Bill C-30 (Historical)

Specific Claims Tribunal Act

An Act to establish the Specific Claims Tribunal and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment establishes the Specific Claims Tribunal, the mandate of which is to decide issues of validity and compensation relating to specific claims of First Nations, after their submission to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The enactment also makes consequential amendments to other Acts and repeals the Specific Claims Resolution Act.

An Act to establish the Specific Claims Tribunal

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I share the members' enthusiasm for Bill C-30, the specific claims tribunal act. The legislation represents a significant step forward in the relationship between Canada and first nations.

A specific claim is a grievance related to Canada's obligations under historic treaties, or the way it managed first nation land and other assets. Resolving these claims benefits not only first nations, but all Canadians. Resolved claims bring certainty regarding land and resource ownership, allowing first nations and all potential investors to go forward with confidence.

Settled claims help to create strong, prosperous first nation communities that generate social and economic benefits that spill over into neighbouring communities, creating even greater prosperity for all Canadians.

Settled claims help to create strong, prosperous first nation communities that generate social and economic benefits that spill over into neighbouring communities, creating even greater prosperity for all Canadians.

As my hon. colleagues know all too well, the processes now in place to negotiate and resolve specific claims are unacceptably slow. Bill C-30 is the first element in the government's plan to overhaul the specific claims process and to restore confidence in the integrity and effectiveness of the process.

Bill C-30 proposes to establish the specific claims tribunal, an independent tribunal empowered to settle specific claims. The tribunal can make binding decisions on specific claims that have been rejected for negotiation, or when negotiations fail or after three years of unsuccessful negotiations.

Bill C-30 proposes to establish specific deadlines and mechanisms to ensure that claims are settled in a fair, open and timely fashion. The tribunal will make final decisions on the legitimacy of claims and on appropriate levels of financial compensation. It can award settlements of up to $150 million per claim and decisions will be binding and not subject to appeal, although they will be subject to judicial review. This will all be overseen by federally appointed superior court judges, who will serve on the tribunal.

To hold the specific claims tribunal accountable to Canadians, the proposed legislation requires the tribunal chairperson to prepare annual reports to Parliament, complete with financial statements. In addition, the minister of Indian affairs and northern development must conduct a review of the legislation within five years and table the results in Parliament. This review will address everything from the tribunal's mandate and structure to its operations and achievements. Because this is all borne out of a partnership, first nations will be involved in the review, as amended by the standing committee in the House of Commons.

Bill C-30 includes several provisions to protect the interests of all Canadians. The tribunal cannot award land, for instance. It can only award cash settlements, even when land is the principal subject of the specific claim. First nations are free, however, to use moneys awarded by the tribunal to purchase land from willing sellers. When the tribunal decides a claim related to land, the first nation interest in that land would be released so that title would be cleared.

I emphasize that in no way does the proposed legislation diminish the government's commitment to negotiate specific claims. Negotiated settlements are always preferable because they are the product of collaboration, mutual respect and informed conciliation. Bill C-30 would support negotiations by articulating a clear, direct path toward settlement.

Bill C-30 is the product of a lengthy consultative and collaborative process that involved key stakeholders. The bill itself was developed jointly with the Assembly of First Nations. There is no doubt that these exchanges added considerable value to the proposed legislation. In fact, many of the witnesses who testified during the review of Bill C-30 by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development remarked on the positive elements of this joint Canada-AFN collaborative effort.

The following is a quote from the testimony from Chief Lawrence Joseph of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations. He stated:

I...have served in the government for 30 years and also as a chief for 10 years, and I have never seen this high-level type of commitment from government to actually do something jointly with first nations in a very strategic and structured way. I applaud that.

Others applaud it as well. The national chief of the Assembly of First Nations shares this view. During his testimony, National Chief Fontaine made these remarks. He stated:

Bill C-30 represents a tremendous collaborative effort between first nations and the federal government at achieving agreement on the design, composition, and mandate of an independent specific claims tribunal.

The standing committee heard from many witnesses supporting Bill C-30 and the process that led to its creation. It is important to recognize, though, that representations from stakeholders over the years were important not only to the development of the proposed legislation, but also the implementation of the larger action plan on specific claims.

The plan includes several components such as dedicated funding for settlements, increased access to mediation and improved negotiation processes. In fact, government and first nations officials have worked tirelessly to refine and implement the plan ever since the Prime Minister and the national chief of the AFN announced it 11 months ago.

A joint task force helped develop the legislation now before us, in an agreement between the national chief and myself to collaborate on issues not explicitly addressed in the legislation, such as additions to reserve and claims valued in excess of $150 million. In other words, we continue to work on other things at the same time. Each of these components takes into account years of feedback from first nations groups.

This comprehensive action plan is designed to deliver meaningful, measurable results. The time it takes to process new claims will be cut in half. While it will take some years to eliminate the current backlog, the total number of claims in the system will decrease steadily. Given that unresolved claims often impede social and economic development, I fully expect that the increase in settled claims will usher in a new era of prosperity for many first nations communities. Our Conservative government knows that this will benefit all Canadians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike.

I will cite one more excerpt from National Chief Fontaine's testimony to the standing committee. In this quote Mr. Fontaine talks about why he was so keen to help develop the legislation. He said:

We thought we would finally be able to bring about a fair and just resolution to the many outstanding claims....We were talking about an opportunity not just to settle these claims but to revitalize first nations economies in many parts of the country....So we're talking about bringing about some major changes that will benefit and improve the lives of our people...

Bill C-30 paves the way for a new era, one that features greater collaboration between first nations and the Government of Canada. The proposed legislation will help create the legal certainty that first nations need to strengthen their communities and bring Canadians together in common purpose.

Bill C-30 paves the way for a new era, one that features greater collaboration between first nations and the Government of Canada. The proposed legislation will help create the legal certainty that first nations need to strengthen their communities and bring Canadians together in common purpose.

For all these reasons, Bill C-30 richly deserves the support of all members of the House. I encourage my hon. colleagues to vote in favour of this important legislation now before us.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech of the Minister of Indian Affairs. By his own admission, although not verbalized today, the easier claims to resolve would be covered within the legislation, “the picking off of the proverbial low hanging fruit”, to adopt the minister's phrase.

With respect to the difficult claims that have been filed or registered by Six Nations of the Grand River territory in my riding and in the riding of the member for Cambridge, claims that are well in excess of the $150 million, it is my understanding that no such claim of that ilk would be covered in the legislation.

What does the minister propose to do with respect to the difficult claims, particularly those filed by Six Nations of the Grand River territory?

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I referred earlier the “low hanging fruit”, the claims that had been hanging around far too long in my opinion and in the opinion of our government, claims that should have been settled ages ago. We make no apologies for settling a record number of specific claims in the last year, by negotiation, because it was the right thing to do. Why they languished for so long is a mystery to me. By being aggressive and by targeting those, so the irritants were off the table, was the right thing to do. I make no apologies for that.

It is true that the bill addresses claims of under $150 million. There are some bigger claims. For example, last year I signed an agreement in principle with the Big Stone Cree in northern Alberta. It was a $300 million deal and involved 140,000 acres of land. It involved transfers of schools and all kinds of things. Big settlements like those affect the fiscal capacity of the country and must have a mandate from cabinet.

Whether claims are in Six Nations territory or others, they need a mandate from cabinet if they are in excess of $150 million. We have made some significant progress. For the first time, we have a couple of offers on the table in Six Nations territory to address both the Welland Canal issue and another greater one. It is about $125 million claim.

We are intent on settling claims where Canada has a legal exposure. We want to get them done because it is the right thing to do. It is justice at last, but it also takes that irritant off the table to allow us all to get on with our lives with some certainty.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to part of the minister's speech. My apologies, but I was on the road, returning from my riding. I did not think that we were going to be talking about Bill C-30 today, but I will be ready to debate it later. I went through Maniwaki. My riding abuts Pontiac, which is the riding represented by the minister's colleague, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. I have a question.

As the Bloc critic for aboriginal affairs and northern development, I am a member of the committee that will be studying this bill. This is a very interesting and important bill. It may enable the government to process a backlog of over 800 files—I stopped counting at about 750.

I do have a very important question. Will the government, which the minister represents, commit to implementing this bill as soon as it is passed? I would like the minister to comment on that. If the bill were to be passed this week—which is likely—how long does the minister think it would take to implement it so that first nations can work with the specific claims tribunal?

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question. The government has made it clear that it is committed to implementing this bill immediately. The money is already in the budget plan. The Prime Minister and the chief of the Assembly of First Nations have already made the announcement. The commitment is there, and we are ready to get to work right away. The plan is detailed. The money is there. I know that the Prime Minister, the Conservative government and—I believe—all members of the House are ready for a completely different kind of tribunal for specific claims.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the committee went through extensive consultations with various first nations organizations around this piece of legislation. There were concerns raised. Given the nature of the bill which requires a royal recommendation, we were very limited in terms of the types of amendments we could make. It is also my understanding that the government was not very open to any substantive amendments. There were a couple of issues raised that were substantive in nature.

One is that there is only monetary compensation being provided to the claimant organizations. There is no provision on behalf of the tribunal to award lands. I am wondering why that particular provision is in there. Why could the government not be open to a more comprehensive approach to settle these specific claims that includes lands as well as moneys?

The second issue deals with the release provisions in this bill. One can only raise a specific claim on a certain basis, such as the loss of lands, the expropriation of lands and things of that nature. One cannot raise a claim based on aboriginal rights, the loss of language or the loss of cultural activity so to speak. When one releases the government from any future claims, one releases it for all of those things for which one cannot claim against the government in the first place, according to this piece of legislation. It reminds of the Indian residential schools agreement. The government was demanding that one could only be compensated for physical and sexual abuse but had to release the government from any legal liabilities for culture and language.

I am just wondering on those two particular questions why the government chose to move in that direction.

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, those are good questions, obviously. They came up at committee. There was extensive consultation.

This legislation was put together in a collaborative way with the Assembly of First Nations. The legislation went through an extensive clause by clause drafting process working with the Assembly of First Nations to make the bill as good as possible. That being said, the committee has made some suggestions and some amendments and we will proceed with those.

It is true that the bill does not include land. The federal government has never included land in a specific claims process. The main reason is we do not own land. Primarily land is owned either in fee simple in the private sector or by provinces under Crown land in the way the Constitution and our country has come together.

I mentioned the Big Stone Cree settlement where the province wants to get involved. The provinces have an option to get involved in this if they would like to. If they feel it is in the best interests for certainty and their own legal obligations, they may well want to get involved. It is their prerogative. We cannot order that to happen under the legislation.

We deal in money. This in turn will allow maximum flexibility for the first nations who may decide to purchase land to add to a reserve, but we do not have the land base with which to barter. We deal with the money side of it and deal with our legal exposure that way.

It is important to note that there are other venues to deal with other issues, for example, on loss of language or cultural issues. This is not meant to be a comprehensive treaty negotiation. It is a specific claims bill and it is very specific on certain obligations. There may be other obligations, but there are other venues to pursue them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-30, an important bill addressing the concerns of first nations in this country. The official opposition will indeed be supporting this bill, but we will be supporting this bill in recognition that it came forward as a compromise between the government and the Assembly of First Nations. The bill is not perfect. We heard from an extensive number of witnesses who have concerns, and with the government's record with aboriginal people, we understand their concerns.

A legislative tribunal is not a new idea nor a new approach. The Leader of the official opposition called for a specific claims tribunal in his run for the leadership of the Liberal Party. He commented, I believe, if we are to do the job properly, there should be no such threshold and that all specific claims should come under the mandate of a new body”. He went on to say, “I also believe that, if we are really going to make a new start, the members of the new body should only be appointed after consultation with first nations organizations”.

We know that the Assembly of First Nations is happy with this bill, but we also know that it is very much a compromise. The specific claims tribunal is an idea 60 years in the making. In fact, in July 1947 a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons reported:

That a Commission, in the nature of the Claims Commission, be set up with the least possible delay to inquire into the terms of the Indian treaties... and to appraise and settle in a just and equitable manner any claims or grievances thereunder.

A process was put in place in 1973 and since then, almost 1,300 claims have been submitted to Canada. We all know that today there is still an enormous backlog and we hope, as do all members of this House, that this bill will substantially reduce it. The claims are far too high. In 1996 the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples recommended an independent lands and treaties tribunal. I underline the word “lands” as well. Over the next decade, attempts were made to fix the system, including a joint first nations-Canada task force which led to legislation which, as we all know, was not implemented.

Each political party is in agreement that the current process needs to be improved. We hope the bill will reduce the backlogs of specific claims. They are, as we know, lawful obligations. According to the AFN's first nations perspectives on the specific claims policy and resolution process submission to the Senate committee on aboriginal affairs in November 2006:

They arise from breaches by the Crown of its lawful fiduciary and statutory obligations in respect of honouring treaty rights, managing reserve lands and other assets, and carrying out promises to create reserves.

This legislation is an important first step toward creating an independent tribunal to help resolve the backlog of specific claims.

As we have heard, the legislation puts forth four key elements: the creation of an independent tribunal; more transparent arrangements for financial contributions for dedicated funding for settlements; practical measures to ensure faster processing of claims; and better access to mediation once the new tribunal is in place.

The tribunal will have authority to make binding decisions on the validity of claims and compensations issues in respect to claims that are up to a value of $150 million. For claims already in the backlog, Canada would have to complete a preliminary assessment of these claims within six months of coming into force to identify those that qualify for assessments and sort them for faster processing. It is important that we understand the criteria of that assessment process.

For claims that are complete, Canada would then have up to three more years to make a decision to accept or reject the claims. For claims submitted to Canada after coming into force, the three year limit for assessment begins on the date that the first nation submits its complete claim to Canada. Under the legislation, if Canada fails to meet either of those timelines, the first nations would have the option to refer the claim to the tribunal for a binding decision.

Some have said that the scope of the tribunal is far too limited. We heard my colleague say that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction over claims valued over $150 million, punitive damages, cultural and spiritual losses or non-financial compensation, such as lands.

A number of issues that could not be agreed on or were not addressed in the legislation itself were dealt with in the political accord signed by the Assembly of First Nations and the Government of Canada. The measures in the political accord include first nations participation in appointments to the tribunal, the reacquisition of lands and additions to reserves, and claims that are excluded by the monetary cap.

Once again, the bill is a compromise.

In an answer to a question regarding the appointment process, University of Manitoba professor and advisor to the Assembly of First Nations, Bryan Schwartz, is quoted as saying:

...ideally I would have preferred to see some sort of formalized statutorily established joint appointment process.

Many witnesses wanted to see the political accord included in the legislation but, unfortunately, we were told that was a non-negotiable. We often heard witnesses speak to the importance of the monetary cap and the fact that it should be lifted or increased. We also heard witnesses refer to the land issue, as we have heard before, as being of great importance. We heard these were non-negotiable. We were told that these amendments would have been out of the scope of the bill and that they would have potentially delayed the bill or killed it, once again, delaying any progress on specific claims.

We would have liked to have seen the government include these measures in the legislation but we will need to hold the government to account to ensure that the measures set out in the accord are implemented and honoured.

As Chief Edward John from British Columbia said:

My hope is that the political accord becomes a living and breathing document during the initial five-year term of this tribunal. It should be perhaps revisited and renegotiated at the conclusion of the five years, when the bill has been reviewed as well.

Our party, in cooperation with the other opposition parties, passed an amendment to include first nations in the bill that do not have reserve lands. In Quebec and Labrador, five historic first nations do not have reserve lands. They should not be disqualified from the bill so we worked to ensure they would not be.

British Columbia regional chief, Shawn Atleo, in his submission to the committee, indicated his support for the bill but also acknowledged that this bill was only a first step. He stated:

In moving forward, on reform of the specific claims process, there are a few remaining issues that are not yet resolved. ...all of which are set out in the political agreement. As long as the commitments these two documents embody are lived up to by the government—in particular, the commitments embodied in the political agreement—we feel that the work that was carried out as a part of this joint process stands as a work in progress model for how first nations should be engaged in issues that have the potential to affect us.

He went on to say that “work on claims over $150 million that are outside of the cap are going to be very key”.

He urged the government to get on with the important work as quickly as possible because this was about us working together and it was about bridging gaps of misunderstanding.

Grand chief, Ed John, echoed Chief Atleo's comments in saying:

...this process should be seen as an ongoing new mechanism for engaging first nations people in the development of legislation in the future.

Throughout the committee process, we heard the concern about the lack of consultation.

Prior to coming here, I was part of a meeting that re-echoed the issue of consultation. This was a collaborative process with the AFN but it was not a consultation between the government and the aboriginal peoples as we know it to be and as it should be. However, this was the first time the government had some meaningful discussions with the AFN on an important issue, but I would reiterate that it was not consultation as we know it.

Organizations, such as the British Columbia specific claims committee, were concerned about the restrictive time frame in the introduction of the bill because there was no opportunity to take the draft legislation and the political accord “directly to the communities for their vital feedback and valuable input”.

The AFNQL also felt that in the rush to have things accomplished, Canada neglected one crucial element and that was the duty to consult with those first nations that would be directly impacted by this bill and its related measures.

We welcomed the collaboration with the AFN and the opportunity to hear witnesses before the committee but that was not consultation between the government and first nations. Because the bill was done in collaboration with the Assembly of First Nations, the government felt that it did not have the obligation to consult.

Yes, the bill's process for first nations communities is voluntary but the government tried to blame the AFN for not consulting with its own communities. That in fact happened in committee and it was not up to the AFN. It was the government's responsibility to consult.

In numerous meetings, we heard the government question witnesses on whether or not the AFN had consulted with them prior to the introduction of the bill, citing the funds given to them for regional dialogue. The AFN did not undergo regional dialogue with first nations communities across the country but it is important to note that the government should not confuse the notion of its legal obligations and its duty to consult.

We saw the government unilaterally introduce Bill C-21. We heard the concerns about the process for Bill C-47. It is essential that the government work with first nations rather than to impose measures upon them without consultation. It must also not attempt to pass on its duty and it must not play politics with the issue.

I want to reiterate the concerns around the bill and talk about clause 15 where the tribunal cannot receive claims based on events that are less than 15 years old. However, it is possible to notice that new claims are being created by the actions or inactions of federal officials regarding their management of the indigenous lands today.

I want to note that clause 15(4) and clause 20(1)(b) of the bill would limit the tribunal from awarding compensation in excess of $150 million. I have spoken to that before but it is worth noting that in Quebec it can identify at least four specific claims potentially are over $150 million. I will speak to the Okanagan in a minute. We need answers on how these will be addressed.

Clause 16 of the bill would give the minister the discretion to set minimum standards for claims submissions as well as allowable format. This power could potentially be used to stonewall claims submissions and prevent them from being accepted.

We know the national chief will be involved in an advisory capacity in the appointment of judges to the tribunal, as mentioned in the political accord, but there is no explanation of how it will work, which is deeply disappointing. Moreover, the accord, as we have heard before, is not enforceable and we question its future.

Representations have also been made that other organizations that protect first nations should be involved in the consultation process.

We heard concerns about the fact that the tribunal hearings would only take place before one tribunal member. If the position of the tribunal member is biased or whatever, there is no recourse or avenue for appeal according to this bill.

Through questions and comments and before the committee, we heard that the tribunal could only give pecuniary compensation and could not give an award for any harm or loss that is not pecuniary in nature, including the loss of something that is cultural or spiritual in nature.

According to the structure of the tribunal, we heard that there could be a risk of federal conflict of interest during the pre-submission phase for the initial three years review and the subsequent three-year negotiating period. We also heard that the decisions of the tribunal would not be binding on other levels of government. Provincial and territorial governments would participate only on a voluntary basis. I think we need to move forward on that.

We also heard from women's groups that the strategy does not include strengthening the role of aboriginal women as it relates to land claims. I accept responsibility for that because one of the things we did not do in the committee process was ask whether there had been a gender based analysis done on the bill. I think all of us, as members of the committee, were remiss in that.

We recognize the importance of the bill but we also question the government's commitment to reducing the logjam of land claims and finding fair, just and reasonable settlements. It has been over two years since we have seen the conflict at Caledonia and yet the government has not been willing to take action. A mediator has been appointed. I have been to Caledonia and have met with both first nations and community members. Their frustration is growing at the lack of willingness and lack of participation by the government in a real effort to resolve some of the very serious resolutions to the Caledonia situation.

At the outset of the legislative process for Bill C-30, the Okanagan Band received a rejection for its land claim worth over $150 million. The claim is estimated to be at roughly $750 million. This legislation offers the band no recourse. What will the government do for it? We have no indication of what will happen to a claim of that sort that has been rejected and not addressed.

We need to see real commitment. We need to see real leadership. We need to see the government work with the specific communities, as well as all communities, with outstanding grievances, to bring an end to the despair that we know aboriginal people face across the country, not only with land claims but with housing, education, infrastructure, water, health, economic development and human rights for first nations, including the signing of the declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples, which has not been signed, which is not being honoured by the government, and which is an overlay of the whole issue of specific claims.

We saw the government scrap the Kelowna accord when it came to office. The government ignored the will of aboriginal leaders, provincial and territorial leaders and others who were involved in the 18 month process. As I have heard some of my colleagues say over and over again, the accord offered real hope for first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples, and they tell the stories in their communities of those who cannot speak English but understand the word Kelowna and what hope it offered for them, their communities and their children.

The government destroyed that hope and showed a profound disrespect for aboriginal Canadians in that process. Instead of working with aboriginal peoples, it has tended to act unilaterally on so many initiatives. Conditions are worse today than they were a year ago and we are about to see a second day of action because of the government's actions. The bottom line is we need to see real action, real leadership, no cherry-picking and no spin.

The specific claims legislation is an important step, but there is so much more we must do as parliamentarians to ensure that first nations people, along with Inuit and Métis people, have the same opportunities that all Canadians do in this country.

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, I will just leave the political side stories for another day. This is an important bill and I am pleased with the support for the bill.

It is important to remember that the process on the specific claims is entirely voluntarily. The first nations do not have to use this process if they do not want to. If they would like to continue negotiations, they are welcome to. If they want to use the courts, they are welcome to. If they want to use this claim process, they could use that as well, but because it is not compulsory, the duty to consult is different.

If it were something that said, “We are now legislating on behalf of all first nations and they have to do this process”, then the duty to consult would be different. Therefore, what we set up was an agreement with the Assembly of First Nations to do regional consultations, which it did. It prepared comprehensive materials which it distributed, and while it is not a duty to consult in the way the member mentions, it is because there is not a compulsory or mandatory part of relations with the government. It is just an option that is given if first nations so desire.

My question for the member is on the selection of the judges who will serve on the tribunal. She mentioned that she felt there should be a larger role. Just for clarification, because these tribunal judges are selected from the current roster, does she think there should be a greater role in the selection of judges generally for the Assembly of First Nations, or just an increased role for the selection of sitting judges to sit on the tribunal?

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

Mr. Speaker, before I answer the minister's question, I would like to comment on the matter of the responsibility to consult.

The minister distinguishes between the need to consult in a voluntary matter and if it were mandatory. I am struck by the irony of the fact that he chooses to engage in a collaborative process with a voluntary activity that first nations people will be involved in, yet an issue that is mandatory has no consultation process at all. I am just struck by the hypocrisy of that.

Speaking in terms of the appointment process, I think it would have been preferable if the aboriginal leadership had an opportunity to have a meaningful say in the appointment process of the judges appointed to the tribunal. That is what I am speaking to.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, over the past many number of months, in fact almost since the day the Kelowna accord was signed, there seems to be some kind of doubt that this project would have gone a long way to reconciliation.

I want to ask the hon. member this question. If getting all the provinces and territories together, getting all the aboriginal first nations groups together, and getting the federal government at the table making that kind of commitment, was this not a positive step and a turning point, indeed, in our relations with native people in this country?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the House that this was not a put up question.

The process leading up to and the conclusion of the Kelowna accord was a pivotal time, a landmark time in the relations between aboriginal peoples and the Government of Canada of the day.

We have to recognize that it was an 18 month process. There were several round table discussions on each of the areas that Kelowna addressed, whether it was housing, education or water. It was a consultation process that brought in members of first nations, Métis and Inuit peoples across the country along with government officials from the federal, provincial and territorial governments. It was not a one day event. It was an 18 month process of discussion. How can we best meet the needs of these communities in a holistic, integrated way?

The fact that the parliamentary secretary across the way takes cheap shots and says it was nothing more than a press release shows the profound disrespect, and I hope not his government, to the process, to all of those who were involved in the development of the Kelowna accord.

It was an important process. It was an important happening. I want to underline that this was not an agreement between the first nations and the provinces and a political party. It was an agreement with the Government of Canada. Had this accord been honoured, many more children would have received an education. Many more people would have received health care.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Where is it? We want to see it. It is finished and we want to see it.

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

The member opposite does not understand the traditions of dealing with first nations and aboriginal peoples in addressing it.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Just to clarify, Mr. Speaker, I am from Muskeg Lake Cree Nation, and I would like to see the Kelowna accord, please. Can I see the signed copy, please?.