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.

Specific Claims Tribunal Act

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

moved that Bill C-30, An Act to establish the Specific Claims Tribunal and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House to lead off debate at second reading of Bill C-30, the specific claims tribunal act.

This bill is the cornerstone of a comprehensive new approach to address an issue that has been a struggle for this country for far too long. After years of prolonged debate, false starts and unsuccessful attempts, most recently by the former Liberal government, the Conservative government is taking decisive action to improve the way we handle specific claims and to resolve the existing backlog of outstanding claims once and for all.

Specific claims are grievances related to land and other assets belonging to first nations communities. These claims have arisen largely as a consequence of the federal government's obligations under historic treaties with first nations and with respect to the management of first nations land and other assets. The systems and processes that the Government of Canada has designed over the years to address these unresolved grievances have proven to be slow and inadequate.

As a result, an unacceptably large backlog of claims awaits attention and action. In fact, the number of unsettled claims in the federal system has doubled since 1993. To be more precise, there are now nearly 900 outstanding claims. Approximately 530 of these cases are stuck in bottlenecks at the earliest stages of the claims process, and this figure is expected to rise as the number of new claims outstrips our ability to resolve current ones.

Is it any wonder that we find ourselves in this predicament when it takes an average of 13 years to process a single claim? Thirteen years. No other Canadian citizen would accept this state of affairs in any other aspect of their lives. Why should specific claims be any different?

Clearly, then, we must reform how this country deals with specific claims and we must demonstrate the political will to see that these much needed reforms are not simply discussed but implemented immediately and supported continually so that the existing backlog of claims is resolved once and for all.

The government's approach to address this problem began to take shape late last year. First, the Senate Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples undertook a comprehensive examination of the current process and recommended steps to improve and accelerate the handling of specific claims.

I would like to express my deep thanks to committee members for their work in providing clear direction forward on this issue.

Armed with that report of the Senate committee, the Prime Minister announced the government's specific claims action plan on June 12. The Prime Minister declared that after decades of neglect, failed efforts and dashed hopes, the Government of Canada, in closest cooperation and collaboration with its first nation partners, would undertake major reforms to revolutionize the way this country handles specific claims. Our plan for the comprehensive reform of the specific claims process features four elements.

First, the government proposes to create an independent tribunal that will bring fairness and timeliness to the claims process.

Second, we commit to more transparent arrangements for financial compensation through dedicated funding for settlements.

Third, we will introduce practical measures within the existing system to ensure faster processing on smaller claims and greater flexibility for extremely large claims.

Fourth, once the new tribunal is in place, the Indian Specific Claims Commission will no longer conduct new inquiries into specific claims. The commission will continue its valuable role in assisting parties to overcome challenges and enhance their opportunity to meet the shared goal of resolving claims through negotiation until such time as it is replaced by a new mediation centre.

Bill C-30 is the direct result of the Prime Minister's historic announcement. The bill puts into motion the first element of the government's four-part plan, creating an independent tribunal and vesting it with the power to make binding decisions on claims. This legislative change will lead the way for implementation of the other elements of the specific claims action plan, which do not require legislation.

Before delving into the details and implications of the legislation, I should point out that the bill before us today is the direct product of a unique group of experts from the Government of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations. Over the course of the summer, the joint specific claims task force met regularly to discuss, develop and refine the document that is before us today as Bill C-30.

The diligence, collaboration and shared insight demonstrated by the task force were instrumental factors in bringing this legislation to life. These qualities also serve as a vivid example of the productive and collaborative attitude that we must all share to ensure the success of the new approach to resolve specific claims.

If I may, I will quote National Chief Phil Fontaine, who said:

The AFN is very pleased with the process that was followed in the development of this legislation. It is apparent that when there is political will, we can always find ways to resolve our differences.

In this spirit of openness and genuine partnership, I would like to express my deepest thanks to the members of the task force and, in particular, the task force co-chairs for their leadership in taking the ideas and objectives expressed by the Prime Minister and transforming them into legislation.

Bill C-30 authorizes the government to create an independent tribunal vested with the power to make binding decisions on claims, in particular, on questions regarding the existence of lawful obligations and financial compensation. In fact, there are three scenarios in which a first nation could file a claim with the tribunal: first, when a claim is not accepted for negotiation, including a scenario in which Canada fails to meet the three year time limits for assessing claims; second, at any stage in the negotiation process, if all parties agree; and third, after three years of unsuccessful negotiation.

During its deliberations, the tribunal will hear arguments from all sides of a claim. Decisions made by the tribunal will be binding on all parties. Binding decisions will enable the federal government and first nations communities to achieve closure on claims and reduce the time and expenses associated with litigation.

I should point out that tribunal decisions will not address claims valued at more than $150 million and will not award compensation for punitive damages or non-financial compensation such as land or resources. Nor will tribunal decisions be automatically binding on provincial governments. Provincial governments may participate in the process on a voluntary basis provided they have agreed to be bound by the decisions of the tribunal.

Fairness and accountability are important elements of the new approach to addressing specific claims. The tribunal will be responsible for preparing annual public reports so that the government and all Canadians can follow the activities of the tribunal and gauge its success in resolving claims.

To ensure that the proposed tribunal is fair to all parties involved in the claims process, Bill C-30 calls for the independent tribunal to be composed of federally appointed judges. These superior court judges will have the experience, capacity and credibility necessary to resolve the complex legal and historical questions that surround claims and to determine appropriate levels of compensation owed to first nations that are party to the claims.

I am confident that judges, with no ties or obligations to anyone, will provide the impartiality a transparent process requires and play a significant role in restoring public confidence in the effectiveness and fairness of the claims process.

As I mentioned earlier, Bill C-30 deals strictly with the creation of and authority vested in the independent tribunal. The legislation complements the other vital components of the government's specific claims action plan. Implementing these components, however, will be instrumental to the success of the tribunal and therefore I would like to take a few minutes to outline them.

First, the government will earmark $250 million each year for payments authorized by the tribunal and for payments resulting from negotiated settlement agreements. This dedicated funding will be a vivid demonstration to first nations communities that the government is serious about this process.

At the same time, these annual resources will be a transparent indication to all Canadians of our commitment to accelerate the resolution of specific claims and address the existing backlog of outstanding claims once and for all. To strengthen accountability even further, the government will establish explicit targets for resolving outstanding claims and results will be made public annually so that Canadians can clearly gauge the success of our new approach.

The second element of the plan is a series of new measures that will be put in place to enhance internal government procedures to manage claims. Similar claims that qualify for negotiation will be identified during the research and assessment stages and then bundled together for a final decision on their legitimacy.

Small value claims, which are roughly half of all claims that are currently in the system and are under $3 million, will each undergo expedited legal reviews to quickly conclude whether they will be accepted or declined for negotiation.

For larger claims, valued at more than $150 million, separate arrangements outside the specific claims process will be established. These are relatively rare and they are more difficult, but right now they bog down the system due to their size and complexity, although I do want to add that we are delivering on these larger claims as well.

In fact, earlier this fall I was in northern Alberta with the Big Stone Cree nation. We signed an agreement in principle worth over $300 million, involving 140,000 acres of land. This is the largest specific claim in Canadian history. We are serious about these as well. This is another indication that the government is making progress on claims, large and small.

As for the specific claims process, this accelerated and more nuanced approach will take full advantage of the wealth of research, studies and data amassed over the past 30 years as Canada has worked on these issues. Greater use will also be made of existing databases and other easily accessible sources of information to support the earlier review process and other improvements.

The third element of our new approach involves better access to mediation services to help the parties reach negotiated settlements. Consequently, mediation services will be available to assist them in overcoming impasses during negotiation.

The Indian Specific Claims Commission has provided invaluable facilitation and mediation services for the past 16 years helping parties in disputes reach mutually beneficial arrangements. We certainly do not want to lose this expertise, but at the same time, we do not want the commission to duplicate the efforts of the new tribunal. To achieve these goals we must transform the commission.

Under our new approach, the commission will no longer accept new inquiries into rejected claims but will finalize certain inquiries that are currently at an advanced stage and continue to provide mediation services until such time as a new mediation centre takes on those duties. This transformation will help us overcome impasses at the negotiation stage of the process and reduce many of the delays that hold us back. As a result, we will be able to conclude more negotiations successfully and at a faster pace.

Let me repeat that I firmly believe we must make every effort to achieve negotiated settlements so that first nations will turn to the new independent tribunal only as a last resort. We will also adjust the system if it needs further improvements as we go along. We will review our approach after five years and make a comprehensive assessment of our progress.

I realize that there are, and probably always will be, some who object to what we are proposing. We will never achieve perfection, but I am convinced that what we have here is a solid plan. It is fair, transparent, efficient and respectful. It will deliver real, meaningful, measurable results, which the current system has failed to produce.

Our new approach will unblock the existing backlog of claims. It will cut in half the time to process claims. Every claim in the system will have action taken to advance it. All claims will move forward at a faster pace. More claims will be resolved than received each year. Fifty per cent of all claims currently in the system will be resolved in short order.

Make no mistake that the time for talk is over. We all know what the problems are. We all know what needs to be done, thanks to years and years of consultations, studies and inaction. We all know that the problems have dragged on long enough. We have to get on with it, and Bill C-30, the specific claims tribunal act, will enable us to do just that.

For 60 years first nations leaders have been urging the federal government to create an independent tribunal to adjudicate historic grievances. Today we are beginning the legislative work to establish this vitally necessary tribunal. This legislation has been shaped by the efforts of the joint Canada-Assembly of First Nations Task Force this past summer. It is truly a historic day for Canada. It is historic because this bill will implement a process that will fulfill Canada's lawful obligations to first nations communities, honour outstanding debts, and settle claims through a process that is more impartial, transparent, and timely.

The proposed legislation is also historic because when we think deeply about this, this new approach is about more than specific claims. It is about achieving fundamental justice and fairness. It is about building a stronger and more stable economy and ensuring equal opportunity for all Canadians to work and prosper. It is about creating legal certainty for first nations and their partners in industry and area communities. Most important, it is about enabling members of first nations and their fellow Canadians to move on and move forward together.

I am privileged to have been given this opportunity to open debate on the motion for second reading of Bill C-30, the specific claims tribunal act. I urge all my colleagues to support this landmark legislation and take immediate and decisive action to resolve specific claims once and for all.

Phil Fontaine was here when I tabled the bill last week. I would like to close by mentioning his words that we need this bill and we need it to be passed speedily. I urge all members, let us get this bill into committee and pass it quickly. Sixty years is far too long to wait. We are prepared to move this as quickly as we can through the House and into committee. Let us do it not only for first nations, but for all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I of course listened closely to the minister responsible for this file. I have a practical question for him about the involvement of provinces.

When the tribunal hears a case dealing with a territory or a claim involving a province, does the minister, his office or his department anticipate that the province concerned could be called as a party? Could it be added as a third party voluntarily, or even involuntarily? By that I mean could a judgment or decision of the tribunal be rendered against a province without it being a party in the claim?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

It is clear in the legislation, and I hope it was clear in my remarks, that this specific claims tribunal is for the federal obligation and for the federal government. We have made it clear that if provinces would like to participate in this, if they feel it is in their interest to resolve outstanding claims outside of the federal obligations, they could participate at their choice. The only provision is that the province would have to agree to be bound by the decision of the tribunal in the same way that the federal government is bound by the tribunal and by the decision of the judges on that panel. It is important to do it that way.

We do not want to interfere with provincial jurisdiction at all, but my hope is that there will be opportunities and occasions where the provinces will come forward and say they think it is in their best interests overall too, that this is a good chance to settle an outstanding claim, and that they are part of it. By taking it arm's length away from, in this case the federal government and the provincial government, it will get a fair and just settlement. It will bring certainty to it. It is binding on all the parties. First nations and non-first nations can move forward with the settlement at the conclusion.

That is completely at the discretion of the province. This has no jurisdiction over land or other issues or resources that are outside of the federal mandate. This is strictly for the federal obligations and almost always that just involves cash in the settlement. The tribunal has access to that $250 million a year, arm's length from government, which it can use to settle these 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 would like to commend the minister for his presentation and the introduction of this very important and historic bill for the Parliament of Canada. This is another step that has been taken by our government toward improving the very system that has for so long stood in the way of first nations people across Canada.

How does this bill in particular continue on with the new Government of Canada's perspective on improving systemic reforms within our legislation, within our mode of government? How will this achieve outcomes that will benefit first nations people across Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. parliamentary secretary's comments and his work both on the committee and on behalf of first nations and all Canadians on this issue.

There are a couple of ways that the bill will help to advance the practical steps we have been taking to work with first nations on issues that have been lingering for far too long.

As I mentioned in my comments, on average it takes 13 or 14 years to solve a specific claim. Fifty per cent of these claims are worth less than $3 million. That it takes 13, 14 or 15 years of litigation, negotiations and research on a claim that might be worth $1 million or $2 million is outrageous. The amount of time and energy spent will be cut down. This is a three year process. It can go to tribunal after three years. It will speed things up tremendously.

More important, it sets a completely different tone for relationships with first nations. The system that has been in place for 60 years has caused a constant irritant in relationships with first nations. They have to wait. They have to take a back seat. They have to get in the lineup knowing full well that probably in their lifetime they will not see it settled.

We have a process that is far more respectful. It is just and it is fair. First nations are looking for that. It does not matter whether we are talking about specific things like the education bill to address education issues in British Columbia, new arrangements on child and family services like we have in Alberta, or whether we are talking about finally having a settlement for the residential schools issue, what they are looking for is something that is just and fair, and timely.

I am convinced that this specific claims tribunal addresses concerns and probably just as important, how we come to conclusions. Working hand in hand with the Assembly of First Nations shows a difference in attitude for which first nations have been looking for a long time.

All in all, it settles these outstanding grievances. It does it far more quickly than we have seen before. It shows again our ability and willingness to work closely with first nations right down to the drafting of the legislation to ensure that it looks after this historic grievance in a way that solves the problem and involves first nations in a meaningful way. That is what they are looking for in first nations communities. When we think about it, that is what Canadians look for in a democratic process.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the government and the minister for this initiative. With Chief Fontaine on board, it is obviously heading in the right direction. There will be bumps along the way, challenges and things that will need to be addressed.

At the outset, does this agreement deal at all with the question of the resources that exist within those lands as these claims are settled?

A colleague of mine in Ontario, the MPP for Timmins-James Bay, has brought forward in the Ontario legislature a bill that would give first nations some claim on the wealth that is generated once resources are harvested, mined or whatever. Is there anything in this bill that takes us down that road that would lead us to be confident that in settling these claims, our first nations would in fact be able to enjoy some of the wealth that will be generated?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question about an outstanding issue. This bill does not deal with the provincial resource issue as the member described.

In my home province of British Columbia, I believe there are 100 or 120 separate resource management agreements that have been struck over the last few years with first nations communities to help them get a piece of the resource revenue that is in their traditional territories and so on, but that is a different issue. It is an important issue and it needs to be talked about, whether we are talking about, in the case of B.C., comprehensive land claims treaties and other issues or whether we are talking about consultation and accommodation issues. Those are all important, but on the specific claims tribunal, we wanted to be quite clear that we did not want to mix the specific claims process with either section 35 rights that might be negotiated, or the treaty process itself on comprehensive land and other treaties.

This is specific claims. It deals with the outstanding obligations of the Crown. In some cases it might involve resources. For example, there might be a case where years ago some resources were sold off from an Indian reserve and the first nation was not properly compensated at the time. They may have had for many years an outstanding claim, a specific claim about that resource that was unfairly treated at the time because of the actions of an Indian agent, perhaps, or some other unscrupulous character the government had used to negotiate something--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I hate to cut off the hon. minister. Unfortunately, he could not see me warning him that the time for questions and comments had expired. We do have to move on.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for Bill C-30, Specific Claims Tribunal Act. Today my hon. colleagues have an opportunity to respond to 60 years of requests from first nations to create an independent tribunal. We agree that the legislation is an important first step in dealing with existing backlogs of claims. The legislation now before us strives to fulfill a legal and moral imperative to address the specific claims of first nations in a just and timely manner.

Bill C-30 proposes to create an independent tribunal to bring greater fairness to the way specific claims are handled in Canada, while at the same time accelerating those claims. A legislative tribunal is not a new approach. Indeed, this approach was proposed by the Liberal leader in his leadership platform.

To understand the importance of resolution of specific claims, allow me to provide some context. Specific claims deal with past grievances of first nations. These grievances relate to Canada's obligations under historic treaties or the way it managed first nations funds or other assets, including reserve land.

Since 1973, the government has had a policy and process in place to resolve these claims. The current process begins when a first nation submits a claim to Canada. Canada then completes a thorough review of the facts of each claim to determine whether it owes a lawful obligation to the first nation. If a lawful obligation is found, Canada negotiates a settlement with the first nation and, where applicable, with the province.

If an outstanding lawful obligation is not found and the claim is not accepted by Canada, the first nation can refer its claim to the Indian specific claims commission to conduct an independent review of the government's decision. If requested, the current commission can also assist first nations and Canada in mediating disputes.

The independent body does important work, but it does not have the power to make binding decisions. It can only make recommendations for consideration by the government.

All are agreed that the current process needs to be improved. The history of calls for and efforts to create an independent tribunal on specific claims date back to 1947. In July 1947, the special joint committee of the Senate and the House reported:

That a Commission, in the nature of the Claims Commission, be set up with the least possible delay... in a just and equitable manner any claims or grievances arising thereunder.

The number of claims is too high. Since 1973, almost 1,300 claims have been submitted to Canada. To date, 513 of these have been concluded and 784 remain outstanding.

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

The tribunal will have authority to make binding decisions on the validity of the claims and compensation issues in respect of claims that have a value of up to $150 million.

Most Canadians recognize and support the settlement of long-standing claims and a resolution of historical grievances for first nations.

As I said at the outset, the legislation is an important first step. There is still a ways to go. I look forward to hearing from representatives of first nations from across the country and others on the proposed legislation.

I hope the government is also open to listening too. It is unfortunate to say this, but I am sure the government does not want to hear it, but since coming to power, the government has shut out the voices of aboriginal Canadians more than it has listened to them. There has been a lack of trust and the relationship to date has not been one of respect or inclusiveness.

Last week marked the two year anniversary of the Kelowna accord. The government ignored the voices calling for the implementation of that agreement. It ignored the aboriginal leaders, provincial and territorial leaders and others who were involved in the 18 month process that led to that agreement.

Last week marked the two year anniversary of the Kelowna accord. The government ignored the voices calling for the implementation of that agreement. It ignored the aboriginal leaders, provincial and territorial leaders and others who were involved in the 18 month process that led to that agreement. It made a unilateral decision to cancel it, yet it still held the Kelowna agreement up at the United Nations as an example of how it was working in partnership with aboriginal organizations. It also voted against and actively lobbied against the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, again ignoring the voices of aboriginal peoples from across the country and not standing up for the rights of indigenous peoples at home or around the world.

First nations, the Métis and the Inuit have been virtually shut out of two budgets and two fiscal updates. For example, budget 2007 had $6 billion in new funding for Canadians. Of that, only $70 million was for aboriginal peoples. In its other fiscal documents, the funding provided for housing, for example, had been previously booked. It was not new money.

On water, the government's own advisory committee warned that proceeding with the legislation to establish drinking water standards for first nations communities without the necessary capital and infrastructure funding would not be successful. There has been no action on this report.

The current government must not ignore the voices who go against its refrain that when it comes to first nations issues, money is not the issue. We saw that message regarding the child welfare crisis, where the government chose to blame the victim.

The government has, for the first time, done land claims issues in partnership with the Assembly of First Nations. It has shown a political will to move forward in a collaborative manner, but some are already saying that they were not allowed to speak. The process of review of the bill in committee must ensure that those who wish to speak have the opportunity.

I believe it is important that we acknowledge the concern that the bill does not allow first nations to have a say in the appointment of judges to the tribunal that was created. Concerns have been expressed about that, and I think it is something about which the committee will wish to talk.

If the government is also committed to taking action on claims worth more than $150 million, the official opposition would like to see issues pertaining to the accord to be included in the current legislation to show its commitment to the issues. The official opposition also wants to ensure that the department has the internal capacity to deal with the claims as we expect them to come forward.

This issue is an important one. I look forward to hearing from those who want to come forward at second reading. We look forward to a close review of the bill in committee.

Bill C-30 is a step in the right direction. I urge members to support the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised. I thought my hon. colleague would be asked some questions.

I am happy to indicate my position and speak to this important bill. I would like to begin by saying that is it rare for the government to come up with a bad bill when it consults people and seeks the approval of those who would be affected by the bill.

In the case before us, Bill C-30, which involves establishing a tribunal, was drafted in cooperation with first nations peoples. It therefore has the full approval of first nations peoples, who have been waiting for this tribunal for far too long. It is unfortunate—and I say this with all due respect for the minister, who is listening carefully—that the same thing was not done for Bill C-21 and, even before that, first nations peoples were not consulted before Bill C-44 was introduced.

That being said, this is an important bill and the Bloc Québécois will support it, so that it may be studied in detail by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. Indeed, this bill deserves a great deal of attention. When I say this, I do not mean that we should drag out our committee work in order to play for time and take longer. No, that is not what I mean.

We think some pointed questions must be asked in relation to this bill. My hon. colleague from the Liberal Party just raised one or two of them and I will raise some more in a few minutes. However, all interested and relevant individuals who wish to appear before the committee must be heard.

Personally, I think this bill should be approved by the committee as soon as possible. A consensus must be reached. It certainly will not happen before Christmas. I would very much like to be able to offer this as a Christmas gift to first nations peoples this year, but it would be unrealistic to think that we might study this before Christmas, considering the work that needs to be done on Bill C-21. At the very least, however, as soon as we resume in January, we must begin studying this bill immediately and give it our support.

In our opinion, this bill meets one condition. We have always been against one thing. We are talking about the federal government as a whole. When a first nation files a financial or other claim with the federal government, the government is in clear conflict of interest. This is really a conflict of interest. It is both judge and defendant, at least, we hope, until this bill is adopted. It used to be that the federal government as a whole received the claim. The government also set the dates and parameters for examining the claim. It set the dates, times and locations for hearing witnesses, and it paid the bill for the process.

It was clearly in the interest of some first nations to make claims that might be frivolous, but these claims very often took forever to be settled.

I listened carefully to the minister when he spoke earlier. He said that three or four years was far too much time to take to study, analyze, consider and settle a claim for $1 million, $2 million or $3 million.

When a criminal case is before the courts—and God knows I was often in court as a lawyer over the years—the case cannot go on for four years unless it is an exceptional and extremely lengthy case. In fact, only rarely does it take more than three years for a case like the ones I argued to be heard in superior court. So why could it take three, four, five, six or even seven years to hear an aboriginal claim?

I have a note here that I believe is very important. Since 1973, more than 30 years ago, 1,297 specific claims have been filed. Of those, 513 have been settled for amounts ranging from $15,000 to some $12,250,000, the average settlement being approximately $6 million. You cannot take 30 years to settle claims. It makes no sense. Today, on this lovely December 4, 2007, 784 claims are still pending, awaiting a decision, even though it has been a long time since 1973. The mere mention of these figures should help get this bill passed relatively quickly. It deals with important issues.

In fact, there are two issues that, in the opinion of the Bloc Québécois, deserve special attention. The first is whether a judge who hears a claim could unilaterally assign responsibility for paying that claim to a party if that party was not present. The debate is not clear on this issue. I asked the minister about it and he replied, but I believe we will have to take the discussion a bit further. This is an important point.

The example that comes to mind immediately is that of the Kitigan Zibi, in Maniwaki, which filed forestry and financial claims with the governments of Quebec and of Canada. What would happen if the Algonquin nation of Kitigan Zibi sued the federal government, the judge ruled against the government, held it 75% responsible and required that 25% be paid by Quebec? What would we do given that Quebec was not a party to the suit? That would be an interesting discussion and I hope we will be given an answer in committee.

As it has a fiduciary responsibility for the first nations, and as it is both a judge and a party in these cases, would the government not be tempted to require that a first nations community reduce the amount of its claim if it wanted the government to continue providing assistance for education, health care, water systems and police services? How can we ensure that the judge who must rule in the case will be completely neutral, completely independent and have full control of the evidence before him? This is a crucial point.

If we wish to maintain a good relationship with the first nations—and this bill is a good step in that direction—we believe it is important and vital to ensure that the tribunal is completely in charge of evidentiary matters. The bill has some interesting sections; however, would the federal government, with fiduciary responsibility for the first nations, not be tempted to ask them to compromise if they wished to continue to receive funding in other areas? Therefore, we must ensure that the tribunal will be completely independent and have control of the evidence.

I do not want to address everything in the bill because that would take me 10 minutes, but I want to talk about clause 15, which excludes many claims that first nations might be inclined to take to court.

For example, clause 15(1)(d) would not allow them to submit claims concerning:

—the delivery or funding of programs or services related to policing, regulatory enforcement, corrections, education, health, child protection or social assistance—

There is sure to be some debate about that. What would it mean for a community such as Kashechewan in northeastern Ontario that does not have access to the same health services as communities such as Kitigan Zibi near Maniwaki, Mashteuiatsh near Roberval and Essipit near Les Escoumins?

What can be done to ensure appropriate levels of service? Take for example something that happens all too often: a woman gives birth and loses the baby for want of adequate care. She will not be able to make a claim for having lost her baby. There will be some interesting debates to come.

In closing, I want to emphasize that the provision concerning the finality of the decision made by the two parties must remain in the bill. The decision cannot be subject to appeal. When the two parties appear before the court, they need to know that the decision will be final. They must be prepared when they go to court; they need to know where the file stands. The file must be ready and complete, and the judge can hand down a decision that is binding on both parties—the federal government and the first nation—as well as all other parties to the case.

The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C-30 because it is a step in the right direction. We would like to see the government do this more often, undertake more frequent and thorough consultations with first nations before drafting bills so that we do not have to protect first nations against the government and its flawed bills that are not ready for debate.

Consequently, I would invite the House to vote in favour of this bill at the close of debate.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in looking at the member's own particular area, I was wondering if the question of resources and the wealth that is generated from the harvesting of those resources is important in the context of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. I do not think that can be part of this bill because those are claims that affect the provinces, territories, RCMs and municipalities. These claims are much too broad for what the government has in mind. I think this type of specific claim needs agreements based on a long—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. There are nine minutes remaining for questions and comments for the hon. member. He may continue after oral question period.

We now move on to statements by members. The hon. member for Abbotsford.

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 second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Before question period, the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue had the floor. He had nine minutes remaining for questions and comments on his speech.

I now give the floor to the hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about Bill C-30, the specific land claims tribunal act and I am pleased to see that the hon. member and his party are going to support this bill. I thank him for that support.

He raised some questions before question period about health care, comprehensive land claims, section 35 issues, revenue sharing, modern treaty making and so on. It is important that we separate out the specific claims process from those other issues. They are two quite separate issues. I know the hon. member knows that. I hope that as we go through this in committee we do not get tangled up in other issues, good issues that deserve a good debate, but I certainly hope that no one mistakes those other issues for the specific claims process that we are handling here today.

Speaking of land claims, could the hon. member bring the House up to date on the current state of the Nunavut land claims agreement? I know there is broad support for it in this House. It has gone through the House. It is supported by the Quebec assembly. It is in the Senate, but my understanding is there is only one Liberal senator who is stopping that bill. Could the member tell the House on this Nunavut land claim which should go through for the benefit of those people, whether he believes it has the support of the people in Quebec and in the region? I know he has an interest in this particular file.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a simple answer for the minister: abolish the Senate. That would solve the problem. The bill is indeed being held up in the Senate. I invite my colleagues from the Liberal Party to speak to the senators responsible for this delay.

I know that next week, in the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, we will receive representatives of the Naskapi people from Kawawachikamach and representatives from the Makivik corporation. They want to find common ground.

I agree that this is an important bill that resolves a problem for the entire Nunavik coast. This is a major issue. We have used the fast track in order to pass this bill quickly because that is what the Makivik corporation and the Inuit communities in the far north have asked us to do.

I have been following a bit of what has gone on in the Senate, but I admit that I do not understand why this bill is being delayed. The senators have to understand the importance of this bill. They should start thinking about the Inuit instead of thinking about playing politics with certain issues, this one in particular. The Naskapi community is ready to talk and so are the Inuit.

We have to find a solution quickly. The funds have already been made available by the Makivik corporation for implementing this bill that responded, responds, and, I hope, will respond for a long time to come to the needs of the Inuit community in Quebec's far north.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-30, the specific land claims tribunal act. This piece of legislation is long overdue. New Democrats have long called for an independent tribunal. I am very pleased to see this piece of legislation come forward, and of course we will be supporting it.

I want to provide a bit of context because I think this is important to Canadians who are listening to this debate.

A document prepared by the Library of Parliament on the specific claims process outlined the long, sad and sorry history of specific claims. It started with the year 1927. I am going to read from that document:

Assertions of outstanding commitments owed by Canada to First Nations groups remained largely unconsidered by government well into the 20th century. From 1927 to 1951, the Indian Act prohibited the use of band funds for claims against government. In 1947, the special Senate-Commons committee struck to examine the Indian Act and other Indian Affairs matters recommended, inter alia, the immediate establishment of a “Claims Commission” “to inquire into the terms of all Indian treaties … and to appraise and settle in a just and equitable manner any claims or grievances arising thereunder.”(1) The 1959-1961 joint committee on Indian Affairs also advocated an “Indian Claims Commission” “to hear the British Columbia and Oka land questions and other matters....

It goes on to say that in 1963 and 1965, the then Liberal government revived a draft legislative initiative which subsequently died on the order paper.

It also states that in 1982, the federal government issued “Outstanding Business: A Native Claims Policy--Specific Claims”. There were a couple of points that the document specifically talks about. It talked about non-fulfillment of a treaty or agreement, breach of an obligation under the Indian Act or another statute related to Indians, breach of an obligation in administration of Indian funds or other assets, and unlawful disposition of reserve lands.

In reserve related circumstances, it talked about failure to provide compensation for reserve lands damaged or taken by the government and clear cases of fraud in acquiring or dispossessing of reserve land by federal employee agents.

In the 2000-01 annual report submitted by the Indian Claims Commission, the ICC observed that the specific claims process remains painfully slow and in gridlock.

The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, in its 1996 paper recommended the establishment by federal statute of an independent aboriginal lands and treaties tribunal which would replace the ICC and, in the area of specific claims, review federal funding to claimants, monitor negotiations and issue binding orders.

We can see that there is truly a long, sad and sorry history when dealing with specific claims. As many of us know, there has been report after report after report.

A report issued by the other house, called, “Negotiation or Confrontation: It's Canada's Choice” contained a number of recommendations. I want to touch very briefly on two of them. When this bill is before committee we will need to consider some of the questions that were raised by the other house.

The report talks about the fact that the process has limited resources. A number of issues were discussed in terms of the current process and its limited resources. One would hope that this bill would address that. There was a constant turnover of staff that were involved in specific claims. There was a high volume and the very fact that there were insufficient resources meant that the backlog was ever increasing. The process has untrained researchers. In terms of the research, some of the witnesses who came before the committee said that they therefore continually repeat historical errors, fail to have effective management regimes and function inefficiently.

We also know that under the specific claims, and under comprehensive claims as well, but we are only dealing with specific claims on this matter, there was also a lack of sharing of information among the various parties at the table. Mr. Michael Coyle has written a paper on specific claims in Ontario solely but has made some recommendations about how research could be shared among the parties at the table so that different parties are not duplicating research.

In particular, because I am from British Columbia, I want to mention that in the report called “Negotiation or Confrontation: It's Canada's Choice”, some very key pieces of information about British Columbia were raised. In the report it says:

Witnesses from British Columbia were quick to point out that the majority of Specific Claims in the system are from BC. They said the uniqueness of British Columbia’s Specific Claims must be considered in any new strategies aimed at reducing the backlog of Specific Claims. Speaking for the Union of BC Indian Chiefs (UBCIC), Chief Debbie Abbott thought not only that the allocation of resources for resolving BC claims should reflect the number of Specific Claims submitted by First Nations in BC but that there should be an independent body established for BC claims only.

The numbers vary but it is significant that well over half of the specific claims before the current process are from British Columbia. The chiefs from British Columbia have come out in support of this piece of legislation, but they have raised a number of questions, which I am sure the committee will have an opportunity to address.

In a letter that they sent out dated November 23, they indicated that there are a couple of issues they would like addressed, and they talk about the $150 million cap on the value of claims that can be referred to the tribunal for validation and settlement. They say in their letter:

--the $150 million figure for “value” will be calculated based on principles consistent with those set out by the Ontario court recently in its judgment in the Whitefish case.

More resources will be dedicated to the research, negotiation and settlement of B.C. specific claims which compromise nearly half the claims in the system and 62% of the claims in the Department of Justice backlog.

Provincial statutes of limitations do not apply to specific claims.

Water rights, pre-confederation claims and all unilateral undertakings of the Crown must be included in the definition of “specific claims”.

There should be no conflict of interest on claims that have access to the ICC. This means appointments to that committee need to be jointly agreed upon by First Nations and Canada.

There should be no conflict of interest in claims that do not have access to the tribunal, ie. those valued at over $150 million. This means there needs to be a legislated process to deal with those claims and that their resolution not be at Canada's discretion.

Certainly, we know that part of the problems with the current process is that the government ends up being both judge and jury on the specific claims process.

In a recent court decision in British Columbia, in the Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia, the piece that is relevant to this current piece of legislation is around the process of reconciliation. The justice in the decision said:

Throughout the course of the trial and over the long months of preparing this judgment, my consistent hope has been that, whatever the outcome, it would ultimately lead to an early and honourable reconciliation with Tsilhqot’in people. After a trial of this scope and duration, it would be tragic if reconciliation with Tsilhqot’in people were postponed through seemingly endless appeals. The time to reach an honourable resolution and reconciliation is with us today.

Further on down, the justice stated:

Unfortunately, the initial reluctance of governments to acknowledge the full impact of s. 35(1) has placed the question of reconciliation in the courtroom--one of our most adversarial settings. Courts struggle with the meaning of reconciliation when Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal litigants seek a determination regarding the existence and implications of Aboriginal rights.

Lloyd Barber, speaking as Commissioner of the Indian Claims Commission, is quoted on this issue in the Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples: Looking Forward, Looking Back:

It is clear that most Indian claims are not simple issues of contractual dispute to be resolved through conventional methods of arbitration and adjudication. They are the most visible part of the much, much more complex question of the relationship between the original inhabitants of this land and the powerful cultures which moved in upon them.

I think those issues around reconciliation and the relationship between the first peoples of this country and various governments of various political stripes since 1927 speaks to the fact that this is an important piece of legislation and one would hope that during this process, it does lay some framework for future pieces of legislation.

In particular, Bill C-30 was drafted with the support of first nations. The Assembly of First Nations and others worked very closely with the Conservative government to come up with Bill C-30, and that in itself is an important statement, and one would hope would set the tone for future pieces of legislation.

I think the sad and unfortunate part is that the government missed an opportunity to look at Bill C-21 in the same light, particularly in view of the fact that the majority of the committee had called on the Conservative government to use it as an opportunity to look at the repeal of section 67 using a consultative process that clearly the government sees as valuable because it had used it with Bill C-30.

I will conclude by saying that certainly in British Columbia and the rest of Canada the specific claims have been a thorn in people's sides for a number of years because of the untimely and some would argue disrespectful process in terms of how claims have been moved through the system and resolved.

I welcome the opportunity to support this piece of legislation. I look forward to it coming to committee and hearing about how it can be implemented in a timely fashion. I look forward to more detail around the political accord because of course some of the mechanics of the bill are happening outside of the legislative process.

I hope that the details around the accord will be put forward in detail with appropriate resources. For example, on appointments to the tribunal, I understand there is a process in place, but the NDP has called on the importance of making sure that first nations are represented in that process.

I look forward to the speedy passage of the bill and the New Democrats will certainly be supporting it.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is the critic for aboriginal affairs for her party. I wonder if she could comment specifically on consultation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think Bill C-30 is not the norm unfortunately in terms of a consultative process. What we have seen under Bill C-21 is the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. We heard 20 out of 21 witnesses come before the committee talking about the importance of consultation and any kind of respectful relationship.

We would anticipate that if a piece of legislation is going to have a direct impact on over 600 communities across the country that we would look for an appropriate consultation process. On matrimonial real property, there was a report commissioned by the Conservative government and recommendation 18 in the report laid out a number of steps and a consultation process, a very respectful consultation process.

I would argue again that if this government or any other government were to take consultation seriously, first of all they would develop a consultation process in conjunction with first nations. We cannot develop a consultation process that does not actually include people who are going to be affected in that process.

Therefore, I would encourage the government to look at recommendation 18 of the “Matrimonial Real Property Issues on Reserves” report by Wendy Grant-John.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this particular bill today. I know thousands of people are watching and some of them may not understand what bill we are dealing with, so I just want to make it clear.

Land claims with first nations is a major issue across this country. This bill would allow modern treaties to be made with first nations, so that they could have their proper place in this nation. The bill is largely based on the royal proclamation from the 18th century which basically said that all the land in Canada belongs to aboriginal people unless treaties or specific deals are made for certain lands.

Governments have dealt with first nations for a long time in making treaties. These treaties ensure that first nations have their rights respected. They also ensure that first nations have land, opportunities, and the required resources. There have been some remarkable claims over the years, but many claims still need to be settled. Some of them may involve hundreds of millions of dollars. However, that is not what the bill before us deals with.

Bill C-30 deals with specific small claims where a treaty is already in place, but there is a problem with it. The government might have abrogated its responsibility. It might not have fulfilled some duty on a particular piece of land. It might owe some money to a particular first nation, or it reneged on something it said it would give to aboriginal people.

A dispute might arise because the government did not provide what it said it would provide or there is a disagreement of some kind between what the treaty said first nations would receive and what they would not receive. The bill deals with all these little annoyances.

To make it clear for the public, we are not talking about the huge amount of unsettled land claims that are still going on across the country. We are not talking about major claims involving first nations that do not have a treaty. However, the government should be putting the majority of its effort into getting these claims settled. Once they are dealt with, the government should not just leave it at that.

As the Auditor General has quite clearly pointed out that there are a number of cases where a treaty has been signed but the government has not acted in the spirit of the treaty. The three territories in the north are looking for strong action by the government. Signing a treaty is not the end of a relationship. It is really just the beginning. As the critic for the north, I can certainly say that people in the north want these treaties followed. They want the government to act and fulfill the objectives of these treaties.

Bill C-30 deals with little annoyances such as the government not fulfilling conditions of a treaty or a first nation disagreeing with the government over the conditions of a treaty. These small claims would be dealt with by this particular bill.

Our critic from Winnipeg South Centre said that the bill is definitely a step in the right direction. We are certainly supportive of improving the process. However, this legislation does need to be studied extensively in committee. Some concerns have already been voiced.

The legislative tribunal is not a new approach or a new idea. It was proposed by the Liberal leader in his leadership platform. He is an honest person. I am sure he does not care which party puts forward any of his ideas for the betterment of Canadians as long as the ideas get through the process. He will be very excited if this bill gets through because he has definitely wanted a tribunal process that would deal with specific claims.

Calls for an independent tribunal go as far back as 1947. In 1996, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples recommended an independent lands and treaties tribunal. Over the next decade, attempts were made to reform the specific claims process but were unsuccessful.

All are agreed that the current process needs to be improved. All are in agreement that the number of claims is too high.

Since 1973, almost 1,300 claims have been submitted to Canada and, to date, 513 of these have been concluded, which leaves 784 outstanding. The minister has said that the number was as high as 900.

Therefore, it is incumbent upon us as parliamentarians to do the right thing and come up with a process that can deal with this huge backlog that is not dealing with the claims fast enough.

We have already heard from some who feel they were not consulted but they will have their opportunity to put their concerns before the committee.

We have also heard a concern about the cap on claims and whether the dedicated funding of $250 million annually will be enough. I certainly had that thought when I first viewed the bill. I am assuming that the government, in good faith, will do a supplementary estimate and increase the money if claims are not settled by the judges in excess of that amount. If anyone in the government says that they will not, then a bill that is not too controversial will become quite controversial because there is no use having judges making decisions and Parliament not giving the money to implement those decisions.

There has been some concern that first nations do not have a say in the appointment of judges to the tribunal. The plan first put forward by the Liberal leader called for first nations to have input. In many cases, this process will rely on a provincial buy-in because of its stewardship over most crown lands. It is very important that we work very closely with provincial and, in some cases, territorial governments to ensure the buy-in is a part of the process so that all the parties in respect of a claim can be involved and have it dealt with.

I started out by explaining how the land claims problem in Canada is small. This also does not deal with the minor claims of first nations that signed modern treaties. Many of those treaties already have a dispute mechanism in them. Once again, this only deals with the offences against some of the existing treaties and has nothing to do with the huge land claims backlog and what is called comprehensive claims. Comprehensive means that it deals with creating an entire new claim and if self-government is attached it is a new government.

When the bill goes to committee we will need to listen to witnesses from first nations to ensure the bill would accomplish what I think all parties in the House have gone on record as saying they want it to accomplish. The bill is too important to call witnesses and leave the questions to the government.

Any person who has an interest in this bill and who wants to appear before the committee, they should please contact me or our aboriginal affairs critic, the member for Winnipeg South Centre who spoke earlier.

This bill has been decades in the making. I commend the government for working on the bill and, in particular, for developing the bill with the grand chief of the Assembly of First Nations. A previous speaker made it clear that this was a landmark change for the Conservatives and an excellent way to develop a bill that will get the support of all parties in the House.

As I have done a number of times, I must compliment grand chief, Phil Fontaine, on being a great leader. He has brought much to his people in his term as grand chief, including the historic residential schools settlement that he made with the government. This is another great step forward to deal with hundreds of specific claims in a fair and faster way.

After all the kudos to the government, though, I must now mention all the problems it has in all other areas in dealing with aboriginal people. Aboriginal peoples want their issues concerning their basic human rights to be seriously addressed by the government, including addressing the poverty gap and the infrastructure problems first nations face on reserve today. Without real action there is fear that nothing will be done.

It is unfortunate to say this, and the government may not want to hear it, but since coming to power, listening to the voices of aboriginal Canadians has not been a priority of the government. Last week marked the two year anniversary of the Kelowna accord. The government has ignored the voices calling for the implementation of the agreement, and that is by all members of Parliament, with the exception of government members.

The government has ignored aboriginal leaders, provincial and territorial leaders and others who were involved in the 18 month process that led to the agreement. It made a unilateral decision to cancel the agreement and yet it still held up at the United Nations as an example of how it was working in partnership with aboriginal organizations.

Let me make the point that the Kelowna accord was not an agreement between the Liberal government and aboriginal peoples. It was an agreement between Canada and the aboriginal peoples of this country, as well as with the premiers and territorial leaders. To go back on a good faith agreement like that was very disappointing for many Canadians.

It is a sad state of affairs when aboriginal people are living in such poor conditions, whether it is drinking water, death in child birth, education levels, health levels or life expectancy. A $5 billion bottom up agreement was signed, sealed and delivered by the first nations people, with lots of money in the government coffers, and it is a shame that such an agreement would be cancelled.

The first nations people, aboriginal people and Inuit would love for the government to respect their human rights and not be one of the only countries in the United Nations to block them. A perfect example is that there is a bill that would allow aboriginal people to have the same access to human rights as others and yet almost all the aboriginal groups who came to committee said that there were no consultations and listed the six or seven things that needed to be fixed.

The government has had almost a year to fix those things, such as putting in a non-derogation clause, the interpretation clause, the time needed to implement the bill and the funds needed to train first nations. All those things were common among all witnesses. They said these things could have been done and the bill could have been passed. Hopefully, that type of process will occur.

First nations, Métis and Inuit have been virtually shut out of two budgets and two fiscal updates. As an example, budget 2007 had $6 billion in new funding for Canadians and, of that, $70 million were for aboriginals. In the government's other fiscal documents, the funding provided for housing, for example, had been previously booked. It was not new money.

The government ignored calls to sign the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. On water, the government's own advisory committee warned against proceeding with legislation to establish drinking water standards for first nations communities without the necessary capital and infrastructure funding and yet there has been no action on this report. The current government must not ignore the voices of those who go against its refrain. When it comes to first nations issues, money is not the issue.

We saw the message regarding the child welfare crisis. The government may want to silence these voices but it should not. We are stronger as a nation when we are empowering the most vulnerable and not limiting them. The government is worse off without these voices.

On the land claim issues, the government has shown some political will to move forward and that is just on a small number of specific land claims, as I outlined at the beginning of my speech, and it did so in partnership with the Assembly of First Nations. I highly congratulate the government for that cooperation on this one particular item. Had it done so on the human rights legislation, we could have had that through long ago, but some are already saying that they were not allowed to speak.

We are definitely in support of the legislation, to a great extent because Phil Fontaine and the Assembly of First Nations want to be integrally involved in developing the legislation. We know their concerns and ideas have been taken into account, as they were when they negotiated the residential school claims with our government.

The thing that has to be looked at in committee to make sure we have it right is the cap of $150 million on any particular claim. There probably will not be very many. Most claims are granted much less than that granted. However, there could easily be some. If a judge were to think that a claim had been put in for $120 million and his analysis suggested that in fact the claimant deserved much more, would the government not provide it? How would that exactly work in those particular situations?

I should mention the tribunal. I am not sure if the word comes from the Roman tribunes, but with the letters t-r-i and the fact that there are six judges involved, people might think that, on a particular case, six judges are involved. However, that is not the case. Only one judge and one tribunal are involved in a particular case.

A treaty done on the prairies in 1800 said that there were several square miles of land and $120 million were promised but not provided, then the judge would hear all the details. He will be making a decision. It is a non-appealable decision, other than going through the courts. The people who are looking at the bill should ensure they are comfortable with that type of process.

As I said earlier, because only one person is making a non-appealable decision, we need to ensure it is the appropriate person, and the first nations wanted some input into that selection.

If one claim can be $150 million, is $250 million a year enough? If one is $150 million and there are 784 outstanding, will that be enough in a specific year? Once again, I am assuming that if the claims go forward as quickly as the government would like and it goes over the $250 million, that it would, on good faith, put money into the supplementary estimates to increase that.

In the context of 784 or more claims outstanding, we must remember that we have been doing an average of 20 cases a year and it has taken 13 years so obviously the process was not fixed.

As our aboriginal critic, the member for Winnipeg South Centre, who is doing an excellent job, said. We will be supporting this improvement to the system because in the old system the government was in a dispute with someone. There were two parties in the dispute and the judge in that dispute was the government, so there was the judge and the defendant, which is hardly fair.

We commend the government for working closely with the Assembly of First Nations to develop the bill. Wee look forward to having input in committee so that we can fine-tune it and make sure it works as all parties would like it to work to improve the lives of aboriginal people.

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

Mr. Speaker, it appears that all opposition parties are supportive of the bill in principle. Aboriginal communities have been waiting for this treaty process to be expedited. We have a chance here in the House to do just that.

I suggest, rather than spending any more time debating it, that we call the question and send the bill to committee, especially since all opposition parties have stated vocally today that they are in favour of the bill.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's intervention. Personally I have no problem with accelerating the bill as quickly as possible. I hope the member brings the suggestion to his House leader, because House leaders make these types of decisions on process. I have no problem with it, but I would like the member to remember the number of concerns I have brought forward that have to be dealt with.

Also, I do not know if there are members on the speaking list, but of course their parliamentary privileges would be abrogated if they were not allowed to speak.

I would ask the member to remember my concerns about the potential amount for a claim and the amount total for a year, as well as my concerns about the input into the selection of the judges in question, especially considering what a disaster the Conservative government has been in regard to judges in this country, with lowering their pay, taking away their discretion and changing the appointment process dramatically when the whole judicial system in Canada, even the neutral people who do not get involved, thought it was a terrible mistake.

Perhaps if the member would spend his questions and comments on dealing with the concerns on the bill and making sure they are put forward in this debate, then we could move the bill forward very quickly, because in principle it is a good bill, as I said, and all the parties are agreeing to get it done very quickly.

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

Mr. Speaker, we all know about the plight of aboriginal people in too many communities in our country. The Indian Act is a boot on the neck of aboriginal people from coast to coast in our ridings. Many of them do not have the rights we do, including the fact that many lack ownership of property and an adequate mechanism within their own communities to control their leadership.

I have a question for my hon. colleague. At the end of the day for aboriginal people, it should be integration, not assimilation. It should not be about treating aboriginal people as different and separate in an apartheid-like setting, such as what happened in South Africa where people were treated differently and were separated from mainstream society.

Aboriginal people should be in an environment where their rights are respected and the ability for them to engage in the traditional activities is respected and enshrined. Is that not a better way to go so that aboriginal people can have the right, just like the member and I do, to integrate, not assimilate, and to be treated with fairness and equality and have the same rights that we all do in our country?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, that was an excellent question, but this may not be as simple as the member thought. On the one hand, we want to make sure that first nations people, like all diverse groups, have the same rights, the same opportunities, the same ability to progress, the same health care and the same ability to advance in education that all other people do.

On the other hand, we do not want to treat an entirely different culture with a cookie cutter approach in saying that the culture has to follow all our philosophies, our way of governing, our way of doings things and our way of solving disputes. As members who deal with aboriginal people know, they have a collective type of society where they want buy-in by their whole community. They often have consensus decision making processes. Other people do not.

Respecting their culture and their stewardship over land that they have kept sacred, viable and environmentally clean for thousands of years is what the land claim process is all about. It is not about saying that they have to follow our philosophy. It is saying that we will set up a space to govern themselves in the way and with the philosophies that they have seen fit to use over hundreds of years.

In the cases where that has been put in place by Parliament and Canadians, we see huge success stories as they deal with their own problems in their own way. They govern themselves, as people should in a democratic society, and they have the land and the resources to do it, especially appreciating the very close association with the land in the spirit of the aboriginal peoples, which is so much a part of their being.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested to hear my colleague's comments as he represented the Liberal Party in the House. He started off very well. He commended the government for the specific claims process, which is going to speed up the settlement of claims across our country.

However, he then resorted to the usual Liberal smear and slander. He talked about the fact that our government is not doing enough about human rights or to address the special needs within aboriginal communities in Canada. In fact, it was our government that introduced legislation to extend human rights legislation to all Canadians, which now would include first nations across this country. It was also our government that introduced legislation to extend matrimonial property rights to aboriginal women, which did not exist before.

I have a question for my Liberal colleague. Why is it that the Liberal Party, after 13 years in office, could not address those basic human rights issues of, first, extending human rights protection to aboriginals across this country and, second, extending matrimonial property rights to aboriginal women?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member has once again given me an opportunity to address the government's failures related to human rights. The member started out by slurring a whole group of people. I hope he does not take that type of common approach to all people, where he generalizes and suggests that all first nations, for instance, have such-and-such a problem. Maybe that is why the Conservatives voted against so many land claims in the past.

On human rights, the member should look in the mirror and ask himself why his government is one of the only governments in the entire world that voted against the United Nations declaration on human rights for indigenous peoples.

In particular on the bill before Parliament, as I outlined in detail, and I will again because he has asked about it, the government brought forward disastrous legislation related to trying to give aboriginal people human rights. There were I think 19 out of 20 witnesses who came before Parliament and said the government had not consulted. They also brought forward five other problems: the non-derogation clause, the non-interpretation clause, a ridiculous timeframe, no money for implementation and no training for implementation of this general legislation.

The government knew about these points six months ago when we heard all the witnesses. Why does the government not just put them forward? The other three parties want it. If the government were to put that forward, the bill would probably be approved unanimously and first nations human rights would be protected.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Order. The hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for a short question.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question for my hon. colleague, who has worked so hard in the Yukon for aboriginal communities, is a simple one. The Indian Act, in my view, is something that is a boot on the neck of aboriginal communities. Does he not think that the Indian Act should be scrapped forthwith?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Yukon will want to give a short answer.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, why do I always get the hardest questions from my own caucus? The short answer is that this is what land claims are all about, because then they no longer fall under the Indian Act. Aboriginal peoples would govern themselves. They would not be governed by an archaic piece of legislation. Their problems would remain in their own hands. They would have the resources. They would have the rights under which they have successfully governed themselves for thousands of years.

If we could just get the comprehensive claims moved forward, not the specific claims bill, without votes against them as there were in the past from the Conservatives, that problem would be solved, and we would not have to work under the archaic--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain that my riding includes the region of Nunavik, not Nunavut. There is a difference between the two territories, and I would not like to take the place of my Liberal colleague who represents Nunavut.

If I read correctly, this bill applies only to specific claims, but what are specific claims, in lay terms?

We do not need to look very far to learn that they originated in old grievances made by the first nations. These grievances have to do with negotiations Canada is required to conduct under historic treaties or the way the country has managed the money or other property belonging to the first nations, including reserve lands.

It is true that, since 1973, the government has had a policy and a process whereby it settles these claims through negotiation rather than in court.

However, there have been calls for measures to settle these disputes not just since 1973, but since July 1947, when a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons made this recommendation:

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

It was not until 1961 that another joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons again recommended that a claims commission be set up and Prime Minister Diefenbaker's cabinet approved draft legislation to create a claims commission. However, as luck would have it, this draft legislation was never introduced, because of an election call.

Nevertheless, Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson introduced Bill C-130, entitled the Indian Claims Act, in the House of Commons on December 14, 1963. He was determined to keep up with the true Conservatives. However, even back then, the government neglected to consult with the first nations, and the bill was withdrawn to allow time for consultation.

Another bill with the same title was introduced on June 21, 1965. June 21: what a lovely date. I can hardly wait for it to arrive. All kidding aside, guess what happened: yes, the bill died on the order paper when an election was called.

It was not until 1973 that further action was taken, with the establishment of the specific claims policy I mentioned at the very beginning of my remarks, which has been in effect to this day.

In the meantime, a government report on the administrative process for resolving specific claims was indeed published in 1979, citing conflicting duties and recommending the creation of an independent body which would in all respects be a specialized tribunal.

During the same period of time, the Penner report, published in 1983, called for a quasi-judicial process for managing failed negotiations and the neutral facilitation of negotiated settlements.

In 1990, in a report entitled “Unfinished Business: An Agenda for All Canadians in the 1990's”, a standing committee of the House of Commons reiterated the need for an independent claims body. At the same time, a joint working group bringing together representatives of Canada and the first nations—things are getting better—was looking at creating a permanent, legislative entity with tribunal-like powers, and finally in January 1991, the government created the Indian Specific Claims Commission under the federal Inquiries Act .

This commission was only intended as an interim measure, until a permanent independent body with adjudicative powers could be created. The commission remains in existence today, but continues to have only non-binding powers to make recommendations.

By 1996, the need was ever more pressing. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, whose report is commonly known as the Erasmus-Dussault report, conducted extensive consultations with first nations people across the country and recommended an independent tribunal to replace the ISCC and concentrate on land and treaty issues.

In 1998, the efforts of a joint Canada-first nations working group eventually led to Bill C-6, specific claims legislation which, this time, received royal assent, in November 2003. That legislation would have provided binding decision-making powers, including on those compensation amounts, estimated at $10 million, which first nations deemed insufficient. They rejected that. This is yet another fine example of consultation.

Here we are now, in 2007, with Bill C-30, at a time when the political landscape has evolved somewhat, at least I hope so. To my knowledge, there are already particular conditions in Quebec, such as a specific first nations association with their own culture and needs. However, this government seems, deliberately or not, to have forgotten to consult those first nations. If we look at the timing of this bill, it is almost certain that we will have an election before it reaches third reading stage. In the end, this bill will only have served electoral purposes, as was the case with Kelowna, in 2005, with Bill C-130, in 1965, or with the Diefenbaker draft bill, in 1962.

In the explanatory notes that accompany this bill—and that were given to us by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development—it is mentioned that the new approach is based on a wealth of reports, studies and recommendations made by first nations in the past. I emphasize the expression “in the past”. I am prepared to believe that federal officials did consult a few first nations leaders, as they did in 1963 with Bill C-130, for which they had to go back again for another consultation, or in 2003 with Bill C-6, for which they consulted a few first nations leaders. I sense that we will have to hear many more dissatisfied witnesses, as was the case with Bills C-44 and C-21, which is now before us and regarding which the government merely changed the cover page, even though it is well aware of the fact that the various first nations associations are unhappy about it.

I feel a little sheepish for overestimating the Prime Minister's vision and desire for transparency, a transparency that is less relevant than that of Quebec's dark ages under Duplessis, whom he reminds me of, if only because he is so blindly obstinate.

Like my Bloc Québécois colleagues, I will nevertheless support this bill, which will speed up the resolution of specific claims of first nations, a process that has been criticized since the 1940s, as I just described. It would still have to receive royal assent before an election, and all the first nations must agree to it.

How many times in the past have we heard the elected members of this government announce the support of provincial premiers or ministers, organizations or union leaders, when it was completely untrue? As some people would say, credibility goes hand in hand with accountability, which the government seems to be seriously lacking.

I would like to take this opportunity to offer my condolences to the Whapmagoostui community and the family and friends of David Masty, a prominent Cree man who went missing in the waters of Hudson's Bay over the weekend. He was seen as an elder throughout northern Quebec. He was a longtime friend of mine for whom I had a lot of respect.

It goes without saying that we have some concerns about this bill, for example, the fact that a single judge will render a binding decision about a third party's responsibility for paying without that party even being involved in the judgment. Quebec assumes a great deal of responsibility towards first nations, so the other provinces and this government could be more vulnerable to this type of judgment. Could the judge unilaterally require a third party to pay 30% of a first nations claim? Once again, what about the government's fiduciary responsibility?

The Bloc Québécois recognizes that certain specific claims are a strictly federal responsibility. Various House committees have been recommending the establishment of this tribunal for more than 60 years, in order to resolve specific first nations claims, as mentioned at the beginning of my speech, with the expression of concern and regret over the fact that this government is, once again, ignoring Quebec's distinctiveness.

Given the current structure of the judicial appointment process, a contested process if ever there was one, it is worrisome to think that a decision by this tribunal could not be appealed, and this goes for Quebec as well as for first nations, even though the decision is subject to judicial oversight.

This approach will have consequences that first nations really need to consider carefully. No further legal action will be possible. The surrender of land rights will give a clear title to third parties who own the land, and the decisions of the tribunal will resolve, once and for all, all specific claims.

Given that a province, which does not attend a land claim ruling, has no obligation to compensate the first nation, it is possible that the first nation will use the federal decision to demand compensation from that province. What happens, then, to the federal fiduciary responsibility?

The Bloc Québécois has always supported aboriginal peoples in their quest for justice and recognition of their rights. We recognize that the 11 first nations of Quebec are nations in their own right. We recognize that they are distinct peoples with the right to their own culture, language, customs and traditions as well as the right to direct the development of their own identity.

For this reason, aboriginal peoples must have the tools to develop their own identity, namely the right to self-government and the recognition of their rights. The right to self-determination was recognized by the Bloc Québécois in 1993 in its manifeste du Forum paritaire Québécois-Autochtones, in the future country of Quebec where we will also be masters of our own culture and vision for the future.

Like my Bloc Québécois colleagues, I reiterate my support for this bill, which will speed up resolution of the specific claims of the first nations that have been ongoing for 70 years. However, this is contingent upon my not discovering along the way, as is the case with many other declarations, that the declaration is as false as the consultation of first nations.

Naturally we will have the opportunity to examine the bill in the standing committee. I have the privilege of being a member of that committee where we can observe the childish antics of the members of this government, who have demonstrated a chronic inability to accept other people's ideas.

That is perhaps why they continue to call themselves the new government. There are too many issues that have failed to advance. It is like a plumber who has not understood that something other than water may pass through a pipe. Or an electrician who believes that his job is to make wires pass through this same pipe. This leads to confrontations, such as those the government will have on the international stage, which unfortunately would have reflected on the whole country had it not been for the generosity of the Bloc Québécois members who helped their colleagues go to defend Quebec's integrity in Bali.

What a bunch of half-wits we would have looked like without those few sensible persons who, democratically, have an undeniable right, especially because in terms of simple distribution, this government only represents some 30% of the Canadian population! Unfortunately, we have not yet avoided this reputation, which we must acknowledge is not a source of pride.

We have not forgotten this government's stand with respect to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It is enough to leave anyone involved with this bill perplexed.

We in northern Quebec certainly have our own concerns about the last James Bay agreement, which gave the Cree their share, although they are still awaiting the final agreement.

This is somewhat like Santa's sack, which he is holding in front of the beneficiaries, even though he has no intention of loosening the strings and handing out any presents. This is another point that reminds us of the dirty tricks of the Duplessis years.

It is like the hon. member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, who was elected based on his campaign promise to resolve the forestry crisis. He was elected at the beginning of September. The throne speech was presented at the end of October, but there was no mention of the forestry crisis. Nevertheless, he stood up and voted for that speech. This is not a problem; there are others just like him. In fact, one mayor in my riding stood up to protect this little sinking ship in a sea of Canadians—especially in the shadow of a big Albertan—who would include this topic in the next minibudget. Once again, they did not deliver.

Yet, his big Albertan, as a consolation prize, allows him to blather on, making a few silly remarks on occasion, getting a laugh out of the visitors' gallery, more often than not at his own expense. After all, there are still a few good little French Canadians in Quebec who have not yet managed to separate.

For all these reasons, the Bloc Québécois must remain ever vigilant and uncompromising on behalf of all Quebeckers, aboriginal and non-aboriginal. This always leads us to demand that Quebec officials be consulted in the same way as Canadian officials.

We will therefore vote in favour of this bill, so we may study it and propose amendments, as needed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I thank the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.

The hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to address this issue.

We know the issues affecting aboriginal communities are some of the most pressing social problems in Canada. In my riding, in places like Pacheenaht, there are high suicide rates, abject poverty, terrible housing and an absence of water, to name just a few of the problems.

Does my colleague think that part of the problem is aboriginal members do not have the ability to properly control their leadership in too many cases? As a result, they do not have the same rights as we do. Unfortunately, in a number of communities they are treated in an abusive way. Furthermore, aboriginal members living off reserve and living in cities sometimes fall between the cracks.

Do we not need to allow aboriginal people to have the same rights of property ownership, access to health care and education as the rest of us have and the ability to have the same electoral guidelines we have in electing our leaders?

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it disappointing that 60% of the money given to first nations is used for their defence and to fight federal government lawyers.

It is true that a long, long time ago, the lands of these communities should have been recognized as theirs. As an invading people, we took what we felt was necessary to meet our needs in this country. They did not ask for much. Unfortunately for them, they have a trusting nature; a handshake to them is as good as a signature. We took advantage of that over and over and at every opportunity. It was every man for himself.

These people should have the chance to manage themselves, to have the same revenues and to profit from the natural resources found on their land. In my riding, there are some of these people, of whom I am very proud. They are entrepreneurs who will enrich our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I take exception with one of the comments the member from the Bloc made in his diatribe. The comment that we are doing this for political purposes is so far from the truth it is not even funny.

First nation leaders and our government have worked together on Bill C-30. They want to see this happen and they want to see it happen expeditiously. We have a chance today to get this to committee. I have heard from all the opposition parties that they support the bill in principle. Let us send it to committee. We do not need to have a game of silly buggers going on in here, having opposition members getting up and continuing to speak on a bill—

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. A word was used that I have never heard before. Could you explain what that term means? Do I need to repeat it?

[An hon. member]

What is that silly bugger doing?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake has the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am referring to kids' games where often people go on and on. We do not need these filibusters.

If all the parties support the bill in principle, we have a chance today to send it to committee, to prove the point to our first nations leaders and communities that we want to finally complete the outstanding issues of treaty land claims and do it in an expedited manner in the House and set the example for how we will deal with all these outstanding TLEs with our first nations partners.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if my colleague wants a Conservative-style answer. I will give him a Quebecker's response.

We are not the ones who created smokescreens.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

I would like the NDP members to be more attentive and less distracting.

If we just look at Bill C-44, there too, the Conservatives said that they had consulted the first nations. But when the bill was published, there was an outcry from aboriginal women from Canada and Quebec, the leader of the Canadian Assembly of First Nations and the leader of the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador in protest against this lie.

They have introduced a bill and now they are saying once again that they have consulted. Many people are unsure whether this time that is the truth.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a brief question about the role of the provinces.

As I understand it, the province can choose whether to become involved. Is that the case?

According to the information I have, each province, in a given application or claim, can decide whether it wants to give the tribunal authority to deal with its part in a claim, or it can stand back and in such a case the tribunal will proceed without any reference to any provincial role in that claim. The tribunal will only settle matters of monetary concern, nothing to do with land.

Is my understanding correct or do I misunderstand that there is no imposition on a province of a role other than by its own choice to become involved?

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is what I understand from the bill.

A province can choose to participate in a hearing for a particular claim. If the province participates, it commits to abiding by the judge's decision and not appealing it. If it does not participate, it is not obligated to recognize the judge's decision. However, we believe that if the judge finds fault, the first nation will be able to take the province to court.

Our question is about the government's fiduciary responsibility to first nations. Will the province be required to pay 30% of the compensation to be awarded?

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

Mr. Speaker, first, we all know the Department of Indian Affairs has a very high administrative cost and burden. Those moneys could best be used for dealing with primary education, health care, social programs and infrastructure for aboriginal communities.

Second, if we look at the issue of land claims where they have been resolved east of the Rockies versus west of the Rockies and ask if aboriginal communities are better off east of the Rockies versus west, the answer is there is little difference.

Aboriginal communities east of the Rockies can be found to be in as horrible a condition as in the west. Non-reserve aboriginal people can be in the same horrible circumstances east of the Rockies as west. Therefore, do we not have to look at this in a larger context and provide new and better solutions, to work with aboriginal people to resolve the issues they have so many of them can be self-sufficient and self-reliant and they can engage in a 21st century economy?

Given that it is what most aboriginal people want, how does the hon. member propose that it happens and does he think that the bill will do that?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou may answer briefly.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that I said that my Bloc Québécois colleagues and I support this bill. Nevertheless, I question what the government would have us believe about having consulted all of the first nations and receiving their support for this bill. They can take as much time—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Order, please. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, Canada Revenue Agency; the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer, Elections Canada; the hon. member for London—Fanshawe, Infrastructure.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I begin, I want to assure my colleague from the Bloc, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, that the commotion in this corner was New Democrat members defending him against the derision that was heaped on him by Conservative members during his speech. We were listening very carefully to his remarks.

Specifically, this afternoon we are discussing Bill C-30, the specific claims tribunal act. I want to begin by saying that I represent people who live on Coast Salish territory on the Lower Mainland of British Columbia.

The New Democrats believe the legislation is long overdue. The NDP has long called for an independent specific claims tribunal. In fact, it was part of our election platform in at least the last two federal election campaigns and, as party policy, it was reaffirmed at a recent policy convention of the New Democratic Party. We strongly support this and we will support the bill.

We are a little hesitant today because all the experts on aboriginal affairs issues are in committee this afternoon. We think it is unfortunate that the government did not get the timing a little better today to ensure that Bill C-30 would be debated in the House at a time when Bill C-21 was not before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs in clause by clause discussion. Unfortunately many of our members, our experts in this place from all parties, have to be involved at committee today.

We support the legislation and we will want to work on again at committee, where witnesses will be heard and improvements made.

One of the reasons we support the legislation is we know it has been developed in consultation with first nations. This probably could have been more broad than it was, but it is an important step and we want to acknowledge that this consultative step was taken. We believe this is a good example of how this should be applied more broadly by the government in its relationships with first nations. We believe this might go some way to restoring the nation to nation relationship that existed at the time treaties were signed, and it needs to be part of negotiations of new treaties.

The context of our discussion today is one that is not all that positive, to put it mildly. We come to this discussion today after a long and sad history of discussion of specific claims in Canada. We have seen many reports and many attempts at legislation, even failed legislation, legislation that was passed and then proved unworkable.

This has gone on for many years, beginning with the Indian Act that was in place from 1927 to 1951. It prohibited band funds from being used to sue the government, to take the government to court, to change or to hold the government accountable for agreements and treaties and specific commitments that were made. Thankfully that was changed, but we have seen other things.

I think every decade has seen activity around the question of specific claims. In the 1940s we saw the original recommendation that there be a claims tribunal. Similarly there were recommendations in the 1950s. In the 1960s there was even legislation that died on the order paper, apparently twice. In the 1970s there were more recommendations and attempts. In the 1996 report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal People, one of the recommendations, on of the specific calls, was for an independent specific claims tribunal. In the 2000s, in the previous Parliament, we saw an attempt to deal with this issue in legislation, which has proven unworkable. Many attempts have been made over the long and sad history of dealing with this issue.

Therefore, we come to this today. We come hopeful that this current legislation will be more successful and will do more to address the specific issues that have been before us for so many decades in Canada.

I want to note that this attempt has been welcomed by first nations. In British Columbia that is also the case. The First Nations Leadership Council, which is comprised of the political executives of the First Nations Summit, the Union of BC Indian Chiefs and the BC Assembly of First Nations, has been optimistic about this process since it was first made public back in the late spring.

In a press release in June of this year, they said that they would welcome an independent body for specific claims that was being proposed and that they were cautiously optimistic regarding the proposals.

That is a good thing and I think we can all be pleased that there is this kind of optimism from the leadership of first nations regarding this process.

The First Nations Leadership Council points out that the specific claims that are being discussed arise from, as it puts it, Canada's breach or non-fulfillment of lawful obligations found in treaties, agreements or statutes, including the Indian Act. It points out that the existing 25 year old federal specific claims policy sets out the process for the resolution of these claims through determination of their validity and subsequent negotiations.

However, we have seen a terrible backlog and a gridlock in that resolution system. Currently there are over 900 specific claims designated as under review by the Government of Canada. It is important to note that almost half of those originate from B.C. first nations. Also, of the more than 300 claims currently at the Department of Justice awaiting legal review, 65% of those originate from B.C. first nations.

Therefore, B.C. first nations have a particular concern for this process. We have seen in reports that have been made, most recently the Senate report that was made in 2006, that B.C. was a particular subject in that report and the uniqueness of British Columbia when it comes to the outstanding specific claims, given that there are so many from British Columbia.

This is something that is of particular importance to first nations in British Columbia and, by the same token, to all people in British Columbia because we are anxious to see the relationship with our first nations restored and these specific claims resolved.

At the time, back in June when this proposal was announced, the leaders of the First Nations Leadership Council made various statements. Chief Shawn Atleo of the BC Assembly of First nations said:

An independent panel on specific claims is long overdue. Given this body will possess the necessary mandate with full decision-making authority and an appropriate level of financial and human resources, we expect they ensure that specific claims are fairly considered and equitably resolved in a timely manner.

That was a very important statement of support for this process that came from Chief Atleo.

Grand chief, Stewart Phillip, the president of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs, had this to say about the proposal. He said:

The Government of Canada acting as both the judge and jury in the specific claims process has been in a clear conflict of interest. Removing this conflict through the creation of an independent body will ensure that we do not have to wait ninety years to resolve the existing backlog of claims. Furthermore, an effective Specific Claims Policy must be fully committed to addressing, and not side-stepping, all types of claims regardless of size and scope.

While showing his interest in this proposal, Grand Chief Phillip also raised some challenges to the process and some issues that he hoped to see addressed by the legislation and, hopefully, if they are lacking, we can address those when this legislation is before the committee.

Back in June, grand chief, Edward John, political executive of the First Nations Summit, said:

We fully support the recommendations of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples. In particular, we fully agree with the recommendation that First Nations need to be “full partners” with the Government of Canada in the development of legislation and policy to ensure that Canada meets its lawful obligations to First Nations in the resolution of specific claims.

Again, that reiterates a point I made at the beginning of my speech about the importance of that kind of consultation going into legislative proposals that are brought before the House. We are glad at least to some extent that kind of consultation did take place on this legislation.

Those were some of the concerns raised by the First Nations Leadership Council in British Columbia. It does indicate its support for the legislation but it has raised some specific concerns. I know that the New Democratic Party's aboriginal affairs critic, the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, will be raising those issues at committee and will be working to ensure that witnesses appear before the committee who can expand on those concerns.

One of the specific concerns that arises is the $150 million cap on the value of claims that can be referred to the tribunal for validation and settlement. One of the concerns about that cap is exactly how it will be determined, how the value of that claim will be calculated. There is a concern about wanting to be consistent and wanting to ensure that it best represents the interests of first nations in calculating that amount.

Another concern that has been raised by the B.C. chiefs is the need for more resources to be dedicated to the research, negotiation and settlement of B.C. specific claims which comprise nearly half the claims in the system and 62% of the claims in the Department of Justice backlog.

We have heard that many times from leaders in the aboriginal community but also from the Senate committee that looked at the situation and wrote a report in 2006 called “Negotiations or Confrontation: It's Canada's Choice”. The Senate committee spent considerable time and effort looking at the question of limited resources in the current process.

These are all things that we would want to avoid in the new process: things like the constant turnover of staff, the ever-increasing backlog, the lack of training that researchers have which often leads to the repetition of historical errors, of frustration and inefficiency in the system. Another one of the resource issues is the inability to have inappropriate information sharing among the parties involved.

Those are some of the specific lack of resource issues that we believe need to be addressed in Bill C-30 and in the regulations and implementation that follows from it. Without appropriate resources to do this work, it will not be done well or it will not be done at all perhaps. This is something we will want to make sure is followed up on.

Concerns have also been expressed by the aboriginal first nations leadership in British Columbia about the exact definition of specific claims. Clearly, that is something that will need to be looked at and resolved because there is no sense having a specific claims tribunal process where there is concern about what the definition of those claims actually is.

I think the first nations of British Columbia also have a number of concerns that they will be raising and it is our intention to ensure that opportunity is provided at the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development when it is looking at this legislation.

Another concern is about the appointment of the tribunal and who serves on the tribunal itself. We want to be sure that first nations are represented in that process of appointment. The resolution of these specific claims should not be solely at Canada's discretion. Canada again cannot be put in the position of being judge and jury on these issues at the same time. We need to ensure the independence of this process, which is the intention of this legislation, but we also need to consider the appointment process of those who sit on the tribunal to ensure they are representative of all the parties, are truly independent and can make the best and most appropriate decisions related to these specific claims. That is something else that we, for our part, will be pursuing in conjunction with first nations at the committee.

I think it is important to point out that we need to make progress on these sorts of legal arrangements to settle specific claims. This mechanism has been too cumbersome, too unproductive, has caused too much tension and too much uncertainty and instability in Canada for far too long. We need to ensure we have an effective process for resolving these issues.

In her speech earlier today, my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan said that we needed to be aware that having the most just process in this case, the most legal process, the best court process that we can have does not necessarily solve the problem of reconciliation between first nations and Canada. We need to ensure we have an early and honourable reconciliation and avoid endless appeals and endless court processes that may not allow us to live together successfully.

Many experts, including many judicial experts and judges themselves, say that reconciliation cannot be dealt with in a courtroom, which is one of the most confrontational settings that we have in our society.

I hope we will also look down the road to reconciliation and how this resolution of specific claims fits into that broader question of reconciliation between Canada and first nations.

We are looking forward to working on many things at committee. One of the other issues that should be reviewed at the aboriginal affairs committee is the political accord that was also signed at the time this legislation was tabled, the political accord that will deal with claims above $150 million. This legislation only deals with claims under $150 million.

Many issues need to be looked at. There are questions about why those claims are outside of any legislative process. Maybe they should have been included in Bill C-30 or other legislation. I think that is very important.

However, we are glad that this agreement was signed between the government and the grand chief of the Assembly of First Nations, but I do have some questions and I think that there needs to be some further discussion of those issues as well.

I hope we can avoid some of the problems that we have seen in the history of our relationship between Canada and first nations. I hope we can avoid some of the problems we have seen with the Conservative government's failure to recognize the Kelowna accord and the transformative change accord that was signed with the first nations of British Columbia, the Government of Canada and the B.C. government at the same time as the Kelowna accord.

We want to ensure those agreement are honoured. We have supported those agreements here. Some of our concern about not honouring those kinds of agreements goes to the whole context of how we resolve other issues between Canada and first nations. A history of failure to live up to agreements, accords and treaties that we have negotiated does not help us resolve the problems that are before us currently.

The New Democratic Party is looking forward to seeing the legislation go to the committee and we too support getting it there. We do not believe in rushing things off to committee without appropriate debate here in the House of Commons because that is part of the legislative process in this place. We will be doing that and we will be taking care to look at all aspects of the legislation as it comes before the House and as it comes before committee.

Sometimes in this place, when we go gangbusters, we miss important issues and make mistakes. We cannot afford to do that. We are looking forward to getting this to committee, hearing from appropriate witnesses and, hopefully, making this the best possible legislation we can to deal with the issue of specific claims.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments. I agree with him that while it appears we are all in agreement in principle, it is important that in this place various views and concerns on a bill get aired, notwithstanding the general level of support for the bill.

The member used the word “reconciliation”, which is a good word to use in the context of the bill, but in my immediate thinking, reconciliation can mean two things. First, it can mean extending reconciliation for past wrongs, whether they involved the improper taking of land or issues related to the residential schools or any number of other issues. Second, it can mean reconciling the difference in views between our first nations, our aboriginal people, and mainstream Canada.

Would my colleague agree with me that there is a very high level of misunderstanding in the general population about treaties, aboriginal history, the depth of aboriginal people's connection to the land and the depth of their culture? The general population, innocently in most cases, does not understand their history, their context or their culture.

Does my colleague agree that through this process of discussion here in this place and further in committee we can help to raise that awareness and hopefully minimize the destructive debate that can sometimes happen when people do not understand the other side?

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure. If we are trying to find the locus of the problem between aboriginal people and Canada, I am not sure that I would locate it in the general public. I would want to put more responsibility on those of us who sit in this place and on our governments. I do not think we have done the job that we should have been doing to make sure that these issues are resolved, that treaties are negotiated and that land claims are settled. I think the responsibility falls on our shoulders and on our governments' shoulders for not having paid appropriate attention to that over the years.

Many ordinary Canadians have a much better relationship with their aboriginal brothers and sisters and neighbours than many of us here in this place. They may be much more experienced about how to live out that kind of relationship appropriately and successfully than has ever been shown in this place.

We should be paying more attention to resolving these issues. I hope that by doing so we can get to the point of reconciliation and respect between the different cultures that are represented in this land between first nations cultures and the cultures of Canada. I think it is possible to do that, but we have lost an incredible amount of time over the years by not giving this issue the high place it deserves and by not dedicating ourselves to that process.

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

Mr. Speaker, the legal processes that aboriginal members and communities have to go through to have a lot of their issues resolved can essentially be seen as somewhat of a Gordian knot. At the very least, it draws finite resources away from the needs of aboriginal communities.

It is absolutely heartbreaking to see the squalor and the destitution that too many aboriginal people live in, essentially without hope. In the worst possible cases, some of them take their own lives in acts of utter desperation.

Looking at this it seems to me that we could do a better job to make sure that those finite resources are not drawn off by the so-called Indian industry, a battery of lawyers that draws resources away from what is required in aboriginal communities.

What does my colleague suggest can be done to re-channel these resources away from the legal framework that is drawing them out with no real benefit to aboriginal members? Second, would his party support the abolishment of the Indian Act?

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we could go a long way to solving some of the problems that the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca talked about by negotiating in good faith and as expeditiously as possible the settlement of treaties and government arrangements for first nations. Those would go some way to addressing the problems and would do so outside the context of the paternalism and the colonialism represented by legislation such as the Indian Act. I think that is what the problems have been caused by for so many generations here in Canada.

We need to ensure that we take a nation to nation approach in our relationships with first nations. We have seen a modest step toward that with the kind of consultation that happened prior to the introduction of Bill C-30. We have seen other examples in some of the new treaties that are coming before us in this place, which have been negotiated in British Columbia. It is not an easy task to negotiate those treaties, but I think it is an important place to put our efforts in to see results. Resolving those issues, resolving specific claims and ensuring the treaties are in place will go a long way to dealing with many of the issues the member mentioned.

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

Mr. Speaker, as a supplemental, if the be-all and the end-all of the answer to these problems is the resolution of land claims, it would seem to me that in those areas where land claims have been resolved, that is, east of the Rockies, then conditions would be demonstrably better for aboriginal members than west of the Rockies, where for the most part they have not.

However, if we look at conditions on and off reserve for aboriginal people we will see that there is very little difference between east and west of the Rockies, which means that the resolution of land claims is not going to have the desired effect of somehow resolving the social and economic challenges that exist on reserve.

Does the member not think that the current governance structures in too many aboriginal communities remove the basic fundamental rights that human beings ought to have in being able to make decisions and hold their leaders to account? Does he not think that fundamental reform in governance structures for aboriginal people within aboriginal communities is absolutely essential for enabling aboriginal people to be the masters of their destiny?

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to make the mistake that has been made too often in the Parliament of Canada and by our governments in making those kinds of decisions on behalf of aboriginal people. First nations are going to make those decisions. They are going to put forward those kinds of proposals. It is not for me to make those kinds of judgments that the hon. member was suggesting might be made.

I think that would be completely inappropriate. It would be continuing the legacy of paternalism and colonialism that we have seen. I, for one, do not want to go down that road. I will take my responsibility as a representative in this place seriously and look at the proposals that come from first nations with regard to governance and with regard to their issues, but I do not think it is my place to decide on their behalf what should be done in those instances.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

We will hear a short question from the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

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

Mr. Speaker, what I asked the hon. member about was who speaks for aboriginal members in reserves such as those that straddle the Canada-U.S. border in Ontario and Quebec, for example, where there is gun-running and trafficking of weapons, drugs and human beings across the border by organized crime gangs that are primarily from the United States.

Who speaks for those aboriginal people who live on those reserves in that kind of environment? The RCMP cannot go into those communities because of so-called downloading responsibilities to aboriginal communities. As a result, the people who live in those communities, the law-abiding aboriginal people, are left in an environment where organized crime is acting in a predacious fashion within their communities. No one speaks for them. No one comes to their assistance. No one is helping them out because of the current structure.

How does the member propose to resolve that?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I asked for a short question. Now I will define how long the answer will be: 28 seconds.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Again, Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is my place to be deciding for those people how to approach those problems. They can do that effectively with their neighbours, with the folks who live near them, with the appropriate agencies and enforcement agencies, and with their own leadership. They can bring those issues forward and deal with them appropriately. I do not think it is up to me to impose a solution--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

It is with regret that I interrupt the member, but his time has expired.

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 second time and referred to a committee.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in the opposition as we participate in debating Bill C-30. It is an important bill, as I mentioned in answer to a question from the member for Burnaby—Douglas, and it appears to have agreement in principle in the House. Clearly, though, there are a number of concerns and hopefully they will be addressed in committee.

However, it is also important to raise some of those concerns in this chamber that we share and that the public has ready access to through transmission.

I represent the northern Ontario riding of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, with its approximately 24 first nations. I am very proud and happy to represent first nations from Manitoulin Island and the north shore of Lake Huron, up through Chapleau and Wawa and near Constance Lake and Hearst.

These are communities that by and large are very well run. In fact, the chief and councillors of one of the band councils have university degrees. This does not fit, sadly, the profile of first nations, which is all too often reported in the media, which by its nature tends to report bad news.

However, the good news is that first nations are successful and can be even more successful. Specific claims based on treaties and other historic precedents need to be resolved not only for the benefit of first nations but for the benefit of all Canadians, their children and grandchildren.

I agree with my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca that settling and improving the specific claims process is not the be-all and end-all. It is part of a mosaic of improvements that need to be made in our relationship with first nations, improvements that were well defined in the Kelowna accord, which sadly will languish until a future government, not a Conservative one, will deal with it.

There are issues around water and housing. There are issues about real human rights in our communities, not the non-consultative matrimonial property process that the government imposed on first nations. Happily, that process has been halted and first nations can do their own consultations and come up with solutions that make sense for them, solutions which they have come up with for generations, for eons of time, in fact.

Essentially the bill would take what is now the Indian Claims Commission and create a new tribunal, which would give it the teeth to make settlements. The commission, notwithstanding all of its good work, did not have the teeth to impose solutions. It could only make recommendations to the government. Of course, the government being a party to the dispute, it really was placed in a very awkward position.

A tribunal having legal authority to resolve disputes will make the process more transparent and fairer. I think of it as being similar to binding arbitration in hockey or baseball, where the parties have a process to come to a resolution more quickly and hopefully more transparently.

I would like to give members and those listening to the transmission an example of how the process in the past has been very unhelpful to first nations. I am thinking of Mississagi First Nation in my riding, a community located roughly midway between Sudbury and Sault Ste. Marie on the north shore of Lake Huron. People wonder why there are claims and why taxpayers are having to pay for the settlement of issues from centuries ago. I ask members to imagine a scenario in this community.

The scenario is that 100 or 150 years ago in that community the agent for the Crown made an arrangement which described a certain tract of land that would be the community's reserve. When the document got to England, it somehow was changed. I will not accuse anybody of changing things on purpose, but court decisions in the last 20 years in this case show that the document was changed. What was rendered as a postage-stamp sized piece of land for this community was in actual fact a much larger piece of land when the law was applied.

There was a lot of concern in the area over what this would mean, but ultimately, the right thing was done. Third parties were properly treated. I am happy to see that the government's press release talks about improving the processing of additions to reserve as a future item of business. The release talks about Bill C-30 and it talks about improving a number of other issues.

I am pleased to see that they plan to improve the processing of additions to reserves because the Mississagi First Nation has been waiting a long time for the land which it was awarded in consultation with the province subsequent to the court ruling. It is waiting for that land to be officially added, or I would say, returned to its reserve. I am hopeful that the cabinet will deal with that fairly soon because all the paperwork has long since been done.

I also had asked my colleague from Burnaby—Douglas about the innocent misunderstanding among the public about aboriginal issues, history and culture. I am not being pejorative at all; I am just pointing out that in general we do not teach in our primary and secondary schools much, if anything, about aboriginal history. I am talking about times past and I hope it is going to get better, but it still is not happening very much. We are not readily exposed to the depth of spirituality and culture in our first nations within our aboriginal people, Métis and Inuit included. I think it is very important.

In the case of a claim, our first nations face what I would refer to as a double jeopardy. On the one side they have faced a slow, ponderous process which typically takes years and years to resolve, and on the other side, through that process they face the misunderstanding in the general population about what is going on.

I would advise the House that sometime in the future I am drafting a bill which will ask the federal government to work with the provinces to promote and help develop a curriculum for primary and secondary schools which will help with the teaching of aboriginal history and culture. I think back to my high school times and I do not recall ever being told anything about aboriginal history in all of my years through primary school and secondary school. I imagine that is the case for all if not most of my colleagues. The bill will deal hopefully with the slow and ponderous part of that double jeopardy.

By the tribunal having an ability to make orders, I think it will stiffen the spines of all participants and on average should help speed up the entire process. In asking a question of one of our Bloc colleagues, I pointed out that in my understanding the provinces are not required to participate in any specific claim which comes before the tribunal. The province can choose to participate and say whatever happens out of the tribunal it will accept at the provincial level, or it can step back, wait for the tribunal process to continue and then deal with the result in whatever fashion is appropriate in the circumstances.

According to my information, a federal settlement in favour of a first nation does not automatically obligate a province should the tribunal determine in a particular case that a settlement should be awarded 80% of the fault, to use that word of the federal government, it is not going to say who the other 20% is. It could be any number of other stakeholders but for sure, and I am hopeful, it would be advantageous to the provinces to see this as potentially a very helpful process because we all want to see these settled.

Too often, the uncertainty over specific claims affects third parties. It affects municipalities that may be situated adjacent to a first nation. It can affect third parties who have land that may be within an area which is subject to a specific claim. The sooner these things can be settled, the sooner clouds of uncertainty can be removed from title that is otherwise put in question.

There is another community, the Wikwemikong Unceded Indian Reserve on Manitoulin Island, which for the longest time has been working on a Point Grondine settlement and an island settlement. I am hopeful that at some point in the not too distant future, should that claim not be resolved in the very near future, this new process will take over and will lead to a speedy resolution one way or the other, not to prejudge the outcome, although my hopes are that for all of Manitoulin and Wikwemikong the settlement be a good one for all.

I want to point out that while we happily receive this legislation, in spite of the track record thus far when it comes to first nations issues, I wish we were listening to some of our Conservative colleagues today on this issue. I think they should be on record as being supportive of this process. They should not leave their comments just to committee. While we want the bill to get to committee and get through on a timely basis, it does need a good airing, because there are such questions as who will decide on which judges will form the core group of the tribunal?

I would hope that our aboriginal communities, the AFN and others, will be consulted on who best understands the issues or who best will be impartial to the outcome so that at the very end of it all people will feel content with the result whichever way a particular decision is made. I am hopeful that the government will include our first nations leadership in its consultation on the appointment of the judges.

I would also want to make sure that this process ensures that research dollars are made available, as they are now but maybe even in a more substantial way to our communities. It will only help speed up the process if these communities, which are typically very small, have the capacity to do the research needed to support their case.

Lest there be any doubt, should a community win its claim, my understanding is that the funds advanced for research will come off the settlement, which may or may not be fair. That is for the stakeholders to decide. Regardless, there is an interest by the general population to see these claims being made completely with all the information available. That requires an ability in the community to do that research, to pull the information together. It cannot be done by a band administrator working by himself or herself with all the other jobs the administrator has. They need the resources to do this and I am very hopeful that the funds will be increased to assist our first nations in this regard.

I am also hopeful that the money to support the tribunal itself will not come out of the settlement funds. I think it would be a responsibility of the government to pay for the tribunal process itself, the salaries, the staffing, the overheads, out of the general revenues of the government, revenues that would logically be assigned to the department, but not out of funds set aside for the settlements themselves. The settlement dollars should be kept aside for that very purpose.

One of my colleagues asked whether the $150 million limit would pose a problem. It may or may not. My understanding is that, on average, settlements are in the neighbourhood of $10 million, give or take a few million. I am hopeful that the funds set aside will satisfy the claims as they come along and as they are settled. If not, the government will necessarily be obligated to increase that budget. That would be the nature of the process, as I understand it.

I would like to take a moment to mention one of the consequences for first nations when these things drag out. It is the concept of loss of use. People may wonder why taxpayers are paying a first nation for some land that they are not going to necessarily get back if that land has been sold off by a province to the federal government. It would be unusual for that land to be given back if it has been sold to third parties. Typically the solution, and this bill calls for a monetary solution to the problem, is there would be a monetary settlement.

If a first nation has not had the use of a tract of land for 150 years or 200 years because it was improperly taken or improperly surveyed or for whatever other reason, the first nation has not had the use of that land for all those decades. That could be loss of access for logging rights or for mineral rights. Others have accessed those minerals or the timber. Others have accessed the land for hunting and sport fishing or even commercial fishing when it comes to water.

There is a concept about the loss of use. Among the many elements to make up a settlement is that loss of use and the fact that over the decades and the hundreds of years the first nation has not had the ability to use that land. In most cases it has lost untold sums of money because resources were taken out from under it.

Some people may say that those things happened a long time ago and why should we be worried about them now. Well in fact, a deal is a deal. A deal was made between a particular first nation and the Crown. That deal was made in good faith at that time. For right or wrong reasons sometimes those deals, and I guess there would never be a good reason for not honouring a deal, but for different reasons, treaties were not honoured. Agreements between a first nation community and the Crown were not honoured.

It is incumbent upon us to reconcile the present with the past in a way that is fair, in a way which recognizes this loss of use, the inability to have access to resources not only for the first nations' own enjoyment, but for their own economic benefit, to help them pay for the services they need in their communities so that the communities have access to animals for food, hunting, fishing or furs. When lands were sold off without their permission and mainstream Canada moved in and urban growth moved in, in many cases that was a loss of use that can never be recovered. It is only fair that if a specific claim is a good claim and it can be proven by the community and looked at honestly and fairly and a settlement should be made, then it should be done on a timely basis for the benefit of all.

I would like to mention that in spite of a lot of news which, sadly, talks about high incarceration rates for our aboriginal people, high diabetes rates, low secondary school success rates, the June 29 day of protest which received a lot of news in some instances, behind all these stories which too often involve negative news, there are many more good news stories.

I would like to talk for a moment about two communities in my riding that are relevant to the claims process, the community of Serpent River First Nation, which is on the north shore of Lake Huron between Sudbury and Sault Ste. Marie, and the city of Elliot Lake. These communities, less than a year ago, after a couple of years of negotiating entered into a memorandum of agreement. They would walk together going forward when it came to sharing the land base. First of all, the land base is the Serpent River First Nation's traditional land base in the Serpent River watershed. They have proof of that going back many millennia when it comes to burial sites and other markings in the earth which demonstrate that they were there long before European contact.

At the same time, the city of Elliot Lake was born out of the huge uranium industry, which started in the mid-1950s. At one time Elliot Lake was the world's uranium capital. This took place in the Serpent River First Nations territorial lands. Instead of fighting over this over the years, they got together, and they are looking forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, in my riding I have a reserve called the Pacheenaht. It is a small reserve, but there is epidemic suicide rates among children, poverty rates are astronomical, unemployment rates are enormous, health care indices are off the track and 70% of the people have fetal alcohol syndrome or fetal alcohol effects.

This happens in a number of other reserves. I want to ask my hon. colleague, who gave a wonderful speech, this. First, what does he believe the Government of Canada should do to allow communities to address those problems? How do we prevent those problems? Does he think that part of the issue is to allow aboriginal people to have access to skills, education and work so they can provide for themselves and their communities, which in turn gives them a sense of self respect and pride?

One of the problems for remote aboriginal communities is the kids cannot get to school very easily. This is a huge problem. Another problem with aboriginal education is the offloading of educational responsibilities to communities, which do not have the capacity to provide for their children. It is creating a problem because the kids will fall through the cracks and they will not have the skills to allow them to be functional, integrated members of a 21st century economy, while still retaining their cultural and linguistic uniqueness.

How should the government work with aboriginal communities to allow them to have the same kinds of opportunities that we have?

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the comments of the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca remind me of a comment a friend of mine made. He was a former chief at Sagamok Anishnawbek First Nation near Massey, Ontario. He is very educated, like many of our first nations leadership. He said that what Canadians had to understand was they did not want to go back to living the way they lived 200 years ago. They wanted to become modern too, but they wanted to retain their land roots, cultural roots and language roots, which is what all cultures want to do. All cultures typically want to modernize, improve the quality of life, have better health outcomes, have better education and have better local economies. We all want that.

I appreciate the hon. member's question. The federal government needs to see its role with first nations as a partnership.

When the first contact was made, it appeared that we took over all the land, at least it looks like that when we step back. It was done in a way that was supposed to have been negotiated each step along the way.

As reserves were being negotiated and European settlement took place outside the reserves, there was a quid pro quo. The Crown offered education, because the leaders of the first nations demanded that in trade, the land for education. They demanded access to health care. They demanded to be part of the country. It was a trade. It was not the Huns arriving and taking over the country. Arrangements were negotiated each step along the way.

It was must be our part now to honour those negotiations, to do the right thing and in partnership. If they have the land base, and each community has a land base to which they are entitled, or the cash in lieu of that land base, they would be more capable of local economic development, having schools in their communities in their own language, should they choose to do so, to have better health outcomes.

First nations people are naturally spiritual people, naturally connected to the earth. We have to recognize that and honour that as an example of going forward.

Our aboriginal population is growing. They are a wonderful resource for our economy as it grows. We need young aboriginal people to be strong participants in the labour force and in our education system to the extent that first nations can meld their cultural language within this big country in a way that allows them to preserve those roots. There is nothing worse than losing one's culture because somebody else made it happen. When we lose those roots, we have lost something forever.

We owe an obligation to look at our first nations, our aboriginal people, as partners in the future of the country, not as adversaries, which has so often been the case.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I have one comment and then a question.

The last point, which I have brought up a number of times in Parliament, is excellent. There is a huge labour shortage not only in western Canada, but across the country. Demographically, the biggest unemployed resource that could fill those available jobs is young aboriginal people. I would certainly appreciate more investment in and concentration on getting those people to fill the jobs for which industry is constantly after us.

This is good news, dealing with the specific claims, which are potential breaches by Canada of existing old treaties. As I mentioned in my speech earlier, does the member also think we should enhance our efforts on comprehensive land claims, which are the big claims and they are backlogged, and self-government initiatives? A lot of first nations and aboriginal people are on the waiting list?

Then there is the implementation of those claims. As members know, the Auditor General has brought some concerns forward. In the north, in particular, we need investment. We need to ensure they are implemented correctly as to exactly what we signed quickly and efficiently and in good faith.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the point of view of my colleague from Yukon. His question reminded me of how often I have met elderly aboriginal men and women who have come home to their communities to retire and who have spent much of their lives working in Toronto, or in construction in Chicago. I think members will find that many first nation aboriginal people have gone away to work in other areas of prosperity in times past.

Somehow there has been a big time gap in that process, for whatever number of reasons we might imagine. My colleague is absolutely right. We not only want our aboriginal youth to get the training they deserve to become complete members of the workforce. We need them to get that education and to become members of the workforce.

I and my colleagues have seen numbers in the forecasts, which indicate that in an array of economic sectors, the shortfall in the labour pool, the number of people able to fill those positions, is vast, in some cases tens of thousands of positions. We not only want our aboriginal people to participate, we need them to participate.

As to the comprehensive claims, just as we need to face head-on the specific claims challenge, it is likewise for comprehensive claims. The better we do this, the more completely we do this, following a timeline that is not only appropriate to us but appropriate to the aboriginal people, the better we will be as a country.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech was excellent. He commented on how treaties changed from the day they were signed until they were transported over and historically recorded.

I will bring up one point, and that is in many of the instances for the remote sites, the people travelling in did not notify the communities that they were settling the sizes on the boundaries and everything else. There would be 18 families in one spot and only six families were located. Therefore, a community that at one time housed 300 to 400 people, now houses 2,700 people. A lot of these claims have come from that, so things have changed.

Negotiation, whether it is on this bill or not, will not succeed without consultation even when the tribunal is working. Unless we consult with the people who are affected on the ground, it will not work. Therefore, we need to ensure we do both.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Kenora, who represents a large number of first nations and who speaks out for them many times in this place, makes a very good point.

Our first nations need to be consulted. The Assembly of First Nations, rightfully so, has spoken as the leadership for first nations across the country. It has put forward, with the government, this proposal. I think if we asked the AFN leadership, it would totally agree that this is just the beginning of discussing this with those to be most affected.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of Bill C-30. From the outset, let me say that the Bloc Québécois will be supporting this bill at this stage, as it will hopefully see first nations claims that have remained unresolved since the 1970s finally be resolved. In addition, we believe that implementing this bill, a collaborative effort involving the first nations among others, will help speed up a settlement.

It is important, however, to put some of our concerns across. That is why we will have every witness necessary appear before the committee, so that our fears and concerns can be addressed. In fact, the Bloc Québécois is the greatest champion of the Quebec nation and also one of the greatest champions of aboriginal nations.

What we are somewhat concerned about in this bill is the fact that a single judge will be able to reach a binding decision on the responsibilities of a third party who may not even have participated in the judgment. That is one of our concerns. Among other things, could a judge unilaterally impose on a third party a responsibility to pay a claim? What will happen to the Government of Canada’s fiduciary responsibility for the first nations, since that is its primary responsibility? We do not want this bill to permit the Government of Canada to evade its fiduciary responsibility for the first nations. Some of the specific claims of the first nations are quite simply Ottawa’s responsibility.

We are very aware of the fact that, for more than 60 years, various House committees have recommended that an independent tribunal should be established to deal with specific claims of the first nations. It is certainly time, therefore, to take a look at it. We have to make sure that this bill is the right approach. We in the Bloc Québécois also think that the accelerated negotiation of specific claims of the first nations, as proposed in the bill, is basically subject to the answers obtained to various questions. This is good news for the first nations.

I should say for the benefit of the people listening to us that the purposes of this bill are, first, to establish an independent tribunal, the specific claims tribunal, second, to bring greater fairness to the way specific claims are handled in Canada, and third, to improve and accelerate the specific claim resolution process.

We know historically that a number of joint and Senate committees have recommended since 1947 that an independent tribunal should be established. The first nations have been asking for this now for more than 60 years. Negotiations will still be the preferred method of resolving issues, but when no agreement can be reached, a tribunal is necessary to solve the problem.

Over the summer of 2007, discussions on related implementation matters took place between federal officials and first nation leaders. These talks were led by a Joint Canada—Assembly of First Nations Task Force, which was announced last July 25. The bill was developed, therefore, through this collaborative process. It should be said, however, that the first nations of Canada set up a committee to work on the bill but no member of the first nations of Quebec was on it. The Government of Canada also met with a number of provinces, including Quebec, to present the bill to them.

At whom is the bill aimed? The claims it addresses are strictly financial, up to a maximum amount of $150 million. The budget is $250 million a year for 10 years. The bill applies only to financial claims, as I said. It does not apply to claims for punitive damages or losses of a cultural or spiritual nature or non-financial compensation. No lands can be awarded under the bill. It can only provide financial compensation. In addition, the claim must be based on events that occurred within the 15 years immediately preceding the date on which the claim was filed. This is meant, of course, as a response to claims that have not been dealt with since 1947.

The land claims deal with past grievances of the first nations. They relate to Canada’s obligations under historic treaties or the way it managed first nation funds or other assets, including reserve land.

I want to reiterate, therefore, that the only purpose of the bill is to provide financial compensation.

Insofar as implementation is concerned, the bill provides for three scenarios in which a first nation could file a specific claim with the tribunal. 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. The second can arise at any stage in the negotiation process if all parties agree. As I said previously, therefore, negotiations are the preferred approach. However, if the parties see that they cannot agree, all or one of them can ask the tribunal to resolve the issue. The third scenario in which the tribunal could be asked to decide is after three years of unsuccessful negotiations or three years without any results. The tribunal could then be asked to deal with the problem.

On the operational level, the tribunal will examine only questions of fact and law to determine whether Canada has a lawful obligation to a first nation. If a claim is deemed valid, the tribunal—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. He will have 14 minutes left to finish his speech when we resume debate on this bill.

The House resumed from December 4 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 second time and referred to a committee.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that can be so important for someone like me who serves a large riding like the riding of Kenora. I would like to acknowledge at the very start that this bill is not new. This idea has been around since the late 1940s, more than six decades. It is something that is needed now to move some of the economic tools forward in northern Ontario and right across Canada.

More recently some of this legislation was proposed by a leader of the Liberal Party in his leadership platform. We recognize the importance of taking this issue forward. There are almost 1,300 claims that have been submitted to Canada since 1973, but just a few over 500 have actually been concluded to date. We need to do much better in this regard. We need to move these forward and give some of the needed tools to the people who live on the land.

This could be a huge benefit to many areas, a huge economic tool which can and will move the communities forward and not just the first nations communities. We cannot forget that aspect of it.

This tribunal would provide an important vehicle in which claims could be settled in a more timely fashion. It is the right thing to do, but more important, we have to do it right. As an example, in my riding there are 41 reserves. Many of those reserves are remote and isolated and many of them have claims that this tribunal may move forward.

We have a large number of claims in the Kenora riding. I will take a moment to explain the history and why some of those have come forward. We have standard, straightforward issues such as surveying in the north. I want to explain how difficult it still is in this day to travel into northern Ontario and other parts of Canada.

When these treaties were signed and claims were made, these remote sites did not receive the proper attention. There are surveying issues and information issues going back over a century. That is why a lot of these claims have come forward, because the discussion and the information on the actual treaties was not what was remembered or noted by the people who actually signed them. Some of the very simple issues and some specific claims can move forward, and then we can get on to the very complex issues.

In one small remote community, fly in only, the community of Wapekeka, Chief Norman Brown is dealing with a very difficult issue. His community has been held stagnant because of a provincial park that was there. For a lot of good reasons the Fawn River Provincial Park was located in northern Ontario. It protects a lot of the environmental concerns and a lot of the unique landscapes in northern Ontario. This provincial park circled the entire community. The community has done everything it can to grow, to move forward. It basically has no land opportunities because it is encircled by the park. There are no economic opportunities. There is very little hope in the community as long as the park is there.

I am not saying that the park will be removed, but through a specific land claim the claim can be moved forward. This would give the community some hope, some actual opportunities to move things forward and to start businesses and take control of its own destiny.

Another issue that is partly settled is the Lac Seul claim. Chief Clifford Bull has had to deal with a very difficult issue for about 20 years. In 1932 a power dam at Ear Falls flooded the community. One of the three communities that existed at the time was notified and the other two were not. People returned to their homes to find that the water had risen by some three to five metres. The only visible parts of the houses were the rooftops. This claim has been going on for a long, long time.

The communities are now actually three separate entities which are totally cut off from each other by water. Frenchman's Head, Whitefish Bay and Kejick Bay are places that something like the specific claims tribunal to make sure that they can resolve some of the long-standing issues.

They have had a bit of a resolution through Ontario Power Generation. They have started the process. They have access to some resources, but we really need to get to the day where all the claims can be dealt with in a timely fashion. There is a limit of $150 million. We are hoping that a lot of these issues in my riding can be dealt with through the specific claims process.

The Kenora riding is large, I believe it is the seventh largest riding in Canada. It sees this as an economic opportunity for every community and again, not just the first nations.

Although this bill is an important step, I still have some concerns, which I will come back to. When it was announced, the former minister of Indian affairs from a Calgary riding travelled to Sioux Lookout in my riding last spring. He spoke at a former residential school site, Pelican Falls. There was a gathering of chiefs from right across northern Ontario. It was a large group.

The message delivered was a very hard sell. Basically they were told, “We made a decision, you are going to live with it, and that is it”. There were no options. The people from the communities and the chiefs who were visiting did not take that message very well. Again, it seemed to be dictating to the communities. The communities were concerned they were not going to be part of the process. Chief Warren White from the community of Whitefish Bay was very upset. He went up to the microphone and made the minister very well aware of that.

The message that was delivered over and over again was that negotiation without consultation is not how they are going to do business. The communities are not prepared to accept that. This is not how to start a process where everyone is working together so they can achieve something, make improvements and actually start to settle some of these claims.

The communities all across northern Ontario and I am sure right across Canada want to be involved. They want the ability to provide input so the process works right. This is their future we are talking about. It is not simply about getting something off the books. This is about how their future is going to be planned out.

I have noticed quite often in my riding and in many rural areas of Canada that the people who actually live there have a lot of the answers. They know the information. These are people from the land and they have traditional memories of some of the treaties. When we talk about setting up legislation and a tribunal, it is very important that we get this right because this is an opportunity for them to improve their lot in Canada.

What do we do with claims from different jurisdictions? I will give an example. Grassy Narrows in my riding has a federal land claims dispute. It has a huge dispute with the provincial government over some logging practices. A lot of this holds back any economic activity.

If given the chance and if the specific claims tribunal works in the proper fashion, we still have to figure out how we are going to draw federal and provincial governments into responding to these claims. Dealing with the provinces is going to be part of the challenge of this. This tribunal is designed to overcome that, but we have to make sure it actually happens.

Grassy Narrows has a long history of difficulty. Some of the disputes, roadblocks and blockades have been in the news far too often. It is simply that people in the communities are trying to achieve what they see as handling their own future and being part of their own destiny.

Going back to the claim for the Grassy Narrows area, this harms some industry opportunities for the Kenora forest products in the area. Ailbe Prendiville has an operation there. One of the few bright spots in northern Ontario is a logging operation that actually is looking to expand. It has the opportunity to provide more jobs in northern Ontario, to provide better jobs and to build a stronger future for a faltering industry in northern Ontario.

I will not go into why the forestry industry is suffering and why it is having the difficulty it does, but there are a couple of operations that are willing to expand in northern Ontario to provide new jobs. These are all being held up by some of the land claims that are in process now. This is what I meant earlier when I talked about this being a huge economic driver that could assist northern Ontario and many other places in Canada. This is something that needs to be done right so that other opportunities can come along.

A community like Kenora has about 16,000 people. Kenora lost the mill. The mill is closed. It is actually being torn down at this point. The day it was closed there were 450 direct jobs lost in Kenora. At one point, there had been more than double that; more than 1,000 people had worked at that facility. This was a huge loss to the forestry sector. We now have a tool before us, the specific land claims tribunal, which could help speed up the process and put some confidence back in to the forestry operations in a couple of specific communities. I see that as extremely positive and an extremely good tool for all communities, not just first nations alone.

There is another opportunity that could be helped by speeding up the claims process. For many who do not know, Red Lake is a huge gold mining area, one of the largest gold mines in North America. The mining aspect is doing very well.

There is a post and beam plant that will employ more than 200 people directly. Its challenge is to get a committed wood supply. It has been working with the province toward that goal. Again, the settlement of some of the claims in this area may free up fibre. It may provide the opportunity for this plant to happen. For something like this to happen in forestry in an area that has been one of the hardest hit in Canada is an extremely bright light for us. We are hoping that day happens and that it will drive a lot of the future for northern Ontario.

My other concern is that first nations will not be given a say in the appointment of the judges to this tribunal. This is characteristic of the government, which has been unwilling to consult and discuss with a lot of the aboriginal leaders in the communities. We know it has made some attempts but this is about consultation with everybody that will be affected.

How will we ensure the tribunal works in its proper fashion? How will we ensure the results are there to benefit the communities, not just one side of it? If the issue of the judges on the tribunal is not clear, if it is not shown to be fair and not shown to be partisan in any way, we need the appointment of the judges to be something in which everyone will have confidence. Everyone will ensure they buy into the process and that it can provide some future for the communities.

I want to go back to why first nations have some doubts that this will actually happen. The present government scrapped the Kelowna accord, which would have changed the way it would do business. The specific land claims is a way to change the way we do business but we also need to ensure we get it right.

The Kelowna accord was one of the most comprehensive tools ever negotiated. It would have helped some of the long-standing inequities between first nations and non-first nations people. Again, similar to what the specific claims issue is.

In spite of urging from an overwhelming number of first nations people, the government decided not to implement the Kelowna accord. The government did not listen to first nations and that is my fear with the specific land claims tribunal. If we do not get the buy-in of the people, the people who will be affected by this every day, this will be a problem. There will be no confidence.

The other thing the Kelowna accord would have done is that it would have put confidence back into some of the communities. If we are to get this right, we must ensure the confidence level is there.

Communities like Muskrat Dam, North Spirit Lake and Webequie all talked about a brighter future when confidence would be put back in there. They would be part of the solution. Somebody wanted to know what they thought and what they heard. All these communities have land claims.

Chief Gordon Anderson of Kasabonika Lake saw confidence for new housing for the future. He felt that this would be a very bright opportunity for them. Now that they are able to solve some of these claims, there will be new housing opportunities for the communities. Many of them suffer from chronic overcrowding and chronic problems for which new resources in the community would be a big help.

Chief Titus Tait from Sachigo saw the opportunities for education as most important.

Many of the members in the House would not realize how difficult it is for first nations. The communities I just mentioned are all remote sites. All they have is gravel runways and the people live literally hundreds and hundreds of kilometres from any major centre. Many students have little or no support for education or post-secondary education.

Achieving some of these land claims through the specific land claims tribunal would put those resources in the hands of the communities. It would allow the communities to deal with some of the issues themselves. At this point, all they can do is go to the government with their hands out and questions. Settling some of these claims would give them the opportunity to look at their own students and to give them a brighter future.

Chief Solomon Atlookan from Fort Hope saw confidence coming back into the health care system when we solve some of these claims. I use the word “confidence” over and over again because, since the cancellation of the Kelowna accord, the communities have lacked confidence in the government. This is an opportunity, if we get this right, for the communities to have faith in the tribunal when it is set up. It goes back to ensuring we are all part of the system and the government is listening to everyone who is actually providing information.

All communities want the specific land claims to work but to work for them and not just the government, and that is done through consultation. It is done through listening to the communities; listening to their guidance, their leadership, their elders and the organizations that have made presentations to the government.

They have many issues. There is one thing I think it important for the House to recognize. All the problems and difficulties that we discuss in this House when we talk about the problems faced in modern municipalities, large cities, anywhere in Canada, these first nations communities all have these same issues. However, they have a lot more to add to them. They have remote sites, cultural differences and many have language differences.

All those problems that everyone suffers from and struggles with and how we try to maintain a standard of life in Canada and how we try to improve the standard of life in Canada, all those things are faced by the first nations communities.

If Chief Solomon Atlookan were able to go to the specific claims tribunal and have confidence that it works, it would make things in his community increasingly better. It would provide a quality of life that most Canadians take for granted and it would be something that he could take to his people and say that we are working together, because that is the important part.

However, we have a number of instances before us that show the government does not listen. I will now talk about the water in some of the communities.

Many communities in my riding have water advisories on a regular basis. A lot of these have to do with the issue that the regulations are something they cannot meet coming from a remote site. Technology in the future will clean up some of these issues, technology they will be able to afford when specific land claims actually works and the tribunal is actually in place.

A community in my riding that has been in the news a lot recently is the Pikangikum first nation. The government's approach to problems on first nations when it has been water is that it tends to establish drinking water standards but not the resources for the communities. Again, resources are what is lacking and if the specific claims tribunal works, it is something they will have and they will be able to do themselves.

However, when we establish drinking water standards and do not put resources into the community, we lose the confidence of the community, we lose the ability of the people to actually get the job done, and having unsafe water does not solve any of the health care issues.

The government created an advisory board. The problem I had with the advisory board is that it travelled across Canada and did not bother going to any of the remote sites. It did not go to where the problems were the most prevalent and where the people suffered under some of the long-standing issues. It simply did not go to where it needed to be heard.

Again, it was a government with an idea that seemed to be fine. It was going to go to the people but it did not go to the people right across Canada. It did not go to the remote sites nor did it go to any location in my riding, which has 41 reserves. That is why there is no confidence in that.

The government did not provide any infrastructure funding for the first nations to reach these legislated standards. Again, it was a great idea but the government simply did not move forward with it in a way that was practical and helpful to the communities. Communities still exist on boil water advisories and will for some time. There is no guaranteed safe drinking water, which is unacceptable in Canada right now.

What do we do? We need to ensure the resources are theirs so that they can deal with some of these issues, and specific claims may move it forward in a timely manner.

On the water issue, the government has not consulted a great deal. The government needs to listen if we want this to works. With this important new legislation that I have touched on a number of times, I urge the government to learn from its mistakes and make consultation a priority because there are many different aspects to first nations.

We have different first nations concerns right across Canada and I will try to explain them one by one.

We have the urban aboriginals. People may ask why these people will be affected by the specific land claims. Many of these people are not living on reserve simply because there is no land available, no housing available and no opportunities available. They see the issue as they would be back home. If we are able to solve some of these land claims, these people from right across Canada will be able to go back to some of their home reserves. This is their desire in the end. Therefore, urban aboriginals need to be part of the equation. They must understand the situation and the people on the other side, the government, must understand these people's desires to get back home. This can all be accomplished by using the specific claims tribunal, if it is set up properly, if there is confidence in the judging and in the decisions that are being made and that it will work for the communities.

We have the first nations people who are actually on reserve. These people may be some of the most impacted because they live in small areas designed for populations of 200 to 300 but which now have populations of 2,000.

The issue of the community I mentioned before, Pikangikum, is a very telling example. When the decision was coming, the people actually visited Pikangikum many decades ago when there were about 18 families. Many of them were out in the areas. When the government came to count the people, there were only six families there. A reserve was created that would basically deal with 300 to 500 people, but 2,300 to 2,500 people live on the reserve and many more have moved away.

We have remote end-of-the-road communities that have their own challenges. On top of all that, we have the fly-ins. We have 21 fly-in locations in my riding alone and many more right across Canada. I believe there are close to 90 in Canada right now.

All these first nations need to be heard to ensure there is confidence in the system. They need to be assured that when they put information forward and when they go to the tribunal that the decision rendered will be fair and not a decision that will be rammed down their throat. They want it to be a decision that will allow the municipality to start moving forward. This can work and we need to make it work for their future.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Accordingly, the bill is referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)