon an area of roughly 39,000 square kilometres of land in fee simple title and providing $152 million of federal funding over 15 years. This land claim, with a land mass that is seven times the size of Prince Edward Island and, as I said earlier, roughly the size of Switzerland, includes the northern territory of Yellowknife between Great Slave and Great Bear Lakes, bordering Nunavut.

The agreement would mean that the Tlicho would hold complete surface and subsurface resource rights, full hunting and trapping rights and control over renewable and non-renewable resource harvesting, something that I personally celebrate. Being maybe one of the few people in Canada, other than those in this room, who has read the Indian Act, I am aware of how little access to resources was afforded to those aboriginal people under the Indian Act.

In fact, the only specific natural resources cited in the Indian Act for the use of Indians are gravel, clay, mud, sand and other worthless commodities. There is no mention in the Indian Act of oil, natural gas, diamonds, gold, pearls or rubies, any of the things we can think of that have of any value, or even trees or fish.

None of them are mentioned in the Indian Act. Indians are not allowed access to those things. They are allowed access to mud, gravel and clay, and then people in the south ask why these people do not exercise some entrepreneurship and go out and create small businesses. Out of what? Mud, gravel, clay or sand?

Are you signalling me, Madam Speaker?

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary North Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-14, the Tlicho land claims and self-government act.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like at the outset to join my colleagues in welcoming the Tlicho dignitaries to the House today. This is indeed a strong community, one with strong leadership. The Tlicho elders, their negotiators and council members under the leadership of Grand Chief Rabesca deserve our recognition today.

The questions which our party has spoken to with respect to this agreement concern themselves less with the future direction of the Tlicho people and more with the failure on the part of the Government of Canada to achieve with this treaty something which will be endurable and in the best interests of Canada.

I intend to place on the record particular concerns which we have, having recently come into possession of a copy of the cabinet framework within which this very agreement was negotiated. It is quite evident that the agreement as negotiated does not accord with the directions and approvals that were given by cabinet to the negotiators.

I intend to place some of that on the record in the course of my comments today. Members will see that in a number of very important respects, specifically the issues that our party has raised in the House of Commons previously, the cabinet which authorized the conduct of these negotiations was itself concerned about these very issues.

I think everyone is aware that I have had a lengthy history in this country as an outspoken advocate on fairness in the resolution of claims, both as a negotiator on the Sturgeon Lake tripartite settlement and also as a commissioner of the Indian Claims Commission where I served for some 10 years and assisted as a co-chair of that commission.

I have felt throughout that time that it is in Canada's best interests to resolve comprehensive claims and to achieve certainty through the negotiation of self-government agreements. I have also, however, for nearly 20 years been very outspoken about the need to resolve these issues and claims in a way that is in the best interests of Canada, and which ensures that Canada's international sovereignty is protected, and that our Constitution and charter are respected and that we have workable systems of government. Those are the very concerns which we have raised in the House and which I will speak to today.

Ultimately, we anticipate that the Tlicho legislation will clear Parliament because the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Québécois are supportive of this legislation. Our party is the only party that has spoken in terms of the long term governability of this country and concerns that we have with the agreement.

It warrants emphasis that this may be the most significant Indian treaty negotiated in the past 100 years. It is the first modern treaty which combines both a comprehensive claim settlement and a self-government agreement. It will create a Tlicho government in the Northwest Territories. That government will have greater jurisdiction than a municipality. It will have greater jurisdiction than a province.

The lands now owned by the Tlicho under this agreement, assuming it is approved by the House, will be the largest aboriginal land holding in North America, consisting of lands approximately half the size of New Brunswick. The Tlicho people will receive approximately $150 million. The agreement also will define a precedent for negotiations with the other Dene first nations in the Northwest Territories, specifically the Sahtu, the Gwich'in, the Akaitcho, the Deh Cho and the Inuvialuit.

The Conservative Party's opposition to the Tlicho legislation, as I say, relates not to our concerns about the Tlicho themselves, but rather to Canada's failure in the negotiating process to protect Canada's best interests on these four points: first, incursions upon Canada's sovereignty and external relations; second, concerns regarding the failure to achieve public government in the Northwest Territories; third, the absence of finality; and fourth, jurisdictional overlap and confusion.

We have consistently voiced our concerns in a principled way, but last week I came into possession of a supporting document from an unexpected source, the 1995 cabinet approval which authorized the Tlicho negotiations. This document warrants emphasis because it speaks to the very concerns which the Conservative Party has raised about this agreement.

Let me first address the matter of Canadian sovereignty. The 1995 cabinet document, which authorized the commencement of the Tlicho negotiations and other inherent self-government negotiations, could not possibly be clearer. Item number 14, on matters not for negotiation, states that there are a number of subject matters that the federal government is not prepared to negotiate with aboriginal groups in the context of implementing the inherent right of self-government. These subject matters fall into two categories: first, powers relating to Canadian sovereignty, defence and external relations; and second, other national interest powers. It states that In these areas exclusive jurisdiction must remain with the federal government.

Moreover, it states that there are no compelling reasons for aboriginal governments of institutions to exercise powers in these areas which cannot be characterized as either integral to aboriginal culture or internal to aboriginal groups. Subject matters in this category would include international diplomatic relations and foreign policy.

This is a remarkable document. We have the very cabinet approval which initiated the negotiation of this agreement. It is a substantial document, 60 to 70 pages in length, well thought out and well crafted. It recommended that Canada not compromise its external relations or its international sovereignty in any way in any of these negotiations.

One thing is perfectly clear about this agreement; and that is, in item 7.13, Canada has negotiated very specifically with respect to international legal obligations. Included in the agreement is item 7.13.2, which has been spoken to earlier. It states:

Prior to consenting to be bound by an international treaty that may affect a right of the Tlicho Government, the Tlicho First Nation or a Tlicho Citizen, flowing from the Agreement, the Government of Canada shall provide an opportunity for the Tlicho Government to make its views known with respect to the international treaty either separately or through a forum.

The minister has spoken publicly about this provision. My understanding of what he has said is not to worry about the provision because in effect Canada can do what it wants anyway. That is very interesting. However, that is not what the agreement says. Moreover, the agreement contains an arbitration provision.

If Canada can do whatever it wants at the end of the day, why does this complicated agreement entrench in the Canadian Constitution an arbitration provision that governs the relationship between the Tlicho people and the Government of Canada in respect of international matters?

Clearly what has happened is that the executive branch of the government has failed to adhere to the very terms of reference under which these negotiations were authorized, and it leads to undeniable questions. Will these benefits be extended to other aboriginal groups with which self-government negotiations are undertaken? It is worth recognizing that there will be self-government tables in 631 other situation. Are all these other communities to be accorded the same right? Are other Canadians to be accorded the same right? Will this country be governable in terms of its foreign relations and external relations and its international sovereignty in 100 years if this pattern is replicated? That is the first issue that this agreement raises.

The second matter which I wish to address relates to the very difficult question of public governance. Once again, the cabinet approval of 1995 is remarkable in its clarity. It states that in the federal government's view, the creation of separate aboriginal governments in the Northwest Territories is neither practical nor feasible, although the creation of an aboriginal institutional capacity to exercise certain authorities or govern its participation in public government may be negotiated. However, the primary approach should focus on providing aboriginal people with specific guarantees within public government institutions.

What the cabinet recommended and approved in 1995 was that the negotiations in the Northwest Territories should be conducted on the same basis as Nunavut. In Nunavut we have a public government. The different between a public government and what we have here is the difference between a government in which all citizens have the right to participate and have equal democratic status, on the one hand being a public government and a situation in which governance is based upon race and upon registration.

What happened in 1995 is the cabinet said not to go there, because the consequences were clear. We will not now have public government in the Northwest Territories in the way that cabinet recommended in 1995. Instead we will have a series of racially based states up the Mackenzie Valley in which the democratic status of individual Canadians depends upon their categorization under the Indian Act.

It is not only the Conservative Party that has recommended against this, it is the cabinet of the government in 1995 that said not to get into this kind of arrangement.

In other words, in the future in the Northwest Territories, as the government sees it, Canadian citizens will not enjoy the same democratic rights, depending upon whether they are an aboriginal person or a non-aboriginal person. In fact, an aboriginal person, such as a Métis, will not have the same democratic position as a citizen who is an Indian registered under the Indian Act.

The Tlicho government is exactly the kind of aboriginal government that the cabinet recommended against in 1995 and the difference is profound, as one can see in comparing what will happen in the Northwest Territories to what has happened in Nunavut.

Last week in the National Post the minister published a letter to the editor addressing this issue. He put forward the most remarkable proposition which I have heard in some time. He said that we should not worry about this issue because 90% of the people who comprised the local population were registered Indian citizens anyway”. That is a remarkable proposition. If that is the policy of the government with respect to democratic franchise and the advancement of the rights of Canadian citizens under the charter, then Canadians need to know. It is an incredible proposition. If it applied in this country reciprocally, we will have the sort of country in which I do not believe Canadians are interested.

All this gives rise to important charter issues. The government states that the charter applies to all Canadians and it applies to the Tlicho. Unfortunately, that response is superficial and it does not reflect a close analysis of the documents which are being approved by the House of Commons.

It ignores, firstly, the possible ramifications of section 25 of the Constitution which specifically says that the provisions of the charter do not apply to aboriginal self-government and to aboriginal Canadians in the same way that they apply to other citizens. There are differences. It also ignores the Tlicho people's own constitution, which has been created under this legislative framework, that establishes two official languages, for example, neither of which is the French language.

Most interestingly, if one examines the Tlicho constitution, one will see that decisions of the Tlicho government are not open to question or challenge in any judicial form. If the Canadian Charter does apply, that is a very remarkable application which has no other parallels in Canada of which I am aware. It is a prohibitive clause that says that government decisions cannot be taken to court.

That is what we are creating with this legislative framework. In response the government says that on a superficial basis the charter is respected because all Canadians live under the charter. The government is not looking specifically at what it is doing in this document.

The next matter in respect of which our party has spoken is the whole question of finality. I have said that the Tlicho people and the Tlicho negotiators deserve our admiration. They are credible people. They are conscientious. They have done a remarkable job in their negotiations. They have achieved a comprehensive claims settlement which is generous, and we make no criticism of the generosity of it. However, it is decidedly less final than other modern settlements. It can be, for example, compared with the Nisga'a treaty.

The Nisga'a agreement is a fair comparison because it was negotiated several years ago. The Nisga'a people signed off on their rights and entitlements under section 35 of the Constitution. They executed releases and indemnities. They ceded and surrendered their wider aboriginal title. They agreed after a transitional period to be subject to Canada income taxation.

None of those matters form part of the Tlicho agreement. One should examine other agreements such as the Labrador Inuit comprehensive claim settlement, which will be before the House after Christmas. It is an agreement that provides finality and certainty. Why does this one not? That is the question which we have raised in the House of Commons and at committee, and in respect of which we have not received an answer. There is in addition the clause contained in the agreement which allows matters of tax power, tax exemption, royalties and the like to be opened up in the future as well.

The fourth issue is the question of constitutional workability. No one need take my word on this. They need only refer to the independent examiner retained by the federal government who published the smart regulation report. This is a report of which the government is proud and of which it speaks often.

The smart regulation report says that the Northwest Territories at this point in terms of regulation is a spiderweb of complexity that it is essentially stands to threaten the Mackenzie Valley pipeline because there is a myriad of governments and legislation, federal, territorial, and aboriginal, and a myriad of boards and agencies. In that case it is will take the proponents of the pipeline over 2,000 approvals to build the Mackenzie Valley pipeline.

Now this agreement does absolutely nothing to simplify or clarify the complexity which the government has made out of the Northwest Territories. In fact, it adopts a model of federal aboriginal concurrence with Tlicho paramountcy, which will make the situation even more confusing. The provisions of this agreement are extraordinarily complex. They are sometimes inconsistent and they are extremely ambiguous in terms of the paramountcy provisions.

What is most concerning is we are taking a 208 page legal document and incorporating it into the Canadian Constitution as a treaty. The entire Canadian Constitution is only 50 pages in length. We are adopting a 208 page document, constitutionally entrenching it and doing it in a way that the Parliament of Canada can never amend it because it becomes a section 35 constitutionally entrenched document.

Other jurisdictions, such as British Columbia, have wisely said that this is not a prudent strategy. The point that I will make again is the 1995 cabinet approval says “don't do this” because we will be effectively be incorporating all the nuts and bolts of government into a constitutional document that cannot be amended.

Those are the reasons that our party has spoken against the agreement and the legislation. It is an important agreement and a precedent setting agreement for which we have grave concerns.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Minister of State (Northern Development)]

Mr. Speaker, today is indeed a historic day for Canada, the Tlicho and the House. Today it is our solemn duty to consider the merits of Bill C-14 as we enter the final debate in the House on the Tlicho agreement. I am convinced that a close examination of the proposed legislation will reveal its numerous advantages for the Tlicho, for the north and for Canada.

I wish to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development for their support and valuable insight, as the bill has worked its way through the House rather expeditiously. The legislation is a testament of what we can achieve together when we work in partnership.

On that note, I would also like to acknowledge the tireless efforts of all those who have been working with such unwavering determination to see the bill become a reality. We are honoured to have with us today the Tlicho leadership, elders, and members of the community who have worked so hard.

We have the Tlicho chiefs from all the Tlicho communities in the House today: Grand Chief Joe Rabesca, Chief Charlie Jim Nitsiza from Whati and his wife, Chief Archie Wetrade from Gameti and his spouse as well, Chief Joseph Judas from Wekweti and Chief Clifford Daniels from Behchoko. All these people have their spouses with them.

The Elders Advisory Council has also travelled to Ottawa for this historic day, representedd by Alexi Arrowmaker, Jimmy B. Rabesca, Joe Migwi and Harry Simpson. The Tlicho negotiators are here as well. They are John B. Zoe, Ted Blondin, Eddie Erasmus and James Wahshie. The legal counsel are Colin Salter and Bertha Rabesca-Zoe.

This is a delegation that deserves to be here and to see the benefits of their really hard work over the years and decades. A delegation of people whose support was crucial in getting to this point includes Violet Camsell-Blondin, Frances Erasmus, Georgina Franki and James Rabesca. All of these people demonstrated selfless dedication and perseverance in making the agreement possible. They spent a lot of time on the road away from their families and communities making. They did not consider it to be a sacrifice but rather a dedication in seeing a future for their people.

For more than 10 years the Tlicho, the governments of Canada and the Northwest Territories have worked toward this agreement. The legislation before us today is a response to changing circumstances and challenging conditions. It represents nothing less than the inspiration of a proud and determined people committed to flourish in today's north and in Canada.

The enactment of Bill C-14, and the agreement that it enshrines, will not only foster greater economic and social development in the Tlicho communities, it will also allow us, as a country, to build on the great progress we have made in resolving aboriginal issues.

After all, this is one of the most prosperous and successful aboriginal communities in the north. The agreement defines and delineates Tlicho rights with respect to lands, resources and self-government. Indeed, many observers have stated publicly that the clarification of Tlicho rights may well be the single most advantageous aspect of the agreement.

This clarity will lead to substantial benefits for the Tlicho and for all Canadians. It was a truly visionary and forward thinking move that back in the 1960s, Tlicho leaders began a comprehensive process of consultation and negotiation upon recognizing the need to protect their traditional way of life and seeing the opportunity to benefit from modern enterprise.

Their objective, as captured by Chief Jimmy Bruneau, was to become strong like two people, to blend traditional beliefs with modern practices. During the past 10 years, the Tlicho people have realized Chief Bruneau's vision. They have moved decisively to protect their past and secure their future by following an approach based on traditional, and modern beliefs and practices.

After 16 years of being in the House, I am not prone to being nervous, but I am quite nervous today. I am a little intimidated because these are very powerful people and very powerful leaders from my riding. This is such an important piece of legislation that I am afraid to make a mistake.

To ensure the survival of their culture, the Tlicho people drafted and ratified a constitution that honours their language and customs. It is important to note that the Tlicho constitution states clearly that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to the Tlicho government thereby protecting the democratic rights and freedoms of those who reside on Tlicho lands. Non-Tlicho citizens, for instance, may be appointed or elected to serve in Tlicho institutions.

To foster economic and social prosperity, the Tlicho negotiated mutually beneficial agreements with private companies and public sector organizations. To facilitate greater cooperation with neighbouring aboriginal groups, the Tlicho finalized overlap agreements that have clarified land boundaries.

The fact that the Tlicho people are one of the most progressive aboriginal groups in Canada is linked to their consultative and collaborative abilities, their careful consideration of every voice, and their willingness to accept dissent yet still achieve consensus. I have personally watched the consultation process that they used in bringing all of their people along every step of the way. The way in which they engaged the elders to be informed and all of their citizens to be part of this was really quite an extraordinary piece of work in and of itself.

Enacting this piece of legislation could not be more timely because of the readiness of the Tlicho people to advance to true and complete self-government. The Tlicho people have amply demonstrated their ability to exercise the powers granted under Bill C-14 wisely. After all, the Tlicho have established and maintained a series of successful partnerships to deliver social services, develop economic opportunities, and build community infrastructure.

The Tlicho were the first aboriginal group in Canada to establish an independent school board, and today operate five schools with a high school graduation rate that has far exceeded expectations from just a decade ago.

Today they also run a seniors residence, and this residence is magic. It is a wonderful accommodation of what people need in terms of modern medical needs and care, and also traditional needs. They also have a day care centre and a prenatal group.

The Tlicho have collaborated on projects to improve physical infrastructure in the north. In addition to building and maintaining their own airport, the Tlicho people, in collaboration with the Northwest Territories Power Corporation, established a run-of-the-river hydro generating station on the Snare River-Snare Cascades. Today the station generates approximately 7% of the region's electrical capacity.

The Tlicho people are involved in numerous ventures across a range of economic sectors such as tourism and mining. They secured impact benefit agreements with two diamond mining companies, Diavik and BHP Billiton. These agreements deliver significant benefits such as employment and contracting opportunities, along with training and scholarship programs.

To maximize the potential long term benefits of the diamond mines, the Tlicho partnered with ATCO Frontec to create Tlicho Logistics. This giant company supplies support services to mining projects and ensures that Tlicho employees receive on the job training in effective management and administration practices. With these skills, the Tlicho are more likely to succeed on future projects.

This focus on economic development has not diminished the Tlicho's strong connection to heritage. The trails of our ancestors program is but one small example. This annual 10 day canoe trip, led by Tlicho elders and leaders, enables up to 200 community members of all ages to fish, hunt, paddle, and camp together on traditional waterways and lands. The trip celebrates the spiritual bond with the land that has long been a central feature of Tlicho culture.

To guarantee that future generations can also connect with their traditional lands, the Tlicho people negotiated the agreement at the heart of Bill C-14. Under the agreement, the Tlicho will acquire approximately 39,000 square kilometres of territory, along with rights over subsurface resources. To manage this effectively, the Tlicho government will be created. Among other responsibilities, this government will manage resources and enact laws in areas such as aboriginal language and culture.

The roles and responsibilities of all elected officials are set out in the Tlicho constitution. The constitution includes a number of provisions to ensure that the Tlicho government is politically and financially accountable and that the rights and freedoms of all residents, including non-Tlicho citizens, are protected.

Along with these new powers, the Tlicho would assume several new responsibilities. Once Bill C-14 becomes law, for instance, the Indian Act would no longer apply to the Tlicho people. They would however be subject to all federal legislation of general application such as the Criminal Code. Like all Canadians, the Tlicho would continue to be subject to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Bill C-14 would have little effect on Canada's international legal obligations. As legal counsel for the Tlicho stated clearly to the committee reviewing the bill, “There is nothing in this agreement that interferes with Canada's jurisdiction to enter into international agreements”.

I am convinced that the agreement will soon have a significant and positive impact within Canada as the Tlicho realize the numerous advantages that self-government would make available. With an open, transparent and accountable government in place, the Tlicho would be better able to attract new investors and business partners, and foster economic growth.

They have done that without legislation already and Bill C-14 would empower that move even more. The Tlicho would be better able to design and deliver enhanced social services and improve the availability of safe and affordable housing. The Tlicho people would also be better able to develop a high quality education system that meets the needs of their communities.

Ultimately, as Tlicho communities grow stronger and more self-sufficient, all Canadians stand to benefit. Furthermore, the success of the Tlicho would be a success for Canada. The Tlicho would inspire other aboriginal communities to realize their own vision of self-government and prosperity.

Today we have an opportunity to send a clear message to all Canadians that the government is determined to work with aboriginal communities and enable them to reach their whole potential. The legislation before us today carries the principled and worthy aspirations of a people, and provides a road map for other first nations, Inuit, Metis and northerners to follow.

I hope that I can count on the support of my hon. colleagues to help us move the legislation to the Senate for final approval in order to give the Tlicho people the tools they need to build the future they deserve and desire.

Bill C-14 is an outstanding piece of work put together by the people from my territory and from their own territory. These people have a long history and an attachment to their land, and a vision for their people. This is what the real Canada is all about. Canada is about a place of equal opportunity for everyone. This legislation gives full expression to what the leadership has as a vision for its people.

I implore my hon. colleagues to support Bill C-14 and help us get it through so that we can have a full and complete cycle of Tlicho legislation in place.

Business of the House

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we will continue this afternoon with the opposition motion.

Tomorrow we will commence with the third reading debate of Bill C-5, the learning bonds legislation. When that is completed, we will return to the second reading debate of Bill C-22, the social development bill. We will then return to the second reading debate of Bill C-9, the Quebec development bill; followed by second reading of Bill C-25, respecting RADARSAT; reference to committee before second reading of Bill C-27, the food inspection bill; and second reading of Bill C-26, the border services bill.

On Monday and Tuesday we will start with report stage and third reading of Bill C-14, the Tlicho bill, before going back to unfinished business.

Pursuant to Standing Order 53(1) a take note debate on credit cards will take place on Tuesday evening, December 7.

The business on Wednesday will be second reading of a bill to be introduced tomorrow respecting parliamentary compensation.

Next Thursday shall be an allotted day.

Finally, the government made a commitment to Canadians to treat compensation of parliamentarians separately and apart from that of judges. It is quite logical to take that step in an independent bill that deals only with the compensation of parliamentarians and to deal with the question of judges in a subsequent bill.

The hon. member seems to suggest that parliamentarians and judges should be treated exactly the same. We think that Canadians recognize that their respective duties, tenure and roles are quite different and that in fact they should be dealt with differently and separately. That is why we will be introducing the bill on MP compensation and dealing with it next week.

Committees of the House

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. The committee has considered its order of reference of Tuesday, November 2, 2004, Bill C-14, 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.

The committee has considered Bill C-14 and has agreed to report it without amendment.

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 second reading stage of Bill C-14.

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

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise this afternoon to offer a few thoughts on behalf of my constituents of Prince George—Peace River on Bill C-14, the bill that would bring the force of law to an agreement signed on August 25, 2003 between the federal government, the Northwest Territories government and the Tlicho Nation.

As has been stated by a number of my colleagues, and recently by my colleague from Brandon--Souris, the official opposition, the Conservative Party of Canada, is opposed to the agreement for a number of reasons.

I want to state at the outset that one of the things we have great difficulty with is the way in which the bill was brought forward and the fact that it cannot be amended, which creates a great deal of problems. Today during question period the minister avoided and evaded serious, sensible and common sense questions that were put forward on Bill C-14 by the official opposition by stating that the bill would go before committee and that our concerns could be known there.

It is becoming plain, not only to the official opposition but to Canadians from coast to coast, that the bill cannot be amended. It was brought forward by a ways and means motion, so in effect the government has said it is an all or nothing situation. We either accept it the way it is or we reject it. There is no way concerns can be brought forward and dealt with in any substantive manner.

I want to pay special tribute to our aboriginal affairs critic, the member for Calgary Centre-North, who has done an outstanding job in his short time in this chamber dealing with this legislation. I am sure he will go on to provide some insightful analysis to a lot of legislation as we move forward.

I also want to make it very clear that I and my colleagues would like to see these negotiations and these agreements brought to a conclusion. It is not like we are trying to stand in the way of negotiating what is fair, not only to the aboriginal people of Canada, the ones who have waited, in some cases, over 100 years now, for a treaty, for some finality and some certainty in their negotiations. It is not like we are opposed to that. Far from it. What we want to see, what they themselves and what Canadians at large want to see is not only some certainty but some fairness on both sides.

This is like a contract between two people. A contract should be fair to both parties. It is not helpful to either side to put a contract in place that is perhaps ambiguous or confusing. As my colleague from Brandon—Souris just mentioned, after a cursory examination of the legislation, what strikes us is how confusing and how ambiguous the language being used really is. It is a lawyer's dream come true.

As sure as I am standing in this chamber this afternoon, Bill C-14 will be before the courts before it is done. There will be some dispute in the future about it. I do not think it is helpful for the Tlicho people or Canadians who will end up paying the bill for the ongoing court cases. They want to see these things settled in a fair manner and they want finality. As we have heard from speaker after speaker on behalf of the official opposition, that is not the case with Bill C-14.

I want to reiterate for the record and on behalf of my constituents of Prince George—Peace River that I am proud and pleased to represent a huge northern riding that is just southwest of the area we are discussing under Bill C-14. Prince George—Peace River is about one-quarter of the land mass of northeastern British Columbia. It straddles the Rocky Mountains. We are pleased and proud to be home to a lot of aboriginal people. A lot of first nations make their homes in Prince George—Peace River. It is not that we do not have some problems there as well. We want to ensure fairness, not only in my riding but in areas, ridings and regions all across the country regardless of the province or the territory. We want to see fairness, we want to see finality and we want to see certainty.

In the four areas as laid out by a number of my colleagues, it is not a final agreement. As has been pointed out, if subsequent agreements that are under negotiation now actually bring in some clauses that are more beneficial to the Tlicho people, they can reopen negotiations. It is not final. That is a concern.

One thing that I have heard consistently in the 11 years that I have been the member of Parliament for Prince George—Peace River from people on both sides of the issue is they want these ongoing disputes to be settled in a fair manner, but they want them to be final. They want it to be like a contract that people would enter into when they purchased a home or bought a car. It is a final agreement and is bound by law. It is not that one side later on can say, “My buddy Joe down the street got a little better deal when he bought his new car, so I want to revisit this” and the person goes back to the dealer. Imagine what the dealer would say. He would tell the person to blow it out his ear, that he entered into a contract, signed it on the dotted line and it is final. It is an agreement.

These are concerns that we are bringing forward and as I say a lot of this is a lot of confusing language. The second thing is it appears to, and I would stress appears to, recognize the right of the Tlicho to enter into international agreements. That is of concern to us.

Third, it creates a racially based electoral system. A number of other people have talked about that. I remember that we have talked about that in a number of agreements, whether it was the Westbank agreement in the last Parliament or the Nisga'a agreement. We are concerned that we are setting up some sort of two tier electoral system in Canada. I do not think that is what the first nations people want and I do not think it is what Canadians want. They want all Canadians to be treated equally.

Fourth, the agreement is jurisdictionally confusing. I have already talked about that. I think the greatest confusion with regard to that was asked of the minister in question period today by one of my colleagues. He asked if, in the final analysis, push came to shove would the Tlicho agreement take supremacy or would it fall under the supremacy of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

That is a critical question to ask, and it should be an easy question for the government to answer. Yet the minister avoided the question. He ducked the question. That is of concern. It should be of concern to the Tlicho people themselves. They should be concerned that this is so ambiguous as to be confusing as to which would be supreme in the end.

It sets a precedent. We have also discussed that. It sets a very dangerous precedent because of a number of these issues that other bands will look at and say that the Government of Canada and by extension the people of Canada have entered into this agreement and they want the same thing, and rightly so. If I were next in line to negotiate, I would want the same provisions and the same loopholes, if I could call them that, or vagueness, to allow me wiggle room down the road if I wanted to renegotiate.

On this whole third order of government, I very vividly recall the Charlottetown accord referendum. I can say that the people in my riding voted overwhelmingly against it. In fact I think the strongest no vote against Charlottetown in Canada was Prince George—Peace River in 1992.

One of the huge concerns, and there were many with that accord, was this undefined third order of government and the powers that it may or may not be given. I want it on the record that the people of my riding certainly are opposed to this ill defined third order of government, rather than having something similar to a municipal government which I think all people would support.

I want to make a point on behalf of the aboriginal people themselves. I would hope that when we do negotiate these agreements and bring them forward and have at least some semblance of finality to it that the grassroots people are better off and that it is not just their government, it is not just the chiefs, the consultants and the advisors that are better off, but the grassroots people themselves.

All too often, despite the billions being spent through aboriginal affairs and northern development, I have witnessed in my riding and indeed across the country that the grassroots people themselves are no better off than they were 50 years ago.

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join our party in opposition to Bill C-14, the Tlicho land claim agreement.

The Conservative Party agrees with the spirit of the agreement but it has grave concerns relating to four areas of the treaty specifically. Those are the absence of finality, incursions upon Canada's international autonomy, jurisdictional confusion and the adoption of governance structures which are racially based.

This agreement is most notably unique in that it ratifies both land claim and self-government agreements at the same time. This is the first time this has happened and for this reason it will serve to set a precedent for all future agreements for as many as 600 first nations in this country that are still negotiating land claim agreements.

I want to deal with the four points that I mentioned at the start. The first one I will deal with will be the absence of finality. It is the first problem. I know many of my colleagues have spoken to the issue that the agreement is not a final agreement. I think what most Canadians are asking and what the people in my constituency in the province of Manitoba have asked is finality; that when the deal is made a deal is done and a deal is completed. This certainly does not allow for that.

It is my understanding that land claims are supposed to be final settlements. It was the case in the Nisga'a agreement, but apparently it is not in this case. I do want to put on the record some of the portions of the final agreement with the Nisga'a. The agreement states:

This Agreement constitutes the full and final settlement in respect of the aboriginal rights, including aboriginal title, in Canada of the Nisga'a Nation.

Article 23 reads:

This Agreement exhaustively sets out Nisga'a section 35 rights, the geographic extent of thoserights, and the limitations to those rights, to which the Parties have agreed, and those rightsare:

a. the aboriginal rights, including aboriginal title, as modified by this Agreement, in Canada of the Nisga'a Nation and its people in and to Nisga'a Lands and other lands and resources in Canada;

b. the jurisdictions, authorities, and rights of Nisga'a Government; and

c. the other Nisga'a section 35 rights.

Further to that article, article 26 reads:

If, despite this Agreement and the settlement legislation, the Nisga'a Nation has an aboriginal right, including aboriginal title, in Canada, that is other than, or different in attributes or geographical extent from, the Nisga'a section 35 rights as set out in this Agreement, the Nisga'a Nation releases that aboriginal right to Canada to the extent that the aboriginal right is other than, or different in attributes or geographical extent from, the Nisga'a section 35 rights as set out in this Agreement.

Article 27.6.1 grants that if the Government of Canada or the Government of the Northwest Territories ever gives another aboriginal people greater tax powers or tax exemptions, whether by land claims agreement, self-government agreement, tax power exemption or legislation than that negotiated with the Tlicho, then the federal and territorial governments must reopen negotiations with the Tlicho to provide them with equal benefits.

We can be sure that every one of the 600 first nations still negotiating agreements will demand the same clause in their own agreements.

Potentially what this agreement could be doing is setting up a system of perpetual one-upmanship among Canada's first nations. Do not think that this could not happen, as the Akaitcho and Deh Cho First Nations that border the Tlicho are both seeking their own land claims as we speak. They will not settle for less and that could start the trend upward very soon.

The second part in my opening comments concerns the incursions upon Canada's international autonomy. Article 2.9 does not limit the authority of the Tlicho to enter into international, national, interprovincial and interterritorial agreements. This, in my understanding, means that the Tlicho government has the authority to enter into international agreements.

Does the Government of Canada have veto power over an agreement if it could have potential negative impacts on Canada as a whole? It is unclear, as this agreement is so ambiguous and poorly written that one cannot even answer these questions without vague assumptions or outright guesses.

To add to the confusing morass, the agreement indicates under article 7.13.2 that the Government of Canada will have to consult with the Tlicho if an international treaty may affect the rights of one Tlicho citizen. Provinces do not have these rights, and the government may be giving them out without thinking twice.

Our next concern is with regard to jurisdictional confusion. This agreement would effectively create a third order of government whose authority would be superior to that of the federal and territorial governments in certain matters. The jurisdictional confusion is exacerbated by the fact that the wording of the agreement is confusing as to which legislation, federal, territorial, Tlicho or the charter, is paramount in the event of conflict with the Tlicho constitution.

The agreement addresses these interjurisdictional issues in at least three places and prescribes three distinct paramount provisions.

First, in articles 7.7.2 through 7.7.4, Tlicho laws prevail over territorial laws and also over federal laws relating to the Tlicho. The federal government seems, therefore, to have rendered specific federal legislation relating to the Tlicho subordinate to the Tlicho laws.

Continuing on this confusing path, article 2.8.3 introduces yet another concept of paramountcy, in that it makes the settlement legislation, presumably Bill C-14, paramount over the provisions of any other legislation or Tlicho laws.

Unfortunately, for the sake of consistency and clarity, article 2.10.7 prescribes yet another legislative hierarchy which applies in the event of arbitration.

The problem here is that there seems to be multiple definitions of how to determine supremacy in the event of conflict between the Constitution of Canada, the charter, territorial legislation, Tlicho legislation and the agreement itself. One can only imagine the legal problems and confusion that this agreement will create if passed in its current form.

My final point is that it would create a racially based electoral system. The agreement also would create a category of citizens called Tlicho citizens who are the only people who may be elected as chiefs, and 50% of the elected councillors must be Tlicho citizens. This is arguably counter to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and we can almost be assured that it will be subject to a charter challenge, if the charter even ends up applying in Tlicho territory.

We believe that aboriginal agreements reached with the federal government must represent a final agreement in the same manner as was achieved with the Nisga'a. We believe that self-government agreements must be structured so as to ensure constitutional harmony and so as not to impede the overall governance of Canada.

We believe that the principles of the charter must apply to aboriginal self-government and that self-government must occur within the context of the Constitution of Canada.

If those principles cannot be upheld, then I cannot support this agreement.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, just before question period I was talking about Bill C-14, the Tlicho land claims and self-government act and the role that aboriginal Canadians have played in the history of the country. They certainly had a major role to play in the settlement of western Canada. There are dozens of treaties that were concluded by the colonial authorities and they had a beneficial effect for the country. It allowed us to establish our sovereignty over areas that we would have been in direct competition with the United States. It was very valuable.

However, today we have to recognize those treaties. We have to come to some conclusion on some of the vague terms that are contained therein. I see the particular act before Parliament as a continuation of the process, the process of fairness. However, I did not hear answers to some of the legitimate concerns that were raised by the member for Calgary Centre-North and by other members on this side of the House. Contrary to comments we have heard, this is the time and the place to discuss some of these things.

The second reading debate is when a bill is either accepted or rejected on principle, so it is legitimate that we raise some of these concerns. If the matter moves on to the committee, as I expect it probably will, I hope then finally some of the legitimate questions that have been raised will get answered. I hope they include, among other things, the question of finality.

We have heard testimony in the House that the agreement is not final, but that it will be opened up when any other land claim or self-government treaties are concluded. That means this process could go on ad infinitum. I believe there are about 70 land claim treaties in the mix right now and there are hundreds of other potential ones. It means that after each and every one of them, this one would be measured to see if some other group land claim treaty included more and therefore the Tlicho people would be included within that. As a result we do not attain any finality with this. I would like to see that matter addressed in the committee. I think it is a reasonable one.

As well, we heard comments with respect to Canada's obligations in the area of international treaties. If Canada concludes an international treaty, that treaty will be measured against the provisions of this agreement. There are provisions, I guess, for consultation and mediation.

What we could possibly have, and again it is one of those issues that should be addressed by the committee, is that Canada may very well be put in the position some day where it will be impossible for us to conclude international treaties because no future land claim agreement will have any less than this agreement. This would be the base for all future agreements.

Presumably the other 70 land claim agreements and self-government claims that are in the mix now will all want to be consulted when Canada gets into the business of international treaties. One could just imagine how difficult that would be to conclude if the federal government were under an obligation to go through a process of consultation, which is fair enough. For the process of mediation, I just want to know where that ends. What happens if the mediation is unsuccessful? I look forward to that being answered.

As well, I did not hear a complete answer to the question of what is supreme, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or this act? Is it a constitutional document? There is no question about that. Is it subject to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? I have seen wording in the agreement that says that whatever happens within this agreement, it should be “consistent with”. That is not quite the same as being subject to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

These are all important, vital questions because the government of the country has to be able to work and we have to be fair to all Canadians. I hope that process will have complete examination after the second reading stage in the committee.

Aboriginal Affairs

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary North Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is intended to protect all Canadians. However, with Bill C-14, the Tlicho act, the government is asking the House to adopt an agreement with language that is unclear with respect to the supremacy of the charter.

Notwithstanding the many contradictions between the Tlicho constitution and the charter, will the minister tell the House whether the highest law in Tlicho is the Canadian charter or the Tlicho constitution?

Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is Bill C-14, the Tlicho land claims and self-government act.

There have been a couple of important pieces of legislation that have been introduced into the 38th Parliament. One of them deals with the subject of child pornography, which I think is very important to Canadians. This too I believe is very important legislation, one that will have profound effects on Canadian society for many years to come. I am very pleased to speak to it, but I am somewhat concerned about matters that were raised in the debate by the member for Calgary Centre-North. Members will remember he raised a number of issues with respect to this agreement.

This is an agreement that comes before this chamber. We have every right to debate it, look at it and ensure that it is in the best interests of Canada, as well as in the best interests of the Tlicho people. I agree with the concept of native self-government. It is a good idea and it something that we should pursue. I believe, for a couple of reasons.

Members will remember that in the British North America Act, the federal government was given special responsibility with respect to Canada's natives. In the last 137 years it is fair to say that we have not done a good job of running the lives of Canada's aboriginal peoples. That alone commends the idea of native self-government to all Canadians. It is a good idea because it is fair and it is the right thing to do. Coupled with that is the fact that I do not believe as a society we have done a very good job trying to run their lives, nor should we have tried. That is the way the Constitution was originally written, so we must deal with it as we find it.

As well, I agree with the concept of native self-government because it is the fair thing to do if we look at the sweep of Canadian history. I appreciate the fact that there are many different first nation communities across the country. However, if we look at the history of modern Canada, we will see that at every stage of history of Canada the natives have played a vital part in the development of this half of the continent.

As we know, Canada occupies two million square miles of the northern half of North America. We are very fortunate people to have many natural resources and to have this land. It would not have been possible if we had not built up allies. As European settlements moved across the northern half of the continent, the allies we had with native communities were absolutely vital.

Members will remember the French regime. If we look at the history of Samuel de Champlain and the governors who followed him, it was absolutely vital for them to have their own community and society by building those allies with the natives who preceded them in Canada. The English colonies to the south were much more populace. They had more money and more resources at their disposal. Yet for several hundred years the French regime continued and prospered in Quebec and outside of Quebec, in part, because of the determination of the people themselves, their French allies and their native allies.

So, too, with the British regime. The British people found it expedient and to their best interests in a lightly populated country to make allies with native Canadians. Therefore, they are very much a part of the history.

For my own area of Niagara Falls, Major General Sir Isaac Brock reported back to then equivalent of the British war office, I suppose, as to what had happened in the war of 1812. He said that the victory of the British and the Canadians at Detroit had helped ensure that we would continue our independence in this part of the world. He said that it was absolutely essential and could not have been done without the support of his native allies.

In those instances in the history of Canada, our native allies were absolutely critical to the success of us being able to be a separate community on this part of the continent.

Also, if we look at the development of western Canada, British Columbia and the western provinces, we will find that all the way through, in a lightly populated part of the country, treaties were made with the local native groups to ensure that the Americans did not move into the Prairies, or into British Columbia or did not further expand Alaska--

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments of my colleagues and some of the comments of members on the government side. I also listened to the member for Calgary Centre-North, our critic for aboriginal affairs, who has done a good job in researching Bill C-14.

Like all matters dealing with aboriginal affairs, Bill C-14 is complicated and deserves intense and close study. This has nothing to do with an unwillingness on behalf of the Conservative Party to seek a final remedy for a number of first nations that are seeking land claims and treaties, but rather an attempt to bring some fairness to the issue.

Reference has been made to the Nisga'a treaty. I was aboriginal affairs critic at one time and supported the Nisga'a treaty. The treaty we have before us, as I have read it, is nothing like the Nisga'a treaty. They are totally separate issues.

I know some members of the House have taken exception to a number of issues in the treaty, such as the issue of paramountcy, which doe not particularly bother me as much as it may bother others. However I do find a number of other issues problematic, especially when it comes to international affairs. I have not heard a clear and concise explanation from the government side on them. They certainly deserve a much closer study and a much more introspective study by government members.

I would like to draw the House's attention to 7.13.2 which reads:

Prior to consenting to be bound by an international treaty that may affect a right of the Tlicho Government, the Tlicho First Nation or Tlicho Citizen, flowing from the Agreement, the Government of Canada shall provide an opportunity for the Tlicho Government to make its views known with respect to the international treaty either separately or through a forum.

That makes common sense to me and I would see no problem with that. I would think that any first nation about to ratify an international treaty signed by the Government of Canada would want an opportunity to look at that treaty.

I will go a step further here and read 7.13.3 which states:

Where the Government of Canada informs the Tlicho Government that it considers that a law or other exercise of power of the Tlicho Government causes Canada to be unable to perform an international legal obligation, the Tlicho Government and the Government of Canada shall discuss remedial measures to enable Canada to perform the international legal obligation. Subject to 7.13.4, the Tlicho Government shall remedy the law or other exercise of power to the extent necessary to enable Canada to perform the international legal obligation.

Again, this makes common sense. The Tlicho people would amend their laws, which makes sense. However now we get to the crux of the problem.

The crux of the problem is really in 7.13.4 which states:

If the arbitrator, having taken into account all relevant considerations including any reservations and exceptions available to Canada, determines that the Tlicho Government law or other exercise of power causes Canada to be unable to perform the international legal obligation, the Tlicho Government shall remedy the law or other exercise of power to enable Canada to perform the internal legal obligation.

Under the legislation, what would stop the Tlicho government from selling bulk water? We have agreements among the provinces and the territories. We are not about to start exporting bulk water, although it does cross the border every day through municipal agreements along the border. We sell bottled water to the U.S. under our obligations under NAFTA and under the WTO.

Just imagine for a minute what would happen if the Tlicho First Nation decided to sell bulk water. There are all kinds of issues at stake. There are all kinds of bylaws that state that the Government of Canada shall not supercede the Tlicho ability to deal as an international body. Within a certain frame or guideline, I can agree with that. I have no difficulty with that.

I want to know some specifics. The government is very short on specifics, but very big on grandiose plans on how this is going to help first nations.

We have a great example. That is the Nisga'a agreement where the first nation has paramountcy on a number of issues that do not infringe upon the obligations of the sovereign state of Canada and the responsibilities of the federal government. There are dozens of examples, but it is very clearly written into the Nisga'a agreement. This language is not clear, final or definite when I read this proposed legislation.

What prevents the Tlicho people from deciding tomorrow, after the agreement is signed, that they wish to sell bulk water? As the agreement is written, there is anything in it to prevent that. That is one example.

This is pretty straightforward, responsible type of legislation that we would like to see governments bring forward. We have a number of first nations who have never signed treaties. Some of the Tlicho band are among those people.

This is about something called the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. It is about Arctic gas flowing through Tlicho land and an ulterior motive on behalf of the government. It is in such a hurry to exploit the resources of northern Canada, and by the way to exploit the resources and give nothing back to either three levels of government in northern Canada. It takes the lion's share of the profit and the Tlicho should recognize this, as well.

The government is not a beneficiary. It does not always act in the best interests of its clients, including Yukon, the NWT and Nunavut, let alone does it act in good faith when it deals with first nations.

There is a bottom line that we cannot ignore. The treaty, unlike almost any other treaty that I have had the experience of reading, does not deal with finality. It is not clear in its language and it opens the door internationally to a real serious problem. Part of that problem is about water, or could be.

If we look at article 2.2.9, it states:

Nothing in the Agreement shall be interpreted so as to limit or extend any authority of the Parties to negotiate and enter into international, national, interprovincial and inter-territorial agreements, but this does not prevent the Tlicho Government from entering into agreements--

I have heard a lot of language coming from the government benches that the opposition is not looking at the legislation with a clear mind and that we are attempting to be unfair in our deliberations. As an individual who has supported a lot of good legislation regarding first nations, this piece of legislation has a serious flaw in it. Until I hear the answer, not just the criticisms about what everyone else thinks about this but the answer to that specific part of the bill, then I am going to be very apprehensive in believing that this legislation is good for Canada and good for first nations.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to make a few comments with respect to Bill C-14 but before I do that I want to say how much I agree with the member for Wild Rose, who talked about the social problems of our native people in this country, the extreme poverty and drug problems. It has been going on for a long time. No government seems to be adequately dealing with it. The government has an opportunity now to deal with it.

The bill seems to have a lot of legalese in it. One member over here spent a great deal of time making us rather dizzy with some of the legal arguments as to why we should support the bill, but what it comes down to it there is nothing in the bill to solve the very serious problems that these people have. A lot of money has been spent by many governments and it is still going on. I think it is regrettable that we can stand here, debate these issues and not solve these problems.

Several other arguments have been raised as to why we in the Conservative Party are opposing the bill. One argument is that it is not a final agreement. It is quite remarkable that the agreement contains an article to reopen negotiations if another Northwest Territories aboriginal group negotiates terms that are attractive to the Tlicho in a future agreement. It fails to do what it is supposed to be doing, which is to create something that is final.

It is like no one thought about that. This other group thought about it but we did not think about it, so let us reopen the agreement. How silly. Why can we not have a final deal now? Why is that article in there? It is quite remarkable that clause is in there.

The second opposition we have to the bill is that it appears to recognize the right of the Tlicho people to enter into international agreements. I find that remarkable as well. This is Canada. Canada is supposed to be the one that negotiates international agreements, not a balkanization of this country, whether it is aboriginal or any other group. It is Canada that decides what the international agreements are supposed to be.

This agreement states that it does not limit the authority of the Tlicho nation to enter into international, national, interprovincial and interterritorial agreements. It further requires that the Government of Canada consult with the Tlicho nation before Canada enters into an international agreement that may affect the right of the Tlicho government, the Tlicho First Nation or a Tlicho citizen. Does a Tlicho citizen mean one person? Is that what that means? Surely to heaven we are not going to restrict ourselves to Canada making an agreement that one citizen can come forward and challenge the Canadian government. We will be in anarchy.

We on this side are saying that it is very broad language and puts a remarkable restriction on a power constitutionally reserved for the Canadian government. It would be quite a new change in the laws of this country if we were to allow one group to literally veto what a Canadian government is going to do.

The third argument of course is that it would create a racially based electoral system. The agreement would create a category of citizens called “Tlicho citizens”. They would be the only people who could be elected as chiefs. Further, 50% of the elected councillors must be Tlicho citizens. Surely this is contrary to the Canadian Bill of Rights.

The final argument that I wish to address in my comments is the one that alarms me the most. I referred to it in a question that I asked one of the government members. It has to do with clause 5 of Bill C-14.

Someone said that was not the right interpretation. I am reading it and it says that the agreement, or the bill or the regulations made under the bill will prevail over the provisions of any other act of Parliament, any ordinance of the Northwest Territories, any regulation made under any of these acts or ordinances or any Tlicho law. It is really amazing, this paramountcy section.

The government members have said that we are not reading it correctly. Well, that is what it says. In other words, I can only assume that the Tlicho nation can create its own criminal code. The Criminal Code of Canada does not apply if there is a criminal section set up under this agreement. It has paramountcy over the Criminal Code of Canada. It could even be suggested, although the government disagrees, that it takes paramountcy over the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If I were one of the Tlicho citizens I would have grave concerns as to how laws might be passed that would take paramountcy over the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Clause 5 will be a lawyer's dream. The courts will be so packed with constitutional cases for eons over this section alone, let alone all the other sections that are being referred to by my colleagues on this side.

The agreement describes three different hierarchies to determine which legislation is paramount in the event of conflict: federal legislation, territorial legislation, the Tlicho laws or the agreement. It is not clear whether the Tlicho citizens will have the benefit of protection under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the event of a conflict with the Tlicho constitution. That is the most serious issue.

The Liberal government, of course, has taken great pride in saying that it set up the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is directly contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Why in the world anyone would want to support it, I do not know. It does not make sense to support legislation that will violate the rights of Canadian citizens. I would encourage all members, including members of the government, to oppose the legislation on that issue alone.

There is a final element of confusion. The agreement provides, in article 7.1, for a Tlicho constitution. Although the constitution does not--

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the member just mentioned the word “corruption” in the House and I just want to make sure that he is not referring to the matter on this bill here, Bill C-14, which is on the Tlicho. I would just like that clarified.

[Art Hanger, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-14, the Tlicho land claims and self-government act

Before proceeding with my speech, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the people of Calgary Northeast for placing their trust in me by re-electing me to represent them here in the House of Commons. They have my pledge that I will continue to work hard to ensure their views and their concerns are well represented in Ottawa. I thank the people of Calgary Northeast for placing their trust in me.

Under the agreement between the Tlicho people, the Government of Canada and the Northwest Territories the Tlicho First Nation will gain control of 39,000 square kilometres of land between Great Slave Lake and Great Bear Lake. If we were to drive around the perimeter of it, it would take about an hour and a half. That is a sizable chunk of territory with a population of 3,500 people. It is certainly a lot of responsibility for that kind of territory.

No doubt there will be lots of activities coming up in the Northwest Territories. Certainly, within the framework where this particular chunk of land rests, that activity will include mining, fishing and who knows what else. Transportation will be key and it will certainly reflect on any kind of business activity that any other company or government will be engaged in in that territory.

I can see the need to actually make this self-government arrangement work to avoid continued jurisdictional entanglements in the future over what might happen there. Looking to the north, there is no doubt in my mind that the north holds so much promise and so much potential for not only those who live there but for the rest of the country. I would assume that the government on the other side would like to see that flow smoothly to allow people to do business in the north so that all may benefit from it.

This is perhaps one of the most significant agreements concluded by the Canadian government in recent years. Yet to my surprise it has received very little attention, especially when one considers that it has the potential to be both positive and negative to the long term interests of Canada.

I would like to talk about a couple of points, as I cannot talk on every issue that may have been addressed thus far. There are some that concern me as I look to what some of the provisions in this act actually wash out to be.

I am going to pick on the powers that have been granted to the Tlicho government to enact laws. I know this has been a subject of much debate when it comes to land claim settlements and even the activities that occur on various reserves throughout this nation. Even though the laws of Canada are said to apply to all jurisdictions on federal statutes, in fact, there is a big question mark as to whether they do or not.

I previously asked a question of one of the parliamentary secretaries about one of the reserves to the south.

I and my party would like to see this land claims settled but we want to see it done in a way that will be beneficial not only to those who occupy the land, but that it will contribute to the general well-being of the nation, and that those living on the land are subject to Canada's laws and have the same fair treatment as anyone else.

The parliamentary secretary made mention that reserves all enjoy the same treatment but I beg to differ with her. I have been on various reserves and, even though there has been no specific land claim arrangement, it has been instilled in their minds that they are an entity onto themselves, that the laws of Canada and the United States and the enforcement of those laws do not apply to them. For some unknown reason there has been so much political interference that the whole well-being of the people living on those reserves has been placed into question. In fact, some people have been placed in jeopardy.

The Liberals track record concerns me. It is not the fact that land claims are being completed. It is the fact that the Liberals' track record, when it comes to enforcing or applying laws evenly across the country, has been placed into question.

I want to point to one set of statements in reference to the powers given to the Tlicho government to enact laws. Two of those powers fall right into federal jurisdiction.

The first power is with regard to the control over the transport, sale, possession, manufacture or use of weapons or dangerous goods. We have laws in Canada that apply nationally. These laws regulate firearms and explosives. The Criminal Code is used if someone violates provisions within the code. Yet this is one area where the Tlicho government will be able to enact laws to possibly manufacture or use weapons or dangerous goods.

The second power is the control or prohibition of transport, sale, possession, manufacture or use of intoxicants. Authority has been granted to the Tlicho government to delve into these areas. It is not at all clear as to who will enforce what or, if there is an enforcement agency, where those who have been charged, convicted or whatever can appeal there case should they not be happy with what has gone on within their jurisdiction.

That again comes back to the point that the Tlicho government seems to have the ultimate say in all levels of authority within that new jurisdiction which the government wants to create. Where is the appeal process in this whole arrangement?

Finally, I would like to address the issue of access to information. Where do the rules of access to information apply, or do they? My impression from reading the bill is that it would be very difficult for me as a member of Parliament or someone else who has concern about what is happening in the proposed jurisdiction to access information that may deal specifically with that level of proposed government.

I want the House to know that I will not be supporting the legislation. I feel there must be additional debate and much more contribution issued when it comes to finalizing any self-government for the Tlicho people.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe everyone in the House shares the belief that the government has the responsibility to negotiate and settle outstanding comprehensive claims according to the principles of both fairness and practicality.

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

While I agree with the general intent of Bill C-14 in seeking to ratify agreements on land claims and establish aboriginal self-government for the Tlicho, I cannot support this legislation because of the way it has been drafted.

Self-government must occur within the context of the Constitution of Canada to ensure fairness and equality. Any settlement of comprehensive claims needs to be ratified on the basis of a clear framework balancing the rights of aboriginal claimants with those of Canada. Specifically, negotiated settlements need certainty and finality of terms, and need to be practical in their institutional structure so as not to impede or supercede how all residents of our nation are governed. Unfortunately, this bill fails to measure up to these principles.

The agreement here is precedent setting and will guide future claims, settlements and self-government provisions across the north. I hope government members will take the time to consider the impact that this legislation will have. If passed, the bill will create a new order of government for approximately 3,500 people residing within an area roughly measuring 39,000 square kilometres who will be governed by a distinct Tlicho constitution.

This legislation, if enacted, would compromise Canada's international sovereignty because it does not limit the Tlicho government's authority to enter into international, national, interprovincial, and interterritorial agreements. This is a clear and definite erosion of federal jurisdiction and governance authority, and could only lead to legal confusion and conflict in the future.

Just a quick glance at how this bill prescribes the hierarchy of authority is essentially a recipe for confusion. Article 7.7.2 through 7.7.4 lists governance authority in this order: federal legislation of general application, territorial legislation implementing Canadian international agreements, Tlicho laws, territorial legislation of general application and specific federal legislation relating to the Tlicho. In other words, Tlicho laws may take precedence over territorial laws and also over federal laws relating to the Tlicho.

This may sound like some sort of technical argument that only a constitutional lawyer would be interested in, but let us consider how this precedence of authority would function if it applied to any other level of government with which many Canadians are much more familiar. Would it make sense to give a municipality, like my home town of Lincoln, the authority to pass bylaws that supercede provincial and federal legislation? I know quite a few mayors and aldermen and maybe even a few residents in my riding of Niagara West—Glanbrook who might think this is a good idea at first glance, but only at first glance.

We have ended up with a patchwork of unworkable and conflicting legislation across Canada that makes no sense and is inconsistent with the governance structure established by the Canadian Constitution.

The Tlicho government has power to enact laws in relation to: fish harvest licensing; use of water for aquaculture and other activities; fish harvest limits; fish openings and fish gear; businesses, occupations and activities of a local nature on Tlicho lands; control or prohibition of transport, sale, possession, manufacture or use of weapons or dangerous goods; control or prohibition of transport, sale, possession, manufacture or use of intoxicants; use of Tlicho language and culture; traditional medicine; heritage resources; adoption in the Northwest Territories of Tlicho children; direct taxation of Tlicho citizens on Tlicho lands; and enforcement powers.

Assuming that similar self-government agreements are put in place across the rest of the Northwest Territories following this precedent, I wonder what responsibilities or powers the government plans on leaving for the territorial governments. In fact, the governance structure that this bill would establish is treading on a very dangerous line.

There are serious implications for the application of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to Tlicho citizens. The agreement and the Tlicho constitution may speak of consistency with the charter, but at the same time the Tlicho constitution is quite clear in article 3.1 that the Tlicho constitution shall be “the Tlicho nation's highest law”. Unclear, inconsistent and unworkable are the best ways to characterize this legislation when it comes to the relationship between the Canadian Constitution, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Tlicho constitution.

The agreement itself outlines a racially based governance system. A new category of Canadians called “Tlicho citizens” is established and only a Tlicho citizen may be elected as the chief of the Tlicho community government. As well, at least 50% of the elected councillors must be Tlicho citizens.

This legislation sets up a racially segregated electoral system. Someone not defined as a Tlicho citizen under this agreement may live and participate in the community, but will not have the right to stand for election as chief. Does the government not see the basic problem with creating different levels of citizens? Not only would I argue that this is contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I would argue that this is just plain wrong. It does not take a constitutional lawyer to see the basic injustices here.

Finally, despite the tremendous generosity in terms of the lands, moneys, resources and authority which are provided to the Tlicho, this agreement is not even final.

I would also like to mention something when it comes to our freedom of information. Under 2.12 “Disclosure of Information”, it states:

Subject to 2.12.3, but notwithstanding any other provision of the Agreement, neither government, including the Tlicho community governments, nor the Tlicho Government is required to disclose any information that is required or entitled to withhold under any legislation or Tlicho law relating to access to information or privacy.

What we have once again is a question about Tlicho laws. If the government requires information, will it have freedom of that information? That is not very clear.

Article 2.12.2 states:

Where government, including a Tlicho community government, or the Tlicho Government has a discretion to disclose any information, it shall take into account the objects of the Agreement in exercising that discretion.

Article 2.12.1 states:

--withhold under any legislation or Tlicho law relating to access to information or privacy.

That brings into question what exactly the requirements are when it comes to freedom of information and what will be possible.

We have a piece of legislation that establishes a racially based system of governance, erodes federal and territorial authority, and creates a framework of legal confusion that will probably make a few constitutional lawyers very wealthy. To cap it all off, the agreement with the Tlicho is left open ended so the matter is not really settled.

This agreement and legislation have obviously not been considered from the perspective of the interests of Canadians. There is no balance between the economic and social needs of the Tlicho with Canada's need for a workable and final agreement that establishes practical precedence. This bill has far too many holes in it to proceed. All the government will accomplish if this is pushed forward is decades of constitutional and legal uncertainty.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Tlicho recognized that their agreement would have a profound effect on these groups. To ensure that future relations among all aboriginal communities would be harmonious, the Tlicho began to negotiate overlap agreements with the Dehcho and the Akaitcho Treaty 8 Dene. By the fall of 2000 these discussions had yielded separate agreements with each group. In addition, overlap agreements were negotiated with the Sahtu Dene and Métis and the Gwich'in.

In March 2003, negotiators for all three parties initialed the Tlicho agreement triggering a formal ratification process. To ensure that all Tlicho citizens had an opportunity to study the agreement, the Tlicho produced a simple, clear and neutral language version of the agreement, known as Plainspeak. Copies of the 27 chapter Plainspeak document were distributed free of charge.

A three month period was set aside to ensure that all interested parties had a final opportunity to express their opinions. Question and answer sessions were held in all four Tlicho communities. A referendum date was set. Campaigns were designed and implemented to ensure a strong voter turnout.

The results of the vote were overwhelmingly positive. Eighty-four per cent of those who voted cast a vote in favour of this agreement.

As my hon. colleagues examine the merits of the agreement which is at the core of Bill C-14, I encourage them to consider its context in the rapidly evolving relationship between first nations, Inuit, Métis, northerners and other Canadians.

The Tlicho agreement proposes a new relationship between the Government of Canada and the Tlicho, a relationship based on mutual respect and recognition. The agreement assigns specific rights and responsibilities to the Tlicho and implements a new financial arrangement.

Under the agreement the Tlicho government and citizens will be subject to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Criminal Code, along with other federal legislation.

I am convinced that the Tlicho agreement will also enhance negotiations underway with other aboriginal groups in the Northwest Territories. The agreement reinforces the value and relevance of the negotiation process. To quote from the Supreme Court of Canada:

Ultimately, it is through negotiated settlements, with good faith and give and take on all sides... that we will achieve... a basic purpose of section 35(1)--“the reconciliation of the pre-existence of aboriginal societies with the sovereignty of the Crown.” Let us face it, we are all here to stay.

The Tlicho agreement goes beyond mutual recognition and contemplates a new and respectful relationship between Canadians and first nations, Inuit, Métis and northerners. By supporting Bill C-14, the House sends a powerful message to aboriginal groups across the country, a message of recognition, a message of hope, a message of reconciliation.

I urge my hon. colleagues to approve this legislation without delay.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for Bill C-14, legislation to enact the Tlicho land claims and self-government agreement.

This is a historic agreement, the first in the Northwest Territories to combine land claims and self-government. This agreement is the product of frank, open and comprehensive consultations and negotiations which involved a decade of focused and arduous effort. The fruit of this labour is a tripartite agreement among Canada, the Northwest Territories and the Tlicho.

This agreement has already been ratified by the territorial legislature in Yellowknife. In a special referendum, an overwhelming majority of Tlicho voters have also approved the deal. Now it is our turn to review the agreement that is at the heart of Bill C-14.

I am convinced that a close examination of the agreement will reveal its singular importance for the Tlicho and also for Canada. I am confident that some of my hon. colleagues will address the relevance of particular aspects of the legislation. For my part I would like to provide some background on the negotiations and consultations that spawned this comprehensive agreement. My decision to lend my unequivocal support to Bill C-14 was influenced significantly by the exceptional efforts of the men and women who contributed to the Tlicho agreement. To fully appreciate the value of this agreement, my hon. colleagues must have a basic understanding of the several challenges facing the negotiators.

The Tlicho are one of several aboriginal peoples who have existed since time immemorial in the vast expanse of land we call the Northwest Territories. These men and women have a unique and deeply spiritual connection to the land which has always provided their sustenance. The concept of ownership and control of land was foreign to them until quite recently. To negotiate fairly, the Tlicho first had to recognize what was at stake.

Negotiators for the Northwest Territories and Canada faced different challenges. These men and women had to ensure that the agreement would be beneficial not only to the Tlicho, but also to all Canadians. The decision to include self-government in the agreement was based on this requirement, for only a government which is responsible, accountable and responsive can enable the Tlicho to thrive in the modern world and to safeguard their traditions and their culture.

Clearly, meeting these challenges required a great deal of mutual respect and recognition. To bridge the language and cultural divide, education and communication were essential. To ensure that self-government operates smoothly and also respects local culture, a Tlicho constitution was required. The constitution, like the agreement itself, was drafted and ratified with the active participation of Tlicho citizens.

Since negotiations began some 10 years ago, the three parties have sponsored numerous information and consultation sessions. At certain stages in the process, open house sessions and bilateral meetings were held in all four Tlicho communities as well as in Yellowknife, the nearest major city. Representatives of private sector companies, interest groups, and public agencies were kept informed and encouraged to provide feedback. Women's groups, industry associations and environmental organizations participated fully in these various sessions.

Many meetings inspired passionate, emotional debate about the merits and limitations of various proposals. The feedback generated during these sessions has had a profound impact on the Tlicho agreement. In fact, comments received led to several amendments. Eligibility and enrollment requirements were modified and the boundaries of the Wekeezhii management area were clarified.

Furthermore, opinions expressed during these meetings convinced Tlicho negotiators to undertake separate discussions with other overlapping aboriginal groups in the Northwest Territories. The Tlicho recognized that their agreement would have a profound effect on these groups--

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, we are on our third day of speeches on the legislation and within the next half hour the time for questions and comments will be over and we will be back into giving speeches without being able to question members as they put their provisions forward. I will just say that all the arguments I have heard this morning have been rebutted in the previous days, and that is on the Hansard record.

However I do want to tell the member that I heard something that was a little disturbing this morning relating specifically to clauses 5.1 and 5.2 of Bill C-14, and that is the conflict between the agreement or the bill and other legislation. The member misstated some basic principles and I have heard them echoed in other speeches from the official opposition.

Under 2.8.4, the Tlicho agreement would be paramount over the settlement legislation, federal or territorial, to the extent of any inconsistency or conflict. Similarly, under 2.8.3, the agreement would be paramount over the provisions of any other federal or territorial legislation or Tlicho laws to the extent of any inconsistency or conflict. Also, under 2.8.3, the settlement legislation would be paramount over provisions of any other federal or territorial legislation or Tlicho laws to the extent of any inconstancy or conflict.

The point they are missing on the other side is that this does not mean that Tlicho laws will be paramount. It means the agreement will be paramount and the agreement itself, under 7.7.2, confirms that federal laws prevail. It states that to the extent of any conflict, there is no paramount authority over the federal Crown in relation to matters concerning the Tlicho.

Does the member understand that federal laws of general application prevail? Does he understand that he cannot just read the enacting legislation but actually has to go to all of the clauses? I know that there has been a misunderstanding. What I am saying is that the member must not only read his speech, he must also read the agreement and all the existing documents to understand the conflicting provisions that would lead to a miscommunication or a misunderstanding. When they are put all together they are actually very logical.

I know this will be the last time to make this point but I hope we can finally get into the details of this, not in a debating manner but at committee, which is where this type of work is usually done.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-14, the Tlicho land claims agreement, is worrisome. Before I get into the reasons why I believe it is worrisome let me first say that it is a generous agreement and so it should be.

It gives the Tlicho nation 39,000 square kilometres of land and grants it $152 million over 15 years. It recognizes that there has been no final agreement between the Crown and the Tlicho nation. In that respect, the fact that the government has attempted to address this inadequacy is also good.

However, there are two problems with this agreement. First, it erodes Canadian sovereignty, and second, the agreement lacks finality. Our party believes in aboriginal self-government but within the confines and framework of the Canadian Constitution. This agreement however goes well beyond that and grants self-government to the detriment of Canada.

This agreement has three chapters in it which are to the detriment of Canada's sovereignty. In this country we have two sovereign layers of government, federal and provincial, that along with the charter vest all the power in these three different areas. This agreement changes that fundamental structure of the sovereignty in this country to include a fourth level of sovereignty which is contained within this agreement.

The erosion of sovereignty has to do with two chapters in the agreement that deal with international treaties and one chapter in the agreement that creates a substantial amount of jurisdictional confusion which could potentially lead to erosion of Canadian sovereignty. The two articles in the agreement that I refer to that erode Canada's ability to be a sovereign nation have to do with international treaties. One is article 2.2.9 in the agreement which states:

Nothing in the Agreement shall be interpreted so as to limit or extend any authority of the Parties to negotiate and enter into international, national, interprovincial, and inter-territorial agreements.

This suggests by implication that the Tlicho government has the authority to enter into international agreements. Article 7.13.2 states:

Prior to consenting to be bound by an international treaty that may affect a right of the Tlicho government, the Tlicho first nation or a Tlicho citizen, flowing from the Agreement, the Government of Canada shall provide an opportunity for the Tlicho Government to make its views known with respect to the international treaty either separately or through a forum.

The right to enter into international treaties or agreements is the exclusive purview of the executive of the federal government. In this agreement, the inclusion of these clauses erodes that sovereignty and may have far-reaching and long lasting implications in decades to come.

The second area of this agreement which may erode Canada's sovereignty has to do with jurisdictional confusion that will be created because of articles 7.7.2 through 7.7.4. In these articles there is a hierarchy of authority that is prescribed, five rankings of authority which seem to conflict with each other.

We in this country, since Confederation and the Constitution Act of 1867, have had enough confusion about intra or ultra vires areas of jurisdiction when it comes to federal-provincial areas of jurisdiction. The last thing we need is to add another area of confusion into this relationship.

One of my questions for the government is, why did the government allow this erosion of Canadian sovereignty to be built into this agreement? International treaties are the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government. Why would the federal government allow for a third party to have a say in international treaties when this authority is an exclusive area of federal jurisdiction?

I wonder whether or not this fits into the government's new framework of asymmetrical federalism where provincial cabinet ministers are allowed to speak at international conferences on behalf of the federal government. This seems to me to be playing right into that new framework.

My other question is, who speaks for Canada here? This is the federal government and it should be protecting its areas of jurisdiction and speaking on behalf of all Canadians, not slowly whittling away its authority through agreements and different approaches to international treaties.

Another area of concern in this agreement, as I mentioned before, is the absence of finality. One of the things that puzzles me about Bill C-14 and this agreement is that it is quite different from the Nisga'a final agreement that the government agreed to recently. The Nisga'a agreement was full and final. There are four sections I would like to read into the record from the Nisga'a agreement that illustrates this. Section 22 states:

This Agreement constitutes the full and final settlement in respect of the aboriginal rights, including aboriginal title, in Canada of the Nisga'a Nation.

Section 23 of the Nisga'a agreement states:

This Agreement exhaustively sets out Nisga’a section 35 rights, the geographic extent of those rights, and the limitations to those rights, to which the Parties have agreed--

Further on, in section 26, the Nisga'a agreement reads:

If, despite this Agreement and the settlement legislation, the Nisga’a Nation has an aboriginal right, including aboriginal title, in Canada, that is other than, or different in attributes or geographical extent from, the Nisga’a section 35 rights as set out in this Agreement, the Nisga’a Nation releases that aboriginal right to Canada to the extent that the aboriginal right is other than, or different in attributes or geographical extent from, the Nisga’a section 35 rights as set out in this Agreement.

Section 27 states:

The Nisga’a Nation releases Canada, British Columbia and all other persons from all claims, demands, actions, or proceedings, of whatever kind, and whether known or unknown, that the Nisga’a Nation ever had, now has or may have in the future, relating to or arising from any act, or omission, before the effective date that may have affected or infringed any aboriginal rights, including aboriginal title, in Canada of the Nisga’a Nation.

These four sections in the Nisga'a final agreement clearly indicate that the agreement was a final agreement between the Crown and the Nisga'a nation. Contrast that with the Tlicho agreement. The Tlicho agreement has quite the opposite. It has no finality built into the agreement. Article 27.6.1 of the agreement states that the Tlicho will receive equivalent benefits to those granted in the future to any other aboriginal group in the Northwest Territories whether by land claims agreement, self-government agreement, tax power exemption or legislation.

This contrasts directly with the Nisga'a land claim agreement. My question for the government is, why the change in strategy and why do one thing for one aboriginal nation and do another for another aboriginal nation?

What I find most disturbing about this whole thing is the point I first made, the absence of a strong stance from the government on its own erosion of its own sovereignty.

In reflecting on the agreement, I think the former Liberal leader, Mr. Trudeau, would be rolling around in his grave today if he were to see the type of asymmetrical federalism and the type of erosion of sovereignty that we have seen the government engage in over the last number of years.

Canada is a fragile nation with a fragile identity and the federal government must do all it can to preserve that identity and protect its own sovereignty to ensure that the nation can continue in decades and years to come. My fear is that the agreement sows the seeds of a country that will slowly but surely erode its own sovereignty, so that 50 years hence the federal government will be no greater than simply a coordinating body for different sovereign areas of jurisdiction within one geographic entity. That is my party's biggest concern about this agreement.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I go back to my earlier comments that it is historical that Liberal governments in Canada, including this one under this Prime Minister and when he was in cabinet before, have continuously introduced legislation that affected the people of Canada and fostered divisions in the country.

When the government was out on the election stump, it claimed that we were one great nation and that it wanted to ensure that people from coast to coast to coast received all the benefits and the attention of the federal government. That is just lip service when we compare it to the historical record of Liberal governments of fostering division. This is not what Canadians want.

When we sign agreements with first nations people, in my opinion and in my party's opinion, we want them to reflect the principle of equality in the country, that everyone is created equal and has an equal opportunity to create and improve a standard of life that is as good as anyone else. I believe people should not be deterred from that in any type of legislation. The job of the government is to allow Canadians the opportunity to live and prosper in safety, to raise families and to have adequate access to health care. That should apply to everyone.

In an agreement such as this those principles must apply to the agreement as to how it will affect the Tlicho first nation in the same manner that it affects every other Canadian. Provinces do not have the right to supercede the government on international decisions. Provinces are unable to successfully challenge the Constitution. There is a formula involved. Provinces cannot arbitrarily say that they have made a decision that something does not work for them and, notwithstanding the Constitution, then change it.

That is a provision in Bill C-14. In some cases it can be seen very clearly to supercede the Constitution of our country. We cannot have that. We cannot allow that to happen. Everyone must be governed by the Constitution of Canada.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

The members do not like to hear the truth. The history of Liberal legislation over the past several decades shows very clearly the fostering of divisions by the government and previous Liberal governments. They do not like it but they cannot deny it.

What is astounding is that Bill C-14 appears to recognize the right of the Tlicho First Nation to enter into international agreements and, in some cases, to stand in the way of Canada entering into international agreements. The agreement states that it does not limit the authority of the Tlicho to enter into international, national, interprovincial and interterritorial agreements. Further, it requires that the Government of Canada consult with the Tlicho First Nation before Canada enters into an international agreement that may affect the right of the Tlicho government, the Tlicho First Nation or Tlicho citizens. That is very broad and disturbing language and puts a remarkable restriction on the constitutionality reserved for a federal government.

We in the Conservative Party believe that the broad language of the agreement could impede the power of the federal government to enter into international agreements and agreements with the provinces in the event that the Tlicho First Nation were to believe that in some way it could affect its nation or one of its citizens.

We do not need agreements in this country that could be tied up in court challenges on an endless basis, which is why we must be very clear and concise with the language we use. We must do our best to ensure that words like “may, should, could, possibly, perhaps” or “maybe” cannot be applied to the language of the agreement and cause challenges to it. Our obligation to the people of Canada is to ensure that every piece of legislation or agreement that we enter into with the provinces, the first nations or any other peoples or territories do not use terms that cause doubt about the agreement that may lead to challenges on and on in the years to come.

The Conservative Party of Canada looks for agreements that have distinct language and very clear terms that should not be able to be challenged because of broad language that may cause people to believe they can interpret the language for their own terms. We have all the abilities to ensure that agreements are safe and sound and have safety nets within them for all people of Canada.

The electoral system within this agreement causes us great concern. People living in a new Tlicho First Nation government, living within those territories and under that jurisdiction, while they should still be under the jurisdiction of Canada as a whole, because all of the territories, all of the provinces and all of the first nations in our country are all part of Canada, they all must be covered and protected under the Constitution of Canada and under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Canada.

It appears to us that this agreement would create what could be described as a racially based electoral system. The agreement creates a category of citizen called Tlicho citizens who are the only people who may be elected as chiefs. Further, 50% of the elected council must be Tlicho citizens. This is arguably counter to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We must ensure that anyone living under the jurisdiction of the Tlicho self-government is treated fairly, equitably and in a manner that is governed and overseen by the Constitution of Canada and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as it applies to every other individual in Canada.

Another point I would like to make is the agreement contains similar languages to what I believe will create a problem down the road. It appears to be giving governing powers within our country which in some respects, and even one is too many, would allow the formation of another country or nation within the Canada. It would have powers that would supersede the powers of the Government of Canada, the Constitution of Canada and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We are very dangerously close in the agreement to creating a country within a country as we have been dangerously close on previous agreements.

The Liberals have talked about wanting to unite and have a unified Canada. If there is any doubt they have said that, one only has to look at their attempts in the sponsorship issues going on right now. One only has to see how much money they spent, in many cases under suspicion, but that is another story. They talked about how important it was to have a total Canada, including Quebec and including every people in this country, no matter from where they came, Canadian citizens or landed immigrants, a Canada that was unified. We are in danger once again, as we have been on past agreements dealing with first nations. The terms of the agreements gave rise to fear that we could be creating a country within a country, enclaves within a country, apartheid, a partition, because of the lack of common sense and the use of broad language in the agreements that we have entered into.

When I believe a divisive type of legislation is being applied to people of the country, I am very happy to say that I have had the opportunity to speak against it. This is another example to which I am proud to speak.

The agreement is jurisdictionally confusing as well. I just talked about this. The agreement describes three different hierarchies to determine which legislation is paramount in the event of conflict: the federal legislation, the territorial legislation, Tlicho laws or the agreement. It is not clear that the Tlicho citizens will have the benefits of protection under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the even of conflict with the Tlicho constitution.

It just amazes me how the government could allow such open-ended language in such an important document. We are trying to create a self-governing environment for the Tlicho nation, one that will give it the confidence that it can do some long terms planning and one that will give Canadians confidence that the issue will now be settled. It will be one that we will not be looking at over and over again as we go down the road into the future. It will be one that we will not be faced with constant challenges and confusion about who has the authority.

Canada has the authority. Canada is the federal authority to run the country. It creates laws. It delegates authority to provinces and to territories. Authority that the federal government delegates away must be an authority that is good for all Canadians and good for the agreement. It should not give rise to questions in the future.

I remember speaking to the dangers of Bill C-68, the infamous gun registration bill, when it came into the House in 1995. I asked then justice minister, Allan Rock, if he would tell Canadians whether Bill C-68 and the regulations contained therein would apply to every single Canadian. It was a simple question. We had been hearing from the Liberals for several weeks that Bill C-68 was a law for all Canadians and everyone would be included under the regulations. New parliamentarians in the House will hear the following type of responses from ministers. The justice minister said, “Bill C-68 is universal in its application”. That was okay because it would apply to everybody. He then said, and it is in Hansard , that it would be “flexible in its implementation”. In other words, it would apply to everyone but it really would not.

Bill C-14 is proof positive that we were getting double talk back in the days of Bill C-68. The agreement specifically gives the Tlicho first nation authority and power to make its own laws over firearms and ammunition. Therein is the comment the minister made back then, “flexible in its implementation”. It never was meant to apply to everyone. Time and time again we have seen the government delegate authority to first nations to govern their own firearms and ammunition regulations.

Bill C-68 then becomes what could be called race-based legislation because it applied to one group of Canadians but not to another. That is very dangerous. Why would we want to foster divisions rather than promote unity? Every Canadian is as valuable and equal to every other Canadian and should be treated the same under the same laws and under the same Constitution and Charter of Rights.

The Conservative Party of Canada believes that self-government must occur within the Constitution of Canada, but it must have a finality to it, it must have clear language and it must have absolute terms. We cannot have terms in broad language that would lead to interpretations down the road once the agreement was signed.

To ensure fairness and equality, a Conservative government would ensure that the principles of the Charter of Rights applied to aboriginal self-government. The least we can do for our first nations people in Canada is give them equality, protection under the Charter of Rights and the Constitution and assure them, by signing agreements with them, that they are equal and as valuable as any other citizen in the country. We are a unified Canada, not one where divisions are fostered by a government.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-14, the Tlicho act, which would give the force of law to an agreement between the federal government, the Northwest Territories government and the Tlicho First Nation that was signed on August 25, 2003.

The agreement gives the Tlicho First Nation ownership of approximately 39,000 square kilometres between Great Slave Lake and the Great Bear Lake and participatory-regulatory authority over even a larger area.

The agreement is unique in that it involves both a land claims settlement and a self-government agreement. It creates a precedent for the approximately 600 first nations that may seek similar provisions in their own agreements.

Every day in our opening prayers we pray that this Parliament will be given the power and wisdom to make good laws and wise decisions. That is what we all want in the House. That is what we want for our country and for people.

While the Conservative Party of Canada supports the settlement of the Tlicho land claims and a self-government agreement, we have concerns about five issues in the agreement. I go back to the ability of Parliament to make good laws and wise decisions. I want to go over the five issues in Bill C-14 that we find of particular concern.

First, it is not a final agreement. It contains a clause to reopen negotiations if another Northwest Territories aboriginal group negotiates terms that are attractive to the Tlicho in a future agreement. It fails to do its most basic job, which is to achieve a final agreement.

The fundamental goal of any agreement should be that it has some finality. In negotiating a treaty settlement and a land claims and self-government settlement, what benefit could it be to Canada to have open-ended agreements in force that could be reopened at any time? In this case, in the event that another Northwest Territories first nation negotiated an agreement with the federal government that was seen by the Tlicho band to be better than the one it signed, under the terms of this agreement it could simply reopen negotiations. That is not the way to have a good agreement that would promote the unity and bonding of our country. An agreement must contain terms that are good for everyone involved in the agreement, not just the Tlicho First Nation, but indeed all the people of Canada.

We do not want to carry on a history that has been carried on by the Liberal government where it introduces legislation that does more to foster divisions in the country than to promote unity. That is what the Liberal government has been doing for decades. It is astounding when we hear the Liberal members talk about the mosaic of Canada and how we need to ensure that the laws we introduce are fair to everybody so that we can stand as a strong united government.

The Liberal government today and previous Liberal governments have introduced legislation again and again that promotes and fosters division, more than it tries to unify the country. They should be ashamed of their record. This is just another example.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to address Bill C-14, an unprecedented bill that would give force to both a land claim settlement and a land claim agreement to the Tlicho people of Canada's western Arctic.

I would like to begin my remarks on the bill by thanking and congratulating my colleague from Calgary Centre-North for the excellent work he has done in analyzing the bill and the agreements with which it deals. The bill is relatively short, but it gives force to the very complex provisions set out in a 208 page settlement agreement and a shorter tax agreement.

I know for a fact that the member for Calgary Centre-North has read and analyzed those agreements in their entirety. I also know that in conducting his analysis, the member for Calgary Centre-North brings a great deal of expertise to bear. He is certainly Parliament's foremost expert on aboriginal land claims. In fact he has negotiated and mediated many land claim settlements over many years and has lectured extensively on the need for justice in the resolution of native land claims.

It will be tough for me to offer much analysis of the bill that my hon. colleague from Calgary Centre-North has not already provided in admirable detail. I think I can best contribute to this debate by framing it in terms of key principles.

First, I want to affirm the dedication of the Conservative Party to the goal of establishing a workable, respectful and durable partnership with Canada's aboriginal people. The riding I represent, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, includes the lion's share of the Akwesasne region, which is home to about 13,000 Mohawk people. That does not make me an expert on land claims by any stretch of the imagination, but it does give me a strong appreciation of the importance of establishing trust and certainty in the relationship between the various levels of government and the aboriginal people of Canada.

The Conservative Party is committed to speeding up the settlement of the unacceptable number of outstanding comprehensive land claims in the country, to say nothing of the backlog of specific claims, which is even worse. Moreover, it is the party's policy that self-government must be within the context of the Constitution and that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms must apply to all Canadians and their governments, including an aboriginal government.

I am not opposed to the objectives and purpose of the agreement. I am however opposed to its final form, which is simply poorly thought out and poorly drafted.

The agreement before us today simply has not been adequately considered from the perspective of Canada's interests. I do not see anything in it for Canada, and obviously any agreement between a first nation and the Government of Canada should strike a balance between the interests of both parties.

The agreement fails to balance the economic and social needs of the Tlicho people on the one hand with Canada's need for certainty, finality of terms and constitutional workability on the other. The whole purpose of negotiating an agreement like this from Canada's standpoint is to put an end to squabbling and litigation and to establish a stable partnership with our aboriginal citizens. This agreement deliberately fails to do so.

It actually says in the agreement that the Tlicho people are entitled to anything that is granted to any other aboriginal group in future land claims agreements in the Northwest Territories. That means the nitpicking and legal actions could resume in the future and nothing in the agreement is final. The relationship between the Tlicho people and the Government of Canada is not cemented by this agreement, so the agreement fails in its main purpose.

The agreement also fails to establish which government's laws are paramount when jurisdictions overlap. This is the second key objective that the agreement simply fails to achieve. The agreement contradicts itself in three different sections dealing with the authority of the Government of Canada, the government of the Northwest Territories and the Tlicho government.

The general idea of the agreement is that the Tlicho government has the power to enact laws concurrently with both the federal and territorial governments, but if conflicts occur there seems to be several different ways to determine which laws are paramount. Not only is the agreement not final, it is not workable either. Even if the agreement is not thrown into dispute because another agreement gives another aboriginal group something not given to the Tlicho people, it may well be torn apart by jurisdictional confusion and bickering.

The third thing about the agreement that makes me shake my head is the way it undermines Canada's federal authority and international autonomy. The agreement explicitly says it does not limit the authority of the Tlicho people to enter into international agreements, which implies that the Tlicho government can enter into international agreements.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join colleagues in the debate regarding this important legislation. I will begin by telling members how pleased I was with the appointment the Prime Minister made this summer of the new Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

I have had a chance to work with the minister in his capacity as a member of Parliament and before his election to the House of Commons. The Prime Minister's choice of Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is an exceptional one. He will bring a great deal of energy to the portfolio. He is a man of very considerable judgment and experience and a sociologist by profession. Certainly, the academic and personal experience he has had in public service in our shared province of New Brunswick and in the Government of Canada will make him one of the most effective ministers in the history of the department.

I support the bill and the historic agreement contained at the heart of the proposed legislation. Some issues were raised by hon. members opposite concerning the bill. I think it would be appropriate and useful to address some of the specific issues.

Allow me to put the Tlicho agreement into context, and there has been a great deal of discussion on both sides of the House. It would be very useful for colleagues to understand the context in which the legislation operates.

The Tlicho agreement is designed to operate within the constitution of Canada. Subsection 35(1) of the Constitution Act recognizes and affirms existing aboriginal and treaty rights. There are notable Supreme Court rulings, the Sparrow decision for example, that clarify the nature of aboriginal rights. However, the full scope and extent of these aboriginal rights has not yet been determined in law.

The courts have repeatedly encouraged the resolution of aboriginal issues through negotiation rather than litigation. As we know, litigation is a more costly, adversarial and certainly time consuming way to address these difficult but important aboriginal issues. The Tlicho agreement is a product of negotiation and is designed to achieve the constitutional objectives as set out in subsection 35(1) of the Constitution Act.

To use a phrase that we have heard before in this chamber on this specific issue, let me emphasize that this agreement exists within the four square corners of our Constitution. In addition to ensuring this constitutional framework is not altered, we have also guaranteed that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, itself a constitutional document, remains untouched. It is a fundamental principle of the government. I might remind Canadians that it is the Liberal Party and this government that have defended the Charter of Rights. In fact in 1982 the Liberal government, led by the late Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, enacted the Charter of Rights of which we are all so proud.

It is a fundamental principle for us that all Canadians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, enjoy the rights and freedoms that the charter guarantees.

Article 2.15.1 of the Tlicho agreement provides that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to the Tlicho government in respect to all matters within its authority. In addition, article 7.1.2b states that the Tlicho constitution shall provide for protections for Tlicho citizens by ways of rights and freedoms no less than those set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Let there be no confusion. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a constitutional document, applies. As a result the rights of women, for example, are and remain protected. In fact the agreement supports gender equality by giving all Tlicho citizens, including women, a larger voice in governance. Tlicho citizens, regardless of gender, will also have equal access to the benefits provided under this historic agreement.

Women play a strong role in Tlicho communities. In fact the majority of Tlicho people in post-secondary education are women, women who will eventually play strong roles in the communities and governmental structures that are brought into effect by virtue of this agreement.

Members opposite were also enquiring about matrimonial real property. The issue I know is particularly critical on reserves. The Tlicho people, however, will live in public communities. These communities will be created by territorial legislation and territorial laws will apply, including those respecting matrimonial real property.

The relationship of laws is a very important element of this agreement and is the subject of some debate by members of the House. Let me assure all members that this relationship is very clearly laid out in the agreement and in the corresponding legislation.

The legislative powers of the Tlicho government will be exercised concurrently with law-making powers of Canada and the territorial government itself. That means, all laws will continue to apply. If it happens that there is a conflict between a federal law of general application and a Tlicho law, the federal law will prevail. It is clear. There are no exceptions to this fundamental principle of the conflict of laws. In the case of a conflict between a Tlicho law and a territorial law, the Tlicho law will prevail, except in the case of international legal obligations. In this case the territorial law will prevail.

Let me very clear. Canada's ability to negotiate and implement international treaties is not fettered by this legislation or by this agreement. In fact the agreement contains provisions to clarify that precise point. The agreement provides assurance that the Tlicho government will exercise its powers in ways compatible with Canada's international legal obligations. If the Tlicho government passes a law or takes an action that prevents Canada from performing an international legal obligation, article 7.13 of the Tlicho agreement requires the Tlicho government itself to remedy its law or action to enable Canada to perform its international legal obligation.

There may be a future international treaty that may affect a right of the Tlicho people. The agreement has a provision for that as well. Canada is required by article 7.13.2 to provide an opportunity for the Tlicho government to make its views known either separately or through a forum. This does not mean that Canada cannot enter into an international treaty. It means it must discuss the matter with the Tlicho government.

We have also heard issues raised by members concerning the perceived lack of finality in this agreement. In fact one of the major benefits of Bill C-14 is that Canada receives certainty and clarity about legal rights of ownership and management within a significant portion of the Northwest Territories.

This will create a much more predictable and secure decision making environment, with the potential to attract investment and economic growth. The Tlicho people will have fee simple title to 19% of their traditional territory. Canada will have finality from the Tlicho concerning the remainder.

The members opposite have also raised the issue of self-government rights. Canada believes that all Tlicho self-government rights have been addressed in this agreement. However, should a future court of competent jurisdiction determine that there is an additional Tlicho self-government right, the agreement establishes clearly a negotiation process by which those rights can also be addressed.

My colleagues referred to chapter 27.6.1 specifically on this point. I would recommend that they read this section carefully, as it very clearly deals with one specific issue. Chapter 27.6.1 allows for equitable treatment among all aboriginal groups in the Northwest Territories concerning tax power or exemptions.

This is to ensure that when future land claims and self-government agreements are negotiated in the Northwest Territories, the taxation regime of the Tlicho can be altered, so that it is compatible and equitable with the others. I think my colleagues will be pleased with this provision as it ensures that all taxation regimes in the Northwest Territories will be equal and compatible.

There are many other benefits for Canada as well. This agreement will provide the Tlicho people with the opportunity to enhance their participation in the economy of the region and in the territory as a whole. They will for example have the tools to become more self-reliant. The land, resources and financial benefits they receive from this agreement will put them in a better position to undertake new business initiatives and partnerships with industry.

The Tlicho agreement targets the objective of closing the economic and social gap that exists between aboriginal Canadians and Canadians in general. As stated at the Canada-Aboriginal Peoples Roundtable on April 19, 2004, it provides new opportunities for the Tlicho to enhance its self-sufficiency.

In my constituency of Beauséjour I have a number of first nation communities. Like the Tlicho people they are trying to develop their own economies. They are becoming more self-sufficient. They are developing an entrepreneurial class of aboriginal Canadians who seek to participate fully in the economic promise of our country.

I happen to have the largest aboriginal community in New Brunswick, Elsipogtog, which is adjacent to a francophone community called Richibucto. One of the proudest moments I have had as a member of Parliament was to go to a little ceremony in this French-speaking francophone village where the mayor and the municipal council decided that in addition to having their municipal signs welcoming people in English and French they would also add the Mi'kmaw words to their signs and welcome the Mi'kmaw people who live a few kilometres away in Elsipogtog. It is a small example, but a very worthy one, of some of the healing and the coming together that has taken place between aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities.

I happen to have the largest fishing harbour in my constituency, also in the village of Richibucto. It is right downtown, on Main Street in fact, and it is the biggest fishing harbour in my community, the largest in terms of active fishermen. The elected head of the harbour authority is a Mi'kmaw gentleman from the community of Elsipogtog.

He has been elected by aboriginal and non-aboriginal fishers to head their local port authority. It is a great example of aboriginal fishers and non-aboriginal fishers working together to develop a new harbour and to cooperate in some of the economic opportunities that the fishery will afford them in the years to come.

There are success stories in the country in terms of aboriginal and non-aboriginal people working together. I feel very fortunate in my constituency in New Brunswick to have witnessed first hand many of these success stories. The Tlicho agreement and Bill C-14 is a very important step in bringing together many of these values for which we have fought.

To conclude, if my colleagues opposite read Bill C-14 carefully and thoroughly, they will understand that this agreement not only holds enormous benefits for the Tlicho people and for the Northwest Territories, but indeed, it offers great benefits to all Canadians as well.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in the House to register my opposition to Bill C-14, the Tlicho agreement.

Little attention has been focused on this agreement and it is almost certainly the most significant agreement concluded by the Canadian government in recent years. The effect of this agreement is to create a new third order of aboriginal government with concurrent but paramount jurisdiction over the federal crown. The result will be a Tlicho state governed by a Tlicho constitution which is arguably paramount to the Canadian charter. The agreement also appears to acknowledge or perhaps confer some degree of international authority upon the Tlicho government.

There are a number of provisions in the agreement which are flawed and debatable from a Canadian public policy perspective. To be fair, certain aspects of the agreement are visionary and reflective of a mature and sustainable system of self-government.

Today I will discuss four reasons why the agreement is damaging to the long term interests of Canada. They are first, the absence of finality in the agreement; second, incursions upon Canada's international autonomy; third, confusion of jurisdictional authorities; and fourth, the application of the charter in the adoption of governance structures which are racially based and which arguably contradict the charter.

The first point is the absence of finality. It could be argued that the agreement is generous to a fault in terms of the land, moneys and resources which are provided to the Tlicho. It is worth noting that the Tlicho lands will comprise the single largest block of first nation owned land in Canada. This might be justifiable if the agreement were a final agreement, but unfortunately it is not.

The agreement provides that the Tlicho will receive equivalent benefits to those granted in the future to any other aboriginal group in the Northwest Territories, whether by land claims agreements, self-government agreements, tax power exemption, or legislation. In other words, this agreement is not a final agreement at all.

Please note that this agreement achieves little of the certainty and finality of the Nisga'a agreement. Frankly it is difficult to discern what concessions the federal government even achieved in exchange for the obvious generosity of the agreement.

The second point is the incursion upon Canada's international autonomy. The agreement contains a remarkable section relating to international matters. The agreement states that it does not limit the authority of the Tlicho to enter into international, national, interprovincial and interterritorial agreements, which suggest by implication that the Tlicho government has the authority to enter into international agreements.

The agreement also contains the following remarkable provision which is self-explanatory: “Prior to consenting to be bound by an international treaty that may affect a right of the Tlicho government, the Tlicho First Nation or a Tlicho citizen, flowing from the agreement, the Government of Canada shall provide an opportunity to the Tlicho government to make its views known with respect to the international treaty either separately or through a forum”.

The agreement also provides for an arbitration mechanism between the Government of Canada and the Tlicho government in respect of international legal obligations.

Furthermore, the Government of Canada is obligated under the agreement to consult with the Tlicho government before taking positions before an international tribunal in circumstances where the Tlicho government has taken action giving rise to an international legal controversy.

It would be naive to assume that these provisions are merely reflective of poor drafting.

The third issue is jurisdictional confusion. The provisions of the agreement relating to the future governance of this part of the Northwest Territories are poorly drafted and in some respects contradictory.

The effect of the act would be to create a new third order of aboriginal government with concurrent and paramount authority over the federal crown in relation to matters affecting the Tlicho. The act is clear in making the provisions of the agreement paramount over the act itself and over any regulations passed under the act.

Unfortunately the agreement itself is internally contradictory resulting in confusion regarding the concurrent and paramount authority of the Government of Canada, the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Tlicho government.

The agreement addresses these interjurisdictional issues in at least three places and prescribes three distinct paramount provisions. Articles 7.7.2 through 7.7.4 prescribe the following hierarchy of authority: one, federal legislation of general application; two, territorial legislation implementing Canadian international agreements; three, Tlicho laws; four, territorial legislation of general application; and finally, specific federal legislation relating to the Tlicho.

In other words, Tlicho laws prevail over territorial laws and also over federal laws relating to the Tlicho. The federal government seems therefore to have rendered specific federal legislation relating to the Tlicho subordinate to Tlicho laws.

Yet another example of the concept of paramountcy can be seen where it makes the settlement legislation paramount over the provisions of any other legislation or Tlicho law. Yet the definition of settlement legislation refers to both territorial legislation and federal legislation. In other words, this provision creates the following hierarchy: first, the agreement; second, the federal settlement legislation, which is presumably Bill C-14; third, territorial settlement legislation; and finally, other legislation or Tlicho laws. This is inconsistent with the concept outlined in articles 7.7.2 to 7.7.4 that were mentioned earlier.

Unfortunately, article 2.10.7 prescribes yet another legislative hierarchy which applies in the event of arbitration, namely: first, there are federal laws of overriding national importance; second, federal laws implementing international agreement obligations; third, other federal legislation; fourth, territorial legislation implementing international Canadian obligations; fifth, Tlicho laws; and finally, other territorial legislation.

Certainly the general scheme is that the powers of the Tlicho government to enact laws are concurrent with those of the Government of Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories. What is problematic is that there seems to be multiple definitions of how to determine who has jurisdiction in the event of conflict.

Finally, the agreement also contains the following rather optimistic provision:

Nothing in the Agreement shall prejudice the devolution or transfer of responsibility or powers from the Government of Canada to the Government of the Northwest Territories.

Assuming that similar self-government agreements are put in place across the rest of the Northwest Territories, it is hard to visualize what responsibilities or powers we have left for the territorial government. This clause also begs the question as to whether the Government of Canada has held back any of its powers with regard to the Tlicho people.

The fourth point is the application of the charter and the adoption of governance structures which are racially based and which arguably contradict the charter. The overall scheme created by the act, the agreement and the Tlicho constitution appears to have implications for the application of the charter to Tlicho citizens. Although both the agreement and the Tlicho constitution speak of consistency with the charter, it is noteworthy that the Tlicho constitution is quite clear in article 3.1 that the Tlicho constitution shall be the Tlicho nation's highest law.

Frankly, the entire legislation scheme is quite unclear as to the constitutional relationship between the Constitution Act of Canada, the charter and the Tlicho constitution. On its face, the agreement purports to adhere to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in that article 2.15.1 provides that the charter applies to the Tlicho government.

However, the agreement itself outlines a racially based governance system. It creates a category of Canadians called Tlicho citizens and prescribes an electoral system where only Tlicho citizens may be elected as chief of the Tlicho community government. In addition, at least 50% of the elected councillors must be Tlicho citizens, so too the grand chief must be a Tlicho citizen. To be a Tlicho citizen one must be a registered status Indian. Thus, the agreement creates a racially segregated electoral system which is arguably contrary to the charter.

I would note that article 2.1.1 of the agreement may insulate the agreement from charter challenge by declaring the agreement to fall within section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Those who are Tlicho citizens therefore acquire a very distinct status in the north. They enjoy the electoral franchise noted above. They have all the rights and benefits of other Canadian citizens. They also maintain their identity as aboriginal people of Canada participating in and benefiting from any existing or future constitutional rights. They receive all status Indian benefits. They also maintain all their hunting, fishing and trapping rights under treaties south of the 60th parallel.

The Conservative Party of Canada believes that self-government must occur within the context of the Constitution of Canada. To ensure fairness and equality, a Conservative government would ensure that the principles of the charter would apply to aboriginal self-government.

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

The settlement of all outstanding comprehensive claims must be pursued on the basis of a clear framework which balances the rights of aboriginal claimants with those of Canada. In particular, negotiated settlements must balance the economic and social needs of aboriginal Canadians with Canada's need for certainty and finality of terms. Self-government agreements must reflect Canada's need for both efficacy and practicality in institutional structure and constitutional harmony so as not to impede the overall governance of Canada.

Bill C-14 fails to meet these criteria fully and therefore, must be defeated.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake.

It is my great honour to rise in the House today. Once again I come to the House to speak to the legislative agenda of a tired and confused minority Liberal government.

On October 7, I spoke in the House in reply to the Speech from the Throne. At that time I was disappointed at the insipid leadership and the weak agenda outlined in the Speech from the Throne. A mere 22 days later, I find my worst fears confirmed.

Just over three weeks into this 38th Parliament and the government has proven that rather than address the issues important to Canadians in a full and honest manner, it has resorted to recycling failed legislation from previous administrations and reneged on promises made in this summer's federal election campaign.

This minority government is so desperate to pad its non-existent legislative agenda that it has rushed the Tlicho land agreement into the House of Commons before it is ready.

In fact, if we take a look at how the bill came before the chamber today, we see that Parliament is once again being manipulated. I would like to remind the House that the bill has been introduced on an all or nothing basis. But then, the Liberals have rarely seen a controversial topic that they could not dodge.

Canadians who are watching these proceedings today are rightly outraged. They know that our debate today is an example of the worst abuse of the political process. The government, on the advice of the clerk of the House, has taken the position that Parliament lacks the capacity to amend the provisions of this agreement. The bill has not proceeded in any way that is respective of parliamentary supremacy.

There has been no consideration at committee, no amendments possible and no way for members of Parliament to contribute to this very important agreement.

I fear that the Liberal government is trying to paint those who would take their parliamentary responsibility seriously as anti-aboriginal or against self-government. I find that sort of tactic insulting, unnecessary and very unproductive.

Why should Canadians be surprised? This is a government that has repeatedly shown that it would rather have the courts do its job than do the hard work itself.

The true shame of this cowardly tactic is that hon. members, such as my colleague, the member for Calgary Centre-North and the official opposition critic for Indian affairs and northern development, cannot share the wisdom of their experience with the House. The party opposite may not bring candidates and members of Parliament to the House whose qualifications they respect and value, but in our party we know that our caucus has the mental fortitude to engage in the legislative process.

The member for Calgary Centre-North brings personal and professional experience that makes him a recognized Canadian expert in the matter of native land claim settlements. This is the betrayal of the Canadian people. It is no wonder they are cynical about the political process.

The bill is too important to be rammed through the House with no opportunity for true legislative amendment. This is not to say that the bill is not without merit. There are many benefits captured within the agreement.

However, beyond the flagrant dismissal of Parliament, what concerns members on this side of the House can be summarized in four main points.

The first are the contentious provisions regarding the finality of this bill. Second, there are concerns that the agreement may incur on Canada's international autonomy. Third, the bill seems to create jurisdictional confusion, a sure route directly to the court system. What a surprise.

Finally, the government is flirting with the discriminatory application of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Again, all this will serve to do is create an environment of uncertainty and distrust leading to yet more lengthy court disputes.

Let us take these concerns individually. If Canadians are not going to be provided with true representation through their members of Parliament, the Conservative Party of Canada will show Canadians what a constructive approach to law-making looks like.

The Conservative Party of Canada believes that Canada's first nations deserve equitable and fair powers of self-government. When done right, aboriginal agreements can right the wrongs of the past and set the stage for a bright future for everyone.

We can look at the Nisga'a agreement to see how an agreement can achieve closure to a long standing land claim, and it is this type of finality that is lacking in Bill C-14. The 3,000 Tlicho band members deserve better.

The issue of finality is very important. Aboriginal self-government issues have been ignored and delayed for too long. When the Nisga'a agreement was passed through federal legislation, it gave the first nations confidence that their agreement was a full and final arrangement.

From the point of view of members of the House and Canadians across the country, there must also be a belief that agreements negotiated and passed into legislation are full and final agreements. The bill lacks that finality, leaving first nations, Canadians and parliamentarians playing a waiting game, always unsure if the agreement will be reopened at the whim of a minister or the demand of the Tlicho government looking for more powers or rights.

When negotiating self-government agreements, the federal government walks a fine line between recognizing and granting powers to our first nations and ceding our national sovereignty.

There is still work to be done on Bill C-14 to clarify the provisions relating to international matters. The lack of limits to the Tlicho government's powers to enter into international, national and other territorial agreements creates an unacceptable situation where the federal government would transfer powers to act on the global scene to an internal community.

While the Liberals may have lost their sense of Canadian federalism, on this side of the House we still believe that it is the federal government that negotiates, signs and speaks for the Canadian people. Apparently all their dabbling in unfair, unequal and unpopular governance models have left them confused. The House can rest assured, if the Liberals are unwilling or unable to take responsibility for governing Canada, we are more than prepared to take that weight off their shoulders.

The third item of concern is the area of jurisdictional concern. Allowing the wording of this agreement to stand without amendment could create a third order of government. This was never the intention of self-government under our Constitution. There can be no equal or parallel authority to the federal government. Bill C-14 would allow concurrent authority.

Again, the government would rather push inadequate legislation through the House than do the work to clarify these provisions. If, indeed, this came to a conflict situation, there is no dispute mechanism, once again requiring the courts to address weak legislation put forward by the Liberal government. This is unacceptable.

Finally, we have concerns regarding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Canadians value the rights and freedoms protected under the charter and continue to believe in the Constitution as paramount in our federal system.

However the Liberal government has shown its disrespect by recognizing a Tlicho constitution that cannot provide less protection than what is outlined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It leaves the door open for there to be a constitution which allows for more protection. Legislation is not supposed to create sects, divisions or a group of Canadians who have more rights than others. Bill C-14 is undoubtedly setting an unhealthy precedent.

This approach and the provisions of the legislation make a mockery of the parliamentary process and demean the legitimate rights of Canada's first nations to thoughtful and meaningful self-government legislation.

It is for all those reasons that we believe that Bill C-14 is inadequate and not yet ready to be passed.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this treatment is all about respect. It is about respect for aboriginal people and it is about economic development, as was stated before. It is about giving them dignity and a sense of pride in ownership and taking matters into their own hands. That is what we are trying to create here. The legislation is about economic development. When we give different groups the ability to manage their own affairs, they can do a better job in doing so.

We are very much in agreement with the legislation. We are very proud of the discussions that have taken place over the many years to have agreements with aboriginal people. I am proud to support, along with all my colleagues in the House, Bill C-14.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I fully support Bill C-14, the Tlicho land claims and self-government act, legislation that will enact the Tlicho agreement. I believe that this agreement serves as an important milestone in the evolving relationship between Canada and the aboriginal people.

It is true that there are gaps that separate first nations, Inuit, Metis and northerners from other Canadians, such as health and economic opportunity. We must do more to ensure that Canada's prosperity is shared by Canada's aboriginal people. The situation has begun to improve.

Private companies are partners with first nations, Inuit, Metis and northerners in some of the largest economic development projects in the country. The Government of Canada negotiated land claims and self-government agreements that enable aboriginal groups to fulfill their potential.

Bill C-14 is a case in point. This legislation will provide the Tlicho with access to resources, legal status, and the governance mechanisms it needs to develop socially, economically and culturally.

While my esteemed colleagues have addressed various aspects of Bill C-14 and the Tlicho agreement, I will focus my comments on the bill's effects on entrepreneurship. Its fostering of entrepreneurship is key to the economic and social development of all communities, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike.

Unfortunately, for many years the entrepreneurial spirit has not supported the aboriginal communities. Isolated from the mainstream economy and with limited access to resources, many of these communities had little choice but to rely on the public purse.

Today, however, the situation has improved dramatically. Land claims and self-government agreements enable aboriginal communities to access the resources needed to prosper. Training programs ensure that young people can acquire the skills they need to succeed and venture capital funds enable entrepreneurships to access the money needed to explore emerging opportunities.

Bill C-14 will support this entrepreneurial spirit among the Tlicho in numerous ways. The bill clarifies the ownership of land and resources, giving the Tlicho people more tools to foster economic development in their traditional territory.

In addition, the Tlicho will receive more than $150 million paid out over a period of 14 years. These payments will enable the Tlicho to support the growing number of band owned businesses.

I understand, for instance, that the Tlicho are investigating the possibility of hiring aboriginal artists to create unique jewellery using diamonds from the mines in the Northwest Territories. Such an undertaking requires substantial venture capital and may not yield a profit for several years. Once Bill C-14 is proclaimed, the Tlicho will be better positioned to assume the risk and invest the capital.

As members are aware, the Tlicho people have already demonstrated remarkable business acumen. They have negotiated and maintained agreements for two large diamond mines in the region. Under these agreements the Tlicho receive access to jobs, training opportunities and scholarship investments.

When the Tlicho people secured these agreements, they recognized that they would benefit only for as long as the diamond mines operated. To derive long term benefits from short term projects the Tlicho co-founded a company with ATCO Frontec, a private business with a history of successful aboriginal partnerships.

The joint owned company, Tli Cho Logistics, provides service to northern mining projects. Initially, the Tli Cho Logistics company employed Tlicho people as unskilled labours. ATCO Frontec hired others to staff administrative and managerial positions. Over a period of several years however ATCO Frontec will train Tlicho staff for these skilled positions. Eventually, the Tlicho, who own 51% of Tli Cho Logistics, will assume control over the company.

This agreement ensures that when the diamond mines close, the Tlicho will have the expertise and experience needed to develop or bid on projects in other sectors, such as hydro electric, oil, gas and tourism.

The partnerships benefit everyone. ATCO Frontec establishes a thriving company that generates profits for its shareholders. The Tlicho acquire expertise and Canada gains another enterprise that contributes to the economy.

There can be little doubt that negotiated settlements, such as the Tlicho agreement have a significant and positive impact on the economy, but do not take my word for it. Consider a recent report by the respected accounting firm of Grant Thornton. The report analyzed the economic impact of negotiated settlements in British Columbia and stated that treaties deliver “a large net positive financial and economic benefit for British Columbia”.

A second study describes the importance of negotiated settlements from a different perspective. The B.C. Treaty Commission surveyed 141 companies, including 118 that are headquartered in British Columbia. One in four respondents said that companies had plans to invest in the province within the next five years if a significant number of land claims were settled.

Let us consider for a moment the ramifications that these findings have for Canada's economic policy. It is increasingly clear that negotiated settlements have substantial impacts well beyond the community level.

Today, first nations, Inuit, Métis and northerners are involved in every sector of the economy. Some of the largest projects underway in Canada, diamond and nickel mines and oil sands, were made possible only because of agreements negotiated with aboriginal communities. The economic benefits of these projects ripple throughout the economy.

In this context, it should come as no surprise that first nations, Inuit, Métis and northerners' issues have an increasingly prominent place in the business of the House. After all, there is only one economy and the more aboriginal people participate and contribute to the economy, the better all Canadians will be.

The Prime Minister recognizes the numerous obstacles that hamper the ability of first nations, Inuit, Métis and northerners to participate in the economy. To remove these obstacles and promote greater cooperation among the various departments and agencies with aboriginal people, the Prime Minister restructured the upper echelons of government. Today there is a parliamentary secretary, a privy council office, a secretariat, and a cabinet committee, all devoted to aboriginal affairs.

Other recent actions demonstrate the government's intention to follow through on its commitment to aboriginal people. In the Speech from the Throne the government outlined a strategy to address aboriginal education, governance, housing and health care. The strategy calls for the removal of impediments to economic development for first nations, Inuit, Métis and northern communities. It targets improvements in health care, physical infrastructure and training programs. It aims to facilitate access to tools and mechanisms needed to foster self-sufficiency and sustainability at the community level.

The strategy recognizes that quality of life is about much more than economic levels and access to social services. Quality of life is also about the strength of community bonds. It is about the links between young and old, rich and poor, citizens and governments.

Bill C-14 also recognizes these truths and will put the Tlicho people firmly in a position to enhance the quality of life of its citizens. Decisions on local issues, such as land use, culture and education, will be made by the people most familiar and most affected by these matters.

I am convinced that Bill C-14 would enable the Tlicho to safeguard their culture and increase their contribution to the economy. I urge my hon. colleagues to lend their support to this important legislation.

[Françoise Boivin, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate you, since I have not had the opportunity to do so yet, on your appointment. We represent taxpayers from the same region and our region is honoured. I am very happy for you and the region.

I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-14, the Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act. I have no doubt that passing this bill will benefit both the Tlicho and all Canadians.

The agreement at the heart of this bill grants the Tlicho true control over a significant parcel representing roughly 20% of their traditional territory. In addition, the Government of Canada will pay the Tlicho—in several payments—some $150 million. These numbers will no doubt be the focus of every headline, but this agreement also includes many other provisions that will be just as important to the future of the Tlicho people.

This legislation will give the Tlicho the ability to shape their destiny. The Tlicho will form an effective and representative government and oversee vital aspects of their communities, such as land management, culture and social services. I am confident that by exercising control over their affairs, the Tlicho people will prosper for many generations to come.

And clearly, the Canadian economy benefits from prosperous, sustainable aboriginal communities. My optimism about the impact of Bill C-14 is based, in part, on the way the Tlicho have honoured their ancient traditions in the face of outside influences.

In the past 30 years, the Tlicho have experienced rapid and tumultuous social change. Where Tlicho hunters once tracked caribou, southern companies now mine diamonds. Skidoos and SUVs have largely replaced snowshoes and sleds. Oral histories once spoken by elders are now recorded in books and computers.

Despite the swift incursion of technology, though, the Tlicho continue to abide by their traditions. Elders are revered; the land is respected. And education remains a central focus of the community. Education has long been a crucial component of Tlicho culture. Since time immemorial, succeeding generations of elders have passed on their knowledge of traditional lands, relationships and culture.

When southerners first began to investigate the feasibility of building a pipeline through the Mackenzie Valley, Tlicho leaders recognized that such a project would have a dramatic impact on their society. In an effort to cope with change and minimize the negative consequences, the Tlicho invested in education.

In 1968, then Indian Affairs Minister Jean Chrétien met with Chief Jimmy Bruneau to discuss the future of the Tlicho. Chief Bruneau said that his people must learn to blend Northern and Southern cultures so they can take advantage of new technologies and opportunities. Chief Bruneau called for new schools to teach a curriculum that balanced aboriginal and non-aboriginal traditions.

In 1971, Chief Bruneau's dream began to come true when a school bearing his name opened in Rae-Edzo. The school's mission statement, “Be Strong Like Two People”, encapsulated the Chief's vision, and effectively summarized the Tlicho's strategy in dealing with social change.

Within a few years, Canada's first aboriginal school board took control of primary education in all four Tlicho communities. A regional secondary school was added in 1992. Since then, the number of adult students has climbed steadily. And, true to Tlicho tradition, adults attend the same classes as children.The Tlicho-controlled schools have had a significant and positive impact on their communities. Up until the mid-1970s, only a handful of Tlicho had ever graduated from high school. Now an average of 20 Tlicho earn high-school diplomas each year, and a growing number are pursuing degrees and diplomas at colleges and universities.

Tlicho attitudes about formal education have changed over the years. For the past 11 years, Rita Mueller has served as principal of Chief Jimmy Bruneau school, which now has an enrolment of approximately 350. In Ms. Mueller's words:

Ten years ago, a high-school diploma was the be-all and end-all; today it's considered a bare minimum. Most young people plan to continue their studies after high school.

The Tlicho recognize that post-secondary education is crucial to success in the modern era. And Tlicho leaders have found ways to ensure that their people have access to this education. The impact benefit agreements negotiated with the diamond-mining companies Diavik and BHP Billiton include payments to scholarship programs.

Furthermore, the Tlicho have chosen to commit a substantial portion of the payments received under this agreement to a scholarship fund. In this way, Bill C-14 will lead to an annual investment of approximately $500,000 in the Tlicho scholarship fund.

To administer scholarships and bursaries, a seven-person committee comprised of community representatives and teachers was established. The committee interviews applicants, reviews academic records and awards bursaries to the top candidates. The Tlicho were wise enough, though, to recognize that money alone cannot ensure success. Life on a crowded campus thousands of kilometres away from home can be difficult for Tlicho students, particularly when they've been raised in a completely different culture.

To help students adapt, the Tlicho hired a local person to fill the newly created position of regional post-secondary support coordinator. The coordinator maintains regular contact with Tlicho students and helps them cope with life on southern campuses.

The success of these students is crucial to the sustainability of Tlicho communities. To make the most of self-government, the Tlicho must have a group of professionals: managers, lawyers, doctors, teachers. They will also need carpenters, electricians and dozens of technical specialists. Rather than always hire these professionals from outside the community, the Tlicho are determined to train, develop and employ their own people.

This is precisely why Morven MacPherson was hired as regional post-secondary support coordinator. Ms. MacPherson, who had recently completed a second university degree, was delighted to return to Rae-Edzo and take the job. And community leaders recognize that Tlicho people who have completed post-secondary education are more likely to be “strong like two people.” These graduates draw from Tlicho culture and from their formal studies.

The importance of this bi-cultural knowledge cannot be understated. Consider, for example, the management of social services in Tlicho communities. Years ago, there were few social workers in Tlicho communities. When a child needed to be moved from a threatening situation, he or she would end up in Yellowknife, Fort Smith or Red Deer—far from Tlicho culture, language and traditions. Today, however, the head of social services is Nora Wetson, a Tlicho woman with a degree from the University of Regina. Ms. Wetson strives to ensure that social services are delivered in a way that balances Tlicho and southern perspectives.

Given the progressive approach to education and social services adopted by community leaders, the Tlicho can look forward to a new generation that is “strong like two people.” Today, the Tlicho support more than 130 people in post-secondary institutions. Among them are students of medicine, engineering and dozens of other disciplines. Many of these men and women will become leaders in Tlicho communities.

The legislation before us today validates the careful and respectful approach to development adopted by the Tlicho. I support Bill C-14 because it will enable the Tlicho to realize their potential. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-14 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. It makes amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and consequential amendments to other acts. Because this is a land claim agreement as well as a self-government agreement, it is constitutionally protected. This enabling legislation also gives effect to the tax treatment agreement for the Tlicho.

The federal government has essentially been carving up the north since the 1980s. It did it through the creation of Nunavut, through the comprehensive Yukon Indian agreement for the 14 Yukon first nations, and it has done it in the western Arctic with the Gwich’in, the Inuvialuit, and the Sahtu land claim agreements in the Northwest Territories.

There are essentially two areas in the north not yet covered with a land claim after the Tlicho agreement. Those are the Akaitcho and Deh Cho in the Northwest Territories, bordering to the south and west of the Tlicho agreement we are talking about today. I hope that kind of puts a perspective on things for people who are listening.

We have an interesting scenario here. The former premier of the Northwest Territories, Stephen Kakfwi, prior to holding the premiership, held the aboriginal portfolio and even held it during his time as premier. He consistently supported a very strong aboriginal and northern ownership agenda.

Last year he suggested that the Northwest Territories would live under some form of aboriginal governance within five years. We have had a lot of land claim agreements, as I just portrayed, but we certainly have not had much in the way of aboriginal self-government agreements. This means that he is promoting an agenda that would lead to many new agreements. This agreement would be a forerunner of that.

The governance provisions in this agreement are obviously precedent setting and, one would imagine, very important for us to scrutinize because they have major implications for future negotiations. I think that is of great concern to us from the standpoint that this agreement has received very little scrutiny. There has been very little interest from the rest of the world. There is a lack of clarity in this agreement, such as the concerns about paramountcy.

There are paramountcy concerns in many of our aboriginal agreements, but this one is exacerbated by the fact that it is not just two sets of laws that are colliding, it is very often three sets of laws: those of the Northwest Territories, those of the federal government and those of, in this case, the Tlicho.

Therefore, without clarity this could lead to all kinds of collisions and jurisdictional disputes. There is no satisfaction in talking to the bureaucracy or anyone involved in these negotiations in terms of getting answers to specific questions when it comes to that issue.

I have some very real sympathy with the aspirations of the north and with the fact that the federal government has been an oppressive presence in many respects.

We know from the current situation that has been brought to light about the differences between Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia and the federal government over offshore revenues from oil and gas, for example, that there is every reason to believe that no Liberal federal government has ever wanted the provinces to control resource revenues or their own resources. That goes doubly so for the Northwest Territories and for Nunavut and Yukon.

I have some real sympathies to the reasons and the rationale for some of the expressions of using this land claim and self-government initiative to try and bring new expression to northern control over resources. I am not sure this vehicle is always the best way but it has been their only way.

Only last year, Jim Antoine, a very well known MLA in the Northwest Territories and the resources minister, stated that aboriginal governments would become allies in the territories' fight to win control over its resources and the associated royalties from the federal government. That is a validation of what I just said and a validation about the ongoing dispute, not just with the north, but with the provinces over control of their own resources, their own destiny and their problems with clawbacks and other arrangements whereby there is a disincentive to carry on enterprise and resource extraction.

The bill is rather compact but it would give force of law to the tripartite agreement of August 25, 2003, and that accords the agreement from 2003 paramountcy over the act itself. The act would bring into law these very complex provisions.

The Tlicho First Nation would have ownership of approximately 39,000 square kilometres of area north of Yellowknife and between Great Slave Lake and Great Bear Lake. Under the terms of Bill C-14, the first nation would also acquire participatory regulatory authority over a much larger area. The bill is unique in that it would give effect to the land claim and the self-government agreement.

The act and the agreement have been put before this Parliament on an all or nothing basis. The government, on the advice of the clerk and the House, has taken the position that Parliament lacks the capacity to amend the provisions of the agreement. For this reason, the legislation was introduced by way of a notice of ways and means motion.

What this is really telling us is that the federal government can negotiate essentially any agreement it so chooses in its area of expertise and can do so in a completely unchecked fashion.

We have great concerns about that. We and the other opposition parties expressed our concerns about the lack of any democratic check on the government's ability to sign on to the missile defence initiative, for example. We amended the throne speech so that a vote will be held in this place if the government decides to proceed with the missile defence initiative.

The government signs many other international treaties where the degree of scrutiny might be something we want to look at, but surely, when it comes to a domestic arrangement that will be constitutionally protected and that is something that is as complex as this agreement is, there must be some arrangement that allows for amendments to or checks on the fact that our bureaucracy, one department, one minister and the cabinet, can simply approve an agreement of this degree of seriousness.

I think there is a huge issue at stake and, I must say, I disagree with the position that the House has taken on this. I do not believe this contributes to democracy in any way. As a matter of fact, I believe it undercuts democracy. The very role that the House should be providing has been undercut by this decision.

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

In order to negotiate this agreement, the negotiating costs for the Tlicho alone were $27 million. If we think about that, a group of 3,000 people spent $27 million just on their side alone negotiating this agreement and the House of Commons has no opportunity to change one sentence in that agreement. I do not know of any other jurisdiction that would accept this, but in any case, that is where we are. This is not a proud record. I would assume that all of the negotiating costs combined must be approaching $80 million.

I want to summarize some of the specifics of the agreement for the interest of our listeners. I think it is important that we know some of the non-self-government settlement provisions.

Two operating diamond mines in the Tlicho territory 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.

Five years ago we were essentially a non-diamond producing nation. Now we are the third largest diamond producing nation on the globe and we have every reason to believe that we will become second in short order. There are lots of future expansions of diamond mining that will occur north of 60° and in northern Ontario, northern Saskatchewan and other jurisdictions.

Yes, the existing mines are excluded but for any future mines within the Tlicho it is quite realistic to assume that they will be on lands owned by the Tlicho. 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 reached. This would bring in about $3.5 million a year to the Tlicho government from the whole basin.

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 Shatu, 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. I must say that adding these kinds of infrastructures to the north are important and progressive and are all very good initiatives.

The taxation provisions of the agreement are a little unclear since there is no concluded taxation agreement between Canada and the Tlicho, although one is to be concluded. Once again, here we are enabling something that is yet to happen without any ability to amend anything.

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 Métis. The Tlicho government would receive taxes paid to the federal government from Tlicho residents. The Criminal Code would continue to apply.

This agreement 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 its first six years. In addition, there is a one time payment of $5 million from the federal government to an economic development fund to be managed by the Tlicho government.

Although the agreement has received little attention in the Canadian media, it is certainly the most significant agreement concluded by the Canadian government in recent years, as I have explained. We have some issues with this agreement and I think they generally fall under several categories.

I will summarize my major concerns by talking about the jurisdictional confusion, the absence of finality that is not in the agreement and the fact that we are simply doing this in a vacuum. The whole agreement has been agreed to by a few individuals and is being rubber stamped because no other option is available to us as the Parliament of Canada.

Somehow we have to revisit how these initiatives are approached right from the beginning and ask what the long term ramifications will be of these precedent setting agreements that tend to create a jurisdictional lack of clarity between Tlicho or aboriginal law, territorial or provincial law and federal law.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-14, which I do support.

Many of my hon. colleagues had much to say about this and I will not restate their points, but I will talk about it in the context of first nations, Inuit, Métis and northerners identity, self-sufficiency and treatment within Confederation. In my opinion the bill is more than appropriate and timely. It is absolutely essential.

Bill C-14 would enable the Tlicho to affect their environment and the changes in a better way because they are most familiar with their local conditions. At long last the Tlicho will be guaranteed representation on land, water and renewable resource boards and within community governments. They will have control over the land and resource management, aboriginal language and culture.

By exercising their inherent rights, the Tlicho will have the power to assume control over their resources once and for all. They gain the right to grant interests and licences and they gain the freedom to establish partnerships and conduct business according to their needs, while at the same time respecting interests that already exist. I think that is an essential point to the good question that was posed by the opposition that this bill respects the interests of groups that are already there.

The Tlicho have ably demonstrated that they can manage their affairs responsibly and, indeed, profitably. I urge hon. members here today to remember that the Tlicho are one of the most prosperous aboriginal communities in the north. They have proven to be both forward thinking and industrious. They constructed and now run an airport, take a lead role in the management of their schools and have built and operated both senior centres and a long term care facility.

They have proven to be able and fair negotiators, and have successfully negotiated delivery agreements on a number of matters and, in particular, in working with the Northwest Territories. They have signed a number of mutually beneficial agreements with private sector firms, chief among them the far reaching impact that the Ekati Diamond Mine deal has struck.

The Tlicho have long experience in devising and supporting fruitful partnerships and alliances, partly due to their sharing nature and partly because of their world view. They and their society understand that long term health and prosperity lies directly with their ability to cooperate with those around them.

In the private sector their agreements have resulted in a wealth of economic and social benefits, including jobs and training opportunities. The resulting economic activity in Tlicho communities supports a wide range of social services. Indeed, when we consider this agreement, it springs from a group of communities working together in the spirit of collaboration. It is no surprise that Bill C-14 itself is the result of extensive and fruitful collaboration by many groups.

I am aware, though, that sometimes the results of public consultation have been criticized and overstated. In fact, we all know that sometimes consultation and collaboration have been far less than successful and merely an exercise of having a lot of meetings. However that was not the case in this set of negotiations that have resulted in Bill C-14.

The consultation process, in short, was exemplary. First, it was conducted as the combined efforts of the Tlicho, the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Government of Canada. This coherent tripartite approach ensured proper representation of all three levels of government from the beginning and, by unanimous agreement, the process was refined so that we have the formal agreement we have now.

Open house sessions were held in four Tlicho communities, as well as Yellowknife, and feedback was listened to and incorporated. What is important is that the public at large was informed about this process and had opportunities to have input all the way along.

In the summer of 2002, when the Government of Canada announced the withdrawal of 39,000 square kilometres of land that would eventually become Tlicho land, widespread public consultation occurred again with interest groups and representations from all three governments were brought to bear.

Another public information session occurred in September of that year when it was decided that further consultations were necessary to ensure that the public was completely informed and had ample time to discuss and respond to all these proposals. The chief negotiators had set up a three month information exchange period with interest groups so that questions would be asked and answers would be forthcoming.

It is worth noting that during these exchange periods, tangential discussions between the Tlicho and the Akaitcho Treaty 8 Dene gained considerable momentum. To their credit, the Tlicho were diligent negotiators. During these information exchange periods, in which the Tlicho agreement was hammered out, it was refined in a number of areas as a result of these negotiations so that by March 2003 the ratification process was formerly commenced.

This is a remarkable achievement of public consultation. It makes clear the intention of the local aboriginal people to be heard and respected. High public turnouts attested to this fact. Moreover, wide public consultation occurred throughout this process. People throughout the north had their views heard, respected and incorporated. That was been important. Some concerns had been expressed by members about the process.

The Tlicho are clearly ready to fulfill their obligation. They have been working toward this agreement for more than decade. They have staged hundreds of consultation sessions and have secured the support of a range of public and private sector groups. Now the Tlicho are ready to establish and maintain a democratic government. This is very important. I think it will address a number of the questions that will come from the opposition.

The Tlicho are ready to establish and maintain a democratic government within the constitutional framework of Canada. Their government will respect Canadian law, fully recognizing that the Tlicho, as are Canadians everywhere, will be subject to federal laws and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

My colleague on the other side asked a very legitimate question about the issue of who would be in control and which law would be of paramount importance. It is the laws of Canada. I can reference specifically within the agreement. Chapter 7 has very specific references as to which laws are paramount within the context of any conflicts that may occur between what is in the agreement for the Tlicho people and other levels of government. Article 7.7.2 explicitly states that the federal legislation will prevail over Tlicho legislation where there is any conflict. I hope this will answer the member's question specifically.

Many of us have had the opportunity to work with aboriginal people. We have seen what occurs in aboriginal communities. We have seen the devastation within some aboriginal communities, which has been wrought for such a long time. We have seen the pain, suffering, the social dislocations which have occurred and the terrible social parameters that occur with aboriginal people both on and off reserve.

Domestically, I know we are committed to change the historical problems that have occurred with aboriginal people and change the horrible social parameters in some communities, such as unemployment, substance abuse, the lack of skills training, fetal alcohol syndrome, dislocated communities, communities where they desperately need and want to work with non-aboriginal communities to ensure that together we can enjoy the fruits of our wonderful country.

We on this side are committed to doing this. I have no doubt that members on all sides want to work with aboriginal communities to change those parameters, to rectify those problems and ensure that aboriginal people will be able to teach us the strengths of their cultures and their communities. Together we will learn about each other and will enrich each other. Together we will have a stronger country. Together we are a stronger people. Together we are culturally enforced. Together we will improve the social welfare of the people and societies of which we are part. I know that we are committed to that goal.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague opposite made some very good points in terms of needing to have some certainty on a lot of these investment issues so that when companies do go in and make the large capital investments, they do have that certainty throughout a time period.

This week I was at the Energy Council dinner where they honoured Nellie Cournoyer from the north for all of her actions and what she has done to really bring prosperity to the north.

One of the questions I do want to ask my colleague is on the issue of jurisdiction. Which level of government has jurisdiction? One of the things we found in our reading of the legislation was that it is a little confusing over which jurisdiction is paramount. Is it the provincial government, the federal government, the agreement itself or Tlicho law?

Could the hon. member identify which level of government has paramountcy in terms of jurisdiction? Could he point to either the agreement or Bill C-14 legislation where it identifies which level of government is paramount.

[Michael John Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca.

It is a special honour for me to rise today and encourage my hon. colleagues to support Bill C-14, the Tlicho land claims and self-government act. The act would make possible boundless improvements in the lives of the Tlicho people. It would serve throughout Canada and around the world as an example of visionary advancement of the principles of ethical fairness, social encouragement, and legislative support for aboriginal communities. Moreover, it would most assuredly have a positive and sustained effect on Canada's economy as a whole.

In the modern age, the keys to the long term business success of a corporation and the keys to economic prosperity of a whole society are in many ways similar. The requisites are creativity, honesty, hard work, persistence, and now above all else, effective partnerships.

Buyers need sellers, retailers need wholesalers, distributors need manufacturers, and producers need suppliers of raw materials. In the development of social economic structures the pattern of interdependence is the same. Communities need support, individuals need encouragement, leaders need wise counsel and organizations need allies.

Before any of this can happen local communities need the full understanding and support of provincial and territorial authorities. All levels of government need the clarity of well considered legislation from which they can seek, build and sustain the partnerships that will lead to prosperity.

In my opinion, Bill C-14 would provide the Tlicho people with the tools they need to establish new and effective partnerships. The Tlicho have already demonstrated a remarkable ability to negotiate mutually beneficial agreements with private companies. Consider for example the resourceful approach the Tlicho took to two of the diamond mining projects now underway in the Northwest Territories. Before the projects went ahead impact benefit agreements were completed that guaranteed valuable benefits for Tlicho communities. These agreements made with Diavik and BHP Billiton respectively have generated jobs for the Tlicho people, service contracts for Tlicho owned companies, and post-secondary scholarships for Tlicho youth.

The Tlicho have recognized that most mines are productive only for a finite period and that once this time elapses many of the well negotiated jobs and contracts will then dry up. To maximize the potential long term benefits associated with diamond mines on their traditional territory, the Tlicho people sought the help of a business partner. Several years ago the Tlicho began an association with ATCO Frontec, a logistics firm that follows a unique and successful business model based on collaboration with aboriginal groups.

Beginning in the late 1980s, ATCO established a series of partnerships with aboriginal groups across the north. As an example, the Uqsuq Corporation, which stores and distributes fuel, is jointly owned with the Inuit Development Corporation of Nunavut.

The Inuit of Labrador are partners with ATCO in Torngait, a company that provides support services to a range of industries. In B.C., the Northwest Territories and Yukon, Northwest Tel operates and maintains microwave towers thanks to agreements ATCO has made with several aboriginal development corporations.

Each one of these partnerships with ATCO is based on a similar business model, one that stresses the building of capacity within aboriginal communities. While contacts may come and go, industrial and business capacity has an enduring market value that can be adapted to suit new opportunities.

This capacity based business model appealed to the Dogrib Treaty 11 Council which then partnered with ATCO Frontec to create Tli Cho Logistics. The business model is pretty simple. The Tlicho own 51% of Tli Cho Logistics and ATCO Frontec controls 49%. The company provides a range of services to the Diavik diamond mine and to the remediation project underway at the Colomac gold mine. Today more than 130 people work for Tli Cho Logistics, 50 of whom are members of the Dogrib Rae band.

When the company was founded five years ago ATCO handled nearly all the company's administrative and managerial work while the unskilled jobs went to the Tlicho people. During the past few years however ATCO has helped the Tlicho acquire the skills needed to manage and to administer that company.

This incremental transfer of technical skills is why the Tlicho were and continue to be keen to partner with companies like ATCO Frontec. Tlicho leaders recognize that management skills acquired on mining projects can be readily applied to other ventures as well. In other words, the Tlicho will be better able to initiate, to manage and to operate other projects as a result of experience gained from these diamond mines. This, my hon. colleagues, represents community capacity building in its purest form, and all Canadians stand to benefit from it and should be proud of it.

When Canadians want to do business they must make and seek investment. These days attracting investment is tricky. Investors everywhere have been burned. They look for security, for solidity and for mitigated risk. In short, they look now more for a secure return on investment rather than a large or perhaps uncertain quick return on investment. Managing risk is often now the act of avoiding it altogether.

Now look at the challenges facing the first nations, the Inuit, the Métis and northern communities attempting to attract the financing necessary to move a business ahead in their communities. These communities are often frozen in their progress by factors such as limited access to venture capital, a shortage of private sector partners and a lack of infrastructure. In this environment, what security can they offer investors? What factors must be addressed? What conditions must be changed to show investors that those who are in charge are ready, willing and able to make the kind of business decisions that generate results? This, I believe, is where Bill C-14 shines through.

Today land claims and self-government agreements are opening up the business environment by finally clarifying the ownership of resources. In the north, one of the world's greatest storehouses of natural resources, first nations, Inuit, Métis and northerners play a major role in growing the local and Canadian economies.

With such certainty affirmed by law, aboriginal groups, such as the Tlicho, can move resolutely, creating businesses. Instead of going cap in hand to investors, they can say, “Something big is about to happen, are you in or are you out?”.

I believe many Canadians have not yet appreciated the tremendous impact that first nations, Inuit, Métis and northerners will have on our national economy in the decades to come. Theirs is a community of communities where the population is rapidly growing, a sure sign of economic potential. The Conference Board of Canada has been warning Canadian corporations to “ignore the economic potential of aboriginal people at their own risk”.

With Bill C-14 we can give one group the certainty it needs to push ahead and to make its mark. This is a positive step in improving our nation's health. Our legislation must give people the tools they need to press ahead. The ability, the drive and the opportunity are there. With Bill C-14 and others like it, we can at last make sure that the certainty is there.

We have before us an opportunity to send a clear and powerful message to first nations, Inuit, Métis and northerners across our country, that the Government of Canada is ready to remove the remaining barriers to economic development in aboriginal communities. I urge my hon. colleagues to support Bill C-14.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we are dealing with Bill C-14, 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, or the Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act.

We in the Bloc Québécois are in favour of this bill, as we were moreover of Bill C-31, which died on the Order Paper but has now returned as the bill we are discussing today, Bill C-14.

I have had the honour of meeting with representatives of the Tlicho nation, on October 6 and then again yesterday, along with the Bloc Québécois critic for Indian and northern affairs, the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. I would draw to hon. members' attention that this gentleman is the first aboriginal person from Quebec to sit in this Parliament. He was a negotiator for the aboriginal peoples for many years. I will not let his age slip. I dated myself yesterday, but I will not do the same to him. I will merely say he was an aboriginal negotiator for many years and is very familiar with the issues. As native elders pass down their wisdom to the younger members of their community, he is passing his knowledge on to me, and I am very grateful to him. It is a pleasure to work with him on this.

The Tlicho who met with us have, moreover, honoured him with the name Barbe blanche. I have not yet been given a name, nor do I yet have a white beard, but I am sure it will not be long until I do.

We also received a letter from grand chief Joe Rabesca on October 22 thanking us for the way the Bloc Québécois has backed his people's claims.

I will just provide some of the background of this bill. The Tlicho agreement comes out of the failure of negotiations with the Dene and Métis nations, a process that ended in 1990. Negotiations with the Tlicho nation resumed in 1994 and concluded in 2003 with the signing of the Tlicho agreement. In this field, patience is a must. The Tlicho have been patient, and I think their patience will soon be rewarded.

On June 26 and 27, 2003, the Tlicho voted 84% in favour of the agreement. It was not a close vote for a referendum, but I will say that we would have unquestioningly accepted the result even if it had been 50% plus 1.

Thus, the passage of Bill C-14 is the final step in recognizing the land claims and self-government of the Tlicho people.

With respect to the terms of the agreement, just to remind the House what it is about, the agreement will give the Tlicho the largest contiguous block of land belonging to a first nation in Canada and will set up new forms of self-government for the Tlicho. The agreement will clarify the rights, titles and obligations of the Tlicho nation. The agreement does not interfere—and this is important—with ancestral or treaty rights of other aboriginal groups. The Tlicho government will own a territory of almost 40,000 square kilometres and it will receive slightly more than $150 million over 14 years. It will have specific legislative jurisdiction over its land and over Tlicho citizens, including those not living on Tlicho land. The most important point in this bill is that the agreement gives the Tlicho nation the tools it needs to achieve financial self-sufficiency, to protect its way of life and to improve its economic growth and the well-being of the whole community. Those principles and values are very dear to us.

The Tlicho have been waiting for 14 months now, since the agreement was signed, for self-government. The Bloc Québécois is 100% in favour of the right to self-government for the aboriginal peoples, their right to govern themselves autonomously. The agreement before us is an excellent example of self-government.

Since it first arrived on the federal political scene, the Bloc Québécois has recognized aboriginal peoples as distinct peoples. We think that aboriginal peoples have a right to their languages, their cultures and their traditions.

Aboriginal peoples unquestionably have the right to decide how to develop their own identity. Therefore, we endorse most of the recommendations of the Erasmus-Dussault royal commission on aboriginal peoples. They called for an approach to the concept of self-government based on the recognition of aboriginal governments as a level of government with jurisdiction over governance and the welfare of their people. We feel that this agreement reflects this approach.

In Quebec, if I can make a comparison, we have long been advocating this type of agreement, in which mutual respect is paramount. As early as 1985, René Lévesque and the Parti Québécois government in office at the time recognized Quebec's aboriginal nations. The Quebec people recognizes that diversity is not a threat, but an asset.

In Quebec, the year 2002 was also a turning point in this regard. It was once again a sovereignist government—what a coincidence—the PQ government of Bernard Landry, which signed the peace of the braves agreement and the joint agreement. The peace of the braves was signed on February 7, 2002, by then Quebec premier Bernard Landry, and the Grand Chief of the Grand Council of the Crees, Ted Moses.

This historic 50-year agreement marks the beginning of a new era in relations between Quebec and the Cree. The agreement concerns the establishment of a new relationship between the two nations. It provides, I should point out, for greater empowerment for the Cree regarding their economic and community development and for hydro development projects in James Bay. It also provides for the harmonization of forest activities with traditional Cree activities.

What a fine example of nation to nation negotiations. Soon, a sovereign Quebec will also be negotiating nation to nation with Canada, and the earlier the better. During the last election campaign, the Bloc Québécois reminded the federal government that the peace of the braves agreement was the example to follow. The Cree nation deserves as much consideration as the Tlicho nation. The peace of the braves has demonstrated that major development projects have to be negotiated with mutual interests in mind. The Bloc Québécois supports the first nations in their fight for emancipation. That is why we are asking Ottawa to follow this example to negotiate a similar agreement with the Cree.

As for the joint agreement, in 2002, the Parti Québécois government of Bernard Landry signed with the Inuit of Nunavik a 25-year agreement to accelerate economic and community development in Northern Quebec. This joint agreement enables the Inuit to assume responsibilities in economic and community development formerly held by the Government of Quebec.

This agreement is opening up bright new horizons by accelerating hydro development in Nunavik, promoting more control for the Inuit over their economic and community development, simplifying and increasing the efficiency of the financing for the Kativik regional administration and northern villages, and providing funding for priority projects.

To conclude, there are two historic agreements, both signed by a sovereignist government. Those who believe that we, sovereignists, want to close borders do not know what we are about. Those who believe that we do not treat our minorities right do not know what we are about. A sovereign Quebec will work in partnership with other peoples.

I reiterate the Bloc Québécois' support for the principle of self-government for aboriginal peoples. This agreement actualizes the right of the Tlicho to govern themselves. I might add that the Tlicho nation clearly indicated its desire to self-govern, and we support this democratic desire.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in the House to speak about honouring traditions and building prosperity. I rise in support of Bill C-14, the Tlicho land claims and self-government act. The legislation brings into effect an agreement that respects more than 1,000 years of history and lays the groundwork for Tlicho prosperity well into the future.

The history of the Tlicho is a story of a people who have met successive challenges thanks to a set of ancient principles handed down from generation to generation. These principles help the Tlicho decide when to act and when to react, when to drive change and when to adapt to it. By applying these principles, the Tlicho made wise decisions that allowed them to prosper in a modern world, while ensuring the survival of their people, their language and their culture.

These same principles inform the agreement at the heart of the legislation before us, an agreement that will have a positive impact on the quality of life in Tlicho communities because it is rooted in their rich history and honours the way they have lived for generations.

For centuries, the Tlicho were a nomadic people who occupied and used vast stretches of land in the Mackenzie River and Great Bear and Great Slave Lakes. Their ancestors tracked migrating herds of caribou, fished in waters according to age old patterns, trapped and hunted different species according to the seasons.

It should come as no surprise that the primary Tlicho principle is a respect for the natural environment, for the land, the flora and the fauna that thrive on it. It can be difficult for us to appreciate just how deeply the land resonates through the Tlicho culture. More than a source of sustenance, the land also provides spiritual guidance and shapes Tlicho language and art.

Respect for the land guided the Tlicho in their initial dealings with southerners. In 1921, as oil and gas exploration accelerated in the north, Chief Monfwi signed Treaty 11 on behalf of the Tlicho people, who were then known as the Dogrib. The chief traced the traditional lands of his people on a map and the boundaries he described are nearly identical to the ones included in the Tlicho agreement. In fact, when modern negotiators sought to finalize the boundaries for today's agreement, they turned to Tlicho elders for assistance. Their elders based their input on traditional knowledge of the routes travelled regularly by their ancestors.

The agreement at the heart of Bill C-14 will give Tlicho effective control over 39,000 square kilometres of land, almost 20% of their traditional territory. To ensure that the lands can be used in an effective, sustainable and equitable manner, the agreement enables the Tlicho to participate in several boards that will make resource management decisions in their area.

The second guiding principle at the heart of the Tlicho philosophy and the agreement is to act for the common good. Survival in a harsh environment of the north requires collaboration. The interests of the community are to be respected before those of the individual.

In the modern era, this principle has been evident in the Tlicho's approach to education and social services. The Tlicho moved swiftly and effectively to establish schools, for instance, when it became apparent that their traditional way of life was going to be threatened.

In the 1960s, the Tlicho recognized that a proposed pipeline through the Mackenzie Valley could have serious effects on their culture. The chief at the time was Jimmy Bruneau. He insisted that his people learn to blend northern and southern cultures and study the aboriginal and non-aboriginal traditions. This vision became known as a need to “be strong like two people”, a phrase that later became the mission statement for the Chief Jimmy Bruneau school.

The school opened in 1971 and it still teaches a curriculum that balances ideas from the north and the south, from aboriginal and non-aboriginal perspectives. Today, the Dogrib community services board, Canada's first aboriginal school board, operates five schools. An average of 20 students earn high school diplomas every year.

Modern Tlicho leaders believe that access to higher education is crucial to their people's ability to design and implement the policies that can ensure survival of their culture, their language and their traditions. As a result, the Tlicho invested heavily in post-secondary education. When impact benefit agreements were negotiated with mining companies, Diavik and BHP Billiton, the Tlicho insisted both include contributions to a scholarship fund. The Tlicho also intend to put sizable portion of payments they receive from the agreement toward this scholarship fund.

Today the fund supports more than 130 Tlicho who are pursuing post-secondary education. Once they graduate, these people will likely return to serve their communities as teachers, doctors and tradespeople. Their academic success will provide living proof of the Tlicho principles to the next generation.

The Tlicho principle of common good is the central theme of this legislation before us today. Effective self-government, for instance, enhances the Tlicho's ability to improve their communities. The Tlicho government will be able to enact laws to protect culture, language and deliver the social services and manage the resources.

Bill C-14 also incorporates two other Tlicho principles: recognition and representation. Each of the four Tlicho community governments established under the legislation will be run by a chief and a council comprised of a minimum of 4 and a maximum of 12 members. All will be democratically elected. At least half of each council must be comprised of Tlicho citizens. All community residents of legal age can qualify to vote for councillors, although only Tlicho citizens will be eligible to vote for the chief.

The constitution, already ratified by the Tlicho, outlines rules and responsibilities of government and protects the rights and freedoms of those who reside on Tlicho lands. Non-Tlicho citizens, for instance, may be appointed or elected to serve on Tlicho institutions. The constitution also ensures that the Tlicho government is politically and financially accountable to the citizens that it represents. All laws enacted by the Tlicho government are subject to legal challenges.

The final principle I would like to address involves respect for the people. The Tlicho believe that every resident must be accountable to contribute to the community in some way. This is part of the reason the Tlicho negotiators organized dozens of town hall meetings during the negotiations that led up to the agreement. They wanted to ensure that everyone had the opportunity to be heard.

Furthermore, to prepare people for success in the new economy, the Tlicho established a development corporation in 1978. Rather than focus exclusively on making a profit, the corporation's primary goal was to train and employ Tlicho people.

The wisdom of this approach is evident today. There are now two Tlicho holding companies operating several businesses in multiple economic sectors. A logistics company provides services to mining projects and a trucking firm transports goods across this vast region.

The Tlicho also own a local motel and a sporting goods store in Yellowknife. These businesses provide training opportunities and work experience, and give every Tlicho citizen a chance to contribute to their communities.

The Tlicho agreement is a modern expression of the age old principles that have enabled an ancient people to adapt and to change. This agreement has already earned the support of the Tlicho, of the territorial legislature in Yellowknife and now it is our turn in the House. I am convinced that a careful examination of Bill C-14 will lead my hon. colleagues to support it enthusiastically.

Business of the House

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with the allotted day.

Tomorrow and the first part of next week, the order of legislation will be second reading of Bill C-14, the Tlicho governance agreement, and reference before second reading of Bill C-13, the DNA data bank bill.

We will then proceed to the reference before second reading of Bill C-15, respecting the convention on migratory birds and second reading of Bill C-9, respecting a regional development agency in Quebec.

We would then turn to the reference before second reading of bills to be introduced early next week dealing with the Competition Act, first nations fiscal institutions, Telefilm, certain controlled substances, and an amendment to the Criminal Code with respect to impaired driving.

I will be discussing with the other parties the exact order of these bills. We would hope, by the end of the week, that we would be in a position to deal with report stage and third reading of Bill C-4, respecting aircraft equipment.

Next Thursday will be an allotted day.

On Tuesday evening there will be a take note debate on the compensation for victims of hepatitis C.

With respect to the specific question asked by the hon. member across the way, certainly it will be very forthcoming in the near future and I am sure we will also have a discussion among House leaders.

Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River for his tremendous presentation.

I think all of us in the House will agree that his youthfulness will not be a detriment but in fact an asset to him, as will the fact that he has a large population of aboriginal people within his constituency for whom he has a heart and with whom he has lived in close proximity. As he brings this experience plus his legal understanding to bear, we will all learn from what he has to offer.

The record in the House clearly shows that the Conservative Party of Canada has in the past supported, not just the notion of self-government agreements but self-government agreements themselves. I would refer to our not too distant past when we endorsed and encouraged other members in the House to support the West Bank agreement. We are also on record as wanting to proceed with caution in any type of legislation, not just self-government legislation but any type of legislation.

I would like to read the first phrase of Bill C-14. It is sobering force to realize what we are talking about. It is quite simple in how the bill is brought forward. If passed the bill will give effect to a lands claim and self-government agreement. A claim, in and of itself, does not mean that all the attributes of that claim should have full force, whether it is a claim of an individual citizen, a province, the federal government or aboriginal group. If the bill is passed everything they claim will become reality. That is why we need to approach this in a sobering fashion.

I congratulate the people who worked on the self-government agreement. We congratulate the notion of raising one's own revenues and the notion of hydro power development, and that the Tlicho people would one day even see self-sufficiency on their own lands and to actually at some point be able to add into the electrical grid in the Northwest Territories. Those things are all very commendable.

I congratulate the writers of the bill, which is relatively simple. It has 14 sections. It can be managed in terms of trying to get our heads around it and trying to grasp it.

However there are problems that must be addressed, such as the fact that there is no finality to this particular deal. If other self-government agreements were to take place that appeared, in the eyes of the Tlicho people, to be more generous, however they might want to define it or for which this particular bill provides, then the whole thing could open up again. They would automatically assume unto themselves elements that may be more generous in other acts which could follow this one. That could lead to a devastating economic spiral and a precedent that I say we should not countenance in terms of this type of legislation. The aspect that there is no finality to this agreement is extremely problematic.

The question of international jurisdiction is one that cannot be ignored. There cannot be any question about who has international jurisdiction in our country.

Our Constitution is very clear. We have areas of federal, provincial and individual jurisdiction. Our Constitution is quite clear and yet we still have problems.

As we saw yesterday and again today, the disagreement between the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premier of Newfoundland is linked to only one provision of the Constitution, the only dealing with equalization. The problem however is so serious that it put a stop to a first ministers meeting. All of that because of one small provision in our Constitution.

Therefore, we do not need another level of government meddling in foreign affairs.

International relations have become very complex. In fact, we are now in a dispute with another European country, which is claiming one of our islands in northern Canada, and we have yet to resolve this issue.

Can you imagine the problem with a bill like this that is vague about foreign affairs!

It is too big a risk to have a cloud hanging over an area as important as international jurisdiction. In, supposedly, some of the simplest areas of demarcation between federal and provincial jurisdictions, we already see great complexities, discussions that rage on by the hour and by the days and weeks in this House between the provinces and the federal government. To suggest that we should put another level of jurisdiction into this constitutional morass is simply untenable.

I have nothing against the good people who want to see this agreement go ahead. I am pleased that this agreement removes much of the jurisdiction of the Indian Act. We are all agreed that the act no longer serves and it can even be questioned whether it ever did truly served the aboriginal people.

There are positives here but the negatives are too big to ignore. I want to see the Tlicho people move on to prosperity, to independent living and to acquire their aspirations. We all want to see that happen.

Whether we are talking about prosperity or about poverty, those two conditions do not exist by accident. Prosperity happens to an individual or to a group of people when certain principles are applied. Poverty reigns when certain principles are not followed. We want to see the principles that have been applied to Canadians applied to these people because over the years Canadians, relatively speaking, to the rest of the world we have prosperity.

Certainly we are not free of problems but compared to the rest of the world we are a prosperous country. That did not happen just by accident. We do not have to feel guilty about that. Certain principles were in place that allowed individuals to move ahead, to be innovative, to pursue an education, to pursue enterprise, to become innovative and to actually create wealth for themselves.

We want to see the same principles applied here, which is why we have concerns with some of the elements in the bill. We would like to work with the government to see those addressed so that the aspirations of these good people can be achieved.

[Jeremy Harrison, Conservative, Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-14, the Tlicho treaty. Madam Speaker, as this is my maiden speech in the House of Commons, I hope you will indulge me as I pay tribute to my constituents and my riding of Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River covers more than half the geographic area of Saskatchewan, approximately 58% of the province's land mass. It is an enormous area, slightly larger than the country of Germany and a bit smaller than the country of France. I would like to sincerely thank the constituents of Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River and give them my commitment that I will do the very best job that I can on their behalf in Ottawa.

It is difficult to determine exactly, but I think my riding contains more first nations than any other riding in the country. There are over 30 first nations in my riding. It is also difficult to determine such things, but with over 60% of my riding's population being of aboriginal descent, I represent if not the most, then close to the most number of people of aboriginal descent of any member of Parliament.

I grew up in northern Saskatchewan. My home community is Meadow Lake. Many of my closest friends are aboriginal. As a law student my primary area of study was on the law surrounding first nations legal issues. I believe my background and experiences have given me some insights to allow me to speak to this issue with at least some understanding, based on practical experience and theoretical knowledge as well.

Before delving into the nuts and bolts of the treaty, I think it prudent to first give some background and context to the agreement that is before the House. Bill C-14 ratifies the Tlicho agreement signed August 25, 2003 between the Tlicho and the governments of Canada and the Northwest Territories.

The bill will give the Tlicho people ownership of approximately 39,000 square kilometres between Great Slave Lake and Great Bear Lake in the Northwest Territories. Under the terms of the bill the Tlicho also acquire participatory regulatory authority over a much larger area. The bill is unique in that it is both a comprehensive land claim settlement and a self-government agreement. The agreement is precedent setting in both respects and will guide future claim settlements and self-government provisions across the north.

It should be noted as well that although the act itself is relatively short, it would bring into force the tripartite agreement of August 25, 2003 and would accord this agreement paramountcy over the act itself. In other words, approval of the act would bring into law the very complex provisions set out in the 208 page agreement, as well as the shorter tax treatment agreement.

My hon. colleague from Calgary Centre-North has already pointed out in a very able way the general reasons behind my party's opposition to the bill. Generally speaking, our concerns arise from the impact that the agreement would have on general issues of governance, more specifically on the country's ability to exercise our international sovereignty.

We are also wary that the agreement would erode federal constitutional jurisdiction in the north and unduly complicate federal jurisdiction with regard to international agreements entered into by Canada. In addition, important provisions of the agreement, most notably those pertaining to legislative concurrency, paramountcy and jurisdictional conflict are internally contradictory and in many ways indecipherable.

I also have concerns that the agreement gives the Tlicho constitution a superior position in law to that of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Tlicho constitution is intended to be consistent with the charter, but a close reading shows that the citizens or persons to whom Tlicho laws apply will have rights and freedoms “no less than those set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms”, a position of legal superiority.

Another area of concern I have with this treaty is the absence of finality. One of the points the agreement attempts to stress is that the agreement is indeed a final agreement, but article 27.6.1 shows that this is actually not the case. This article provides that the Tlicho would receive equivalent benefits to those granted in the future to any other aboriginal group in the Northwest Territories, whether by land claims agreements, self-government agreement, tax power exemption or legislation. This agreement is not really a final agreement at all.

I also have concerns about the remarkable provisions in the agreement dealing with international matters. Article 2.9 of the agreement states that it does not limit the authority for the Tlicho to enter into “international, national, interprovincial and interterritorial agreements”. This makes it clear, by implication, that the Tlicho government has the authority to enter into international agreements, an almost unprecedented situation for a non-state actor in any nation on the planet.

Further to this, article 7.13.2 of the agreement states as follows:

Prior to consenting to be bound by an international treaty that may affect a right of the Tlicho Government, the Tlicho First Nation or a Tlicho Citizen, flowing from the Agreement, the Government of Canada shall provide an opportunity for the Tlicho Government to make its views known with respect to the international treaty either separately or through a forum.

This provision in essence creates a duty in law to consult. What is not made clear is what would happen if the Tlicho government made a determination that it is not in support of the relevant international treaty. Will the government be forced to make changes to the international agreement? This is a question to which there is no clear answer in the treaty. No clear answer has been provided by the government as well.

A further area of concern to me is with regard to the issues of jurisdictional confusion engendered by the agreement.

The act is clear in making the provisions of the agreement paramount over the act itself and over many regulations passed under the act. Unfortunately, the agreement itself appears to be internally contradictory, resulting in confusion regarding the concurrent and paramount authority of the Government of Canada, the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Tlicho government.

The agreement addresses these interjurisdictional issues in at least three places and prescribes three distinct paramountcy provisions. Articles 7.7.2 through 7.7.4 prescribe the following hierarchy of authority: one, federal legislation of general application; two, territorial legislation implementing Canadian international agreements; three, Tlicho laws; four, territorial legislation of general application; and five, specific federal legislation.

In other words, Tlicho laws prevail over territorial laws and also over federal laws of specific application passed by this House, thereby rendering legislation passed by Parliament subordinate to laws passed by the Tlicho.

Article 2.8.3 introduces yet another concept of paramountcy in that it makes the settlement legislation paramount over the provisions of any other legislation or Tlicho laws. Yet the definition of settlement legislation refers to both territorial legislation and federal legislation.

In this hierarchy, the agreement is paramount over federal settlement legislation, territorial settlement legislation and Tlicho laws, creating a situation of apparent inconsistency with articles 7.7.2 and 7.7.4.

A third legislative hierarchy is prescribed in article 2.10.7 that applies in the event of arbitration. This provision indicates the following hierarchy: one, federal laws of overriding national importance; two, federal laws implementing international agreement obligations; three, other federal legislation; four, territorial legislation implementing international Canadian obligations; five, Tlicho laws; six, other territorial legislation.

The general scheme of article 7.7.1 is that the Tlicho government has the power to enact laws that are concurrent with those of the Government of Canada and the Government of the Northwest territories.

The problem, which I think is very apparent on a close reading of this agreement, is that there seem to be multiple definitions of how to determine paramountcy in the event of conflict.

For these reasons, I will be voting against the bill.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Madam Speaker, I am truly honoured to voice my support for Bill C-14, the Tlicho land claims and self-government act.

This legislation will establish a new and respectful relationship between Canada and the Tlicho. I am also confident that the agreement this bill brings into force will foster economic and social development in the Tlicho communities, which are progressive communities.

I visited them in the north over a year ago. I met with leaders and saw some of the development. I also visited some of the diamond mines. On the human resources development aspect, we have an increase of aboriginal skills in the workforce which is good for all people in Canada and the economy of one of our northern territories.

The Tlicho are Dene people who live in four communities to the north and west of Yellowknife. They are an ancient people who have thrived in the north's harsh climate through a mix of adaptation, determination and cooperation.

For more than 10 years the Tlicho have been involved in a comprehensive process of negotiation and consultation. We know that this process is one that is not always easy, but it is a testament to the three parties involved that they have come before this House looking for the final ratification by one of the parties.

The agreement at the core of Bill C-14 is the fruit of a long and important process. I think the level of the debate here is important. We need to help those who are seeking answers, but at the same time I am very confident that we have those answers.

This legislation comes at an auspicious time in Canada's history. Clearly, there is a new will among government leaders to resolve longstanding aboriginal issues. To address these issues effectively, the Prime Minister has restructured the top echelons of government, establishing a Privy Council Office secretariat and a cabinet committee, as well as appointing a parliamentary secretary, all devoted to the aboriginal affairs portfolio. Certainly this Parliament, this House and the other place, continue to be charged with this very important work.

A few months ago Ottawa hosted the historic Canada-Aboriginal Peoples Round Table. During the round table, representatives of dozens of governments, agencies and organizations from across Canada held focused and productive discussions. The success of these discussions inspired the parties to continue to collaborate on a range of aboriginal issues at several sectoral tables.

To track progress made on the issues, the Prime Minister pledged to introduce an annual report card in Parliament. I think this is another measurement. It is not Parliament, but it is another parallel process which has the ability to include many people, many experts from the aboriginal community.

While we recognize that aboriginal issues such as housing, health and economic development are complex and multifaceted, the government's overarching goal is clear. The goal is to ensure that aboriginal peoples are able to participate fully and equally in Canadian society.

Accessing the mainstream economy, for instance, has long been difficult for many aboriginal communities. These communities face significant obstacles, such as underdeveloped infrastructure, limited access to venture capital and a lack of entrepreneurial expertise. Delivering effective social services and providing relevant education have also been challenging.

Some of these communities have met that challenge and will continue and actually do better in the future.

Nevertheless, in recent years, a growing number of aboriginal communities have found innovative ways of overcoming these obstacles. Generally, their solutions involve partnerships with governments, private business and other communities.

For example, the Tlicho have leveraged a series of partnerships to make their communities more prosperous, progressive and sustainable. Today the Tlicho operate numerous joint ventures in a range of economic sectors. They run their own schools and deliver social services through an agreement with the Government of the Northwest Territories.

I remember my colleague asking a question about the Government of the Northwest Territories and whether this language was one that was used. I believe it is used. In fact, it is one of the seven or eight languages that are officially used in the Government of the Northwest Territories.

The Government of the Northwest Territories unanimously ratified this agreement. I remember being there over a year ago and talking to some members of that territorial government. They were encouraged and excited about the prosperity and economic development that this would bring to their region.

Now we are here. They want to strike a new deal with the people of Canada, a deal that will put them once again firmly in control of their own destiny. For centuries the Tlicho were a self-sufficient people in charge of their own affairs. Given the remote location of their communities, there was little contact with southerners. All of that changed though when plans got underway to develop oil and gas reserves in the north.

Recognizing that their traditional lifestyle was threatened, the Tlicho chiefs embarked on an ambitious project to help their people face an uncertain future. Instead of fearing the unknown, the Tlicho have seen an opportunity to better understand both the culture of the north and that of the south. This new philosophy has inspired Chief Jimmy Bruneau to coin a phrase describing the Tlicho people as being as strong as two peoples.

These were not just words. In the early 1970s a Tlicho school was built in the village of Rae to teach a bicultural curriculum. Lessons were based on both aboriginal and non-aboriginal traditions. A few years later the Tlicho took another progressive step by establishing a development company to sponsor private businesses. Rather than focus on profits, these businesses trained and employed Tlicho people. We have to celebrate the innovation, the thoughtfulness and the planning that this type of step brought to a community.

Twenty years later when diamonds were discovered on traditional Tlicho lands, the wisdom of Chief Bruneau's approach quickly became apparent. Seeing the diamond mines as a valuable opportunity for the Tlicho, they drew on the bicultural education of their students and the entrepreneurial expertise they had acquired through band owned companies to make the development of this resource work for them.

So, the Tlicho negotiated with the Diavik and BHP Billiton mining companies impact and benefit agreements providing for access to jobs, contracts, training programs and scholarships.

The Tlicho people have also invested in sustaining their vision of being a modern people who remain rooted in their traditions. Revenues from Diavik and BHP Billiton have been invested in Tlicho communities, in youth groups, in sports programs, in beautification projects and physical infrastructure.

Alongside these progressive ventures, they have continued to support traditional activities such as trails of our ancestors, an annual 10 day canoe trip. The trip, led by the Tlicho elders, involves up to 200 participants each year. People of all ages paddle and camp together on traditional waterways and lands. They fish and hunt together, renewing their age old connection to the land that is now providing for them in new ways.

Bill C-14 honours this connection by granting the Tlicho people ownership and control of their traditional lands. The legislation before us represents a momentous opportunity not only for the Tlicho but also for Canada. It will effectively give the Tlicho people access to the resources they need to sustain their communities. Bill C-14 is also an opportunity for the government to send a clear message to aboriginal people across the country that we are serious about working with them to support their vision of a better future for their families and their communities.

Clearly, finalizing land claims and self-government agreements represent major strides toward these goals. These agreements enable aboriginal communities to contribute to the economy in ways that honour their traditions, languages and cultures. For evidence of the value of these agreements we need look no further than Nunavut or the Nisga'a nation.

I said earlier in the House that I was involved in the Nisga'a nation agreement. It was the first embedded agreement of self-government and land claims. This is the second. It really is an honour and a special moment to be a participant in both of these. There have been other agreements, but I feel that we are creating history in this chamber. These are not words; these are not picking apart the legalities. These agreements are building a country. They are a vision of the future that engages in partnership with respect, cooperation and compromise.

The Tlicho people did not get everything they wanted in this agreement. Perhaps they did not get everything that Canada or the territory originally put on the table. Agreements like this are real negotiations after education and consultation. Compromises are made over time. At the end of the day, this agreement, with all of its vast boundaries, has overlapping agreements that were done in a manner with which all the neighbours are happy. That is not true of every agreement that has been brought before the House. This is a vast boundary and to my knowledge all the neighbours are happy.

Those negotiations were done in good faith. We can talk about that process and implementation in this chamber. Like an international treaty, this is a ratification process. These negotiations with the Tlicho were done in good faith and with clean hands. The Government of Canada has laid these negotiations before this chamber. The Tlicho people voted in their communities with an outstanding outcome. It was better than the outcome of my election and probably better than the election of some other people in this place. It was a true representation and ratified by the people most affected.

The respected financial services firm of Grant Thornton conducted a thorough review of recent developments in British Columbia: agreements in principle, court decisions and government policies. The study concluded that treaties deliver a large net positive financial and economic benefit for all residents of British Columbia.

We could probably extrapolate that. When certainty is given through agreements, economic ability to move forward is also given because of the consequences of not really knowing a boundary, a resource, the process of government, the people we are dealing with, or who has the jurisdiction. These tables have been put into an agreement which has been ratified two ways now. We are the third party here.

We are in a special position. We will debate the bill in this chamber, but then it will move to committee. I, as parliamentary secretary, together with members of our government will help other people who have concerns to understand. Sometimes at the end of the day, maybe that understanding will not be there. However, we will make our best effort to push for that understanding because it is in the best interests of Canadians to move these ratifications forward and to complete our task.

It should come as no surprise that there is only one economy and the more aboriginal people who participate in and contribute to the economy, the better off all Canadians will be.

The Tlicho people have been preparing to implement this agreement for up to 10 years. They have completed related accords with their aboriginal neighbours, secured the support of the territorial legislature in Yellowknife, and drafted and ratified a constitution. They have demonstrated a remarkable ability to negotiate mutually beneficial deals with partners from both the private and public sectors. It is now our turn to recognize these considerable accomplishments by establishing in law this new and respectful relationship with the Tlicho.

I sincerely urge all of my hon. colleagues to support Bill C-14. There will be time for them to make inquiries. There will be a way that we can strive to provide the answers they seek. However, I hope we all do this in the good faith that is needed to take this forward for the benefit of all Canadians.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise on behalf of the New Democratic Party to speak to Bill C-14. I am especially pleased to represent my party in voicing our views on the bill because it deals with a fundamental issue that is very dear to my heart, and that is the eventual emancipation of the aboriginal people.

The bill would give force and effect to an agreement that was laboriously negotiated among the parties to deal with the self-governance and land claims of the Tlicho people in the Northwest Territories. I am heartened today to hear the views of my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois and the views shared by my colleagues in the Liberal Party as they speak in favour of the bill and in favour of the House of Commons recognizing the legitimate aspirations and goals of freedom and self-governance of these people.

Let there be no doubt that the Tlicho people meet all the tests of being recognized, not only as a nation but as a people. They have a language, a rich culture, heritage and tradition. They had and have land and a land base that pre-dates Confederation and pre-dates European contact on this continent by not only hundreds of years but by millenniums.

I am pleased to voice the views of the New Democratic Party that the bill should have speedy passage through the House of Commons at this stage and be sent to committee where I hope it also gets favourable treatment.

However I was disappointed to hear some of the views and criticisms put forward by the representative of the official opposition, the member for Calgary Centre-North. I feel like I am having déjà vu because one of the proudest moments of my career as a member of Parliament to date was being able to advocate and speak on behalf of the Nisga'a deal, which was the only other contemporary or modern day treaty signed in recent history that dealt with self-governance and a land base.

It was our pleasure to see that bill through. It was one of the proudest moments of my career to stand and vote in favour of that bill but we also had to stand 472 extra times because the Reform Party of the day opposed self-governance for aboriginal people. The Reform Party of the day opposed the right to self-determination for aboriginal people. The Reform Party and later the Alliance Party did everything it could to block the Nisga'a deal, mostly using political mischief by moving 472 amendments to the bill which were clearly designed to block, delay and stall.

I am disappointed to see a repeat of this in that we are getting opposition to what should be a unanimously accepted bill. I am not convinced that we as members of the House of Commons should even have a right, frankly, to interfere with the passage of the bill. The bill was negotiated between the Tlicho people, the Government of the Northwest Territories and federal government representatives, and the agreement has been struck.

The bill we are passing today would simply give force and effect to an agreement that has already been made. Therefore it would be an extension of the paternalism that has plagued aboriginal people for any of us here today to start cracking open this agreement to say that we should not be allowing Indians this much land or this much money. That is not our place. It is not for a bunch of white guys in suits to make those rulings.

This has been a long process of very sensitive and delicate negotiations. Agreements were ratified in a laborious and comprehensive way of all the four communities within the traditional area of the Tlicho people. At this point in time they simply need the recognition and the enabling legislation for that agreement to be manifest in full force and effect in the traditional territory of the Tlicho people

It seems to me that Tom Flanagan is still writing aboriginal policy for the Canadian Alliance Party. Progressive Conservatives must be rolling over in their collective graves, if that party is in fact dead, to hear the opposition being put toward the bill today. It is sad.

The mindset among those who are opposed to the emancipation of aboriginal people is a mindset that is found in the title of the book by Mel Smith, a senior advisor on aboriginal affairs for the Canadian Alliance, called Our Home or Native Land . In the book he challenges the whole idea of any kind of a land claim by stating that it would create a third order of government that would somehow have primacy over federal government laws. That is complete fearmongering and we heard 20 minutes of that fearmongering today.

The Canadian Alliance would have us believe that somehow this modern day treaty would have primacy on international affairs, that this new first nation would actually be out there representing themselves and having primacy over the federal government. All of that is carefully pointed out in the bill, if anyone would take the time to read the actual contents. There is no question which order of government has primacy. There is no question what relatively minor local bylaws and things the Tlicho people will have authority over.

The taxation rights that are within the bill are what is possibly the most meaningful financial component of the bill. Because taxation is a spending matter, the bill has to be preceded by a ways and means motion. That is parliamentary procedure. There is nothing sinister about a ways and means motion introduced by a minister to precede spending matters. That is the way this place works.

I have had to sit here for seven years now and listen to some pretty extreme views from the Reform Party, then the Canadian Alliance Party, and now we are seeing fairly extreme views in opposition to the bill from the new incarnation, the Conservative Party. I remember the terrible view shared by the aboriginal affairs critic when I first arrived here, who said that living on an Indian reserve was like living on a south sea island being supported by a rich uncle. That was the enlightened viewpoint of the Canadian Alliance of that time.

Other people have said that just because we did not have Indian wars in this country does not mean that they are not a vanquished people, otherwise why would they live on those Godforsaken reserves we have put them on. We can look that up in Hansard . Those were the views shared by the Alliance members then and their views do not seem to be much more enlightened today.

I do not think anyone should be standing in the way of a self-government agreement that would actually see a people come out from underneath the tyranny of the Indian Act. We should be celebrating this in the House of Commons today, not finding ways to throw obstacles and barriers in the way.

I do not need to tell anyone that the Indian Act is outdated and paternalistic legislation that is unworthy of any modern democracy. Any time a group of people, such as the Tlicho and the Dogrib Treaty 11 territory, can find their way to come out from under that oppressive document, we should be celebrating that fact.

Those who are not steeped in the issue of aboriginal affairs probably are not aware that the Indian Act essentially strips people's rights away. I heard the hon. member for Calgary Centre-North say that we do not want to put in place a race based set of privileges, as if the Tlicho people will now have extra privileges that other white Canadians do not have. In actual fact, the obnoxious race based issue is the fact that the Indian Act is still dominating and controlling the lives of a million Canadians in the year 2004. That is the real tragedy and that is the race based issue that must be addressed.

We are satisfied that there has been a thorough and comprehensive education and then ratification process of all the parties involved in the land claim and self-government agreement. I know it was an exhaustive tour throughout the territory to reach every last resident within that territory for, first, education, then consultation and finally, ratification of the agreement as we see it today.

Let us not kid ourselves. There was a great deal of give and take in that negotiation process. I do not believe anybody got all that they wanted out of this package, such as is the nature of negotiations. There was a lot of compromise and cooperation.

The only thing we need to know is that all the players, all the people directly affected by this agreement, are comfortable with it. That includes the government of the Northwest Territories, the diamond mines that are resident in that area, owners of the resource properties there, the federal government negotiators and, most important, the representatives the Dogrib Treaty 11 Council.

We find no fault in the bill. We feel it is our duty and our obligation to take that information from the authorities who are directly affected by it and do everything we can to see speedy passage.

We have a window of opportunity here. This could be a very brief minority government. It would be an injustice and terribly unfair if we let this issue slide or if we somehow ground it to a halt to where it could not pass within the timeframe. We might be back in election as early as February or March of next year, God forbid. This is what we are told. That gives us very few sitting days to see Bill C-14 get through this stage in the House of Commons, committee, third reading, Senate, et cetera. We all know that whole process is fraught with pitfalls when there is political mischief afoot.

We are happy that the Nisga'a people saw social justice within their time. That was a century-long negotiating process where the Nisga'a people first took their grievances down to the parliament buildings in Victoria in a dugout canoe and were turned away at the door of the legislature.

It was a very emotional process, for me at least, as we went through the steps in this House. They were welcomed into the House of Commons by most of the political parties here. The whole process was welcomed and the final treaty was in fact ratified.

These modern-day treaties are difficult to put together because they contain two components, as has been rightfully pointed out. It is not just a land claim. It is a self-governance agreement. With that comes the richness of the idea of self-determination and a recognition of a whole people, the language and culture, the right to make laws and to chart their own destiny. That is what is really exciting and really heartening about this whole process.

Without going into a great deal of technical details, I do not think it is necessary to know what the intentions of the NDP caucus will be in association with the bill. We are satisfied that it meets the tests for which we would look. It is a deal that has been driven by the people it affects and there has been natural justice involved in the consultation and the ratification process. The people have spoken and I believe it is up to us to honour the message they send to us. This is an idea whose time has come and we want to see it recognized and implemented in this session of Parliament.

The bill has the support of the NDP caucus.

[Bernard Cleary, Bloc, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-14, 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, acts which are affected by the content of this new social contract.

Before I get to the heart of the matter, I would like to say that I had the pleasure of welcoming the grand chief of the Tlicho nation, Joe Rabesca, to my parliamentary office. With him were his chief negotiator and members of his council. The grand chief explained to me that the Tlicho people had been waiting for 14 months—ever since the agreement was signed—to close this chapter of their history.

He explained with conviction that the Tlicho people want to continue making progress toward Tlicho self-government. I could see in the grand chief's eyes that same spark of pride that I have seen so often in the eyes of many of Quebec's aboriginal chiefs, as a negotiator for the first nations, looking at the reality of their new social contract, after 10 years of difficult negotiations involving the Tlicho First Nation, the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Government of Canada.

The Tlicho agreement spells out land claims, recognizes and protects harvesting rights, establishes self-government and provides for the necessary funding. I want to assure grand chief Rabesca that—here in the House or in the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources—the Bloc Québécois will support this agreement with all its energy and will make certain that the federal legislation is fully consistent with the agreement. The Tlicho people deserve such support.

The Bloc Québécois is completely in favour of this bill to implement the final agreement on the Tlicho. There are three main reasons for this position.

First, the Bloc Québécois is firmly committed to the idea of the first nations' right to self-government, and this agreement gives effect to that right. For this reason alone, we would have to support the underlying principle of this treaty.

Second, 84% of eligible voters were in favour of the Tlicho agreement in a referendum. The sovereignists can hardly oppose it.

Third, this agreement is an excellent example of self-government.

More generally speaking, the Bloc Québécois 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.

In a word, what we want for Quebeckers we also want for aboriginal peoples.

Bill C-14 is the last stepping stone in giving effect to the tripartite agreement that has been signed. The Tlicho are a people native to Canada whose ancestral lands are in the Northwest Territories. There are some 3,000 members of the Tlicho first nation, which was previously known as the Dogrib.

The Tlicho live on land located between Great Slave Lake and Great Bear Lake, in the heart of the Northwest Territories.

This is the first combined land claim and self-government agreement of its kind in the Northwest Territories.

The Tlicho agreement will bring certainty with respect to the rights, titles and obligations of the Tlicho, who have agreed not to exercise or assert any rights other than Treaty 11 rights and those set out in this agreement.

The Tlicho government will own a 39,000 square kilometre block of land, adjacent to or surrounding the four Tlicho communities, including sub-surface resources.

The Tlicho government will receive about $152 million over 14 years, as well as an annual share of resource royalties from development in the Mackenzie Valley.

Title to most land within the new community limits will be transferred to the Tlicho community governments. Third party interests with legal tenure will be protected.

The Tlicho government will have prescribed law-making powers on Tlicho lands and over Tlicho citizens off Tlicho lands. There will be a public community government in each Tlicho community established by territorial legislation.

A community government will have the power to enact laws relating to standard municipal matters. Subject to certain limitations, Tlicho citizens will have harvesting rights throughout the entire region at all times of the year.

A renewable resources board will be established to manage wildlife in Wekeezhii. The Tlicho government will be the custodian of heritage resources on Tlicho lands.

In consultation with government, the Tlicho government can name or rename lakes, rivers, mountains, and other geographic features and locations wholly within Tlicho lands, or in Tlicho communities, and that new name will be recognized as the official name.

The agreement gives the Tlicho the tools to achieve financial independence. The agreement also gives them more power to protect their lifestyle, stimulate economic growth and improve the welfare of their community.

Given the nature of the bill to give effect to the Tlicho agreement, it seems that the role of Parliament is to debate, and accept or reject, the bill. We need not amend this bill. It was duly endorsed by the three parties that negotiated it. In our view, amending this bill would be a show of paternalism that we want no part of.

We wish to reiterate that the Bloc Québécois endorses the key recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, which set out an approach to self-government built on the recognition of Aboriginal governments as a level of government with jurisdiction over questions concerning governance and the welfare of their people.

The entire report was based on recognition of the aboriginal peoples as independent nations occupying a unique place within Canada.

Congratulations to the Tlicho and good luck.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary North Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-14, the Tlicho land claims and self-government act.

I would like at the outset to join my colleague in welcoming the Tlicho dignitaries to the House today. They are indeed a strong community with strong leadership. The questions of which I will speak in my comments relate less to the future direction of the Tlicho and more to the future direction of the government.

As the hon. members opposite are aware, I have a lengthy history in the country as an outspoken advocate in the resolution of both specific and comprehensive claims. In particular, as a private citizen and legal counsel, I served as the negotiator on the tripartite settlement of the Sturgeon Lake treaty land entitlement claim and more recently as a commissioner at the Indian Claims Commission, where I served as co-chair for almost 10 years.

I have been an outspoken advocate on the resolution of claims such as this and I have advocated institutional reform that would see claims resolved through an independent claims tribunal, which has the requisite independence from the federal crown. Through all that time, for nearly 20 years, I have advocated the resolution of claims, but I have also always advocated settlements which are founded on Canada's best long term interests, as well as the best interests of the aboriginal communities concerned.

I regret to say I am unable to support Bill C-14 in its current form. I do not believe that this legislation and the agreement which it brings into law, which is an aboriginal rights agreement pursuant to section 35 of the Canadian Constitution, have been fully negotiated and properly considered from Canada's point of view. The agreement gives rise to a constitutionally protected right. It does not amend the Canadian Constitution, but it does change it in the sense that it gives rise to a section 35 protected right.

I acknowledge that there are many aspects of the Tlicho agreement which are sound and represent a useful step forward in the negotiation of self-government arrangements. Indeed, this arrangement is unique. It is the first of its kind combining a comprehensive land claim with a self-government arrangement.

I would also say that I make no criticism of the lands and resources which have been allocated to the Tlicho under the agreement. I regard the agreement as a generous one. In that respect it will provide the Tlicho with the resources, both financial and otherwise, to build a partnership and a future in our federation.

Unfortunately, these positive aspects of the agreement are lost within a legislative scheme that raises serious national issues. Generally speaking, our concerns arise from the impact which the agreement will have on the governance of the country and the fact that it compromises to some degree Canada's capacity to exercise its international sovereignty.

Our opposition to the agreement is based upon our concerns that the approval of the agreement will impede the future governance of Canada. Furthermore, the passage of the agreement will create a precedent which will significantly erode federal constitutional jurisdiction in the north and also complicate Canada's international authority. In addition, important provisions of the agreement, most notably those pertaining to legislative paramountcy and concurrency and jurisdictional conflict, are internally contradictory and ultimately not decipherable in the agreement itself.

The agreement is the culmination of two separate negotiations. The first is the negotiation of the comprehensive claim which has been carried out pursuant to the federal government's comprehensive claims policy of 1986. In this respect the agreement has some similarities to the Nisga'a agreement. The second is the negotiation of the self-government arrangements which are based upon the 1995 inherent rights policy of the government. In this respect the agreement tracks the Westbank agreement.

The act gives the force of law to the tripartite agreement of August 25, 2003 and it accords that agreement paramountcy over the act itself and over any regulations which are passed pursuant to the act.

It is noteworthy and worth mentioning that the manner in which the agreement and the act have been placed before this Parliament are in effect by way of a notice of ways and means motion. This places Parliament and the House in the difficult position where it is an either all or nothing proposition, either the House effectively approves the legislation adopting the entire 208 page agreement or does not. There is no opportunity for the House to engage in a constructive amendment process.

Although the bill has received little public attention it is almost certainly the most significant such agreement considered by the Canadian government in recent years. The effect of the agreement is to create a third order of aboriginal government with concurrent but paramount authority, jurisdiction over the federal Crown in relation to matters affecting the Tlicho.

Moreover, the resultant Tlicho state is governed by a Tlicho constitution which is arguably paramount to the Canadian charter on the very terms of the constitution itself. The agreement also appears to acknowledge or perhaps confer some degree of international authority upon the Tlicho government. There are a number of provisions in the agreement that I would submit are flawed and debatable from a Canadian public policy perspective.

I will restrict my comments to four reasons why the agreement, as drafted, is damaging to the long term interests of Canada. First, I will refer to the absence of finality; second, to incursions upon Canada's international autonomy; third, jurisdictional confusion; and fourth, confusion surrounding the application of the charter as a primary instrument of Canadian law.

On the absence of finality, the agreement is a generous one in terms of lands, moneys and resources which are provided. It is worth noting that, as my friend said, the Tlicho lands will comprise as I understand it, the largest contiguous block of first nation owned land in Canada.

Unfortunately, as one who has negotiated specific claims, I am having some trouble understanding what concessions Canada has received in return for this.

Chapter 27.6.1 of the agreement provides that the Tlicho will also receive equivalent benefits to those granted in the future to any other aboriginal group in the Northwest Territories, whether by land claims agreement, self-government agreement, tax power exemption or legislation. In other words, the Tlicho agreement is clearly not a final agreement in the same sense that the Nisga'a agreement could be said to be a final agreement.

With respect to incursions upon Canada's international autonomy, the agreement contains several remarkable sections relating to international matters. I would point out for the benefit of the House that what is remarkable about those provisions is that they are a violation of the federal government's own policy relating to the negotiation of comprehensive claims. That policy states that powers relating to Canadian sovereignty are non-negotiable when the government is negotiating comprehensive claims, self-government arrangements.

Chapter 2.9 of the agreement states that it does not limit the authority of the Tlicho to enter into any international, national, interprovincial or interterritorial agreement which suggests by implication that the Tlicho government does have some authority to enter into such agreements. The agreement, moreover, contains the following remarkable provision which is self-explanatory. I refer to chapter 7.13.2:

Prior to consenting to be bound by an international treaty that may affect a right of the Tlicho Government, the Tlicho First Nation or a Tlicho Citizen, flowing from the Agreement, the Government of Canada shall provide an opportunity for the Tlicho Government to make its views known with respect to the international treaty eitherseparately or through a forum.

The agreement carries on in chapter 7.13.4, “to provide for an arbitration mechanism between the Government of Canada and the Tlicho government in respect of international legal obligations and disputes relating thereto”.

Furthermore, the Government of Canada is obligated under chapter 7.13.5 to consult with the Tlicho government before taking positions before an international tribunal in circumstances where the Tlicho government has taken action giving rise to an international legal controversy.

The clear implication of this is that the very jurisdiction that the federal government on its own principles said is non-negotiable has been negotiated and to some degree compromised. So, from the perspective of Canada, this agreement has compromised the international sovereignty of this country.

With respect to jurisdictional confusion, the provisions of the agreement relating to the future governance of this part of the Northwest Territories are, I would submit, poorly drafted and, in several respects, contradictory.

The intent or the effect of the agreement seems to have been to create a new order of aboriginal government with concurrent, although paramount, authority over the federal Crown in relation to matters concerning the Tlicho. The bill is very clear in making the provisions of the agreement paramount over the statute and over any regulations passed under the statute.

Unfortunately, the agreement itself is not internally consistent. It is contradictory, resulting in confusion regarding the concurrent and the paramount authority of the Government of Canada, the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Tlicho government.

The agreement addresses these interjurisdictional issues in at least three different places and prescribes three different distinct concepts of paramountcy. First, in chapters 7.7.2 through to 7.7.4, there is a hierarchy of authority which essentially flows as follows: first, federal legislation of general application; second, territorial legislation implementing Canada's international agreements; third, Tlicho law; fourth, territorial legislation of general application; and fifth, specific federal legislation relating to the Tlicho.

Yet, in chapter 2.8.3, there is a separate concept of paramountcy in that it makes the settlement legislation paramount over the provisions of any other legislation or the Tlicho laws. Yet the definition of settlement legislation in the statute refers to both territorial legislation and federal legislation.

In other words, this provision seems to create quite a differently hierarchy; namely, the following: first, the agreement; second, federal settlement legislation, which is presumably this bill; third, territorial settlement legislation; and fourth, other legislation for Tlicho laws. This is arguably inconsistent with the concepts outlined in chapters 7.7.2 through to 7.7.4.

Third, in chapter 2.10.7, there is yet another legislative hierarchy which applies in the event of an arbitration relating to jurisdiction or power, and it is entirely different. It outlines the following hierarchy: first, federal laws of overriding national importance; second, federal laws implementing international agreement obligations; third, other federal legislation; fourth, territorial legislation implementing Canada's international obligations; fifth, Tlicho laws; and sixth, other territorial legislation.

Certainly, the general scheme of the legislation is that the powers of the Tlicho government to enact laws are concurrent with those of the Government of Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories.

The difficulty, from the provisions I have just outlined, is determining how and when the legislation of the Government of Canada is paramount, and how and when the legislation of the Tlicho government is paramount because there are multiple definitions that apply in the event of conflict. This will not be a good situation in the future as we determine who is responsible for what areas of activity.

Fourth, concerns the application of the charter and, frankly, the adoption of governance structures which may be inconsistent with the charter. The overall scheme created by the bill, the agreement and the Tlicho constitution appears to have implications for the application of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to Tlicho citizens. Although both the agreement and the Tlicho constitution speak of consistency with the charter, they do not say that they are bound by the charter.

It is noteworthy that the Tlicho constitution itself is very clear, in chapter 3.1, that the Tlicho constitution, not the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is the Tlicho nation's highest law. That is clearly expressed in the Tlicho constitution.

Frankly, the entire legislative scheme is quite unclear as to the constitutional relationship between the Constitution Act of Canada, the charter and the Tlicho constitution.

It creates a category of Canadians called Tlicho citizens, and prescribes an electoral system where only Tlicho citizens may be elected as the chief of the Tlicho community government. In addition, at least 50% of the elected councillors must be Tlicho citizens. To be a Tlicho citizen, one must be properly enrolled and registered, as I understand it, as a status Indian of Canada. The agreement clearly creates a segregated, racially based electoral system which does raise charter implications.

The Conservative Party believes that self-government must occur within the context of the Constitution of Canada. To ensure fairness and equality, the principles of the charter must apply to all Canadian citizens. Other claims such as the Nisga'a are very clear in stating that the charter binds the aboriginal self-government which is created. This document lacks that clarity.

Let me ensure that the record is clear as to my position. The future settlement of outstanding comprehensive claims must be pursued on the basis of a clear framework which balances the rights of aboriginal Canadians with those of the Canadian nation as a whole and, in particular, negotiated settlements must balance the economic and social needs of aboriginal Canadians with Canada's need for certainty and finality of terms.

Self-government agreements must reflect Canada's need for both efficacy and practicality in our institutional structure and constitutional harmony so as not to impede the future governance of Canada.

In our view the agreement has not been adequately considered from this perspective of Canada's overriding federal and international workability. In our view the agreement fails to satisfactorily balance the economic and social needs of the Tlicho on the one hand with Canada's need for certainty, finality of terms and constitutional workability on the other.

We would emphasize that this agreement has not been properly considered in that respect and that it is not in the best interests of Canada to approve a document which is contradictory on its very face, and which exacerbates the jurisdictional confusion in the north and potentially erodes Canada's federal authority and international autonomy.

The way in which the government has placed this statute, with the agreement attached, before Parliament precludes this honourable House from addressing in any significant way the issues which I have dealt with in my comments, real issues of legal significance. The House of Commons lacks the capacity in any meaningful way to address those issues because of the way in which the legislation has been brought forward.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Minister of State (Northern Development)]

moved that Bill C-14, 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.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to affirm my support for Bill C-14 at second reading and for the Tlicho agreement at the heart of this proposed legislation.

I, and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, share the same commitment and sentiments toward having this bill expeditiously passed through the House and on to the Senate. We are very committed to getting this through the whole process as quickly as we can.

First, I would like to offer my sincere thanks and heartfelt congratulations to the Tlicho people for achieving this monumental and historic agreement. The product of more than a decade of consultations and negotiations, the agreement between the Tlicho and the governments of Canada and the Northwest Territories was signed more than a year ago.

There are people responsible for realizing this agreement and they bear mentioning: the Grand Chief, Joe Rabesca, along with his chiefs from the various communities in the Tlicho territory; both his negotiating teams, including Mr. John B. Zoe, who is 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. It is the second time actually, but it is the first time in the Northwest Territories. This is the work of those individuals, as well as Ted Blondin, who has worked on numerous claims, and the elders that accompany them generally.

Everything is done on a consensus basis and there is seldom a period when the elders are not there along the whole way of the process. Elders like Alexis Arrowmaker, who is the former chief and is well known to many politicians across the country. They have been there to support the negotiator and chiefs along the way.

There have been many such elders. They are not all with us today. It would be remiss for me not to recognize the legal team of Rick Salter, Art Pape, and Rick's son Colin Salter. They have dedicated themselves to providing the best legal advice that is available to the Dogrib team to come up with the most innovative document that addresses so many complicated issues.

The agreement is the product of a comprehensive and collaborative negotiation process among the Tlicho, Canada and the Northwest Territories. This agreement has already been ratified by the territorial legislature in Yellowknife and by the Tlicho. Furthermore, a comprehensive implementation plan is ready, and the Tlicho have already drafted and ratified a constitution.

It would be remiss of me not to say that I am particularly proud, since we have members of the team here today. In particular, we have Mr. Ted Blondin and Bertha Rabesca, who is the first Dogrib lawyer who was called to the bar in recent months. We are very proud of her and the work they have both done. We have them here today with us and we know that others are watching. We are grateful to them for the work that they have done.

Prior to finalizing the agreement, the Tlicho took responsibility for negotiating overlapping agreements with their aboriginal neighbours. These agreements have helped to clarify the boundaries of traditional lands and have improved relationships among aboriginal peoples in the north.

Enacting this legislation will send a clear and positive message across the country that Canada is committed to establishing a new relationship with aboriginal peoples based on mutual respect and recognition.

When Bill C-14 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. I think it will be recreated because I always felt that the Tlicho always had their own way of governing themselves. Through it, the Tlicho people will own a 39,000 square kilometre block of land between Great Slave Lake and Great Bear Lake, the largest single block of first nations owned land in Canada.

The Tlicho government will receive about $150 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 the development in the Mackenzie Valley.

Significantly, Bill C-14 would take the Tlicho people out from under the jurisdiction of the Indian Act. However, all federal legislation of general application, such as the Criminal Code, would continue to apply. Like all Canadians, the Tlicho would also be subject to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as they are now.

The Tlicho constitution outlines the roles and responsibilities of the Tlicho government and protects the democratic rights and freedoms of all those who reside on Tlicho lands. Non-Tlicho residents, for instance, may be appointed or elected to serve on Tlicho institutions. This says a lot about democracy in Tlicho territory within Canada.

The constitution also ensures that the government is politically and financially accountable to its constituents and that all laws that are enacted are open to legal challenges. Furthermore, the constitution enables anyone affected by Tlicho social programs to participate in decision making processes concerning the management and the delivery of that program.

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

When the bill becomes law, the Tlicho will play a greater role in the management of land, water and other resources in most of their traditional territory.

The agreement would enable the Tlicho to exercise greater control over a variety of matters affecting their lives, including education, social services and economic development. Under the terms of the agreement, democratically elected Tlicho community governments would decide on matters related to zoning, business licensing and dozens of other local matters.

Although I am not a member of the Tlicho, I am Dene, I have worked closely and diligently with them over the years as a member of Parliament. It thrills me to see the Tlicho people who have entered into a new phase and giving full expression of their longstanding and historical aspiration for self-government and self-sufficiency, while demonstrating the greatest care and respect for their culture. Bill C-14 would help the Tlicho preserve a priceless heritage.

To succeed in an increasingly complex and rapidly changing economy, northerners must first acquire the broad base of knowledge needed to learn and apply advanced skills. I am convinced that the surest way to instill this knowledge is to hire qualified educators, teach relative curricula and maintain a nurturing environment. Bill C-14 would enable the Tlicho to do all these activities.

The Tlicho have long appreciated the importance of education. For centuries, succeeding generations of elders have passed on the skills and traditions of their ancestors. This profound respect for learning has also enabled the Tlicho to adapt swiftly and survive in a harsh climate and an unforgiving landscape.

When Canadian companies first began to investigate the feasibility of constructing a pipeline along the Mackenzie Valley, Tlicho leaders recognized the project would have a dramatic impact on the way of life of the Dene people. The grand chief at the time said that the people would become strong like two people if they went forward, that they would learn to blend elements of northern and southern cultures and take advantage of new technologies and emerging opportunities.

More than three decades ago, Tlicho Chief Jimmy Bruneau called for new schools in his communities to teach a curriculum that balanced aboriginal and non-aboriginal traditions. In 1971 the Chief Jimmy Bruneau School opened in the Tlicho community of Rae-Edzo. These are a people who have always been progressive, who have always looked at the opportunities and have always found a way to go forward with those opportunities.

Within a few years, Canada's first aboriginal school board had assumed control of primary education in all four Tlicho communities. A regional secondary school was added in 1992 and, true to Tlicho tradition, adults can attend the same classes as children. As a result, the number of adult students has climbed steadily.

The Tlicho-controlled schools have had a significant and positive impact on their communities. Thirty-three years ago only a handful of Tlicho had ever graduated from high school. Today there is a significant increase in the number of high school graduates, while dozens of others pursue degrees and diplomas at colleges and universities across Canada.

The Tlicho understand that classroom education plays a vital role in the survival of their culture and the sustainability of their communities. Education enables them to participate fully in the economy and to develop the professionalism, expertise and leadership needed to realize their full potential.

These investments in bicultural education have paid off handsomely in recent years. The Tlicho indeed have become very strong.

Let us consider for a moment the nature of the agreements that the Tlicho secured with multinational corporations. They have secured with Diavik and BHP Billiton, two diamond mining companies that operate near the Tlicho communities. Right in the impact area is where the Tlicho communities are located. Tlicho negotiators ensured that the benefits will continue to flow long after the mines have closed.

The agreements ensure that the Tlicho receive payments into a scholarship fund and that the companies invest in social and recreational programs. The agreements also grant the Tlicho numerous employment and contract opportunities. To take full advantage of these opportunities, the Tlicho established several band owned companies and founded partnerships with several aboriginal and non-aboriginal groups.

One of these partnerships, I & D Management Services, is a consortium of Inuit and Dene groups. The company is a human resource agency and currently supplies more than 100 employees, including 50 aboriginals, to mine projects in the north. While these jobs are important to the short term health of northern communities, of greater significance is the expertise acquired by I & D Management Services. With this expertise, the company will be well placed to provide services to future projects.

The Tlicho have long been keen to collaborate on projects that benefit their people and respect the environment. A run of the river hydro generating station, for instance, was established years ago on the Snare River. The project, a joint venture with Northwest Territories Power Corporation, supplies 7% of the territory's capacity.

In another instance, this one with the private firm of ATCO Frontec, also enables the Tlicho to acquire the expertise needed to initiate and participate in future projects. The two partners established a new company, Tli Cho Logistics, to provide services to northern mines. Today more than 130 people, including approximately 50 Tlicho, work for Tli Cho Logistics. These numbers may have shifted but they are what we are working with today.

The partnership deal is relatively simple yet uniquely advantageous to both parties. The Tlicho own 51% of Tli Cho Logistics while ATCO Frontec controls 49%. During the first few years, ATCO handled nearly all of the new company's administrative and managerial work. Unskilled jobs went to Tlicho people. During the past few years, though, ATCO has helped the Tlicho acquire the skills needed to manage and administer the company.

This incremental transfer of technical skills benefits both parties. ATCO Frontec gets significant interest in a company likely to generate profits for many years to come. The Tlicho acquire expertise and experience that can readily be applied to other ventures.

Bill C-14 would ensure that the Tlicho can expand their model of building community capacity through partnership and education. The bill would grant them the land, legal status and financial resources they need to realize their full potential.

To make the most of this agreement though, the Tlicho must develop a professional class of managers, lawyers, doctors and teachers, and I think they are doing that. They will also need a whole array of other technical expertise. Rather than hire professionals from outside their community the Tlicho are determined to train, develop and employ their own people.

Today the Tlicho support many of their people in post-secondary institutions. In recent years a growing number of Tlicho have returned to their communities, eager to put their training and their diplomas and degrees to work. Drawing from Tlicho culture and their formal studies, current and future graduates will assume leadership positions in their communities and will pass on age old lessons to a new generation of young people.

I would like to highlight the hard work of Mrs. Bertha Rabesca who has worked tirelessly on the Tlicho agreement and is the very first Tlicho person to obtain a law degree. I am very proud of her and congratulate her on leading the way for her people in this regard.

Today is a day to celebrate. We have miles to go on this legislation. We have a lot of work to do collectively in the House. I say to my colleagues in the House that this is an innovative piece of work. This is what the real Canada is all about. It is about allowing people to do for themselves and empowering people with a document that they have helped to build and that they have designed. Let this be the way forward for others.

The Akaitcho chiefs from the Northwest Territories were here today to celebrate with the Tlicho. They also are in the process of negotiating land claims. I would like to see the day when not only the Akaitcho but the Deh Cho First Nations, on whose land 40% of the pipeline will go through, along with the Saulteaux, will see a day such as this for themselves. Our wish for the whole territory is that we complete the agenda of all the claims that are in progress and also the self-government agreements.

Bill C-14 would grant some 3,500 people the power to protect their ancient traditions and control their land, resources and communities. I urge my hon. colleagues to support me and to celebrate with me the work that the Tlicho have done on the way forward for Canada.

Business of the House

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we will continue this afternoon with the debate on the Conservative opposition day motion.

On Friday we will debate a motion of reference before second reading of Bill C-10, the mental disorder legislation. We will then turn to a motion of reference before second reading of Bill C-12, the Quarantine Act amendments. We will then resume this debate commencing on Tuesday and follow it with second reading of Bill C-7, the parks reorganization, and Bill C-8, the public service human resources agency bill.

We would then turn to second reading of Bill C-14, the Tlicho legislation. This will be followed by reference before second reading of Bill C-13, the DNA bill, followed by Bill C-9, the Quebec regional development bill.

Next Thursday will be an allotted day.

On Monday, instead of a normal sitting of the House, there will be an address to both Houses by President Fox of Mexico. This will take place at 2:15 p.m.

With respect to my hon. friend's last question, that legislation will be coming forward in due course.

Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-14, 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)