This bill is from the 39th Parliament, 2nd session, which ended in September 2008.
Chuck Strahl Conservative
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.
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.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-30s:
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Mr. Speaker, could the member talk about the amounts, the limits and the amount per individual year, which seems to be insufficient?
Tina Keeper Liberal Churchill, MB
Mr. Speaker, this was a recurring concern. There is a commitment by the government to $250 million per year over a 10 year period, for a full commitment of $2.5 billion. The maximum a claim can be settled for is $150 million. The manner in which the government proposes to proceed is to make payments over a number of years.
There was certainly a lot of concern about the $150 million cap because there are many specific claims that are over and above that. The government laid out that it was within the political accord that this would be dealt with in a political process around the larger claims and other land claims.
However, many of the questions put to the committee were around the fact that it was not in the bill. Why is it not in the bill and why is it that this bill narrows the scope of claims that can be brought forward? It also brought in the release of rights that first nations had to make to participate in this process.
I would also like to mention that within this process the monetary compensation was of extreme concern, as I had mentioned in my speech, so that if a first nation had a specific claim and was participating in the process, the minister would actually have total control and power to decide which claims would go to negotiations, which claims would be rejected and that, within the three year period where there was no response from the minister's office, then it would be deemed rejected. The deemed rejection became another point of concern.
If a claim were to be rejected or deemed rejected, the only opportunity other than litigation would be for the first nation to participate in the tribunal process, which would then deny it compensation in terms of land or non-pecuniary damages and would also be solely in the form of monetary compensation. Those are serious concerns.
Yvon Lévesque Bloc Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague who sits on the committee with me for her presentation and, at the same time, for her diligence in defending the interests of her constituents in this matter.
I would like to ask my colleague if, during her work on specific claims settlement, she saw any other way that first nations, band councils or aboriginal communities could go about obtaining from the territories or provinces what negotiations with this government failed to provide?
Tina Keeper Liberal Churchill, MB
Mr. Speaker, again, one of the deep concerns about this bill was that once a claim was deemed rejected or was rejected, the only other opportunity for the first nation to take it forward was through litigation. I would like to quote what was mentioned by one of the witnesses. Alan Pratt, who is a lawyer, said:
--the Bill itself establishes a Tribunal whose mandate and procedure is described in almost purely litigious terms. The Tribunal itself is an adjudicative body and is not given any “reconciliation” function.
That is really important because, again, the parameters of the tribunal, in terms of the type of compensation that can be awarded, are not what many first nations believe is within the scope of the fiduciary relationship the Crown has with first nations. The other important aspect of that is that once a first nation moves into litigation, it puts an enormous burden on it to be able to resource that case.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am interested in my colleague's view of what happened with the committee in terms of the bill because some of the first nations I have worked with have always been very concerned about the claims process.
Whether it is a comprehensive claim, a specific claim, or the issue of loan funding which can be dragged out for such a period of time in terms of loan funding, especially when we move to the larger claims issues, all kinds of third parties can then become part of the proceedings. From that moment, the clock is ticking on the first nations' own finances. At the end of the day, many have been very wary about the outcomes because whatever settlements they end up getting, phenomenal amounts have been paid out to consultants and to lawyers because the process has dragged on.
I would like to ask the member about two aspects. First, is there any recognition by the government about the need to play fairly with first nations because they are at such a disadvantage in terms of being able to set the parameters for how the process will go? Second, in regard to the issue of the financial burden that is inordinately always placed on first nations in any kind of negotiations, has there been any discussion about how to mitigate against that?
Tina Keeper Liberal Churchill, MB
Mr. Speaker, the dynamic the hon. member speaks to is a common story among first nations in Canada. It was another common concern that we heard at committee.
The recognition to play fairly is a wonderful way of phrasing it because we have legal principles of good faith and reasonableness. It seems that within the bill the government has not set out the type of support it will give to first nations to prepare their claims and that is cause for serious concern. That was a serious concern of my constituents.
However, the bill does recognize that the costs would be part of the award in the end. It may be awarded against the claimant or for the claimant.
When we look back over the last number of years, particularly going back to the 1998 Task Force on Specific Claims and the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and every process since, this has been a recurring concern, a priority point, that first nations need the financial resources to prepare their claims and to participate in this process in a just manner.
Yvon Lévesque Bloc Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC
Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Bloc Québécois, I joined my colleagues in voting in favour of consideration of this bill for which, as usual, this government did not consult first nations, despite the many reminders it was given during consideration of Bill C-44.
We also had some concerns about some of the consequences to the first nations communities in Quebec and to certain municipalities, not to mention our concerns about the flexibility of the Government of Quebec's involvement.
The lack of consultation caused some disagreement about the procedure and some of the claims that could otherwise have easily been settled in respectful meetings with the nations.
Establishing a specific claims tribunal that makes binding decisions is a progressive step compared to the usual legal games the first nations have been subjected to so far. However, improvements could have been made to how quickly the claims are processed. It will be a shame to have to come back to this in a few years in order to complete this exercise, which requires a lot of energy, time and money from the taxpayers and from the first nations, when there are other matters to deal with.
The current 784 claims could be processed more quickly and a number of others might be added to the ongoing process, even though the Indian Claims Commission itself has not accepted any new claims since the end of 2007.
Of course there has been consultation, but only after much insistence. Furthermore, it is important to note that a number of communities were not consulted because there was not enough time. There has never been enough time to resolve first nations issues.
The most worrisome thing in all this is the possible accumulation of small agreements here and there into increasingly complex legislation. That is caused by this patchwork approach that has no continuity and will only serve as an excuse not to sign the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People that has been signed by 144 countries.
A number of world leaders are putting Canada in the hot seat and in an embarrassing position on the international stage, which shocks us as representatives of the Quebec nation in particular, to be associated with this country that we do not identify with at all when it comes to its culture, its economic vision or its recognition of individual and collective rights and freedoms.
Despite the repeated calls for consultation that have been made to this government as Bills C-44, C-21, C-30, C-47 and C-34 have been tabled, the government has remained indifferent to what the vast majority of United Nations member states want.
It is truly shameful to see this government in the very small minority that is opposed to this declaration, and it is even more shameful to see members of the governing party from Quebec who lack the courage to go against such a vision.
Hon. members will certainly understand why Quebec is in such a hurry to join the community of nations and why the various communities distrust this government's interference in the legal system.
That is why the chief of the AFN reacted so strongly to the speech the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development gave at the United Nations. I want to quote the various statements the minister made at the United Nations. In a press release, the Minister of Indian Affairs said:
The Government of Canada continues to address a number of key areas for First Nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples, including fundamental human rights through Bill C-2... For 30 years, section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act has exempted First Nations communities governed by the Indian Act from human rights protection. We believe this has gone on too long—
I would like to digress a moment and remind this House that Bill C-44, which sought to repeal section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, was vehemently denounced by all the first nations, as well as by the AFN women's council. The first nations were not prepared to welcome a law or be excluded from the Indian Act when they did not have the means to enforce the Human Rights Act, with all the duties it imposes on the various communities.
Canada has long demonstrated its commitment to also actively advancing indigenous rights abroad. But that is not what happened at the United Nations. The minister also highlighted a number of areas where the Government of Canada is making substantial progress: education; resolving specific claims; safe drinking water; protection for women and children; and matrimonial property rights on-reserves
In addition, the minister talked about the important step in the Government of Canada's commitment to the Indian residential school settlement agreement, with the naming of Justice Harry LaForme as the chair of the truth and reconciliation commission. This may be the only good thing this government has done to date. The minister said this:
“Canada remains committed as ever to deliver real results for our Aboriginal population...We believe in moving forward for all Canadians with results that are not simply aspirations or non-binding.”
In response, the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Phil Fontaine, had this to say:
The Conservative government’s sustained opposition to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has tarnished Canada’s international reputation and branded Canada as unreliable and uncooperative in international human rights processes. It is clear that the Conservative government’s domestic political agenda is taking precedence over the promotion and protection of human rights for Indigenous peoples in Canada and worldwide. The federal government’s stance is a particularly regressive and limiting basis upon which to advance fruitful Indigenous-state relations in Canada and abroad. It seems that this government has been unwavering in their resolve for a weak Declaration and weak human-rights standards in Canada despite their rhetoric to the contrary.
The Conservative government’s opinion regarding the UN declaration is contrary to widespread legal expert opinion. In an open letter issued yesterday, more than 100 legal scholars and experts noted that there was no sound legal reason that would prevent Canada from supporting the UN declaration. The same conclusion was drawn by human rights and legal experts, ... and experts within the UN system have echoed the same opinion. As a result, Canada is becoming increasingly isolated on the international stage for adhering to an unsubstantiated position against the declaration and for using their position on the Human Rights Council to achieve their own political goals in Canada. Canada cannot cherry pick which international human rights instruments they will choose to respect. These short sighted decisions have serious long term implications for Canada's international standing on human rights.
Moreover, the Conservative government's decisions have failed to address fundamental fiscal inequities in education, housing, health and other social and economic conditions that are the source of the poverty in first nations communities, despite this government’s claims “about getting the job done”. The National Day of Action on May 29 will draw national and international attention on the shortcomings of the federal government to make meaningful investments or address the serious quality of life issues our communities and people face. Such important policy decisions must be made in consultation and with the consent of first nations.
The UN Declaration is a foundational document that sets out “the minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of Indigenous peoples” (Article 43). With an overwhelming majority of 144 states and only 11 abstentions, the UN General Assembly adopted on September 13, 2007 a Declaration which upholds the human, political, spiritual, land and resources rights of the world's Indigenous people. Only Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the United States voted against the Declaration. Australia has since reversed its decision and has declared its support of this unique human rights instrument to advance Indigenous rights in Australia and abroad.
That is what the first nations national chief thinks of our minister's statement at the United Nations.
Immediately after that, Chief Conrad Polson, from Timiskaming, submitted a text to the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. A press release from the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador explained:
Speaking on behalf of the chiefs of the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador (AFNQL), he delivered a message about the precarious funding conditions of First Nations education in Canada.
Year after year, the Canadian government continues to close its eyes on the recommendations of more than 35 years of studies, consultations and various working groups, most of which it has contributed to. In refusing to consider these recommendations, the Canadian government keeps First Nations institutions in a highly precarious position.
Our schools and post-secondary establishments are underfunded. A number of our students cannot undertake their post-secondary studies because of a lack of finance.
This is why, on behalf of the Chiefs of the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador, I regard it as my duty to denounce this situation loudly and clearly, stated Chief Polson.
“It was important for us to call on the United Nations so that all can be done to put an end to this situation. We must ensure that the wrongs we have suffered do not worsen so we reach the point of no return,” declared Ghislain Picard.
As stated in a press release issued in New York on May 2 and distributed by CNW, at the end of the seventh session of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, Mr. Picard declared that Canada had lost all credibility. He attended the session with an important delegation that spoke. At the meetings, they were “able to give a clear picture of first nations' situation in Canada. Today, the Canadian Government has lost all credibility in this respect on the international scene,” he said, reiterating Mr. Fontaine's comments on this subject.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development claims he did everything he could for education. The following is from a Radio-Canada article:
For months, Mashteuiatsh, Essipit and Nutashquan chiefs have been trying to meet with the Minister of Indian Affairs...The chiefs want to move forward the negotiations that were the result of the Agreement-in-Principle of a General Nature concerning Innu self-government, signed in 2004 by the government—
The process has been stalled since the appointment [of the minister] last fall.
However, the minister...has declined the offer. “He told us that for the time being, he is not able to meet with us, despite our insistence. We need to speak with the federal government about the main issues of the negotiation,” said Mashteuiatsh Chief Gilbert Dominique.
[The minister] said that he did not have enough time for a meeting that he did not deem necessary.
Gilbert Dominique said that he doubted the Conservatives had any desire to sign territorial agreements with aboriginals when they were elected in 2006. He wonders if the fact that the Innu signed the first-ever agreement in Canada to protect the ancestral rights of an aboriginal community has not put the brakes on the government.
The Innu have called on Premier Jean Charest to try to convince Stephen Harper—
I am quoting the article; I am not naming the Prime Minister—
Specific Claims Tribunal ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker Andrew Scheer
The hon. member must refrain from using the name of a member, even when quoting an article. Please refer to a constituency or title.
Yvon Lévesque Bloc Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC
Mr. Speaker, are you asking me to cut the press release short?
Specific Claims Tribunal ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker Andrew Scheer
No, you may use it, but when the name of the Prime Minister appears in the article, you must refer to his constituency or title.
Yvon Lévesque Bloc Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC
Fine, Mr. Speaker, I will make a note of it. In any event, I had finished reading the newspaper article.
You have to understand the perverse effects of rushing into passing any law: what is most important for all first nations communities is the insult involved when someone, be it the prime minister at the time or the department itself, promises, hand on heart, to consult them on any bill that might bring changes to their lives, their customs or their culture.
As I said earlier with respect to Bill C-44, we criticized the failure to consult at length, to the point that the government thought it better to reintroduce the same bill, without any real additional consultation, under a different name— Bill C-21. And it has been just as severely criticized as its predecessor.
All of the witnesses who appeared agreed that this was a small step, even if it is unsatisfactory. As with the promises to consult, the people who spoke have doubts about the independence of justice in the process presented. The Grand Chief of the First Nations hesitated a long time before supporting this, and we will have to monitor it closely.
In addition to the tribunal, there are other questions relating to historical treaties: claims excluded from monetary compensation, the evaluation of the specific claims resolution process and the improvements needed, establishing the operating rules for the tribunal’s advisory committee, and looking at access to funding, including federal funding for claimants. On this point, the First Nations Chief has given the government assurances of his cooperation in a joint approach on all of the subjects I have just listed, and in establishing a process for recommending members of the tribunal, while ensuring that the process remains confidential.
A number of witnesses were skeptical about whether their recommendations would be taken into consideration. Unfortunately, history shows them to be right. But moving forward, they are agreeing to give it one more chance. There is the analysis of the tribunal process, of how it is working, to be done every five years.
In reality, with an annual budget of $250 million, the government is not committing to a lot of $150 million claims in a single year.
I am at your disposal to answer questions.
Christian Ouellet Bloc Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate my colleague, who has really painted a very vivid picture of Bill C-30. We can tell how committed he is to this issue.
I would like to ask him two questions. Last year, I visited some first nations communities north of Mont-Laurier that were in a truly pitiful state. I would like to know whether this bill will be able to help in the negotiations or in the consolidation of those communities, so that they will actually be able to have a standard of living that might be described as uniform—as it is for people who live in North America. That is my first question.
My second question is still about Bill C-30, which provides for a five-year review by the Assembly of First Nations. I would like our colleague to talk to us about the specific claims tribunal process. What is going to happen every five years, and how could this be monitored? Is it realistic to think that the first nations in all of Canada are going to be consulted every five years, and how is that going to be done?
Yvon Lévesque Bloc Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
I will start by answering his last question about living conditions in first nations communities he visited last summer. Unfortunately, some of those communities are not even considered reserves, and they are not covered by this bill, nor will they be covered unless and until the government recognizes them.
Currently, two villages have no status and cannot initiate proceedings. We know that under this bill, other communities cannot initiate land claims proceedings as such. They can be compensated for rights, but they will not have access to additional lands through the tribunal itself. If they can finalize land claim negotiations before going to the tribunal, then these issues can be resolved between the provinces and Canada. This bill does not really provide for such cases.
With respect to the second question about reviewing the tribunal process every five years, it seems that, unfortunately, first nations were not consulted while this bill was being drafted.
Five years from now, who will be consulted? Perhaps a small group of people who participated in determining the terms for the tribunal advisory committee itself? Once again, this process will fail to recognize communities because they will not have been consulted. The government will always be renegotiating because it did not take the time from the very beginning to consult and come to an agreement with all first nations communities.
Todd Russell Liberal Labrador, NL
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today to Bill C-30, the specific claims tribunal act.
I want to acknowledge the Algonquin people, on whose lands we find ourselves and who are the traditional people of this particular territory, and thank them for their welcoming way, not only for today but for many generations.
I stand today as an aboriginal person, a person descendant from the Inuit peoples of Labrador and from my European forebearers. I am proud of my heritage. I fought for many years to protect our rights and interests to our traditional lands in Labrador, and that fight continues.
At its heart, one could argue that Bill C-30 is about the resolution of claims and the whole issue of reconciliation between the Crown and aboriginal peoples, or the reconciliation of aboriginal peoples and the Canadian Federation itself. If we are to have true reconciliation of claims and true reconciliation, there needs to be an element of trust and an element of respect by all parties involved in the process.
I, as an aboriginal person, have serious doubts about the real agenda of the Conservative Government of Canada. I do not personally have a lot of trust in the Conservative Government of Canada to protect my rights as an aboriginal person, to uphold its fiduciary obligation to aboriginal peoples or to move forward in a meaningful way where real reconciliation can happen.
In that vein, we need to look at the context in which I say this and in the context by which Bill C-30 has come about, and in which it finds itself and how it is positioned in the policies and in the direction of the Conservative Government of Canada.
Let us look at some of the context.
Upon coming into office, the Conservative Party killed the Kelowna accord. The Kelowna accord was as real and solid as any other treaty that was negotiated between aboriginal peoples and the Crown. The Kelowna accord came about after 18 months of consultation. People may wonder where it is. People may wonder whether all the premiers of all the provinces and territories got together in Kelowna for something that did not exist. People may wonder whether all the leaders of the major aboriginal groups across Canada got together in Kelowna for something that did not exist. People may wonder whether people signed on to the Kelowna accord with a great degree of hope for the future because it did not exist. It did exist.
We have heard a lot of talk south of the border about hope and about the Obama factor. Within the aboriginal communities, the aboriginal societies and our communities there was hope in Kelowna. Kelowna represented hope and it was a wholesale approach to resolving the issues of aboriginal people. It was about housing, education, governance, accountability and solving land claims. It was about economic development. This is what Kelowna represented and still represents.
This House passed the Kelowna accord and it went to the Senate, not because it did not exist but because it was real and it still is real in the hearts and minds of aboriginal peoples across this great country.
However, the Conservative government killed that collaborative approach, that consultative approach and that sense of hope that aboriginal peoples found in Kelowna. It was not a top down approach. It was not something that came from the Government of Canada singularly. It was something that people brought to the table in a way that was respectful and in a way whereby the voices of different aboriginal peoples of Canada could be heard and acted upon.
That was one of the first indications that the aboriginal peoples of this country had something to fear, that they should not necessarily place their trust in the government. Then we moved to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Conservative Government of Canada chose, as only one of four countries, to reject the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Why all of a sudden is the government picking and choosing what fundamental pieces of rights legislation it will support? It almost beckons to a discussion that was raised in the House today where the government now chooses which Canadians it will stand up for, which Canadians it will protect from the death penalty. It picks and choose. It seems like there are As and Bs. One either makes the A list with the Conservative government, where one is in, or one makes the B list with the Conservative government and one is not in.
It may uphold some types of rights legislation or declarations but in other cases it will not. It is on a case by case basis, as it goes.
I would argue that we have an obligation to uphold the rights of indigenous peoples within the world and it has an impact upon the indigenous rights of Canadians.
We have yet another example of where the reputation of the government is tarnished, not only here at home but also abroad. Aboriginal people and other Canadians talk to our sisters and brothers in the world and they tell us the same thing. Our government is tarnishing the reputation of Canada by its picking and choosing which pieces of legislation it will support when it comes to rights, and, in this particular case, indigenous peoples. That is the second, I would argue, real tangible sign and action the government has taken that has lead to the distrust of aboriginal peoples with the Conservative Government of Canada.
Then we had this piecemeal fashion where the government said that it would give aboriginals some money for housing. It dished out some money for housing and it went carte blanche to various jurisdictions without any guidelines or accountability. It talks about accountability but some housing money went out. It was hardly new money. It was money that was already announced. We see little or no new money for education, for social services, for health or for economic development.
We can see where the sense of distrust in the government on the part of aboriginal peoples is emboldened, not by the actions of the aboriginal peoples themselves but by the actions of the government. It is inviting the sense of distrust.
We have an example where I sincerely feel that the government sometimes likes to put something up in the window that tells the people of Canada that it is fighting for aboriginal peoples and that it is fighting for their rights but without any sincerity.
When it comes to Bill C-21, which is the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the government wanted it to go through fast. It did not consult with aboriginal peoples and it did not listen to their voices. It did not understand the impact that this particular bill would have on aboriginal people. The government says that it just wants to get the bill through so aboriginal people can be treated equally. It says it wants them to have the same rights as all Canadians.
Sometimes the government argues about equality but the argument really is about sameness. When we talk about sameness, we take away from the unique constitutional rights that aboriginal people hold as individuals and as a collective. It actually diminishes in certain aspects the uniqueness and the constitutional aboriginal rights of aboriginal peoples.
The government tries to make everyone the same. Sameness is a very veiled word for assimilation; for making them like us.
Even though the government touted Bill C-21 on the repeal of section 67, when the committee listened to what the rights of aboriginal peoples are really about we made amendments and brought it back to the House. Now the government will not move forward on the repeal of section 67, so one has to doubt the sincerity of the government when a piece of legislation truly reflects what aboriginal peoples aspire to and need.
I have another example of how I feel distrust has been sown by the Conservative Government of Canada with aboriginal peoples. The government decides who to consult and who not to consult, when to consult them and when not to consult them, and what to consult aboriginal people on and what not to consult them on.
The law is clear. There is a constitutional responsibility, a duty on the part of the government, to consult aboriginal peoples when their interests may be harmed or they may be imperiled. This is not a discretionary thing. This is not picking the A list and the B list of who should be consulted and when. The government has a duty, a legal obligation, to consult. This again adds to the distrust that aboriginal peoples have in regard to the actions of the Conservative Government of Canada.
Specifically on Bill C-30, the government said it did not have to consult because this is voluntary. Aboriginal organizations can opt into it and choose this process or basically not be a part of this particular process. However, the government said that it had been collaborative in drafting this particular piece of legislation, that it talked to the first nations of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations in particular as a representative body.
Thus, on a piece of legislation that is voluntary, the government is going to work collaboratively, but on legislation that is not voluntary but imposed, it will not work collaboratively or engage in consultation. It would seem that the reverse should be true in many regards. This is another reason why there is a sense of distrust on the part of aboriginal peoples with regard to the actions of the Conservative Government of Canada.
That is why, in the two full years that the Conservative government has been in power, we have seen two days of action by aboriginal people. We have to manifest our sense of distrust, of fighting for fairness and of trying to get the government to listen by taking to the streets, organizing, marching, shouting and engaging in peaceful protests around the country. That is what aboriginal peoples have to do.
It is within this context that Bill C-30 has come forward. I would only hope that the efforts being made through it are sincere. People and groups have raised concerns. We know that it is not a perfect piece of legislation. From infallible people come infallible things, I guess. None of us are perfect so there is probably never going to be a perfect piece of legislation. This is a compromise.
However, some of the drawbacks within this piece of legislation bear repeating. For example, are we going to unduly burden aboriginal groups and organizations in conducting further research with the time it would take in terms of personnel and human resources? The outcome would be no different. They would not be compensated for it.
There are those who argue that one judge with no right to appeal is not an adequate approach. Maybe a panel of three judges would have been more adequate. There might have been some recourse for appeal on certain aspects of the claims.
Land is so very vital to aboriginal peoples. Many aboriginal peoples, and many within my own family, say that we cannot be separated from our lands. They say that to separate aboriginal people from their lands is akin to robbing them of their rights and their ability to have a future. They say that the provision of lands, that need for us to be on our traditional lands, is about one's very survival as a culture.
This bill does not provide for any provision of lands. Even though we can raise a claim against the government that our lands were taken illegally, that they were stolen, that we may have been defrauded of those lands, this bill does not provide for lands in return. It only provides for money. There is a saying about that, of course, which is that long after the money is gone and we do not have our lands, what do we have left? This is a serious concern that has been raised at committee.
Then there are the limited grounds on which we can raise a claim. For instance, we cannot raise a claim based on aboriginal rights or title. We cannot raise a claim based on a loss of culture or language. We cannot raise a claim against the government under this specific piece of legislation on those grounds, but after the tribunal makes its decision we have to release the government from us ever raising a claim on the very grounds by which we cannot launch one.
Once the tribunal makes a decision and its decision is accepted, that particular group will never be able to raise a claim against the government based on aboriginal rights and title or on the loss of language or culture. While we can be compensated for only a narrow set of grounds on which the claims are raised, we have to release the government from a broader set of grounds for which there is no compensation.
It is akin to the issue that was raised in the Indian residential schools negotiations. It was a stumbling block for a while. Under the Indian residential schools agreement, the government will compensate only for physical and sexual abuse. That is still the case: only for physical and sexual abuse. Earlier in those negotiations, the claimant had to release the government from ever bringing a claim against it for physical and sexual abuse, loss of culture and language. That was a stumbling block.
However, the government adjusted itself. It listened to what aboriginal people had to say. Many people and many organizations would not sign on. Now the release under the Indian residential schools agreement is only for physical and sexual abuse, the same grounds on which we can be compensated. One is parallel to the other.
This was raised at committee. The chair ruled that the amendment to make the two parallel was out of order. I think it is important to put on the record that it is still a concern for people.
I talked about trust and the sincerity of the government. I am hoping and praying that this is not only a showcase piece. I will end by saying that time will tell how sincere this government is. We will have this particular piece of legislation. This will come into force and we will have a new act, but the question remains: what action is the government going to take to ensure it is implemented with the proper money and resources within the relevant departments to make sure that claims actually do get resolved? In that way, maybe the government can win back some of the respect and trust of aboriginal peoples.
Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have listened to most of the member's speech. I am actually quite surprised at some of the things I heard and would suggest that maybe I did not hear them correctly. I do not believe that a member of Parliament would endorse or sanction protests that interrupt people's lives and potentially block ambulances that are attempting to take victims of heart attacks to hospital. I am sure I misheard that.
However, I do know it is possible to mishear things in the House, because the member clearly has not heard of some of the good things this government has done. Members do not have to trust the government. We are not asking for trust. We are simply asking for truth.
The member needs to know that just recently we put $900 million into off reserve housing, northern housing, and recently we have introduced the board of trustees with respect to private ownership of property. The party that gentleman chose to run with, to support and to in a sense endorse left almost 90% of the reserves in Canada with poisoned water. Although water issues increased under the Liberals' do nothing policy, we have decreased the water issues by at least 50%.
I want to simply ask a question of the member, because the member knows full well that while the Liberals were in power they spent billions of dollars on all kinds of priorities. However, only as a deathbed conversion, only when the end was near, did the prime minister of the day, the leader of the Liberal Party at the time, the gentleman that member supported, and that party wake up to these aboriginal issues and bring forward what was tantamount to a press release called the Kelowna accord.
That accord, by the way, did not have one dime in it for the issues we are talking about today, not one dime while that member over there voted against the budget last year and was forced to sit idle during our budget this year, which had $2.4 billion for the aboriginal communities.
I need to ask that member a question. Why would he be a Liberal in that party with his clear convictions for the aboriginal community? That member should be on this side of the House where we actually get things done. We do not just talk about them.