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.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, An Act to establish the Specific Claims Tribunal and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

Specific Claims Tribunal Act

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Before question period the hon. member for Churchill had the floor and there are four minutes remaining in the time allotted for her remarks.

I therefore call upon the hon. member for Churchill.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when I left off, I was speaking about the principle of equity and how this process and mechanism should fall within that principle of equity, which was referred to and made very clear in the Guerin case, and this is toward resolving a claim.

At the committee stage of this bill we heard recurring comments, including the lack of land as a settlement or even the recommendation of land quantum in the proposed process. The $150 million cap was a serious concern and the appointment process of judges and the denial of non-pecuniary and punitive damages. We heard these concerns over and over again from witnesses.

Another statement was the call for the government to respect its duty to consult. When appearing before the committee on April 16, the Assembly of First Nations National Chief, Phil Fontaine, stated:

It is unfortunate and regrettable that as of yet we have not been able to forge an open, ongoing, reliable, stable relationship with the current government that meaningfully reflects and respects the government-to-government relationship between first nations and the government. We see this as a missed opportunity.

The domestic front has been exposed on the international stage as well. In fact, the government tarnished Canada's reputation as a human rights champion with its staunch opposition to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Our domestic lack has been squarely framed by this international declaration.

At committee countless witnesses expressed concerns that this was extinguishment legislation. Grand Chief Morris Swan Shannacappo of the Southern Chiefs' Organization articulated his concern. He said:

As a group, our people are poor. We suffer from unemployment, poor education, and poor health. We are owed much, but we have not been allowed to partake in the bounty of this country, as originally intended by our treaties. We agreed to share; we did not agree to impoverish ourselves.

In a word, we are hungry. We are starving from the lack of justice. We suffer from a poverty of options, and our children are committing suicide or partaking in other activities that are not normal within our culture and our people.

My fear, as a leader, for my people is that we'll sell our right to the proper share of the bounty due to us in exchange for some food to limit starvation—any food today, in fact.

The grand chief's comments were in response to the government's extinguishment provisions in subclause 21(1) of the bill. MKO has maintained that this is outside the powers of Parliament, to unilaterally extinguish any of the constitutional and protected rights and lands of first nations without the consent of the rights holders, the first nations community, and that this is consistent with Canada's constitutional doctrine and practice. A membership vote may be required to ratify certain specific claims settlements, particularly if the rights of first nations are affected by the proposed settlement.

Relationships are about consistent trust and cooperative partnerships. It is real in the Churchill riding that first nations, all of which are signatories to the numbered treaties, have been alienated and marginalized from the opportunity to participate in the wealth and benefits of the land.

The lack of a non-derogation clause and the premise that this is a voluntary process and therefore requires no duty to consult on behalf of the government and the lack of its fiduciary obligation provides little encouragement that the bill and the government will honour the political accord and the proclaimed reconciliation function of the process.

[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—

[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?

[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.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my hon. colleague that I am a Liberal for that very reason: because this party has been committed to aboriginal people and we have seen more progress under Liberal governments than those members of the Reform Party, or whatever guise they use or whatever they call themselves, would ever bring to the House.

Kelowna was real and Kelowna had over $5 billion. The hon. member talks about housing money that was booked, but it was far less than what was booked for Kelowna, which was over $1 billion.

He talks about aboriginal people having the right to go out there and protest peacefully and civilly. Yes, we have that right, just like every other Canadian, and we are going to do it. Our voices are not going to be shut down.

The Prime Minister may shut down the voices of his own caucus. The Prime Minister may try to shut down the voices of the people on committees. The Prime Minister may try to fire bureaucrats who do not agree with him. The Prime Minister may shut up his backbenchers.

However, I can tell the member that the voices of aboriginal people are going to be heard. They are going to heard peacefully in this country and they are going to be heard loud and clear. It is about time that the government started listening to the voices of aboriginal people, once and for all.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

We have clean water now in half of the reserves--

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kenora.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's answer has shed some light on some of the misinformation the government tends to get out there.

Last week I had the opportunity to be up in my riding, which is very similar to the Labrador riding that my colleague represents. I had meetings with the chiefs of a number of communities, about nine altogether, including Chief Pierre Morriseau from North Caribou Lake and Chief Titus Tait from Sachigo Lake. Their concerns are all about how difficult it is to be heard in the environment of this government that does not care.

The member represents a riding that has many remote sites. Many areas are very difficult to get to. There are many areas where the communities have a challenge to be represented and to be heard when they deal with a government that is this difficult.

I would like to ask the member about his travels to the remote sites in his riding. He has mentioned distrust, which is rife in those communities. They have not had a voice. They have not had someone in the government who will listen to them. As he visits these remote sites, what does he hear about the distrust, the level of involvement the government is allowing, and how they are going to be heard in these remote sites?

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, indeed my colleague has a challenging riding but he handles it very well. In talking to some of the aboriginal leadership and aboriginal people within his riding of Kenora, he has a great relationship, a respectful one with the aboriginal people in that part of Canada.

I travel quite extensively throughout my riding. I go through many remote communities. They cannot get a meeting with the minister. They cannot get heard by the minister. For the most part, they are dealt with through memos or emails. They cannot get direct answers to the questions they raise.

The member has raised in another way the whole issue of trust and the essential point that I made about how to resolve land claims. In Labrador we have one of the newest land claims, the Nunatsiavut government. While this bill is supposed to resolve claims about historic treaties, the government also has an obligation to carry out its responsibilities and obligations under modern treaties and to make sure that they are implemented properly.

There are also other claims that have not been accepted from a comprehensive perspective by this particular government. The government also has an obligation to sit down and negotiate those particular treaties.

A government cannot build trust if it does not talk. It cannot build trust if it does not listen. It cannot build trust if it thinks that the very people who are affected by the government's policies do not have some of the answers. It cannot build trust if it does not think that the fathers and mothers who give care to their children know best how to care for their children.

It is important that the government listen. It is important that the government engage in a respectful relationship with all aboriginal peoples in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, of course we cannot build trust if we have to work around the complete fabrications that the member is making up.

It is disturbing to me. I think the members opposite are going to support this bill, but clearly what is happening is a filibuster. I do not know why exactly because this bill is important to first nations, it is important to the government and I think it is important to all members. I am not sure why they are supporting it, yet they are going to spend days, I guess, trashing the government. I do not mind. They can trash the government. Of course what they are saying is not true.

For example, part of the political agreement, part of this trust that the member is talking about was that we would have a historic conference on treaties for the first time ever. That has already taken place. It never took place in the history of the Liberal Party of Canada, but it has already taken place under our government. I attended that conference in Saskatoon and was delighted to do so.

The member talked about the first nations in his province. We signed an agreement in principle with the Mi'kmaq first nations in Newfoundland. It had never been done before by the Liberal Party of Canada since Newfoundland joined Confederation. We have signed that agreement and the Mi'kmaq of Newfoundland have approved it in a referendum. I am delighted.

That is how trust is built, by doing things and taking concrete measures. Trust is not built by speaking like those folks are here today, which is that they are so supportive of this bill that they are doing their utmost to make sure it does not pass.

First nations are not deceived by this. The measures we are taking in this bill, none of which by the way were in the Kelowna accord, this whole $2.5 billion commitment could have been done anytime in the last 40 years. That is why Chief Joseph of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations said that in the 30 years he worked for the government, a lot of it under the Liberals, some of it under the Conservatives, and the 10 years he has been chief, never has he seen the collaborative approach which has been taken by this government in the development of this bill.

That is why we are proud of this bill. Members should quit the filibustering and let us get on with passing this bill for first nations today.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, only in the Conservative Government of Canada when a parliamentarian gets up to have a say, which is my right as an aboriginal person and as a parliamentarian to do, would it be called filibustering. I have never heard those things come from a Conservative before. Usually they do not say that much, unless they are given the go-ahead and the old green light from the Prime Minister.

With all due respect, we have a right to debate these issues. We have a right to talk about these particular issues in the House. To be quite frank, I would not be shut up by the supposed attack on the fact that I have a right to do this.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, Fiscal Imbalance.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Vancouver Island North.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleagues during questions and comments, and indeed, this debate is primarily about building trust among first nations. I want to recognize my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan, the NDP critic for aboriginal affairs. She has brought these issues before committee on many occasions and speaks out passionately about the need to build trust and build relationships with first nations to help our country move forward.

I have spoken many times in the House about the many different first nations in my riding of Vancouver Island North. There are close to 30 different bands. They are broken up into two distinct tribal councils. The one on the northeast side is Kwakiutl District Council, and the one on the west side is Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council.

I have visited many of their communities. They have told me about what their people have been through over many years of consecutive governments that have not listened to them. They have been left out of the consultation process time and time again. Their land has been given away to forest and mining companies. Their territorial waters have been encroached on by fish farms. Their very resources have been consistently given away over many years.

We met with Chief Mike Maquinna of the Mowachaht/Muchalaht First Nation in Gold River a few months ago in his village to talk about first contact. The first settlers arrived in Canada at Yuquot, or Friendly Cove as it is now called. Many of those visitors stayed and have made great fortunes from the land of the first nations, but the same cannot be said for the Mowachaht/Muchalaht. They have not had the same economic success.

As a result of first nations being left out of the consultation process when land was being given to resource industries and because much of their resources are on disputed land, the first nations took the only option left to them. They went through the litigation process. Because of a lack of any settlements over many years, there is now a backlog of close to 1,000 cases that need to be settled. Sixty per cent of those, I am told, are in British Columbia. Many specific claims in my riding need to be settled. I know very well that first nations want them to be settled.

Chief Phil Fontaine in an address about the specific claims tribunal said, “Our people have consistently and passionately called for the settlement of outstanding claims and the implementation of treaties.” Later on he said, “The settlement of outstanding claims is a debt owed to first nations by Canada. Under the previous specific claims process, the amount of time it took to resolve these debts was untenable”.

The idea of having a tribunal and having specific claims settled was first brought up over 60 years ago. Here we are 60 years later and still we have not solved anything.

Chief Fontaine said, “Every claim settled means justice will be finally achieved, providing hope and opportunity for every first nation involved”. His words to the government are very important. This needs to happen.

From speaking with first nations in my riding and across this country I know they are wary. They are wary because the process has been too slow and because of what they have lost in the process. Over the past 60 years they have lost economic opportunities. That is a shame that we all wear in this House that it has taken that long.

My colleagues and I support the bill, but I am speaking to it because I want to speak for the first nations in my riding who have concerns that it has taken so long and who have lost much in the process.

My colleague has raised many of these issues in the committee. Some things have been addressed, but when I think about what people have lost in my riding, I am very concerned.

I would like to read some excerpts from a background paper from the British Columbia First Nations Leadership Council:

Canada purports to champion human rights elsewhere in the world and condemns those who violate international human rights standards, but Indigenous peoples have had to resort to the judicial processes in Canada for the recognition and implementation of their rights. Canada was also one of only two countries on the Human Rights Council to vote against the adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples on June 29, 2006.

We can see why first nations are wary and want to make sure that these concerns are raised so that we can go forward together. The British Columbia First Nations Leadership Council in a press release dated June 12, 2007 stated regarding this very bill:

First Nations Leadership Council Welcomes Independent Body On Specific Claims.

But it also stated:

The... Council is cautiously optimistic regarding the federal government's announcement today of a new independent body mandated to make binding decisions with respect to the resolution of specific claims.

That shows its wariness on this bill for many reasons, which I will get into in a few moments.

Québec Native Women Inc., in a backgrounder document in May of this year, stated:

--in recent years, First Nations have been frustrated with the specific claims process itself. It is slow, cumbersome and costly, creating new challenges for First Nations trying to resolve outstanding issues that have already languished long enough.

That is another group that is wary of the process.

I would like to talk about some facts of the matter. Back in 1963 the federal government introduced a bill which was much like the present one. It would have created a binding tribunal to be called the Indian claims commission. Unfortunately that bill did not pass. It did not receive royal assent and did not become law.

Here we are many years later attempting to create the same thing over again. At that time an assessment on the cost of settling some of these claims was done and it was said to be over $17 million. That was a lot of money back in 1963, but with inflation and with prices going up as they do over many years and all this time there has not been any settlement of these claims, and we know there are close to a thousand of them, that figure is also rising. I do not know exactly what the amount would be in today's dollars but it is purported to be in the billions of dollars. Had we settled many of these claims in 1963 or had some process to settle them over the years, I think we would have saved a lot of taxpayers' money. It is economically important that we move forward so we are not here again in another 60 years having to go through this process again when we would be talking about possibly trillions of dollars in settlements.

These are important things to note. There is the wariness of first nations, going forward. We understand and we recognize that they want to move forward. We want to settle the specific claims so we can get into the treaty negotiations that they want to move forward with for their economic fortunes.

It is important to talk a bit about what has happened in the past and why it is so important, especially for first nations in my riding. As I said, I have visited many of the outlying bands. They are small, remote communities. They have been affected by the residential school system. Their children were taken from their small communities over the many years, so those children did not get to grow up in the communities. After school, they ended up moving to the cities or other parts of the country and lost connection with their homelands. Therefore, those small, remote first nation communities lost a lot of their people.

However, they also lost their culture when that happened. It was really difficult for them to grow and have a thriving community when they were spread out all over the place and when they did not have the attachment to their communities, which they would have had if they had not been ripped from their communities as young children and put into residential school. This is another sad part of our history that needs to be addressed fully so they can move forward in a more healthy way.

There have been other lost opportunities with a lot of the first nations on the coast and on the north end of the island where I live. We are surrounded by resources. I was in Oweekeno, which is at very northernmost community of my riding, speaking with the chief about economic opportunities. He said that they were interested in buying a small logging company that was looking to get out of the business, and they were doing a lot of work to get it. He said that they were surrounded by resources, but they did not benefit from them. That is a real shame when they were the very first people there and they owned that land. There is evidence of them being there from time immemorial. It is quite a shame that their land was taken from them and tree farm licences were given to companies that then made a profit, but the first nations of the region did not receive anything for it.

Also, it is the same with mining. Some of our smaller bands are getting into gravel extraction and other sectors of the mining industry. They are starting to regain some pride because it gives them the economic backing to grow their communities, to develop their communities, to start to build their own housing and not to rely so much on government funding, and that is important. They also want to settle their specific claims with other industries and with the government.

These are lost opportunities for the first nations in my communities and those lost opportunities have had their toll on people. Many generations of first nations have grown up in poverty, as we have seen, and it is a shame.

The other point I want to make is about land claims with treaty negotiations in British Columbia. Many of our small bands are in negotiations in groups. Some of them are breaking away from those groups because they find they are at the point now where they need to deal with their own issues and get those resolved. The group process has worked for them until a certain point. Some of them have been in these processes for almost 20 years.

The problem with that is they are on borrowed money, basically from the government, and they have to pay that money back once this is all finished. All the money they are using for lawyers, for travelling, for documenting and all those things comes from the government. I think many people in our country do not know that first nations live on borrowed money, so they want to get these claims done so they can move forward.

It is important for us to ensure that we support this important bill, that we take this small step here and move forward.

For all the first nations in my communities, from Oweekeno to Comox to the Namgis First Nation to theKa:'yu:'k't'h'/Che:k:tles7et'h' to the Wei Wai Kai to the Wei Wai Kum to the Mowachaht/Muchalaht to the Gwa’Sala-Nakwaxda’xw to Fort Rupert to Quatsino, all these bands, and I know I have probably missed a couple and I apologize to any of those I missed, have been struggling for so many years and they really would like to move forward. With our help, we can take that next step together.

I hope it does not take us another 60 years to move forward. I hope once this is passed and becomes law, things will move quickly and efficiently for the benefit of the first nations all across the country that have been left out of the equation, that have not been consulted and that have found themselves on the short end of the stick for far too long. It is something we must do and support.

I am very glad I had an opportunity today to speak to the bill. I am very proud of the work that my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan is doing on the aboriginal committee on behalf of the New Democratic Party.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the member was here in the House a few minutes when two government members, one being the minister, made a comment about the shining work the government was doing, that this was a wonderful era for first nations. Could the member comment on that?

While she is thinking about that, I was absolutely astonished at the audacity of such a comment. I will go into it later today in detail as to why I feel that way. For almost a few months I stopped talking about it. No one believes the Conservatives any more because there have been so many financial cuts and program cuts, which it is absurd. I would like the member to dwell on this because I was astonished.

Also, could she give her own perspective related to the first nations in her riding?

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I listened to the previous speakers. One thing I heard the minister say surprised me because of this denial or non-agreement that the Kelowna accord is actually a real document. When the minister said that there was a piece, and I cannot remember which piece it was, left out of the Kelowna accord, I thought he admitted there is one. That was quite telling.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Vancouver Island North for perhaps helping the general public to understand the scope of the bill we are debating here today, Bill C-30.

One of the most important things she pointed out, and what I might ask her to elaborate on it, is the fact that we are not talking about comprehensive land claims, which the general public might think of when people hear the words “land claims”. We are talking about very specific claims that are in fact legal obligations by the federal government.

One example I know of is during the second world war the Government of Canada went to a reserve and said that it needed to use 40 or 50 acres of the land as a training base for soldiers to get ready for the second world war on the condition that as soon as the war was over the land would be returned. The war ended in 1945 and the first nations asked about the promise of getting their land back. It fell on deaf ears for 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, 50 years. They tried everything.

That is the frustration. This is one key example of the type of frustration first nations have faced in trying to have their voices heard on very specific, narrow points of law, “You promised X dollars and we only got Y dollars. Where is the rest”, or, “You promised us you would give that land back. You didn't and we want justice on that issue”.

If Canadians understood that, I think they would be more supportive of trying to expedite this process so more of these legitimate claims could be dealt with in a fashion where it was not justice delayed was justice denied. Decades and decades of deaf ears to a legitimate legal obligation is justice denied no matter how one slices it up. I want my colleague to comment further on that specific difference.

Another thing I want her to comment on is the composition of the tribunal board. If we are dealing with a nation to nation respectful relationship, why does the Government of Canada get to appoint all the members of the tribunal? Would that not be like the United States telling Canada, yes, there is a trade agreement, but that it will name all the tribunal members and control the process for any disagreements that may arise out of the trading relationship? That is something she could expand on as well.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is absolutely right about the tribunal appointment process. We like to think we are dealing on a nation to nation basis. For us to presume that we have the authority or right to appoint the other side is beyond reason. I thank him for raising that issue. It is a very important piece that needs to be addressed, and I hope the government will do so.

I started my discourse talking about building trust. My colleague again raises that very point when he talks about the promises that were made to first nations over the years, but were not kept. That is why so many aboriginal groups and first nations are wary and not as trustful of any government, provincial, municipal or federal. They are very wary and will be watching us with a keen eye to ensure we live up to the promises we make in the House today.

I want to mention that the difference between treaties and specific claims is specific claims deal with past grievances of first nations. These grievances relate to Canada's obligations under historic treaties or the way it has managed first nations funds or other assets, some of those assets being land, resources, fish and other things, even water. These things need to be addressed. They have created economic hardship for aboriginal people across the country. For us to let them languish in courts for all these many years is very shameful.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the member mentioned the first nations in her riding. Of course, I would not want to leave the ones in my riding out because they are unique in Canada: the Tlingit, the Northern Tutchone, Southern Tutchone, the Han, the Gwich'in, the Kaska, the Tagish and even some from Copper River.

Some of them appeared before committee and they had suggestions but we are supporting the bill, as they are supporting the bill. They have specific claims.

My question is on the amount of money. As we know, the maximum amount is $150 million per claim. I think the minister said that there were 900 claims outstanding and that they were trying to get them done up quickly. At $150 million maximum per claim and 900 outstanding, how much money would that be in a year? Only $250 million have been indicated in a year. My position is that the government should be committing, through supplementaries, to increasing that. It may be far larger than that if we are going to make any progress at all on the backlog.

I wonder if the NDP agrees that the government should commit, through the supplementary estimates, to increasing the $250 million a year for what the tribunal needs to resolve these claims.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, from what I understand from the discussions, the $150 million will be adequate in most of the cases but in cases where it is not there is another level. I am not quite sure of the specifics on how that is accessed or the process once the $150 million threshold is reached.

I would remind the hon. member that under the previous Liberal government its cap was much lower. I believe one of my colleagues actually mentioned around $10 million. I would need to check that fact but that is a lot less than $150 million.

I think that is an important point that the member made. As I said back in 1963, when an original bill was introduced where around $17 million was the total for all the specific claims, now we are looking at billions of dollars. I hope, as I am sure he does, that the government has laid enough money aside and that once these claims are finalized, the money will flow quickly and that we will not need to see more claims made to access the money that is owed to first nations.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak today to Bill C-30 at third reading.

I will put the bill into context for the people watching at home because they hear about land claims and about specific land claims and they are not sure what we are debating today.

When Canada was being developed, the King made a royal proclamation stating that there had to be agreement with first nations people and aboriginal people before settlers from Europe and other Canadians could use the land. That led to treaty development and to modern treaties, which are called land claims.

We are not talking about that today, which is where some of the solutions to the problems with aboriginal people lies. We certainly want to see good work in that area so we can advance the many claims that are still outstanding. It is a huge issue and a key.

Today we are talking about specific claims that have had problems. A first nation, aboriginal or Inuit group suggests that there has been a transgression and that someone has done something legally against their claim to which they have a right and they want that wrong corrected. That is very important, which is why I think everyone is supporting the bill in principle. However, it is a whole different issue from the major issue of land claims but certainly needs to be dealt with.

As previous members have said, the bill has been in the works for 60 years, the finalizing of it and getting it in place, so it is not new for anyone here. Everyone is happy because there have been calls for the bill since 1947. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples in 1996 talked about it as well. Today, we have a bill that we all hope will get through.

I want to talk about some of the items that we discussed at committee. When the minister gave his speech on third reading, I noticed that he did not touch on any of the concerns that came up on committee, which is the purpose of having committee hearings. He simply reiterated the purpose of the bill.

First, the minister said that there were 900 specific claims outstanding, which is why we must o deal with them quickly.

From my understanding, after talking to a committee member, the government was not too flexible in dealing with the concerns of the committee and the people who gave input to committee. One of the concerns had to do with the $150 million cap on the land claims.

What happens to claims that are over $150 million? If they go through the process and it is discovered that they are actually over $150 million, how will those claims to be dealt with? Will the government guarantee that those claims will be dealt with in good faith and quickly, like the other specific claims?

The second point, which I made a minute ago in a question, was on the total of amount of money available. Will $250 million be enough? If we have 900 claims and the maximum for one claim is $150 million, it will not take too long to add up to $250 million in a year.

I can understand that the government did not put the money in the budget, but I hope, in good faith, it will commit the money in the supplementary estimates. The tribunals will need to have the ability to approve a lot more than $250 million in a year if we are to make any great progress on the backlog and, therefore, the government should simply put the money aside in the supplementaries when it will be needed to fund those.

The third point relates to the input on the judges. I understand this has been dealt with somewhat in a side agreement. I appreciate that. The concern raised was that when two sides were bargaining in the past, to use the example used by the member a few minutes ago, the United States and Canada debating over something, the person who would decide would be one of those sides, for example, the United States decided.

That was the system in the past and of course that is what this new arrangement is designed to get around, which everyone agrees with. Therefore, a tribunal will be appointed. For those who think a tribunal means three, because tri is the root of a prefix that means three, it is one, so there is one judge. The judge would be appointed under the standard appointing procedures of judges, but in the example I just gave by the United States, by one side, so the concern was raised whether there would be input of aboriginal people into the appointment of those judges to have a fair resolution and have confidence in the process. Of course, as has been said, the Assembly of First Nations has worked on this and is in support of the process.

The next item that was raised very eloquently by the member for Labrador relates to land. We are talking about irritants in a land claim. If there is a problem where someone did not do something about a land claim, this is a way to resolve it. If someone takes our land away from us illegally, there is a way to resolve it, except that this process does not allow them to deal with land, so there is a process to deal with specific claims, much of which could be about land, but they cannot deal with land.

The member raised that question a few minutes ago but no real answers were given as to how those types of problems would be solved. The minister suggested in his speech that they could get finances and with those finances they could buy land, but that was not necessarily acceptable in all cases, from what I remember, to the people who presented at the committee on that.

Another concern that was raised related to the fact that many of the cases of specific claims would require a provincial buy-in. The obvious reason for that is that crown lands in Canada are primarily held by the provinces and the Yukon territory. As the Yukon territory has had devolution, the responsibilities for management and stewardship of land, water and resources in the Yukon territory has been transferred to them through devolution agreements, as it is with the provinces. This situation does not exist yet in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut but negotiations are underway.

Therefore, if, in the majority of Canada, the crown land is held by provinces and territories and there is a problem with a specific land claim, then obviously in many cases the provinces or the Yukon territory will need to be involved because of their role in the stewardship of that land.

However, the problem is for them to agree to that. They will not necessarily buy-in because they will need to agree to be bound by the decision of the judge during the case. There obviously will be a number of cases that will not be solved in this manner and that will not be as rosy a picture in that respect.

One of the points that I wanted to make clear concerns the tribunal. When we first heard that there would be a tribunal, it sounded like there was a panel of judges. I think six judges will be appointed to the tribunal so that various judges can sit on various cases, which we support and it is the way it should occur.

However, there is only one judge. We are talking about claims of up to $150 million which is very important to people and it is being for better or worse decided by one person. These will be eminent people, but they obviously will not always make the right decision.

The problem with the process is that there will not be another person sitting on the tribunal with them so it will be totally one judge's decision. Something could be easily overlooked by accident or for whatever reason a wrong decision could be made. There is no one else sitting there with the judge and it is not appealable.

Everyone in the House has dealt with government in a number of ways over the years, either administratively or politically, and knows that for almost every process in government, in the public administration, there is some sort of appeal process, other than this judicial review which is allowed in this case. We do not want to force people to go to court.

There are only two major instances I can think of in the Canadian system where this occurs. This would be one and the other is on refugee determination. Despite efforts to change that over the years, someone could be forced to leave Canada. Could we imagine if we were forced to leave Canada on an non-appealable decision of one person? That would be a pretty sad state of affairs.

I think it is a hallmark of our fairness. Even in the courts where we have these wise judges, such as would be sitting on this tribunal, we have several levels of appeal right up to the Supreme Court, but we do not have to force a judicial review. It would be much easier if there was some mechanism that would look at the process.

Someone suggested there would be about 20 cases a year that the government is hoping to accomplish. If there is a backlog of 900 that is not going to get us very far. Therefore, we certainly have to put the resources into dealing with these cases. It is a good plan, except for these numbers of concerns that I have mentioned that were brought forward in committee by witnesses and aboriginal people. However, if we have a plan that is better than it was before, we have to put in the resources to deal with it.

Another question was, can the tribunal rule on pre-Confederation cases such as the Caledonia case? I have not heard the response to that question.

At this time I want to compliment Grand Chief Phil Fontaine for the tremendous work that he did to make this agreement possible. He has achieved so much for his people over recent years with the settlement of residential schools that he signed with our government after years and years of trying to come up with a plan. I remember I was in the room when the agreement was arrived at and saw the emotion from the hard work and dedication, and the success that his leadership had contributed to so much. He certainly deserves credit from not only first nations aboriginal people in Canada but all Canadians.

That once again will apply to this case where so many irritants will finally be taken care of and dealt with where in the past they were not moving fast enough. I think it was an average of 13 minutes per case before.

I want to use my last few minutes, however, to repeat my astonishment this afternoon with the minister and the member for Cambridge who are actually trying to suggest that these are rosy times with the accomplishments of the government for aboriginal people in spite of all the tremendous huge cuts to aboriginal funding, and the huge number of programs that have been cut.

As I said, I would stop talking about this because no one really believes the government and believes that. However, when specific examples came up in the last few days, it is hard to take. The member suggested as did the minister in an answer during question period that things were not in the Kelowna accord and that is why things proposed by the government are so successful.

As far as the government's three success stories, the first was the specific land claims. We have already discussed that this has been going on for six years. It had nothing to do with Kelowna. It was in progress and being dealt with by the Department of Indian Affairs and the various governments to come to where we are today.

The second point was the agreement on children and family services. It is true that there was no agreement in place. The member said it had nothing to do with the Kelowna accord. Of course, that shows the total lack of understanding by those members who try to make that case with the Kelowna accord and the fact that it was dealing with the holistic issue of children and adults and their health.

I do not think that anyone would agree that education, child care and housing and the economic development of their parents and health have nothing to do with children. If the government were to deal with children and their families in such a fashion and deal with the root causes, then there would certainly be a lot less people needing an agreement on child and family services.

In the last couple of days the minister twice quoted one chief from the thousands of chiefs and their counsellors in Canada. He is limited to so few comments of the great support for the government's work. Then the minister used the example, which is most embarrassing of all, of signing a land claim after that member and other members in his caucus who were in the Reform caucus spoke so hard against many of the major land claims in Canada. They fought against them. Then the member had the nerve to stand up and say this is great work because one particular land claim had been signed which had not been dealt with for years. To talk about the things that were not in the Kelowna accord means he had no success.

The member's third point was in reference to clean water. The first two of the three were not successes. The third one is no success either. People know and the facts are that when the Liberal government was in place, it did an audit of all the first nations water systems. The previous government funded this audit across the country and found many problems which no government would like to find. Information that was needed to deal with those issues was gathered and the problems were then dealt with.

As the member said, the government dealt with some of them. Instead of dealing with all the items from the audit and the disgraceful situation that the water systems were in, what did the government do? On April 15 or 16 the government announced that it was going to basically do an independent study of where the previous government failed in following up on the recommendations dealing with water.

It is quite simple. There are water problems on first nations. Why does the government not just get on with it, instead of saying it has a success and that it is going to monitor where the previous government failed, when the audit had already been done? For the minister to say that this had nothing to do with the Kelowna accord, once again people will think that the minister should at least understand what was in the Kelowna accord.

In 2006-07 there was $100 million for water. In 2007-08 there was $75 million for water. In 2008-09 there was $85 million for water. In 2009-10 there was $75 million for water. In 2010-11 there was $75 million for water.

The government cancelled the biggest agreement with the first nations of Canada, not with a particular party or government. There was $5 billion for K to 12 education, post-secondary education, children, housing, northern housing, water and infrastructure, health, capacity building and economic development. It is not believed by anyone, except by a few Conservative members, because there is no way in the world anyone can consider that a success.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of questions for the member opposite.

He often likes to speak about his previous tenure on the government side. He harkens back to the moment when the previous government was about to be unceremoniously thrown out from office and rolled out what he likes to call the Kelowna accord, though, of course, that press release came from the first ministers meeting which called for $5 billion to be spent by the federal government. And of course it was not an agreement.

It was simply an announcement of a promise that the former government wanted to implement should it be successful in the next election. We know what Canadians had to say about that former government.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

They had enough of talk.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

As my hon. colleague says, “They had enough of talk”.

It was not until about a month later that in fact the term “accord” was attached to what we all know was not a signed agreement. Thankfully, our government was elected and we have been able to move forward with some real tangible plans, not a dreamy panacea that would cure everything. That is the only approach that the Liberals have. They bring forward very glorious talk, but after 13 years they did nothing for aboriginal people.

If we look at some of the ideas that came out in the previous era, the good ones were set aside. I can comment on former minister Nault. The member of course knows minister Nault quite well. His great ideas were set aside. All the Liberals wanted was talk and that is all they came forward with at the last moment.

The member needs to talk to his caucus. On the subject at hand, Bill C-30, I guess the member has not spoken with his caucus. In fact, the whole caucus voted to completely endorse this bill. In clause by clause, every single element of this bill was endorsed unanimously by his party. Yet, he talks about the bill as if it is something he and his party do not support. That is wrong and I am not sure what cheap political points he is attempting to score here, but his party, like I said, has unanimously endorsed this bill.

On top of the deception related to the Kelowna press release that the member put on the record, I would also like to speak to some of the other misinformation he has put on the record. The $150 million associated with this bill is quite a significant amount. When we look back to Bill C-6, the bill that the former government tried to put before Canadians, it only had about $6 million associated with it for the settlement of claims. This legislation is a considerable improvement on the ability of government to actually settle some of these outstanding claims, in fact, a large number of them.

He thinks that the outstanding backlog will not be addressed. He should know that 50% of the outstanding specific claims are less than $3 million. In fact, the vast majority of them are a great deal below the $150 million mark. The $2.5 billion that we have extended to this important tribunal is going to take care of this massive backlog that is in place.

I want to ask the member a quick question. He was speaking earlier about how the tribunal would not be able to unilaterally remove parcels of land from the provinces and territories, including his own territory. Is he suggesting that this bill should now be modified at third reading so that the tribunal could unilaterally take parcels of land out of Yukon? I am not sure his voters back home would like that.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, while I thank the parliamentary secretary for his question, it is hard to imagine someone trying to defend cancelling the Kelowna accord. This is like shooting fish in a barrel. This is a disaster for the government.

First, the parliamentary secretary said it looked like I was trying to destroy the bill and vote against it. He should have listened to my speech if he was going to ask a question and make a comment. I said twice in my speech that I support this bill and I gave a number of good reasons why in my speech. He should have listened.

Also, I said that the concerns I brought up were concerns that people brought up in committee. They were not my concerns related to the $150 million. In fact, I did not raise so much a concern as a question when I asked the government what it is going to do about those claims over $150 million. If anyone should know that answer, the parliamentary secretary should, but he did not answer that question.

In reply to the question about 900 backlogged claims and the 20 a year, he said it is going to be done. There was no answer to my question about so many claims and so few being done per year.

However, what I really want to respond to is the absolute audacity of the member in trying to defend the Conservatives throwing out the biggest agreement in history between Canada and the aboriginal peoples. We are out $5 billion. There has never been anything anywhere near that level. This was an agreement not just with the Liberal Party of Canada, not just with the Government of Canada, but between Canada, the premiers and the chiefs, the leaders across Canada.

It sounds like the member thinks this agreement was invented overnight, in one session. He really does a disservice to the aboriginal leaders across Canada, who met time and time again.

The reason the agreement was so successful and had so much support in this country was that it did not come from a government. It did not come from the Liberal government. It came from the aboriginal leaders in this country. The member insults the aboriginal leaders of this country in saying that it was just glorious talk that these aboriginal leaders came up with these problems.

Those aboriginal leaders know what the problems are in their communities. That is why they brought up education from K to 12. That is why they brought up post-secondary education. That is why they brought up support for children, for housing and infrastructure, and for northern housing. That is why they brought up support for water and infrastructure. That is why they brought up accountability and capacity building, engagement on land claims, self-government rights, economic opportunities, and health care.

That is why the agreement had the funds for all those items, for those items that the aboriginal people asked for. Canada signed in good conscience, agreed to it and put it in the budget, setting aside the $5 billion. The Conservative government took that away. I would be embarrassed to try to defend that decision if I were in that government.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Yukon for his speech.

I would like to hear the member speak about the shame Canada has brought upon itself on the international stage by refusing to sign the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In our caucus, the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue spoke to us at length about this. The international community was completely shocked to see Canada refusing to sign this treaty.

I think this situation only proves that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development seriously lacks vision and influence. I would like to know what our hon. colleague from Yukon thinks about this.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, of all the embarrassing things done by the government on this file, that is one I did not bring up.

However, time and time again in this House, our critic has talked about this shameful behaviour in the international community in regard to aboriginal rights. We have been told that the government put much effort into actually derailing that agreement at the United Nations. I think there are things the government could be spending its time on at the United Nations. For instance, there is the huge crisis in Burma right now. The government could be getting support from some of the countries that are not giving as much support as we are.

The dismal record of this government as related to human rights and first nations people is seen in the fact that it has put forward a bill, as the member well knows, for human rights for aboriginal people in Canada, a twelve-word bill or something like that. It was done so poorly and with so little consultation that I think it took over a year to get it to the House. I think there were seven items that the people in the committee came up with time and time again. Had they been consulted, they would have fixed that bill. We could have had it done long ago. It could have been easily fixed, but it was just a disaster.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

If the hon. member for Cambridge can ask his question in 30 seconds, he will be recognized.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will do just that. I simply have a comment of clarification. The Kelowna accord was never signed. I am sure the member just mistakenly misled the House.

The member did read off a litany of issues that the aboriginal communities brought forward in the dying days of the Liberal government, and I want to thank the member for pointing out all those Liberal failures.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, if I misspoke about it being signed, that is fine, but it was the agreement made to deal with all those issues. The Conservatives just said they were important issues, so that member is going to have to explain at the polls why his party cancelled all the money for all these major issues, which he has said are just as important. That $5 billion was set aside. The chiefs came up with it and the then Government of Canada had set aside that money to deal with this.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-30.

When the Bloc Québécois talks about aboriginal issues, we do so of course with considerable feelings of solidarity. Indeed, for some time now, we have felt that aboriginal peoples form nations. Our Bloc Québécois Indian affairs critic, the congenial member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, is very committed to defending aboriginal rights. This was definitely the case when he took action to promote the signing of the UN declaration. This government manoeuvred behind the scenes at the UN—that undeniably important multilateral forum—to minimize the protection that could be offered to first nations, to aboriginal nations. What a disgrace.

We cannot overstate just how right people are to be concerned. When this government looks at human rights, it usually does so from a negative point of view. We could be talking about aboriginal matters or the court challenges issue. Our colleague, the Bloc Québécois critic for the status of women, could be talking about women's rights. There is equal cause for concern on all those issues, which only shows that to be a right-wing political party in Canada means to look at things differently when it comes to promoting, defending and encouraging human rights.

I could also point out that the Conservatives have voted against gay and lesbian rights at every opportunity. These MPs, whether they are in opposition or in power, vote against prohibiting discrimination based on social condition. This is a dreadfully conservative government that has no sympathy for human rights.

However, that will not stop me from saying that the Bloc Québécois is supporting Bill C-30. I said this earlier and I will say it again quite proudly: in the history of the sovereignist movement, there has always been a great deal of sympathy for the issue of aboriginal rights. Some may have seen the television series on Radio-Canada that told the story of the career of René Lévesque, the former Premier of Quebec. He led the government from 1976 to 1985. This series has been criticized, I admit. Some facts were considered historically inaccurate. Nonetheless, one extremely well acted scene recreated a meeting between René Lévesque and the chiefs of the first nations of Quebec.

In Quebec, we have always promoted aboriginal languages. We have used public funding to make it possible for these languages to be taught. Whenever possible, these languages have been promoted, but not to the detriment of communicating with the majority. René Lévesque was the first to recognize the rights of the first nations. Today, this is a very robust right. Some 20 years ago, it was an emerging right. It is rather revolutionary, unprecedented and visionary to stand up for ancestral rights. In Quebec, we have been doing that since 1985. In Canada, this is part of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, I think we have to pay tribute to René Lévesque for the vision he demonstrated when it came to recognizing aboriginals.

The purpose of Bill C-30 is to create an independent tribunal that will decide on specific claims of first nations. Decisions will be made on the treatment of specific claims in Canada. This is an important aspect of the conflict resolution process for disputed land claims in some parts of Canada and Quebec as well.

According to the Constitution, the federal government has a fiduciary responsibility toward aboriginals. It must protect them. It is therefore responsible for seeing to it that they live in the best possible conditions.

In 1947, Canada achieved full judicial independence and was no longer answerable to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London. Since then, several joint and senate committees have recommended the creation of an independent specific claims tribunal. If I am not mistaken, the Erasmus-Dussault commission, chaired by a former judge of the Quebec court of appeal, also made that recommendation in its report. As I recall, Jane Stewart was the Liberal government minister responsible for aboriginal affairs at the time.

Of course, the recommendation to create a specific claims tribunal for first nations has a history because chiefs and authorized first nations representatives have been asking for it for 60 years now.

The Bloc Québécois wants to point out that negotiations are still the most common way to resolve claims. The tribunal proposed in Bill C-30 would have the power to render binding decisions. The fact that these binding decisions constitute a legal obligation to implement the terms is invaluable.

A number of things require clarification here. First, the tribunal that is about to be created—and this is a sensitive issue in public opinion—will not make land grants. The purpose of a legal tribunal is not to grant lands or to rule on territorial boundaries. The tribunal that we are about to create—and I repeat, the Bloc Québécois supports this bill—will rule on compensation. In other words, it will recognize that certain historical injustices have been perpetrated, and it will recommend financial compensation.

The tribunal will have a $250 million operating budget over 10 years, and may hear cases with up to $150 million at stake. It may deal with land claims of varying size. Some cases will be smaller, others larger, but the tribunal proposed in this bill will not be able to award more than $150 million in financial compensation.

I repeat that this tribunal will not be able to award lands; it will only be able to rule on financial compensation. Claims that can be sent to this tribunal for a ruling will have to be at least 15 years old. Land claims must deal with past grievances of the first nations. They must relate to Canada's obligations under historic treaties or the way it managed first nation funds or other assets, including reserve land.

I remind members that under the Constitution, Canada is the trustee for first nations' assets and rights. It is their guardian.

Under this bill, there are three situations in which the tribunal can hear and rule on land claims. The first is when a claim has been rejected by Canada, including a scenario in which Canada fails to meet the three-year time limit for assessing claims.

Under the existing arbitration and claims process, Canada, through its various land claims commissions, usually has three years to rule on the dispute or the outcome of a claim. If that does not happen, the dispute will automatically be eligible to be deferred to this new tribunal.

The tribunal will also be able to rule on a claim at any stage in the negotiation process if all parties agree, or if there is a consensus to defer the issue to a claims tribunal. The third case in which the tribunal could be asked to rule is after three years of unsuccessful negotiations.

Therefore, the tribunal will examine questions of fact and law to determine whether Canada has a lawful obligation to a first nation. Six full-time superior court justices will be appointed. We know that the federal government appoints superior court justices. The members of the tribunal will be chosen and appointed in accordance with the current judicial appointment process. Usually, there are selection committees.

Naturally I consider it to be my duty, as the justice critic, to digress briefly and remind this House that this government has been shameful, lacked judgment and acted despicably and inappropriately in wanting to change the composition of the judicial selection committees. We remember when the current President of the Treasury Board was the Minister of Justice. He is one of the most conservative members of the Cabinet. I could use other words, but will refrain in order to respect parliamentary standards. The fact remains that this government has been and remains intent on appointing police officers to judicial selection committees.

We all remember the uproar this caused when the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights was holding meetings. The current chair of the justice committee has pushed the limits of effrontery, nerve, bad manners and a lack of fair play in not convening the committee, which is nevertheless a committee with one of the most important mandates in this House. Why is the chair refusing to convene the committee? The Conservative government does not want this committee to shed light on the Cadman affair and it does not want us to play our parliamentary role as we are entitled to do. The committee is asking whether or not there was an attempt to buy votes during the last years of the Martin government.

Six superior court judges will be appointed on a full-time basis to this new specific claims tribunal. We hope that there will be no interference in the appointment committees for these judges and that they will be appointed in accordance with a process which, up until the Conservative government decided to intervene inappropriately, has honoured our Canadian judiciary.

The judges will hand down decisions that are binding and not subject to appeal. This is one aspect of the bill that has been criticized and is somewhat controversial. Ordinarily, the rule of substantive law allows a right of appeal. Unfortunately, I must remind hon. members that there are precedents in this House. There is still no appeal mechanism for refugee claimants.

Even though the Bloc Québécois worked hard to ensure we could have a refugee claim appeal mechanism, it still is not in place. And I understand that this will also be the case for the tribunal that will be created, despite the representations made to the committee.

However, even though this tribunal will hand down binding decisions that are not subject to appeal, a judicial review will be possible. All federal laws are subject to judicial review. Of course, at the trial level, it is generally conducted by the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal.

What is a judicial review? It is a procedure that takes place when there is reason to believe that a decision was handed down without regard for the principles of natural justice or the jurisdiction of the tribunal. Judicial reviews are rather specialized appeals that generally do not pertain to the reasons for the decision but rather to procedural issues of compliance.

The tribunal will not be exempted from reporting. This is only natural, seeing as millions of dollars are at stake. The tribunal will report to the House annually. Presumably, this annual report will be tabled by a minister of the crown. I do not know whether it will be the Minister of Justice or the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, but we will have to keep a close eye on this. Obviously, the tribunal will have to report on its spending, as it is being funded with taxpayer dollars. And the work of the tribunal will be subject to review. There is a clause that calls for a review after five years. This is nothing out of the ordinary.

I am thinking, for example, of the infamous Anti-terrorism Act. When the Liberals brought in this law, I was in the House with our transport critic, the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel—one of the best organizers in Quebec, as my colleagues know—and the member for Saint-Jean, and we told the minister responsible for the legislation, Anne McLellan, that her Anti-terrorism Act would not stand up to the scrutiny of the Supreme Court.

Once again, the Bloc Québécois was right to make its recommendations and the Supreme Court ruled as we said it would, just as it did on the issue of security certificates, which, as everyone knows, completely contravene a principle of natural justice: the right to access evidence.

I see I am running out of time. The Bloc Québécois supports this bill. We do so in solidarity with first nations peoples, and we are appealing to all members to pass this bill. Of course we have some questions but, on the substance, we are in favour of this bill. I cannot help but ask the government, particularly the parliamentary secretary, to reconsider its position on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and to put an end to this completely shameful dithering—which is a disgrace within the international community. I hope the government will come to its senses and allow Canada to join this international convention, until Quebec can do so autonomously on the international stage.

Do I have one minute left or two? Okay, I see I have one minute left. I thought my colleagues would want me to have two minutes, but we are living in very competitive times and, despite the genuine friendship between the government and the opposition, I know the government is keeping an eye on me, but I would like to assure it of complete reciprocity in that regard.

I will close by saying that, in addition to accountability, the Bloc Québécois hopes that the implementation of this tribunal will settle the 138 outstanding specific claims in Canada.

We obviously hope that we can quickly proceed with the appointment of judges.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Hochelaga will be interested to know that I pay attention to everything he says. He is one of the MPs with the most experience here, 5,314 days in fact. Roughly seven minutes ago, he made reference to a former government, that of the 21st Prime Minister. I am sure he did not intend to name that Prime Minister, but rather the government of the Right Hon. member for LaSalle—Émard. I am sure that is how he will handle it next time.

The hon. member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River has the floor for questions and comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, having sat on the aboriginal affairs committee, I am confused. The Bloc will vote unanimously in support of the bill, or did I miscount. I am not sure.

Why are we filibustering? Let us get this thing done for first nations. I am first nations. Let us get it done tonight.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate our colleague on being elected to the House. I do not believe I have had the opportunity to do so. Nonetheless, through you, Mr. Speaker, I hasten to call for calm. Our young colleague should know there is an old German proverb that says speed is the enemy of intelligence. I do not see why we need to act so quickly.

We are parliamentarians and we want to express our views on a bill that has significant ramifications on the lives of aboriginal peoples. As a political party, we would be uncomfortable if we were not making a vigorous and informed contribution to the debate under the skilful leadership of the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, who has worked very hard in committee. Again, I fail to see why the government is pushing us into a situation that would not allow all parliamentarians to speak.

My young colleague—and hopefully my friend in the not too distant future—will discover the virtue of rising in this House, speaking, enlightening us with his knowledge and allowing himself to be receptive to comments always rich with personal experience that the Bloc members might offer him.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I raised a number of concerns relating to the bill. We all support the bill, but does the Bloc have any answers in relation to the concerns.

For the young Conservative member who just asked a question, I will add the point that it would have been a lot faster if the government had more respect for committees. People come forward, they bring up suggestions and the government does not even address them.

I raised concerns at great length in my speech. Usually when it comes to good policy-making, the minister or the parliamentary secretary will deal with each of the concerns and explain how they will be dealt with, yet both the minister and the parliamentary secretary had a chance that this afternoon and their speeches dealt with few of those concerns.

In the absence of the government doing that, does the member have any comment on the concerns raised by aboriginal people in committee?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the member for Yukon is obviously paying close attention to this issue.

It seems to me that our critic, the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, brought forward two types of concerns. First, we want to be sure that the tribunal begins its work as quickly as possible. We also want to be sure that taking some judges away from their present posts in superior courts will not create a void that could have repercussions, such as a delay if judges have to transfer.

Another concern we have is that there is no appeal mechanism. We welcome the fact that decisions are binding, but would it not be desirable to have some appeal mechanisms in place? You will remember how active the Bloc Québécois was in ensuring that there were also appeal tribunals for refugee claims. At that time, our colleague from Vaudreuil-Soulanges, who was elected—unlike others, whom I will not name, but whom we saw on Tout le monde en parle—even tabled a private member's bill to establish an appeal mechanism for refugee status claims.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague from Hochelaga, who has painted a very clear and vivid picture for us.

In particular, he mentioned that in the House we should take the time to really think things through and to do them well. It is important, especially with bills concerning first nations, that we take into account their experience and culture. just as they take the time to think and make wise decisions.

I have a question for my colleague from Hochelaga, and I hope he will take the time to respond because that is why are here. Does Bill C-30 allow for rulings about private property within reserves? We know that there is an ownership problem. Could the tribunal rule on the status of Amerindian property under this bill?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is quite right to ask this question. He was certainly thinking of Jean-Paul Sartre, who said that man is only part of the flow of temporality.

The proposed legislation would not allow judges ruling on specific first nations claims to rule on territorial boundaries. That is understandable. The only decisions made by this tribunal will be proposals, which will become binding decisions, for financial compensation.

Had we listened more closely to aboriginal peoples and insisted more on dialogue, perhaps we would not be at this point. The fact remains that the Bloc Québécois supports this bill, which should lead to the resolution of certain claims.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask a question of the member, who even referenced me in his presentation, which I appreciate.

I know another one of my colleagues asked him a question earlier about why he was filibustering this important bill, which will deliver so many benefits for first nations people. It was agreed to by the Assembly of First Nations, with our government, in an important accord, which was actually signed, a real agreement. However, the member made reference to the fact that we needed to continue to consider the bill, that this was what the process was all about. He also lectured my new colleague on this topic.

The member referenced the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue as his spokesman. Why then, when the bill was in clause by clause, did the Bloc members adopt it unanimously? If they are still interested in going through the details, why did they unanimously adopt it and why are they continuing to filibuster now when we know the bill is ready to be sent to the other place so the benefits of that tribunal can begin to come forward for Canadians?

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

It has taken one minute to ask the question. The hon. member for Hochelaga now has one minute to reply.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised and even hurt by the question.

If we work hard in committee and we support a bill, that leads people to believe that we must act quickly. I hope that the last thing the government will do is to interpret as a delay tactic the fact that we are speaking in an enlightened manner and in a climate of frank camaraderie in order to express our opinion on this bill. I do not see why we should be rushing.

I wish to assure the first nations that they will be vigorously supported by the Bloc Québécois, as they were from the beginning of our work by the member for—

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak on Bill C-30.

At the outset, the NDP will support the bill. We had a number of concerns with it and attempted to bring forward amendments that would have improved it, but the Conservatives were not interested. We will be putting on the record our concerns about the bill because it will go a few steps toward dealing with some of the specific issues in the area of specific claims, but it does not deal with some of the larger issues that we really need to deal with as a Parliament and a country.

The more I travel and the more people I meet, the more I understand that Canada's failure to address the need to deal with our historic legacy with first nations is probably the one element that keeps us from meeting our greatness as a nation. We need to come together. This is not a partisan issue. This is a fundamental failing that has been running through Canada since the beginning and we and our generation have to deal with this.

I had the great honour to represent my riding, and in a sense be the representative of the Government of Canada, during the Treaty No. 9 activities that happened across a vast section of northern Ontario. Treaty No. 9, as we are aware, covers probably two-thirds of the land mass of Ontario.

We began in northwestern Ontario, where the first treaty signers, who were actually representing the government of Ontario and the Government of Canada, met with the first communities. They travelled by canoe to every community up to the James Bay region. That was 100 years ago.

I was in certain communities when it was re-enacted with young canoeists. I had the opportunity to go to the community of Martin Falls. Martin Falls is the most isolated community in my riding, far along the Albany River, as far from any other community as one could imagine. We were invited to come up river to the actual spot at Martin Falls where the treaty was signed 100 years ago. It took us all afternoon to get up the river to that location. We were in the exact spot and probably what looked like the exact conditions when the first treaty signers can come across Martin Falls and met with the Ojibwe community.

During that afternoon, the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario and representatives of the Government of Canada were there, and I was speaking. A man stood up and started to speak in Ojibwe. He asked if he could address us. He apologized and said that he had never learned to speak English. When he was four years old, government officials came and took his sister away. She was a year older. They never brought her back and nobody had ever told them what happened to her. He said the next year when they came, his family hid him in the bush and he never went to school.

There was such a profound sense of loss in that little community as we stood on the river and he spoke of that little girl, for whom nobody has ever accounted. We think of the years of tragedy, abuse and broken promises that happened in these communities, which profoundly affected people's ability to develop. They were profoundly affected emotionally in the wholesale surrenders and illegal transfers of lands and the stripping of resources that happened. It crippled them financially.

As I stood there 100 years later and spoke on behalf of the Government of Canada as the people's member of Parliament, I said there was not really much to celebrate. There is not much to celebrate in a legacy in which a treaty was signed by these people in good faith and that treaty was broken every step of the way.

Every community in my riding in the James Bay region and isolated regions are among the most impoverished in Canada. We can do better. This is why we need to speak about the issue of specific claims. No one government, no one party will be able to come forward with a panacea for dealing with the years of broken promises and the devastating impacts they have had on our communities across the country, but we need to take specific steps.

I will speak to the issue of specific claims. One of the great fortunes of my life was to work for the Algonquin Nation in Quebec. I worked on historic research and dealt with the outstanding issue of claims. The issue of specific claims falls into many varieties of economic and financial abuses that were done against these communities. It could have been the stripping of timber off the land. It could have been the abuse by federal officials of the trust fund accounts that were set up for these communities. It could be outrageous acts as just simply moving the boundary of a reserve because it was more convenient to sell it off.

We need to have a bit of historical perspective. Between 1898 and 1940 there was a phenomenal sell-off of first nation territory. In western Canada in the prairie provinces it was almost as though the role of the MP and the role of the government officials was to act as real estate speculators. Land was sold off at phenomenal fire sale prices.

In my region, in the Abitibi region with the Algonquin Nation so much land was sold off through a whole series of patchwork surrenders. Many of these surrenders were dubious at best. Any kind of intimidation was used. There were a few key players in each of them. Often it was a member of Parliament who played a role. He was seen as the guy who could get them the land. The others of course were the government officials who failed in their fiduciary responsibility. The third player was the Indian agent.

In the community of Timiskaming First Nation, from which I have learned so much, there was only one Indian agent who was ever fired, as far as we know. He was the only Indian agent who was ever on record as telling the community that he did not think that a particular land surrender was in their best interests and in fact they had better keep their land because they were going to get nothing out of it. He is the only Indian agent we ever heard of who was fired. All the rest were more than willing to sell the interests of these communities down the river.

Here we are, in some cases 100 years and in some cases 50 years after these surrenders took place where communities are still crippled. We need to address them. Unfortunately the attitude toward specific claims has been much the same as the attitude toward the other problems of the first nations. The attitude is one of, “Take us to court”. The attitude is, “Let us drag it out”. The attitude is, “We will get into negotiations and then we will start dragging our feet”. The second we are into negotiations, the community is basically in a borrowing situation. The community is having to borrow to meet with consultants and experts, so at the end of the day the community does not get what is needed. Many of these claims could be settled with a little good faith.

I have dealt with communities that have been very wary about signing on to any kind of treaty claim process because they have seen what has happened in other communities. A simple issue of trying to resolve a historical dispute over a boundary, over an illegal surrender becomes a hodge-podge of so many interests who are coming to the table and dragging out with lawyers. The community is on the hook in terms of having to pay until the point that whatever it gets at the end of the day simply does not address the community's needs.

On top of that the first nations are being asked to sign away any aboriginal title, to extinguish their claim as a people over the land that they have always lived on. I have known communities in desperate poverty who will never sign that because they believe the only thing they have to pass on to their grandchildren is the title, and the title has to be preserved.

There are elements in this claims process, and I commend the former Indian affairs minister who made it an issue that we have to start dealing with the backlog; yes, we have to deal with the backlog. I am concerned about the whole role of the tribunal and the issue of how litigious it will be. The minister will be the one who sets the terms for negotiation. He has the ability to reject claims. In three years if no one gets back to the community, it is considered rejected. I think it will be difficult for some communities to feel they can trust to go forward into that claim. I am not sure at the end of the day we will be any further ahead.

This gets to the most fundamental issue of dealing with specific claims. We really need to start a process where we actually stop breaking faith with our communities in terms of any agreements that are signed. With the abuses that were done 100 years ago, we can talk about the abuses that are being done today in terms of the government walking away on commitments.

I worked in the community of Barriere Lake in Quebec, a little community that has been beaten mercilessly, and that is the only way I can describe it, in terms of trying to break the traditional structure. That community is so impoverished. It is sitting on a territory that creates $50 million or $60 million a year in resources. People in that community did not want to stop the logging. They just wanted to find a way to balance the logging so they could continue their way of life and there could be some sense of resource revenue sharing to get out of the horrific poverty. They are only 300 kilometres up the road. There are 21 people living in two bedroom houses. A diesel generator is keeping the community going when it is beside some of the largest hydro dams in North America.

In 1997 the federal government intervened and took out the traditional band council. We had a year's standoff where there was no school. There was no heat in the community. No money was going into that community for a year. This was all happening just in the shadow of Ottawa, until it actually became an international story.

Clifford Lincoln was involved. Former representatives of the Quebec government sat down with the federal government and the community of Barriere Lake and tried to sign an agreement. How do we rebuild this community? That was called the memorandum of global understanding, to make a plan to get this community, over the long term, out of its dire poverty. That agreement was signed and nothing ever happened after that. It was just one more broken promise.

We are seeing the sense of hopelessness and bitterness among so many of the young first nations. They are looking for where the results are. When we are looking at terms of how to deal with the backlog of claims, and it is important to deal with those claims, we need to be saying that we have to go beyond a litigious process, beyond simply take it or leave it. We have to start asking how to deal with our backlog of problems so that we move further ahead.

I know communities that have lost phenomenal amounts of land. They know they will never get that land back. They are under no illusions. What they want is a process so that they can give their young people opportunities. In many of these communities it is possible, but it is only going to be possible with good faith.

We certainly are willing to support this bill going forward, but we do not believe it is going to address the fundamental problem that we are facing, which is the need for government to enter into good faith negotiations with communities, to enter into consultations with the leadership in various regions to find a format to move forward to address the backlog of specific claims.

We need to start dealing with the issue of specific claims and find a way that we can actually move forward so that we can begin to address the absolute failure of government to live up to any of its basic fiduciary obligations in terms of housing, in terms of infrastructure, in terms of resource revenue sharing.

In the province of Ontario right now we, through the provincial New Democrats, have been pushing for the notion of resource revenue sharing for many years. If a mine is going to develop, a municipality is allowed to receive some of the tax revenue, and yet we think it is perfectly all right to go into an isolated first nation region, set up a mine and the community has no say, no benefit, nothing.

The provincial Liberal government continually has cancelled our attempts to get resource revenue sharing. Now we have a situation with the KI community where the province threw the leadership in jail. The message is, “We will consult with you as long as you allow complete and open access on our terms. Otherwise we will take you to court. We will allow the companies to throw massive lawsuits against you and we will put you in jail”.

I do not know if non-native Canada understands the implications of what is happening with KI, but it has poisoned the developing relations that we are seeing and what we are trying to see in terms of first nations development.

Consultation cannot be done with a gun to the head and throwing the leadership in jail. The situation with KI, which I think is so astounding, is that the courts have proven again and again the obligation to consult. We have certainly seen it in British Columbia, where most of the big test cases have come from the obligation to consult, but the kicker is, they actually need the money to hire the lawyers to get into court to prove their case. KI faced a $10 billion lawsuit because they kicked a mercenary hired by Platinex off their territory and they simply did not have that money. Since they did not have the money to prove their claim for consultation, they were liable for charges, and in the end they were thrown in jail.

That has certainly thrown a pall over one of the other elements that up to now has been one of the few positives. That positive is the actual move by first nations to sign, we call them treaties on the ground, with resource companies because they can actually get better deals sometimes from the companies than they could ever get from the federal government.

When I was working in the Abitibi region, we were looking to meet with Tembec. We were looking to meet with diamond exploration companies. We were trying to find a way to use the aboriginal title of the territory and our aboriginal rights to actually negotiate agreements where we could start to see economic benefits. If we involved the federal government in it, all those agreements would have been stopped immediately and nothing would have ever been done.

When we look at the development of northern Canada where we have some of our most impoverished communities, resource revenue sharing agreements, agreements with mining companies that work in good faith, not companies that work in bad faith, but companies that work in good faith, can actually start to bring us a model for moving ahead in the 21st century the way we need to.

In conclusion, we support the notion of needing to deal with specific claims. There are a number of elements in the bill that we believe are not addressed. We do not believe that at the end of the day a specific claim should end up with the signing away of aboriginal title to territory. We believe that the cap will prove to be unnecessarily low and deliberately so. We do not accept the take it or leave it stance of the tribunal because we believe that one, it is in a conflict of interest, and two, we would be doubtful that some first nations would submit to a process.

We have to move forward. We have to start dealing with this. This is one of the reasons the New Democrats will be supporting the bill at this point, but we say, and this has to be seen, the greatness of Canada is being judged by our refusal to deal with first nations as honest partners, as equal partners. We need to start moving toward that.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the submission by the member for Timmins—James Bay. I genuinely believe he has done some very important work for aboriginal people throughout Canada and of course in his riding. I would even say that his actions have been done in a very sincere way. He often takes important issues that face aboriginal people in his community to the country. He should be commended for that.

However, I have to ask, why today is he getting up in the House and standing in the way of this important bill proceeding to the Senate? That is what he is doing. It is undermining his credibility as an advocate for first nations, Métis and Inuit people by standing in the way of this bill, by taking part in his party's filibuster. It is not something that does anything for his credibility. Why is he standing in the way of Bill C-30 going to the Senate?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and his kind words in terms of the sincerity with which we deal with our issues, particularly the issue of Kashechewan, where we saw some of the most disgraceful conditions in Canada and the years of lack of federal government interest in that community, to the point that the infrastructure had broken down completely. The community was left with conditions which, when the doctors went in there in 2005, they said they had not seen conditions like that in Africa. Unfortunately, the Conservative government broke that agreement.

The other situation is the children in Attawapiskat, 29 years on a poisoned school ground, 8 years without a school, 3 Indian Affairs ministers in support of that school. The question we ask and the question any Canadian asks is why is it that some children are considered less worthy than others? Why are some children not guaranteed the most basic right, the basic right to go to school?

I take those issues very seriously. I am sorry if my hon. colleague does not want to sit in the House after six o'clock at night and do his work, but my job is to raise these issues and I will continue to raise those issues.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Mr. Speaker, there are major flaws with this bill and we spoke to that and we put them on the record. What we have is a bunch of howling monkeys in the Conservatives who believe that we should stifle debate in the House of Commons, that we should take what we are given, that we should stand up when we are told to stand up and sit down because we are told to sit down and to do anything less would be--

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

I am sure that the hon. member for Timmins--James Bay would like to stay within the line of parliamentary language.

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

Mr. Speaker, it was a simile; it was not a metaphor. I would certainly never say that they are a bunch of howling monkeys, but they were like a bunch of howling monkeys. I think that would be within the bounds.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

I thank the hon. member for all his good advice.

The hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca has the floor to ask a question.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my friend from the NDP a fundamental question. He has a lot of experience in this area, as he outlined in his speech. One of the fundamental ways to build wealth is the ability to own property. Property rights are essential. The Peruvian economist, Hernando De Soto, made that very clear in one of his seminal books.

Does my colleague think that this bill is going to enable aboriginal people who live on reserve to have the property rights that they require, rights which all of us in this House enjoy, but others do not? Aboriginal people do not have those property rights and therefore, they are forbidden from being able to accumulate the wealth that we can. Does my friend not think that what we need is property rights for aboriginal people so they can enjoy the same hopes, possibilities and economic development that we enjoy as non-aboriginals?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the discussion of property rights is a fascinating discussion. The issue today is the issue of specific claims. In the communities I have worked in, on the issue of specific claims they were not really dealing with the larger issues of property. They were dealing with how to address the fundamental injustice that was done, which crippled their economic ability to grow and the ability of their communities to grow.

I certainly would appreciate a chance for us to discuss property rights in the House. However, the purview of this bill is fairly focused in terms of the specific claims act and whether or not we are addressing it.

As I said, we will support the bill. We believe we have problems with the bill in terms of its ability to deal fairly and comprehensively with how those claims are going to be addressed. I am not sure that the issue of property rights is within the purview of the bill, but the minister is sitting in front of me and after my speech I will have a talk with him in case I missed something in the bill that deals more with property rights.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Timmins—James Bay put forward a proposal, or at least a suggestion, that perhaps I would like to continue working past six. Should he and his party and the other parties decide to set aside the debate, we could proceed to Bill C-47. I would be happy to continue working right through the night. Would he be interested in doing that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly glad that my hon. colleague is so keen on continuing the debate. I thought the debate would have ended after I was finished.

I will get back to the original point. The sense that we are speaking about a bill and putting on the record the concerns we have seems to bother him. He calls it a filibuster. That is not what the issue is. This is the due diligence that is done as members of Parliament.

I would certainly invite him to come with me to meet our communities, to talk with them and to see whether they feel that dealing with these issues is something that should certainly be done. I would think that my constituents and all constituents are glad that we put bills through due diligence.

This will be going forward. Of course it is going forward. We have heard about that. However, there are issues that are problematic with the bill and they need to be put on the public record. That is why we have Hansard. That is why we have the public record that is available to all Canadians: so they can see how debate took place and how issues were addressed.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the member who just spoke on this issue. He has regularly risen in this House to defend the aboriginal communities that are unfortunately still dealing with absurd situations today, in 2008. Whether these situations exist because of negligence, or any other reason, the fact remains that the government did not do its job.

I would like the member to comment on the Auditor General's latest report. The report shows, once again, that aboriginal children are living in despair and dire poverty. Nothing has been resolved. I would like to know what the member, whom I sat with on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, thinks. I know that he is very concerned with aboriginal affairs, which is why his opinion would be very important to hear in this House.

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

Mr. Speaker, our failure on children is probably the greatest single shame that we have right now in terms of our ability as a nation and the complete lack of support that exists.

In my community of Fort Albany, we have a good school. The children go to school because they are proud of it. I talked to a lawyer who flies into the James Bay communities. She said that when she looks at the court dockets in Fort Albany they are less than a page long because the kids are in school.

In Attawapiskat, the dropout rates begin in grade 5. It seems that there is nothing of interest to the government about the fact that children give up hope in grade 5 and stop going to school because they are not worthy of a school in the same way that Kashechewan is not worthy of a school and in the same way that so many of our other communities are not worthy of a school.

One thing I learned from dealing with the children on the James Bay coast is that a water project is an infrastructure project, a road project is an infrastructure project and sewage is an infrastructure project, but a school is a hope project. I learned that from a student in grade 8 who saw what a real school looked like and told me that if she had her whole life to do it, she would dream about being in a community where there was a proper school.

We are talking about hope. When a government has this kind of money and this kind of power and shows such disinterest to children that it actually crushes their hopes, there is not much else we can say. The Auditor General's report is scathing. It should cause us all shame. Any party, any member of Parliament, and I do not care what party they are in, has an obligation to say that we can do better. But at the end of the day it falls to a government's sense of priorities, and those children have to be a priority, because if they are not, then shame on us.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak on this very serious matter. I want to begin with a fundamental question that I think we should all consider. Will land claims fundamentally improve the lives of aboriginal people?

A week ago I went to one of the reserves in my riding, the Pacheedaht reserve near Port Renfrew. When one goes to this reserve, one sees conditions that are very much like those in a developing country. The houses are rundown. The windows are smashed. Mould is infecting these houses. We know that the presence of mould in these types of homes is a major risk factor for tuberculosis and is a contributing factor in the very high rate of tuberculosis among aboriginal people.

While I was there, I noticed very few people.

I went to the reserve because in my community we have created libraries for children on some of the reserves in my riding. We have set up three libraries on reserves.

As I said, when I went to Pacheedaht, there were very few people around. There was a sense of foreboding and bleakness. The reason was that the night before one of the young women on the reserve had been raped. Unfortunately, this is not an uncommon situation on this and a number of other reserves that I have had occasion to visit. It speaks to a much larger and bleaker situation that exists for too many aboriginal people living on and off reserve.

What is it like? As a physician I had the opportunity in British Columbia to fly in to some aboriginal reserves, where I would pay house calls. I would visit the communities and see people and treat them in their homes.

There is nothing as heart-wrenching as going into communities where more than eight people are living in hermetically sealed houses. There are a grandmother and a grandfather sleeping on urine-stained mattresses. Sitting out in front of their homes are children with impetigo, a really bad skin infection. People are lying right beside the children, drunk at 10 o'clock in the morning. Unemployment rates exceed 50%. Essentially in these communities there is no hope.

There is a fundamental question I would ask. Treaties must be honoured. The treaties must be completed and land claims must settled, but at the end of the day, will the completion of those treaties fundamentally improve the bleak situation that we see on and off reserves for too many aboriginal people?

There are hundreds of statistics. Let me illustrate a few of them. The incidence of male aboriginals being incarcerated is 11 times that of non-aboriginals. For female aboriginals the incidence of being incarcerated is 250 times that of non-aboriginals. In other words, the risk of an aboriginal woman being incarcerated is 250 times higher than it is for a non-aboriginal woman.

The median income for aboriginals is $13,500.

Seventy-five per cent of aboriginal children do not graduate from high school.

The level of sexual violence and the incidence of HIV-AIDS and of tuberculosis are far higher than what we see in non-aboriginal communities.

The question I would ask is this: will these treaties fundamentally improve the lives of people living on and off reserve?

For 10,000 years, aboriginal people lived in independence. They lived and flourished on this continent. However, something happened that changed everything, and that was the Indian Act. For the last 130 years, the Indian Act has ruled the lives of aboriginal people.

What is the Indian Act? It is a racist act. It is an act that separates aboriginal people from non-aboriginal people. The Indian Act is like a rock tied to the ankles of aboriginal people. It prevents them from being integrated and equal--not assimilated but integrated--in society in North America. It prevents them from having the economic ability that we as non-aboriginals are ensured.

Separate development is apartheid. Tragically, we have apartheid in Canada. It is not something that we should be proud of. It is something we should be ashamed of. In my view, the racist Indian Act should be scrapped because it is a rock tied to the ankles of aboriginal people and it prevents them from being able to move forward and be champions and masters of their destiny.

If we were to try to develop land and engage in economic development on reserve, we would have to go through a minimum of six different departments. It would take use four times the length of time to develop that land. If a developer or a business opportunity came to us, it would take us that length to have any chance to move this forward.

Where does capital go? Will it go to on reserve? It does not. Because the structure is such that no matter how hard-working, no matter how diligent, no matter how hopeful, no matter how inspired aboriginal members and leaders are to develop on their land, to provide for their people, to provide a sustainable future for their people, they cannot. We can. However, the structure prevents them from doing that. Is that fair? Is it reasonable? It is immoral. It is appalling that this situation is allowed to continue.

Land claims are all well and good to complete, for the importance of land and the culture and history and as a matter of fairness with respect to aboriginal people, but we have to go beyond that. The resolution of these claims will be unable to address the fundamental socio-economic tragedies and trauma that are inflicted by aboriginals on aboriginal people every day, day in and day out.

We have to give those children on a reserve a chance. We have to give them hope. We have to ensure they will have access to the same opportunity that we have, but they do not. There is no chance they will be able to do that. That is the most heartbreaking of all.

We can take a look at some of the communities, and there are some phenomenal communities. Chief Clarence Louie, for example, in Osoyoos, has done some remarkable work as have others leaders. They are true leaders who have taken things upon themselves, despite overwhelming and very difficult circumstances.

I can hardly hear myself think, Mr. Speaker, because of all the chatter going on.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

If I could have the attention of the House for a moment. The hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca is close to me and I cannot hear him because members on my far right, and maybe on my far left, are making more noise than I have authorized. The only member who has been authorized to speak is the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, and he has four minutes.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have inadvertently created a welfare dependency trap for aboriginal people and it is fundamentally important that the trap be removed. I would submit that the Department of Indian Affairs needs to work with aboriginal leaders to remove the existing obstacles that prevent them from being able to be masters of their own destiny. As I said before, it is immoral that the status quo is allowed to exist.

I will provide the House with some solutions.

I mentioned that the Indian Act should be scrubbed.

One of the challenges facing aboriginal people is capacity building. When aboriginal leaders on reserve want to develop something, be it land or whatever, they need to hire experts to help them. However, some of these experts are actually criminally negligent in their behaviour. They often receive money for substandard work. It is similar with band managers. Some band managers are good and some are not.

It would be helpful if the Department of Indian Affairs worked with the AFN to build a website where a chief and council could determine which individuals give good service and which do not. A chief or council member could then link to those individuals who would do a good job.

Second, on the issue of capacity building, the Department of Indian Affairs needs to do a lot more with its budget of $9.1 billion to ensure that aboriginal children have access to education.

Third, property rights need to change. Aboriginal people need to own their own property so they can build up some wealth and be able to use that land for their own benefit. They then would be able to provide for themselves, for their families and for their communities.

Fourth, we need to ensure that aboriginal people have access to health care.

In my riding, the Pacheedaht reserve does not have clean water. Many times it has asked, begged and pleaded for help from the Department of Indian Affairs and it has received the cold shoulder. The Pacheedaht reserve needs water and it needs it now. Can anyone imagine not having access to clean water? That is a fundamental right of life. Being forced to drink filthy water is a health hazard. It is immoral, sickening and fundamentally unfair.

As my time is winding to a close, I want to press upon the government the need to talk about integration on assimilation. We need to scrap the Indian Act and we need to work together with aboriginal peoples so they will have a better future for themselves, their families and their communities. We should not constrain them as we have done for so long.

The House resumed from May 12, consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, An Act to establish the Specific Claims Tribunal and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

When the bill was last before the House, the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca had the floor.

He has nine minutes left in the time allotted for his remarks, and I therefore call upon the hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as you mentioned, this is a continuation of the speech I began last night on this critically important issue that affects some of the most underprivileged citizens of our country.

The land claims issue is important for fundamental justice. Will the resolution of land claims ultimately affect the present social and economic problems that act as an anchor attached to the ankles of aboriginal people from coast to coast? I would submit that it will not.

There are other larger structural problems to which solutions have to be put in place to enable aboriginal people to be integrated, not assimilated, into Canadian society. Without that, these people, who now live in some of the worst social and economic conditions in Canada, cannot become part of the 21st century economy.

The current Indian Act is a rock tied to the ankle of aboriginal people. It is so bizarre, so restrictive, so offensive, so unfair. We, as non-aboriginals, would never tolerate such a structure. It does not enable aboriginal communities to be masters of their own destiny. They have an act which sits above them, that rules their lives, that restricts their ability for economic development, that impedes their ability to have the same rights as we have. This contributes to some of the fundamental horrific problems that we see in aboriginal communities across our country.

I will cite one example that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development may want to consider. I have written to him about an urgent situation at the Pacheedaht reserve in my riding. On the Pacheedaht reserve a catastrophe is taking place right now. The reserve does not have a secure water system. The houses are rotting. Mould is infesting the homes. We know that the incidence of tuberculosis in these kinds of sick homes is much higher than in other communities. This is an urgent situation. It is a health crisis on this reserve. It demands the urgent attention of the Department of Indian Affairs now. Without this attention, people will get sicker and they will die.

I was on the reserve a couple of weeks ago. The day before I got there, a woman was raped. Tragically, that is not an uncommon situation on this reserve. Children are sexually abused. Alcohol and drug abuse is endemic. Unemployment rates are double digit and through the roof. There is no hope. When we look into the eyes of the children on this reserve, we have to ask, do these children have any chance, any hope, of getting out of this hellhole? The answer is no, they do not.

Let me provide a few solutions that may be of benefit.

Number one, we have to remove the Indian Act. It should be scrapped. The AFN should be tasked with, and funded for, providing a list of those groups that can provide constructive solutions and capacity building on and off reserve for aboriginal people.

One of the cruel things that exists is that while responsibilities have been downloaded to aboriginal communities for health care, social services and other structures, too often they do not have the capacity to execute those duties and responsibilities that have been placed upon their shoulders, so they outsource them to individuals. Too often they have no idea whether the band manager is competent or whether the capacity building individuals are any good. Too often I have seen people who are shysters, frankly, go in and engage in fraud. They take money from the reserve and do not provide the needed capacity building.

The AFN and the Department of Indian Affairs should make a list of those groups and individuals who have the proven ability to provide strong capacity building on aboriginal reserves. There should also be a list of those people who are not approved, those people who have gone around the country and frankly committed fraud. Those people should be prosecuted, but a reserve could not do that, because the reserve would not have the resources to do so. The RCMP should be tasked with going after these people.

The aboriginal peoples have some beautiful territory. They have some in my riding in Sooke, Beecher Bay and Pacheedaht. I would tell the aboriginal leaders to take chances and start public-private partnerships. Health care is a good example because there is an enormous need for health care on reserves. This would provide a revenue general stream of money and a clean and environmentally sound industry that would go on in perpetuity.

If aboriginal leaders were to do that, they would be able to provide a source of economic opportunity for their people now and into the future. They could negotiate contracts and the resources could be used to build up the capacity within their own communities. This would provide them with the wealth and security to do what they want.

Aboriginal leaders should take a chance and participate in public-private partnerships. Private-public medical care would be one option. They have the chance to do this now.

The Department of Indian and Northern Affairs should have an investment fund that would be managed with the AFN. This fund would provide aboriginal leaders with the resources they need to provide the economic development their communities require. They cannot do that at the present time.

A dynamic young chief, Russ Chipps, lives in Beecher Bay in my riding. Many children in his community have been sexually abused and the whole community has been damaged as a result. However, I must give Chief Chips credit because he is reaching out and asking the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs for help. The youth in that community need hope and they need opportunity. Now that the chief and council are reaching out for help, it is incumbent upon the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs to work with them effectively.

Many of us who have reserves in our communities all know that the social conditions are utterly appalling. These are conditions that would never be tolerated in non-aboriginal communities. The Department of Indian and Northern Affairs is such an ossified structure that if people on reserve try to engage in some economic development they could not do it because the department is so onerous. It takes four times longer for people on reserve to do the same kind of economic planning as someone off reserve. They need to navigate through at least six different federal departments. What kind of nonsense is that? How can these people possibly get on their feet and move forward with that kind of structure?

I would ask the Minister of Indian Affairs to put back the money that he took out of the AFN. It cannot do its job as a result of the more than $1 million in cuts that have taken place. I would ask him to work with the AFN to establish some of the economic and social initiatives that are required and are being asked for by the aboriginal peoples. That kind of relationship would enable the people on the ground to have the hope and security they require. Without that, nothing will change and the horrible conditions that too many people on and off reserves are enduring will continue.

We know that off reserve aboriginal people only receive about 3.5% of funding from the Department of Indian and Norther Affairs. They need hope and they need opportunity. I urge the minister and his department to work with these people to give them the hope and opportunity that all of us deserve, need and have a right to secure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate many of the comments by the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. He always has a way of being very provocative in his comments of course. I know he has written about this subject and has many thoughts on the bill. I can trace many of his thoughts back for many years. We have had many discussions over the years.

I also know about his work on first nations reserves in British Columbia and other places. I appreciate his perspective as a doctor, which is often very illuminating.

I want to assure the member on a couple of fronts. One is that we are changing the organization within Indian and Northern Affairs. He talked about the multiple applications that are necessary for economic development. We are patriating from Industry Canada, Heritage Canada and Infrastructure Canada in an effort to allow a one stop application for some of the economic development things that used to be spread out under many different departments. This should make it easier, simpler and more direct so that many of those applications can be speedily dealt with to promote economic development, which is one of the keys.

The other thing the member mentioned was the core funding for the Assembly of First Nations. Overall, the core funding for organizations across the country has gone up significantly this year. We have made a more equitable distribution among the regional organizations where much of the good work is done.

The Assembly of First Nations and all the national organizations still have significant core funding but we have really boosted the funding for regional organizations. Again, it has been my experience that much of the good work is regionally targeted. I would ask the member to think in those terms.

I do think that quite often issues that are important, for example, in British Columbia, are best dealt with by the regional aboriginal umbrella groups from British Columbia. That is something the member should consider.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for taking this initiative along. I know he will find a lot of support across party lines.

The minister mentioned that aboriginal leaders were restricted in their ability to move forward and engage in economic development. I would offer three other suggestions to the minister. First, we could have a list of approved and non-approved band managers who are capacity builders on reserves. As the minister knows, some people are going around the country engaging in fraud and those people should be prosecuted. A database could be set up that could be easily accessed by aboriginal leaders.

Second, we should enable aboriginal leaders, such as Chief Clarence Louie and others, who have done some remarkable work in Osoyoos, to travel around and teach other aboriginal leaders what they have done and how they have managed to enable people in their communities to develop economically. As the minister knows, they have done some remarkable work and if they were to share that kind of knowledge it would be very valuable.

The third thing would be to make a list of those restrictions within the Indian Act that are so perverse that it is essential that they be removed.

Lastly, in my community, the Pacheedaht Band is in crisis. There is a health care catastrophe and people are getting sick. They do not have access to water. I have written to the minister's department. I know he receives many letters but I would be grateful if he would be willing to look at that reserve so the people can receive the urgent attention they require.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have two fundamental questions. The first one concerns the issue of housing.

For many years, the previous government and now the present government seem to face a crisis over the ability to enable or allow first nations to develop new ways to create housing within the reserve system. I am talking about on reserve bands.

When I look across my region, the housing crisis is being predicated and continued by a government policy that says that houses must be paid for and built by the federal government, using figures from, in some cases, 1989, as if housing prices have not changed since then. It also does now allow any innovative programs that would allow local first nations to combine with training facilities and training institutions to actually build the houses themselves and start to create those programs and training opportunities that first nations need and create the houses that would be more practical and applicable.

We have houses designed in Ontario for the west coast of British Columbia. These houses quickly mould and fall apart. Non-aboriginal Canadians look at this and somehow point back to the first nations as if they had designed and built those houses themselves.

My second question is perhaps a more fundamental one. What efforts has the member or his party made to look at the root cause of this? Is it the Indian Act. In his comments, he mentioned how the act was an anchor around the ankles of first nations people. The act, which was created decades ago, has very little in it that is applicable to the real world and yet no one seems to want to take a real march toward reforming the Indian Act. Any attempts that have been made have been pushed back.

The previous Indian affairs minister and I had some conversations about reforming the act but, apparently, that did not advance anywhere. I am wondering what the member's views are on both of those issues, both the practical in terms of housing but then the more fundamental, which is changing the very act under which first nations people are forced to live.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley has done a lot of work in his community and in British Columbia on this issue, for which we are all very grateful. The member for Nanaimo—Cowichan has also done a lot of work on Vancouver Island, both as an MP and outside.

There are two things. First, in my view, the Indian Act should be scrapped. It is a racist act that separates aboriginal people from non-aboriginal people. Rather than enabling aboriginal people to be masters of their destiny, it actually acts as an anchor around their ankles.

Secondly, I spoke about property rights yesterday. Aboriginal people should have property rights and should be able to own their own homes. Some people say that is anathema to the history of aboriginal people but that is not true.

If we look at what happened with the Iroquois, it was their property rights. They had the ability to own, to utilize and to hand their land down from family to family and generation to generation. Those property rights can be done in such a way that the land does not disappear from ownership from the community, but can be done in such a way that the individual member can actually have ownership, have capital, have a source of revenue and have an asset that they can bank on and utilize for future wealth building. Aboriginal people cannot build wealth like we can, as the member knows, because of the absurd situation that exists.

Lastly, on the issue of housing, part of the problem in B.C. is that some of the people who are building homes should be going to jail because they are building homes that they know full well will be health hazards. They knew these were sick homes and yet they criminally built them. Now aboriginal people are living in homes that are death traps. They are mouldy, sick, toxic homes. The people who built them should go to jail.

As I said previously, it would be helpful if a database could be set up with a list of people who have done a good job on reserves. There should also be an obligation for those people to capacity build on reserves so aboriginal people can have the tools, the wherewithal and the capacity to build their own homes and manage those homes in the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned Chief Louie, the chair of the Aboriginal Economic Development Board. He is travelling the country and he is a great example. As he says, the best social program is a job. His own band has made that a mantra that he sells across the country.

On the idea of scrapping the Indian Act, it would be a great thing if people could come out from underneath the Indian Act. In particular, we have moved ahead aggressively on the First Nations Land Management Act which allows first nations to get control of their land so they do not have to deal here in Ottawa at all. A great way for first nations to get out from underneath the Indian Act is through the First Nations Land Management Act and the other ancillary acts that go with it. I would encourage the member to think about that.

Is it the position of the member's party that we should scrap the Indian Act? Bob Nault tried previously to make some aggressive changes to the act but it did not go very far. I am wondering if the member could tell me whether that is his opinion or the opinion of the Liberal Party.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my personal opinion. It comes from my communications and conversations with aboriginal members in my community who have said to me, “This act is a racist act. It is a restriction on our ability to move forward”. I thank the minister for moving forward with a number of those initiatives.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to join today's debate on C-30, An Act to establish the Specific Claims Tribunal and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

My modest contribution is not about to significantly alter this bill. After all, my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue is the Bloc Québécois critic for aboriginal issues, and he has worked hard to move this file forward. I know that the Bloc Québécois is also supporting this bill. And so I would like to congratulate my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue for all of his work. You should also know that he is a lawyer. As this bill concerns a tribunal, I am sure that his expertise was an asset, notably at committee, in creating the bill that we have here today.

As with all bills, there are most likely flaws. Nothing in this world is perfect. And often, even when we think a bill is perfect, we see some measures that could be different, improved even, once the bill is implemented. However, one thing is clear: this is a step in the right direction, and so the Bloc Québécois has decided to support this bill.

Throughout my speech, I will point out certain shortcomings, or rather, areas for improvement, particularly with respect to aboriginal affairs. Unfortunately, even now, in 2008, there are many problems that are just as prevalent and just as serious. Yesterday, I listened to several speeches by my colleagues in the House of Commons. Members on both sides realized that there is still a lot of work to do, and that is why we have to participate in this debate in order to improve aboriginals' quality of life across Canada and Quebec.

In 2004, deputy Indian affairs critic was my first portfolio, and I was also the globalization critic. Quite frankly, I knew very little about the portfolio. As a former reporter, I was interested in all kinds of current events, but I did not have a very good understanding of that portfolio.

However, I had the opportunity and good fortune to work with the first aboriginal person from Quebec to be elected to the House of Commons in 2004, Bernard Cleary. I worked with him on the Indian affairs file. Mr. Cleary was a negotiator for aboriginals for 40 years. Naturally, he participated in a lot of negotiations with governments. As a result, he knew what he was talking about in the House, during committee meetings and during meetings with the minister and first nations representatives. He set a very good example not only in his approach to negotiation, but also in his approach to problems that were often absolutely dreadful.

In committee, in my earpiece, I have heard interpreters cry because we were talking about what had happened in the residential schools. Mr. Cleary taught me to evaluate these situations and to treat them and the people we met with great respect. He was a good teacher. That is not the reason I am talking about this issue today, but I wanted you to understand why I care so much about Indian affairs.

Without further ado, I would like to talk briefly about the objectives of Bill C-30. The purpose of this bill is to create an independent tribunal, the specific claims tribunal. It also seeks to bring greater fairness to the way specific claims are handled in Canada and to expedite the resolution process. Bill C-30 is therefore designed to improve and expedite the specific claim resolution process in Canada. Since 1947, a number of joint and Senate committees have recommended creating such an independent tribunal to resolve specific claims. Moreover, I learned that the first nations have been talking about and calling for such a tribunal for more than 60 years.

Negotiations will still be the preferred method of resolving claims. This is important, because we know that the first nations prefer to negotiate with the federal government. The tribunal would have the power to hand down binding decisions when claims are not accepted for negotiation or negotiations fail. Briefly, that is the overall objective of this bill, which represents a step forward on this issue.

The Bloc Québécois has always had a very clear position not only on this bill, but on aboriginal affairs in general. The testimony the committee heard answered some of our initial questions. As I said, to us, no bill is perfect, and bad faith on the legislator's part is not necessarily to blame for imperfections. But we often find that there is a need for improvement. That is why, in committee, my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue and the deputy critic improved the bill.

The bill would establish the specific claims tribunal, which would make binding decisions. It could expedite the resolution of 784 claims. That is quite something, and that is why this bill must be passed.

Canada's first nations had some involvement in creating this bill. This may pose a problem. Although there was some first nations involvement, I know that the first nations of Quebec and Labrador unfortunately did not take part in the negotiations.

The Bloc Québécois is in favour of passing Bill C-30, but I have two important points I would like to discuss.

The federal government must properly consult first nations before introducing any bill that may affect them. It needs to do the consultation itself in order to start the reconciliation process. The Bloc Québécois would like to remind members that the government did not hold proper consultations for Bill C-30; the government should develop a real structure for consultation with first nations. Each time there is a first nations bill, the government must negotiate with them and develop a strict and well-established system so that later on, no one can point to a lack of communication between the government and first nations peoples.

The Bloc Québécois would also like to remind members that the bill is connected to a political agreement between the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations in relation to special claims reform. We are very interested in seeing how the government follows through on this agreement and, in particular, the commitments it has made.

I would like to mention some interesting statistics that will show how important it is that we move forward with this bill.

Since 1973, 1,297 special claims have been filed and 513 have been resolved. To resolve these claims, Canada has paid between $15,000—the lowest amount—and $125 million, for an average of $6.5 million per claim.

Of these claims, 284 have been resolved through negotiation, and 229 by other means, either through an administrative avenue or through closing the case. As I was saying earlier, there are currently 784 unresolved claims, and they are targeted in this bill.

Of the claims in process, 138 special claims are in negotiation across the country, and 34 are being handled by the Indian Specific Claims Commission. Those are the statistics.

I repeat, numerous claims and many problems still need to be resolved. The timing on this is good—or bad, depending on which side of the fence you are on—because last week, on May 6, the Auditor General released her report, which obviously looked into the matter of aboriginal children. I say “obviously” because this situation urgently demands greater efforts on the part of the government.

I would like to read a bit from that report. In chapter 4, the Auditor General points out that a number of problems remain to be resolved. I will also be talking about the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That is another question that must be looked at much more carefully by this government, which still refuses to sign the declaration.

In chapter 4, which is entitled “First Nations Child and Family Services Program—Indian and Northern Affairs Canada”, the Auditor General reviews how the department manages the program through which it provides services to first nations children and families on reserves.

In accordance with federal government policy, these services must comply with provincial legislation and standards, must be comparable to services provided in similar circumstances to children living off reserve and of course must be culturally appropriate for first nations peoples.

Chapter 4 of the Auditor General's most recent report shows that funding for child welfare services on reserves is not fulfilling the federal government's obligations. It also shows that more than 5% of first nations children living on reserves in Canada are under the care of community or provincial child welfare services, for a total of over 8,000 children every year. This proportion is eight times higher than children in care off reserves. I said earlier that the situation must be resolved without delay, or at the very least, greater efforts made to improve it. The Auditor General is appealing for help. She is speaking out on behalf of these children and families, who still face this very serious problem.

The Auditor General noted that Indian and Northern Affairs had not analysed and compared on-reserve services with those offered in neighbouring communities. That must be corrected. In addition, the department had not identified the other health and social services available to support child welfare services on the reserves. Once again, the message is intended for the government.

In fact, the needs of children taken into care by first nations organizations vary considerably. Some children and their families do not receive the services they need because the funding formula for these services is outdated. The Auditor General made another point: the funding formula for on-reserve services has not been modified since 1988 even though the first nations have the highest birth rate in the country.

Finally, I raised another point: the Auditor General recommended that Indian and Northern Affairs Canada should resolve the differences with Health Canada related to their respective funding responsibilities for children in care. This may be a problem of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing. There must be more concerted communication among departments to ensure that the changes requested by the Auditor General are carried out.

We do not really need the Auditor General to know all about the problems of drinking water, housing, addiction, suicide and so forth, because the media unfortunately keep us well informed. This information is useful but once we have it what do we do? Although we may not need the Auditor General to point this out, she has nevertheless targeted other problems that the general public may not familiar with or that do not receive as much media coverage. Nevertheless, with regard to these problems, we note once again that the most vulnerable often pay the price for the government's lax approach. In speaking of the most vulnerable I am also referring to the weakest: children are among those calling for help.

Earlier I was talking about the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This is another example of an area where the government should be demonstrating a lot more leadership. There simply is no leadership there. Only four countries in the world have refused to sign the declaration and, unfortunately, to our great shame, Canada is one of those countries. Canada still has not ratified this important Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I read that more than 100 jurists and experts have criticized the Conservative government's lack of leadership and pointed out in an open letter that this government's legal arguments to justify its refusal do not hold water.

The Conservatives give very little importance to recognizing human rights. In addition to refusing to ratify the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, they have also abolished the court challenges program, the preferred tool of minorities wanting to exercise their rights, and let us not forget the government's draconian funding cuts to Status of Women Canada and to the aboriginal literacy program.

There is no use in the government talking about how very important it is to help aboriginals, to improve their conditions and quality of life, when it keeps cutting and cutting. Otherwise, who will pay the bill?

Obviously those who would have received the services that have been abolished, that is who. In this specific case, refusing to become involved more specifically in the services offered to aboriginals will not improve the situation.

The United Nations has worked patiently and thoroughly, together with aboriginal peoples, for more than 20 years to come up with this tool for defending aboriginal rights. Unfortunately, the government is rejecting all this work out of hand.

We have another warning for the government. We are supporting Bill C-30, which is a step in the right direction. In the meantime, the government and its minister have to understand that the situation is not getting any better. Even though this bill is a step in the right direction as far as specific claims are concerned, the government's policy falls short when it comes to aboriginal rights.

Something really shocks me, and I want to choose my words very carefully. I learned yesterday that this government is prepared to invest $30 billion in military equipment. At the same time, Status of Women Canada programs are being slashed, the court challenges program was eliminated and there have been cuts in aboriginal literacy programs. Certainly people do not understand what is going on. I want to choose my words very carefully. Here is my point: I am not saying that we should not have a defence policy, but the problem is that the policy still does not exist. All that is being done is to announce that $30 billion will be invested over a 20-year period to buy all sorts of equipment.

First, there should be a very precise foreign affairs and national defence policy, so that we can determine what we need. Yesterday, in fact, some of the soldiers who attended the Prime Minister's press conference spoke publicly, as the newspapers reported today, saying this was just a sprinkling of money. They say they will be buying planes or this or that other equipment, but no one is sure whether this is the equipment that is really needed in the field. There has to be some housecleaning done in this regard. I will end my parenthetical comment here so as not to confuse things.

On the one hand, we see this pathetic situation on the aboriginal reserves, where there are people whom we should be looking after, since the federal government is trustee for the aboriginal peoples. On the other hand, we get announcements of billions and billions of dollars for military equipment. There is a big disconnect, an enormous gulf between the public's real needs and this government's goals.

To get back to the bill, I want to say that the Bloc Québécois supports the aboriginal peoples in their quest for justice and recognition of rights. The Bloc Québécois recognizes the 11 aboriginal nations of Quebec for what they are, nations. The Bloc Québécois also recognizes the aboriginal peoples as distinct peoples who are entitled to their cultures, their languages, their customs and their traditions, and to their right to decide for themselves how to go about developing their own identity.

We have had a lot of discussion this week and last week about the history of the birth of Canada, which the Conservative government is trying to rewrite, as we celebrate the 400th anniversary of Quebec. Some absolutely absurd things have been said, like some of the documents that have been released. Nonetheless, everyone has to agree on one thing: the aboriginal people were here before Jacques Cartier arrived, and before anyone came to spend time in Newfoundland or elsewhere. The first nations were here. We agree on that. We must respect that fact absolutely.

Speaking of respect, we cannot let the Erasmus-Dussault report go unmentioned. In 1996, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples submitted a comprehensive report that proposed far-reaching changes over a period of 20 years leading to self-government for aboriginal peoples by respecting their customs, cultures, languages and ancestral institutions. Since that time, the Bloc Québécois has been pressuring the federal government to act on the report's recommendations.

This is another warning. This program has been in place since 1996, but there are still many recommendations from the report that the government must act on.

I will conclude by talking about implementation of the bill. There are three scenarios in which a first nation could file a claim with the tribunal. The first is when Canada turns down a claim for negotiation but fails to meet the three-year time limit for assessing claims. The second is at any stage in the negotiation process, if all parties agree.

The third occurs after three years of unsuccessful negotiation. The tribunal will examine only questions of fact and law to determine whether Canada has a lawful obligation to a first nation.

All of that to say that we now have an opportunity to improve the situation, and I am convinced that all parties in this House will support this bill.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the hon. member's intervention I can tell that he has a lot of interest in these important issues, although he did seem to stray into matters of defence that I know the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence would love to deal with, probably later today.

To go back to the matter at hand, the member spoke of the tribunal as important, but he also talked about how the Government of Canada is required to take a custodial role in relation to first nations people. I would like to suggest to him that first nations people throughout the country do not appreciate being wards of the state. In fact, many first nations people are hoping to get out of the custodial scenario that he is suggesting Canada needs to maintain or propagate.

This bill is actually going to bring forward a lot of important wealth to first nations people throughout the country so they can relinquish that position of being under the custodial control of a government, which is something that we as a government want to move away from. It has been part of our policy right from the beginning to provide first nations people in particular with the opportunities to get out from underneath the government, to become self-determining and to have a form of self-reliance.

I am very thankful that the filibuster occurring right now seems to be coming to an end with this member. I am hopeful that it is coming to an end, but I notice that the Speaker is indicating that there are going to be more speakers. My question for the member, therefore, is that if he has all these opinions that he believes are important for first nations and aboriginal people throughout the country, why would he be taking part in a filibuster on this important bill even though the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue was part of endorsing this bill unanimously in committee?

None of the party members disagreed with anything in this bill, really, so I find it interesting that he has decided to take part in this filibuster that actually is preventing our government from bringing forward important legislation on matrimonial real property rights for first nations people on reserve. I would ask the member to explain how we can reconcile that.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, frankly, I am insulted to be told that I am taking part in some kind of stalling tactic or filibuster when I clearly explained my interest in this issue. When I was elected, I served as the deputy aboriginal affairs critic for the Bloc Québécois and closely followed the work of the aboriginal affairs committees before I was appointed as the agriculture and agri-food critic. I did not stop taking an interest in aboriginal affairs, even after I was assigned to another portfolio.

I do not understand why I am being accused of something when I am just doing my job as a parliamentarian. Yesterday, I listened to all the members who spoke about this issue, and a number of the speeches were extremely interesting. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians should listen to them as well. As I said, despite what he claims, this bill is going to emancipate aboriginal people and even bring them wealth. We have to tell it like it is: this bill would establish a tribunal, which is a good thing, a step forward, but it will not solve all the serious problems on reserves.

I agree with him that the aboriginal people want to be emancipated. That is true. This bill is a step in the right direction. Signing the UN declaration would be not only a step in the right direction, but a huge step in the right direction, a demonstration of this government's determination to improve the lot of the first nations.

However, I will not stand for being told that we are using delaying tactics when we have clearly stated that we support this bill. I have an interest in this issue. The critic from Abitibi—Témiscamingue asked me whether I wanted to take part in this debate, but he did not tell me that we were engaging in some sort of stalling tactics. I am surprised at these insults this morning.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the comment by the Conservative member was odd, because the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development also asked questions today. I do not think it was systematic obstruction or filibustering, although they are the experts on that.

My question for my Quebec colleague has to do with the problems of poverty, suicide, and so on. I am very familiar with the situation in northern British Columbia, but I am not very familiar with the situation in northern Quebec or the situation facing aboriginals in Quebec.

Are aboriginal peoples in northern Quebec currently in the same situation? Because there is a big difference between the people of Quebec—with respect to the situation in Quebec—and the rest of Canada. I am curious. Is the situation really similar? Because the Indian Act is so ridiculous and out of touch; it is a form of oppression.

I am curious about what is going on particularly in northern Quebec. I am not sure if my colleague is familiar with the aboriginals in northern Quebec.

For us, there is the problem of isolation, and there are economic difficulties that come from living in the north, far from cities, far from the central economy and the rest of the province. I do not know if it is the same in Quebec.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member very much for his question. He is right to say it is the Conservatives who are the experts in filibusters. It is easy to see that in some of the committees. There have been a host of problems at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and the Standing Committee on Official Languages. Among other things, the chairs have been thrown out of both. The Conservatives do not have any lessons to give us, therefore, because we are doing our job in the House.

In reply to his particular question—because that is what interests us today—I would say that the hon. member is quite right to wonder whether the first nations in Quebec, and especially northern Quebec, experience the same problems. These problems of poverty, suicide, and drug addiction are found in Quebec too.

In isolated areas in the north in particular, as the hon. member said, the isolation adds to the problems he just described. That is why we are telling the government not to close its eyes to this situation.

The hon. member is quite right when he says that the Indian Act is ridiculous and out of touch. Nobody wants it any more but it is still there. When I say “nobody”, I mean mostly the first nations, of course, who have to deal with an antiquated act—there is no other word for it.

Some hon. members in this House have said it is a racist, oppressive act. I think all these adjectives apply. The government should not just note what is happening but try to do something about the situation of these peoples, who have even worse problems when they are isolated. Just think of some of these communities. The hon. member himself mentioned houses that are ill-suited to the far north or were built elsewhere.

It is the same in Quebec. In some communities, the houses were not built with any consideration at all of the climate or the fact that many people live in each one. It is common among the first nations for a number of people to live together in the same house. That often results in humidity problems. Then there are problems with running water. All these problems should be corrected as soon as absolutely possible.

We were talking a while ago about the Auditor General and her report. Even today there are thousands of native children living in extreme poverty. Someone, somewhere has closed their eyes and it is time now to open them.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great anticipation that I enter this debate today because this affects not only regions like mine in northwestern British Columbia, but I believe it affects the very nature and fabric of our country. It is essential to ensure that legislation like this, Bill C-30, the specific claims tribunal act, is written properly, written well, and written with proper consultation with those most affected and those are the first nations communities that are impacted by the treaty process.

I think all parties within this place have recognized that the process that has existed for so many years has been tinkered with and touched at the margins, but never fundamentally addressed. As I will illustrate over my speaking time here, the greatest effect is on those first nations living in desperate straits.

I cannot recall the number of times, because there have been so many from all sides of this House and from all parties, that we have talked about the conditions of first nations people and how unacceptable those conditions would be for any other group within this country. We need to look upon this as Canadians with unequivocal shame and some understanding that it cannot go on and must change.

I can recall having conversations with the former Indian affairs minister just at the beginning of the tenure of the current regime about the ambitions and the desire to see fundamental shifts in the Indian Act itself. It has guided and ruled over first nations for far too long and is a broken act. The evidence does not need to be crafted up with more government studies because the real, anecdotal evidence is on the ground.

I refer to my colleague from Yukon, whose area has made some progress in trying to take a different approach to first nations consultation, a region, along with other regions across the north, that has attempted to have a deeper inclusion of first nations people in the decision making process. As a result, everyone has benefited. Is the system perfect in Yukon or in other territories in the north? Of course not, but it is a step ahead and I believe that it is simply a question of proximity.

I represent Skeena--Bulkley Valley, a region of some 30% to 35% first nations. In the communities that I represent, where first nations are living side by side with non-first nations, the understanding of the situation, the understanding of culture and history, is deeper and more profound. When I am touring the rest of the country, when I am speaking here in Parliament with my colleagues who do not have that experience, there is a certain alienation that goes on, a certain misunderstanding of what the reality is for first nations people.

That is somewhat to be understood but is no longer acceptable. In order for this country to progress, in order for us as Canadian people to start to feel proud again about having an inclusive, fair and just society, then simply this issue, if no other, must be addressed.

Regarding the specifics of this bill, this is an attempt to clear up a backlog that has not received enough attention, that is the 800-some land claims that wait in some sort of purgatory, some sort of limbo, that has gone on for too long and is costing both first nations communities and Canadian taxpayers untold millions of dollars in meeting after meeting with little or no progress. Unfortunately, those who most suffer are those who can least afford to suffer: the first nations people living on first nations reserves all across this country.

About 60% of these claims actually exist in B.C. For historical reasons, land was not seeded. It was not put under any treaty upon first contact and there was a promise made. There was a promise made in the enactment of what is now Canada that the Government of Canada, then controlled by British Parliament, would treat in good faith and would come to the table in good faith with first nations people and attempt to resolve the land question and issues surrounding land.

First nations across this country, and in particular British Columbia and in the north, took in good faith the documents that the government officials had in their hands, thinking that they meant something and that those documents would be adhered to. They thought that there would be some sort of justice and some sort of sense of decency and honour from the Crown, that the Crown would come forward and represent those interests and meet between nations and settle treaties because this had been the first nations experience through all of their history between different first nations.

The reason that we know this is because those nations are alive and well today. They will tell us the histories of when there was conflict between first nations which had gone on for thousands of years, that when they came to some resolution to a dispute, they would meet with honour and treaties would be upheld.

We have oral traditions in the northwest of British Columbia going back thousands of years. It seems that every time another archaeological dig is performed, the extension goes back another thousand or two thousand years. Some of the first nations elders in my communities shake their heads when they tell me about this because their claim, their understanding, is time immemorial. They have spent generation after generation and as they say “walked upon the bones of their grandfathers and great grandfathers and going back through time”.

That has brought them to a certain sense and understanding of how the land works, how their communities function with other communities, and that ability to have conflict which is inevitable between peoples. It happens within households. It happens within communities. It happens between nations. That seems to be an unfortunate but inevitable circumstance of the human condition, but then when those conflicts happen, that there is a place and a time for us to resolve those conflicts, a time when we sit down at the table as near equals as can be and settle our differences.

There are an enormous number of reasons why this imperative is growing and needs to be addressed. That is why New Democrats have put this solution, the requirement of an independent arm's-length tribunal from the government, into our last two election platforms and passed recently at the NDP convention. This is why we have a first nations consultation group working with our party to help guide what needs to go into this independent tribunal.

Frankly, what trust should first nations have in the House of Commons, in this Parliament, to get it right all by themselves because over the years any objective observer would look at the condition and treatment of first nations by Parliament after Parliament, government after government, and after so many promises made. The actual on the ground proof shows first nations that trust is not something they should necessarily bring to the table when this process is designed.

Consultation is a comment and word thrown around very casually by politicians. It is almost like a tick-box. First, get the name right, make sure first nations people's names are correct. Second, make sure the word “consultation” is in our speech and maybe throw in respect, trust, mutual admiration along the way. But consultation, one would hope would finally and clearly be legally defined by the government in conjunction with first nations, so that at the end of the day first nations are not asked to simply trust the government, that first nations are not simply assumed to be willing and equal partners in this conversation, but that they have something in hand that they can take to the bank, so to speak.

This legislation talks about three conditions in which a first nation may enter into this process. This is one of those important conversations, as we design this bill, that the clarity and full education of these conditions are presented to first nations people so that they can decide with full knowledge and understanding before entering a process.

We would hope there is a caveat included in this legislation that allows for accountable and transparent information sharing with first nations which are considering entering this process. For too long governments have dealt directly with the band councils, with some of the first nations' leadership that are represented here in Ottawa and lobby groups, and the first nations people actually living in the villages themselves are passed over, are simply not consulted, not brought in and not given a fair, free voice at the table.

These conditions are important for Canadians to understand because this is where the rubber hits the road. A first nation can file a claim when all of these three conditions are met: first, when a claim is not accepted for negotiation by Canada including a scenario in which Canada fails to meet the three year time limits for assessing the claims, which is part of the backlog right now. I comment on this because I have been around the treaty tables previously as a consultant. Time and time again, of the three parties sitting at the table, the province, the federal government and the first nations, inevitably, one of the two levels of government representing this place or the province, would suddenly find the lack of will to participate and would suddenly find its agenda to be full.

Meetings would get cancelled, postponed or delayed. Millions upon millions of dollars would be misspent this way on treaty processes with no clear timelines and no clear deadlines. All it would take was one of the parties to simply step back and say they were busy, particularly, and this is most unfortunate, when tables had progressed to near conclusion. This seemed to be the time when one of the parties, one of the levels of provincial or federal government, found a certain unwillingness to participate.

It is so difficult for first nations communities, for the first nations leadership, who have to go back to their people and borrow against their eventual claim. This is something important for Canadians to understand, that all of the costs that are incurred by the first nations negotiators, often times is some sort of borrowed money from the future, from the eventual claim. The longer the government delays, in effect, takes away treaty money, eventual money for settlement of claims, and puts it into the treaty process itself, year after year. There are some first nations in British Columbia who are $12, $14 or $15 million in debt in trying to settle their treaty processes. That money will be taken off the tab of their final treaty.

There may be some encouragement for the federal and provincial negotiators to keep themselves a job, to keep talking and keep things going. But that sense of urgency is required. As we all know in our personal and business lives there is no deal that is ever settled without a deadline. There is no difficult task that is ever completed without some sense of a deadline to encourage that urgency, to allow the innovation to take place, to actually settle the claims.

There is a second condition: at any stage in the negotiation process, if all parties agree, and here is a rare circumstance that we hope will exist more and more frequently, where all parties see within their common interest the need to agree. What a fascinating notion.

I know the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is listening intently and wants to know when those conditions will be created. Those conditions get created when people come to the table with proper intent, which is to settle treaties. What a remarkable notion.

It must be within the federal and provincial governments' interest to settle treaties. Certainly, it is within the interests of the first nations. They are living the reality of non-treaty conditions. They are living the reality of having no capital or collateral with which to negotiate and develop the economies they hope for, for their people. They have urgency.

So often and too often times the provincial and federal governments, and I am speaking specifically to the case in British Columbia, do not agree. The parties find some easy and common causality to find disagreement. Treaties are complicated things. They deal with education, cultural rights, land issues and revenue sharing. It is very easy when the government has the intent to not agree, to find something that lets it say it needs to take a step back from the process and move away from the table.

There is a third and last negotiating point: after three years of unsuccessful negotiations. Unfortunately, this should be the easiest condition to be met because if any experience is known to the British Columbian first nations communities, many of them would hope for a treaty process that looked at a three year horizon. They would pray for such a thing.

There is a highway that I would encourage the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to visit. It travels into the north of British Columbia. It is not a long highway but an important one. It travels from Terrace, British Columbia into the Nass Valley and visits the Nisga'a communities. The highway for many years was a dirt track that sloughed off into the rivers. We have many stories of people dying along the road. It was a logging truck road that was supposed service the 5,000 or 6,000 people who lived in Nisga'a territory.

The road is named Highway 113. The Nisga'a, when settling their treaty, were given the dubious distinction or honour of being able to name the highway. They named it 113 because it had been 113 years since they had first visited the provincial legislature and asked to be treated, dealt with, and negotiated with in a fair and honest way. It was 113 years of persistent negotiation, generation after generation, that would hand the baton to the next leadership and say, please push on because we need to settle this land claim and we need to settle the land question. It took 113 years.

Every time I travel that road, and I was just back there two weeks ago, I visit with the Nisga'a Lisims government, which has a general assembly at this time every spring. I would encourage the Minister of Indian Affairs to visit. He would be most welcome to visit by the Nisga'a and would be treated with dignity and respect, I can assure him.

Is it not remarkable for Canadians to consider that a first nation that has had to struggle through 113 years to settle a land claim still has the dignity, the poise and the respect to welcome representatives from the federal government, which, some would argue, put them through abuse for 113 years? Is it not remarkable that they would welcome those representatives to their community, that they would provide a feast for them, present them with their respect and their time, and ask those representatives to please accept them? Yes, it is remarkable.

Oftentimes, and perhaps not often enough, members of Parliament are visited by the first nations leadership, the elders from across Canada. I remember when we were settling the Dogrib claim not so long ago. The elders from that first nation community were here in the galleries of the House of Commons and watched question period that day.

I talked to them later and asked them what was going through their minds as they watched the to-and-fro of what we present as debate, what we present to Canadians of their leadership during question period. I wondered what those elders were thinking. They had the dignity and grace to not comment too much to me and said that they supposed it was something good for the cameras for us.

However, we deal with the lives of people. We deal with them when their lives are hanging in the balance and when they are unable to find economic opportunities. I have claimed, and I have been joined in this by many of the first nations leaders in my region, that the best social program is a job. The best way to encourage hope for the future is that prospect of full and gainful employment and the ability to put food on the table in a decent, hard-working way.

That is what first nations want, not just in Skeena in the northwest of British Columbia, but across this country. That is what everybody wants. Everybody wants some respect and some sort of capacity to use the capital that has been given to them, and in the case of first nations, it is capital that is rightfully theirs, which is the land question at its most fundamental.

I would hope, as I have for the four years that I have been in this place, that the cause of aboriginal people is one of those rare causes that will cross over the political lines. I hope that it will cross over the to-and-fro of ideological advantage in the political fray and allow us as people representing Canadians to discover what bonds hold us in common unity across the aisles, across the great divide of partisan politics. I hope that it will allow us to settle on something that we can be proud of.

If this bill is done correctly, this may be one of those rare instances. If the consultation and incorporation of first nations concerns are done properly, this may be one of those circumstances. It is why New Democrats have advocated for this for many years. It is why New Democrats will support the bill going to second reading and to understanding in committee: so that changes can be made, so that we can consider this properly, look at it in the full light of day and take in those consultations accurately.

Granted, one must understand, not having dealt with first nations communities very much, the notions of mistrust from the perspective of first nations. There has been too much history, too much practice, to ask first nations to come out with full and open arms, trusting whatever the government may or may not present.

We must understand, culturally speaking, where the cultural breaks have been when there have been so many atrocities visited upon first nations. We must understand that the lineage back to the tradition of the leadership has been disrupted so fundamentally that time to do this properly must be taken. The ability of government to actually open its mind and its heart to what first nations are telling it is an absolute necessity in order to bring first nations to the table properly and have them endorse this process all the way through.

It is available to us if we as parliamentarians listen properly, if we as parliamentarians act on the recommendations given to us, and if we as parliamentarians put aside the momentary interests of partisan politics and step into that rarefied atmosphere that allows us to develop something that is good for this country in the moment and good for this country in the generations to come.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my colleague opposite and particularly thank him for making note of the cost of treaty deliberations and the fact that it eats into settlements.

I was pleased to have the opportunity to listen to him, particularly in light of the comments that this was an attempt to filibuster. It seems that when one wants to have one's say in this House, name-calling is resorted to.

The member opposite referenced the Nisga'a treaty and the 113 years it took for Nisga'a to be settled. I wonder if the member opposite would be willing to comment on the three days that this House spent in a filibuster dealing with the hundreds and hundreds of frivolous amendments made in an attempt to filibuster that agreement.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting scenario.

The previous representatives of my region were part and parcel of that filibuster. They were part and parcel of trying to scuttle the entire deal. That was the effort. It was not simply to cause three days of delay. It was to attempt to ruin the first nations treaty, which was the Nisga'a treaty. That was declared and said by a member, and there is some irony, because that member returned to run as a candidate for the Conservative Party in the last election and held the position again, saying that treaties were a mistake. Before that, he was a Reform member.

However, he ran again as a Conservative. In debate after debate in communities of which 50% or more are first nations, while the non-first nations have grown accustomed to the idea and have seen the advantages of it, that gentleman unfortunately was joined by too many within that political movement in saying that this was bad for Canada, that this was bad for our region.

The Nisga'a, to their credit and under the great leadership of Dr. Gosnell and many others, a leadership that handed a torch to the generation that has now adopted this Nisga'a treaty, saw this for what it was. They knew that right intentions would win in the end.

Here is an interesting example. Out of the Nisga'a treaty, the Nisga'a were able to develop what now is called the Nisga'a Fisheries. In a sense, they take care of the Nass River, its tributaries and the outflow into the ocean and manage the fisheries from their perspective and from their cultural perspective. It is one of the few rivers in British Columbia this year that will have any kind of fishery at all. It has been lauded by DFO, environmental groups and industry groups as a well managed fishery, perhaps the best on the entire west coast.

When the Nisga'a treaty was being debated, an important comment was made by the head of the Credit Unions of British Columbia. When he was asked whether the Nisga'a treaty was good or bad in the short term or the long term, he said it was good in both, because finally it allowed for certainty on the land base. It allowed for certainty for forestry, for mining companies and for fishing. It allowed people to make the types of investments and decisions they needed to make, because there was no question about where fee simple was or was not, where the interdiction of the Crown existed and did not. This is what the Nisga'a had been basing their economic revival on: that land question.

As for questions of filibuster and questions of delaying and denying and hoping to resist the inevitable, it was, I would suggest to my Conservative colleagues, an unfortunate period in Canadian history, it really was. However, the Nisga'a persevered and right-thinking members of Parliament persevered.

Now we now have rules in this place, thankfully, which omit that type of tactics from happening in that manner and do not allow the introduction of some 100 or 200 amendments just to talk out the clock and try to destroy a bill, and this was a bill that was supported by a majority of Canadians.

It is incredible to me that the Conservative members would somehow equate trying to destroy a treaty with a representative commenting on a piece of legislation that affects him or her greatly. Thirty per cent of my constituents are first nations. I am amazed that in their sudden desperation to deal with this bill the Conservatives somehow are seeing a filibuster under every rock and tree. It is remarkable to me. The Minister of Indian Affairs has stood up in this House and asked questions, so I guess the Minister of Indian Affairs is therefore presenting some sort of filibuster to the House.

Of course, we are not making that accusation. It is bizarre and beyond the pale coming as it does from a government that spent six weeks at the environment committee delaying a climate change bill. To suggest that a 20 minute speech is some grand conspiracy is amazing and disgraceful.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to a couple of comments made by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

First, he asked rhetorical questions. He asked if we are sincere with this effort in Bill C-30. First Nations have been asking for this for generations, as Chief Joseph from the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations has said. In 30 years of government and 10 years as chief, he said, he has never seen a more cooperative effort to draft a bill than this one.

Were there consultations? Yes, there were consultations to the point that the Assembly of First Nations helped us co-author this bill. Shawn Atleo and others from British Columbia, as the member knows, were part of that process.

This effort is very sincere. There were consultations. There were communications materials developed by the Assembly of First Nations subsequent to that.

Therefore, of course, we believe, as Chief Joseph has said, that it is not only a sincere effort but is perhaps really groundbreaking in its effort, in my opinion. I would hope that the member would know that.

I did appreciate his comment about the annual meeting. I know the Nisga'a have their annual meeting. I was not able to attend this year because the House was in session at the time. Just prior to the meeting I phoned the president and had a discussion with him. I hope to be up there this summer. We had that discussion as well. I will take advantage of the invitation to get up there, not just the member's invitation but the invitation of others. That will be a great opportunity as well.

We have made other efforts as well. Record numbers of claims were negotiated. This tribunal act is for when negotiations do not work, but we have actually settled a record number of claims through negotiations, which again I think shows our sincerity to get claims that really are “justice at last” for many people, as has been described by Phil Fontaine and the Prime Minister. They have been waiting way too long, so let us get at this and get it done.

Finally, there are other examples. Specifically when it comes to claims, we have made promises, have followed through and have met our commitments on adding lands to TLE lands on the Prairies. For example, in Manitoba we promised that 150,000 acres a year would be added over a period of four or five years. We have met our targets for two years now and we will meet our targets going forward.

This is a big effort to make sure that longstanding claims, many of them generational in nature, are put behind us, not only because it is the right thing to do and because it is justice at last, but because it does help to heal that relationship with people who say they have waited a long time and the proof is in the pudding. This bill, I would argue, shows first nations that it is worthwhile to work with the government and that the government is sincere in moving forward.

There will be many other issues, I know, and the member has talked to me about some of them. I know they will be raised in the House on other occasions. However, my hope is that we can say on this occasion, with this bill, and with the amendments that the committee has put forward, that on this day we should celebrate success. I hope this will go through.

I will not accuse anyone of filibustering, but I do say to members, let us get it through. There are other issues to deal with. On this one, could we for one day say that this is a good day for aboriginal people and for us as parliamentarians? Could we say about this, which I think and hope will go through tonight unanimously on the next vote, that this was a good bill done in a good way? It probably never will be perfect, but could we say that it is a very good bill done in a good way? I would like to celebrate that.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

We will have a brief response from the member for Skeena--Bulkley Valley.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to give a brief response. I appreciate the minister's tone. The tendency in this place to accept victories or near perfect situations is rare.

As I think about my comments, I will note that I have just come from my riding. This past weekend, I was again faced with first nations bands under third party management and again faced with another string of suicides and loss of life.

Mistrust is going to have to be overcome by actual proof. The presentation of this bill may be merits of that proof. It will be my job, and I think the job of others, to hold the government's feet to the fire on this continually, day after day in the House of Commons. I think that is appropriate. I imagine that the minister would be doing the same in my role. For so many years, with so much injustice, the bar will be set pretty high. I think that is only appropriate.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)