Bill C-34 (Historical)

Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement Act

An Act to give effect to the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment gives effect to the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement. It also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement Act

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

moved that Bill C-34, An Act to give effect to the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[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, it is my pleasure to speak today in relation to Bill C-34 which would give effect to the Tsawwassen treaty. It really is a bill to be celebrated.

Archaeological evidence indicates that the Tsawwassen people can trace their roots back thousands of years, demonstrating a rich history in the Vancouver region. Yet, for the last 130 years or more, the lives of their descendants have been dominated by the Indian Act.

This outdated legislation limits their rights. Unfortunately, the first nation and early settlers to the region did not negotiate treaties to clarify their relationship. This created uncertainty about the ownership and management of their lands and natural resources.

In the intervening years, the city and province grew up on and around the lands. Newcomers to the region prospered. But the first nation struggled to remain self-sufficient and keep its culture and language alive.

For the past century Tsawwassen members have not been capitalizing on the economic growth and social development taking place around them.

The legislation before us is a chance to give exceptional new opportunities to the Tsawwassen. It will enable us to achieve a just and reasonable agreement accompanied by full accountability. With this treaty the Tsawwassen First Nation will once again feel at home on its ancestral lands.

After years of hard work at the negotiation table, we have reached a final agreement with the Tsawwassen First Nation and the government of British Columbia to resolve the longstanding issues regarding undefined aboriginal rights and title.

This comprehensive modern day treaty, the first final agreement to be negotiated under the British Columbia treaty process, defines the Tsawwassen First Nation's rights regarding the ownership and management of its lands and resources. It also provides a cash settlement and self-government provisions that give the Tsawwassen law-making authorities over its lands.

Once this final agreement receives Parliament's endorsement, it will give effect for the Tsawwassen people to the constitutional rights of aboriginal people enshrined in section 35 of Canada Act 1982.

These new powers and responsibilities, along with the financial and other resources provided under the treaty, will enable the Tsawwassen people to take control of their affairs and will provide opportunities for them to build a sustainable economy, create jobs and enhance living standards for all their members.

Before I highlight the key elements and many benefits of this legislation, let me first congratulate our important partners who have helped make this possible. I would like to thank Chief Kim Baird, whose vision, perseverance and passion to see justice observed have served her people so well.

I would also like to praise British Columbia Premier Gordon Campbell, and B.C. Minister Mike de Jong, as well as former chief commissioner of the B.C. Treaty Commission and now Lieutenant Governor of B.C., Steven Point, for their steadfast commitment to the negotiations which laid the groundwork for this legislation.

Thanks to the dedication and determination of these leaders, and the long years of hard work on the part of the negotiators for all three parties, we have been able to achieve this honourable settlement. The final agreement reinforces that reconciliation between aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians is best achieved through negotiation rather than through litigation and conflict.

This is truly a historic agreement. It is the first comprehensive treaty set in a major urban setting in Canada, in this case a booming metropolis of nearly two million people. This is also the first ever treaty in British Columbia's Lower Mainland and the first to be brought into effect under the B.C. treaty process.

By virtue of its location in a large Canadian city, this treaty presents a profound opportunity to demonstrate that aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities can work together to achieve mutually beneficial goals.

We already have a clear illustration of the advantages of this new working relationship. Under the legislation, the Tsawwassen First Nation will become a member of metro Vancouver and a Tsawwassen representative will sit as a member of the metro Vancouver regional board.

Thanks to this new era of cooperation, the first nation, municipality and board will now all be able to participate in planning processes that directly affect their respective jurisdictions to ensure that they are in the collective best interests of all.

Let me briefly highlight some of the other key components of this final agreement that demonstrates the benefits of modern treaties for first nations and all Canadians.

The first is the infusion of new resource funds with which the Tsawwassen First Nation could build a stronger economy and society. The agreement would provide a capital transfer of $13.9 million, shared by provincial and federal governments over 10 years, less outstanding negotiation loans, to compensate for the surrender of the first nation's rights to mines and minerals under previously surrendered reserve lands. The Tsawwassen would also receive an additional $2 million for that.

To finance programs and services, it would assume as a result of self-government and to fund ongoing incremental implementation and governance activities, the first nation would receive $2.8 million per year for five years. As part of this agreement, the Tsawwassen First Nation must contribute to the funding of programs and services from its own sources of revenue as its financial successes grow through own-source revenue.

There would be further funding to support startup and transition costs. This money would help to cover such things as operational expenses for ongoing costs for parks, migratory birds and treaty management, and for the preservation of the Tsawwassen First Nation culture, heritage and language.

To provide for a land base, the first nation would receive roughly 724 hectares of treaty settlement land. This includes approximately 290 hectares of former reserve land and 372 hectares of former provincial crown land. The latter allotment involves a transfer of land from the provincial agricultural land reserve. In addition, British Columbia will issue two water lot leases to take care of the water lots.

The Tsawwassen First Nation would also own outright an additional 62 hectares of other land comprised of the Boundary Bay and Fraser River parcels. However, this land will remain under the jurisdiction of the Corporation of Delta. It should be noted that the Highway 17 corridor and Deltaport Way are not part of Tsawwassen lands and will remain provincial land.

To sustain their heritage, Tsawwassen members would have the right to harvest wildlife and migratory birds for food, social and ceremonial purposes within their territory. Given the limited wildlife harvest opportunities and the likelihood of even fewer in the future, the federal and British Columbia governments will provide the first nation with $50,000 to establish a wildlife fund.

The Tsawwassen people would have the right to harvest fish and aquatic plants for food, social and ceremonial purposes, and this is of particular importance to them. This is always subject to conservation, public health and public safety considerations. These activities will be confined to designated areas known as the Tsawwassen fishing area and the Tsawwassen intertidal bivalve fishing area.

In addition, the final agreement provides treaty allocations for domestic purposes of several species of salmon based on annual abundance. The catch limits will be determined by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans every year. A separate harvest agreement provides for fishing licenses to be issued for a specified commercial catch for several salmon species in the Fraser River as well as up to five commercial crab licences.

Hon. members may be aware of a recent decision from the Supreme Court of British Columbia wherein the court ruled that the Lax Kw'Alaams First Nation did not have an aboriginal right to harvest fish for commercial purposes.

The Tsawwassen treaty does not provide any commercial fishing rights. Any commercial licences issued to Tsawwassen are outside the treaty under its harvest agreement and will be under the same rules as all other commercial fishers in the fishing area are subject to.

When the commercial fleet is subject to closure on the Fraser, so are the Tsawwassen's commercial vessels. I would like to also add that the Tsawwassen commercial fishing capacity will be provided by licenses being retired from the existing fleet and does not increase the present commercial pressure when stocks are available.

As much as this legislation is about reconciling the past, it is equally about building a brighter future. Once the bill is implemented, the Tsawwassen First Nation will become self-governing, able to assert its independence, and will have additional tools and resources that provide opportunities to become self-sufficient.

The first nation will make its own decisions on matters related to the preservation of its culture, the exercise of its treaty rights, and the operation of its government. These are keys to increased prosperity.

Economic development and social progress depend on first nations taking the lead in determining their destiny, identifying and implementing solutions to their challenges, and seizing opportunities that benefit their members and our country as a whole.

The legislation requires that the Tsawwassen First Nation have a constitution that provides for a government that is democratically and financially accountable to its citizens. Each member of the Tsawwassen legislature will be elected to their position from within the community of members. This democratic aboriginal government will be recognized as a local government, compatible with other local governments in Canada.

Bill C-34 would also ensure that residents on Tsawwassen lands who are not members will be able to participate in the decision making process. These residents will have an input on any activities that significantly affect them, including tax matters, through Tsawwassen institutions such as school or health boards.

Non-members will be able to vote in and stand for election as a member or select a representative of a Tsawwassen institution. They will have the same rights of appeal as community members. Negotiators for the parties are continuing an ongoing dialogue with the non-member resident leaseholders to ensure the orderly transition after the effective date for all matters pertaining to registration of leasehold interests and representation on Tsawwassen First Nation institutions which make decisions which significantly affect those interests. Tsawwassen First Nation has assured its non-member leaseholders that they are a valued asset and has committed to work with them in their mutual interest.

This balanced approach speaks volumes about the give and take involved in these negotiations to ensure the needs and interests of all parties are met under this legislation.

Over the past six years, negotiators participated in over 70 consultations and at least 28 public information events. Extensive consultations were held with Delta and Lower Mainland regional governments, third parties and community interest groups covering a wide range of subjects. As the negotiations unfolded, all sides got something, and gave up something in return. The result is a final settlement that deserves our support and which ultimately benefits everyone.

One of the greatest benefits of this agreement is the certainty it creates, which sets the stage for increased prosperity for the Tsawwassen people and their metro Vancouver neighbours. Now that it is clear how the first nation and surrounding communities will coexist, there will be an incentive for investors to explore opportunities for economic growth in partnership with the Tsawwassen First Nation.

Taken together with new governance tools and financial resources provided under this act, the first nation will be able to improve the education and health of its people, build houses, create jobs and encourage members who have left the reserve to come back to build a better future together. That is in the best interests of all parties to this agreement. Everyone is stronger when each and every member of society is able to achieve his or her potential and contribute his or her talents to his or her community and our country.

Ultimately, the Tsawwassen treaty is fair to all Canadians. It brings certainty and finality with respect to the Tsawwassen's rights and title. It provides new tools and resources that will increase economic opportunity for the first nation and the entire region. It establishes new government to government relationships that respect the rights and responsibilities of all jurisdictions. It clearly demonstrates the Government of Canada's commitment to complete the unfinished business of settling treaties with first nations in British Columbia.

Much more than jurisdictional considerations, legal definitions or sums on a balance sheet, this final agreement is fundamentally about building a new relationship between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people. It is a relationship built on mutual respect, understanding and the protection of the rights of all citizens, a strong and equitable relationship that will result in a better future for all of us.

I trust I can count on my colleagues' support to pass this worthy legislation. As we do, we will duplicate the success of this treaty and demonstrate that progress is not only possible but inevitable when we work for a common cause.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the parliamentary secretary for his words. He spoke quite eloquently about this issue.

The Tsawwassen First Nation final agreement really is about respect for our native people. It is about equality. It is about fairness. It is about the new relationships we want to have with first nations people. This agreement, I believe being the first one in an urban area, is important. It is a process that was started some years ago but has finally come to a conclusion. I quite agree with my hon. colleague that this agreement is something that needs to have the full support of this House because of what it means for all of us in this country and in terms of our relationship with our first nations people.

The member spoke quite well about the issue that is facing first nations people, but also what this treaty really means for our native population. Perhaps he could take this opportunity to elaborate further. Does he think there is something else that we could do in order to expedite this legislation? It is important that we get it right. It has taken a long time. I am glad that it has come to fruition.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this negotiated treaty settlement with the Tsawwassen First Nation is something that came after a number of years where our government, the British Columbia government and the first nation had to compromise on a number of fronts as the context for this is in an urban area.

This agreement does all the things that need to be accomplished in order to assist the Tsawwassen First Nation, but also to achieve some certainty in this area of British Columbia where no treaties are signed.

It is essential that we begin this process. It is a long road to hoe in light of the fact that the entire province of British Columbia is not covered by treaties, unlike the province I come from where there are a number of treaties that were settled many years ago, due to the foresight of aboriginal leaders and our forefathers and foremothers in that part of our country.

I am glad today to be speaking to this bill. I hope it receives the support of other members in this House.

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

Mr. Speaker, when my turn comes to speak, the New Democrats will be supporting this very important bill.

The question I have for the parliamentary secretary is around overlapping territories. I know how difficult it is to negotiate a treaty. In the case of this particular treaty, there certainly were overlapping territories, largely fishing grounds, but there were other overlapping territories as well, in particular, the Cowichan people, the Penelakut and the Sencoten, which is a coalition of four groups from the Saanich Peninsula.

I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could specifically comment on the process that was used in looking at these overlapping claims. In many cases people want to avoid getting into litigation. It certainly was an issue that was identified in the federal Auditor General's report when she examined the B.C. treaty process. In this context, I wonder if he could comment on how the issues around resolving overlapping claims were examined in the context of this particular treaty.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member has raised an important point. There is quite a cluster and concentration of a number of first nations communities throughout the Lower Mainland and all through British Columbia with historic regard to where their footprint of land was stated. This is a point of debate in some communities.

However, between the two levels of government and the first nation, a number of experts have been employed to ascertain a proper settlement in relation to this specific treaty. We feel quite confident that this piece of legislation will hold up in court.

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

Mr. Speaker, on this issue of competing claims, if the parliamentary secretary looks at chapter 2, clause 49, he will see that there are in fact eight treaty claims to the Tsawwassen territory and two non-treaty claims. If there is any infringement on this Tsawwassen traditional territory, the onus is on the government to compensate Tsawwassen. This could be an expensive process and one that could go on for a long time.

The notion somehow is that this treaty addresses concerns of band members, and most people think of people living on the reserve. The fact of the matter is that in Tsawwassen, over half the band members no longer live on the reserve. In fact, they live in California, Washington state, Oregon, Manitoba, Ontario, and elsewhere in British Columbia. For many of those members, and they are basically new members, their only connection to the Tsawwassen Indian band is that they may have had a grandparent who was a member of the Tsawwassen Indian band. They are in fact one or two generations removed from the reserve.

Does the parliamentary secretary think that it is appropriate, given the nature of this treaty, that Canadians would continue to pay the costs that would be recognized by this treaty to people whose connection to the reserve is tenuous at best? Many of them, as I say, do not even live in this country and, as I am told by many band members, have never set foot on the Tsawwassen reserve.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member has made a number of interventions on this matter and is advocating for his region and continues to have important insights into all matters that face British Columbia, especially the Lower Mainland.

In relation to individuals who have left the community, it is a point worth mentioning by him, although I do take a different perspective on it. Individuals could make an argument, especially individuals from the Tsawwassen First Nation, that in light of their first nation not having a treaty signed with Canada, it became difficult for their people to maintain their way of life on the land and to maintain residency in the area. That might be the counter-argument they would pose.

I think this also speaks to the challenge that we have as a country in light of the fact that British Columbia does not have any treaties signed.

I mentioned earlier that Manitoba was subject to a number of treaties, in fact, the first treaty, Treaty 1, which entered into a relationship with the first nations that inhabited our territory prior to it becoming Manitoba and entering into Canada. These important steps were made throughout our country, but unfortunately, not in British Columbia. This is in part why we are having to deal with this matter in 2008.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary a question on the issue the member raised around band membership.

I am not that familiar with B.C. and its treaty making process. Was it up to the band itself to accept membership? Did people come in under Bill C-34? Could they possibly have been on a registry at the federal government level or did they have band membership status? Was it a decision of the band itself?

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, band membership is an important element of practically all first nations throughout our country. There are a number of ways that bands deal with membership. However, most important, the Tsawwassen First Nation, as it is the subject of our discussion today, continues to deal with membership based on decisions as a community. This is the process that many first nations follow. It is a traditional process where the first nation itself can include members as the community chooses.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am very excited, as I always am, to speak when a new land claim, after many years, comes to Parliament. It is a very exciting time for the Tsawwassen people, who are part of the Coast Salish people, and the people of Delta, Richmond, the people of Vancouver, British Columbia and Canada when one of our ancient historic grievances is resolved. Many countries in the world have land claims with aboriginal people, but Canada is leading the world in innovative solutions with them, like with this agreement. It is following on some of the others that have had such amazing success and are indeed a model for the world. We can only hope that we can hurry up decisions on the backlog of claims so we do not have to deal, on a daily basis, with the symptoms and the problems that come up because we have not dealt with the overall picture.

Therefore, I am delighted to speak today to Bill C-34, An Act to give effect to the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

This is also very exciting, historically, because it is the first land claim in an urban area south of 60°. The first one in Canada was in Whitehorse, Yukon, of which I am very proud. I remember that day, when I signed the agreement. It was a wonderful time.

For those who do not understand why it is even more challenging in an urban area, land claims involve land and providing land as part of the settlement. If one is in an urban area, most of that land is owned by someone, which makes it very difficult. There is competing overlapping interest. Therefore, it is very exciting when everyone can work together.

As the parliamentary secretary said, there was some give and take, which there would have to be when there are all the overlapping interests. To come out with a glorious solution like this is wonderful for everyone concerned.

Therefore, I commend the minister. I am not sure if his support came on the road to Emmaus, but for whatever reason, I commend him for the tremendous agreement he has brought before Parliament.

I have to though condemn the government for such a large break from first reading on December 6, which I will not bring up again if the government gets it through before an election. We certainly should not jeopardize such a wonderful project that could have come to second reading a lot closer to December 6.

The Tsawwassen people, who are part of the Coast Salish, were living in an area that was traditionally a lot of Richmond, Delta and some of the Gulf Islands. Then another culture came in and impinged on that. It would be much better to have a nice peaceful negotiated agreement as to how everyone could live together. In fact, they have the legal right to that from the royal proclamation, stating that it would be their land until an agreement is made with Canada.

Therefore, this is a very exciting day. They traditionally used in the order of something like 280,000 hectares of land, which is massive. As I said, it is a big chunk of Vancouver, but in this agreement they have certain rights in that area, but the land transferred to them is a tiny amount of 724 hectares, as well as a tiny financial contribution of $10.4 million.

We have had many debates in this Parliament about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and when it does or does not does not apply to aboriginal people, that it is not fair when it does not apply and so on. Those people who are concerned about this will be very happy to know that, as in other modern treaties, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms will apply to the people of Tsawwassen.

What is very exciting for some people, and my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca keeps raising this, is the Indian Act will no longer apply.

It is lovely any time we can have people go back to governing themselves and not under the Indian Act, with the exception of determining who is a status Indian and who gets certain benefits from Canada. As they define their membership, they will have rights. The courts have already decided this, so it is not for us to say.

The members, wherever they are, will have their rights as a member. There are a lot of Canadians living in Lebanon. We saved them by ship one time because of the recent catastrophes. Wherever people go, they do not lose their Canadian citizenship and their rights. Tsawwassen people, if they travel or live somewhere else, will not loose their rights of membership.

The self-government provisions are constitutionally protected as well as the land claim, which is also another huge step forward in the progress. If we get a new government that does not like the idea, it cannot throw the government out. We could not throw out the government of Ontario or the government of Quebec at a moment's notice because some government came in that did not like them. For this reason, it is a constitutionally protected government.

Now that they are a government, they have to be responsible to their citizens. They have to therefore have a constitution and that constitution has to show that it is a democratic constitution, democratically responsible to the citizens and financially responsible to their citizens.

There is always the question of non-Tsawwassen band members living on the land and in the area. Some people would think that they would lose their rights, but that is not the case, just as it was not the case in the Tlicho agreement, which we signed a couple of years ago. Non-member representatives will be on any Tsawwassen First Nation public institution that makes decisions relating to taxation. It cannot be said that there is taxation without representation. If they decide to continue living there, they have that representation.

As has always been an aboriginal right, the Tsawwassen people will be allowed to continue to harvest wildlife and migratory birds for food, social and ceremonial reasons. They can also harvest fish and aquatic plants, which is big for a first nations that is on the ocean.

There are some controls on the fishing, which people would think are reasonable. They can be controlled if conservation becomes a problem, or if there is a problem with public health or safety. It is in a distinct limited area related to their claim. Not only that, unlike some aboriginal rights in harvesting, there are allocations for certain species related to conservation, and that is the chum, the sockeye, the chinook and the pink salmon. These are traditional aboriginal rights under section 35 of harvesting food. I think Canadians pretty well understand that this has been occurring for a long time.

However, there is also a commercial fishing aspect in this claim. it. The parliamentary secretary made it quite clear that there was no section 35 right in the claim related to commercial fishing. It has nothing to do with it. In fact, a court case recently stated that there could not be one. Commercial fishing is not even in the claim itself. It is in a side agreement and it is related to commercial fishing licences. They are given out as other licences expire, so they do not increase the pressure on the fish. In fact, there is even a percentage of catches of certain species. They are just like any other licences and agreements. It is not an aboriginal right. If the fisheries is open for two days, then they can go out for the two days, just like anyone else. If the fishery is closed for, the year they cannot go out, just like other fishing boats.

I would also like to talk about how the Tsawwassen First Nation fits in with governance. When there are four orders of government in Canada, first nations, federal, provincial, territorial and municipal, people have to work together. There are certain things in common, such as shared service agreements. In this case, Tsawwassen is in the greater Vancouver regional district, which was involved in this negotiated settlement.

The Tsawwassen First Nation will appoint a director in that district. The people in the district will be delighted. The new government will pay a share of the planning in the GVRD. It will pay costs toward air quality initiatives encompassing the whole area, costs for serving 9/11, as well as some costs toward regional parks and governments. People in the whole greater Vancouver regional district, not just the in the tiny land claims spit, will accrue benefits from this new cooperation.

The financial package is roughly $13.9 million. That is spread over 10 years. It is a very small amount of money and, in fact, the first nation will not receive all of it. It has to pay back close to $4 million, the amount it used to negotiate the claim.

I now want to go on to some of the financial provisions of the agreement so people understand the major, salient points in that respect. Once there is a government, just like the government of Ontario or the government of Yukon, money is needed to run that government. Some of that money comes from taxes and some from other orders of government. That will be no different here.

In order for Tsawwassen to run its government, it will make some revenues on its own, like every other government, but to the extent that it does not, it will get help from other governments, in this case the signatories to the agreement, being the Government of Canada and the Government of British Columbia. It will be provided with a fiscal financing agreement, which will be renegotiated every five years.

It will start out with $15.8 million and then $2.8 million per year of ongoing funding. People who have been involved in government, at any level, know it will not be easy to run a government with only $2.8 million a year, but it is for the types of services it has to provide. As I said, it will have a number of its own source revenues.

This represents a fundamental change in the fiscal relationship between the federal government and the Tsawwassen First Nation. Tsawwassen First Nation will have to raise funds and be accountable to other governments for the funds it gets. In particular, it has to be accountable to its own people for the way it spends the funds and delivers the services.

It will contribute to the funding of agreed upon programs and services from its own source revenues, and I will talk about some of those later. Although this is a very tiny segment of land, it is in a valuable urban centre and there will be some areas where it can make revenues to contribute to the programs. Therefore, it will not have to be totally funded by the government of British Columbia and the Government of Canada.

Something else that a lot of people would not be aware of is that the Indian Act tax exemption for Tsawwassen citizens will be phased out after eight years for transactions like sales. Right now they are tax exempt when they buy things. All that will be phased out and they will pay taxes like everyone else after eight years. Other types of taxes will be phased out for 12 years.

The Tsawwassen government, like is the case in other land claims agreements signed recently, will have the ability to levy direct taxes on its members within Tsawwassen lands. The percentages will be levied by other levels of government.

The interests of the broader community are fairly represented. Over the past decade there have been consultations. This has been a decade in the making. We do not create these things without all sorts of consultations. Over the past decade there have been consultations on a wide range of subjects with local and regional governments, third parties and community interests. Since 2002 over 20 public meetings have been held, including public information open houses and open round tables in the communities.

If people are worrying about the harvest agreements I talked about earlier for harvesting fish and wildlife, I would note that these are not exclusive. Other first nations and the general public may hunt and fish there as they do now on provincial Crown land.

This agreement was heartily endorsed. It is exciting in the sense that there is a much greater buy-in, so they must have done a great communication job with people and explained the understanding, because it is of course very difficult to change at any time, and to make a major change like this is a huge challenge.

There was a huge majority. Something in the order of 80% of the people voted in favour of this agreement. There is always a higher threshold than just the simple vote. Looking at the polls right now in Canada, there is not a party in the House that could form a government with more than 30% or so. To have 80% approve of this deal is very exciting and bodes well for the future.

Of course there will be evolving relationships. With a new government, there are all sorts of challenges, but there are even more opportunities as they become these major contributors to the economy, to governance in the GVRD, to working with and helping their neighbours and to providing opportunities in economic development in the area.

What is so exciting about this is that I come from an area where this has occurred. Land claims in Yukon have been some of the first and most innovative in the country and 11 of our 14 first nations have signed such agreements. It is a success story. The difference is like night and day when people once again are in charge of their own destiny.

They successfully governed themselves for thousands of years and had their own system and cultures. Now they can return, in a modern environment, to being responsible for their own government, with decision-making in their own hands, and to dealing with social problems in social and political systems they design themselves.

The systems may not match ours, but they do not have to match ours to be successful. They will have systems where they are accountable, but to themselves, systems that they design themselves, just like governments around the world from the smallest villages and towns to the great nations of the world.

In my riding where this has occurred, it is like night and day. I remember going around 20 years ago to small band offices. I might not even have found an employee there. There may have been a secretary. That office was there basically just to get calls from officials from Indian Affairs who would tell people what to do.

Now they have full scale professional bureaucracies delivering programs to themselves, dealing with the healing their people need and having to listen every day to the people as the local politicians. It must be one of the hardest jobs in the world being an aboriginal politician, because every day they have people coming into the first nations offices telling them what they would like changed.

It is just a remarkable building of capacity, with remarkable contributions, whether it is in the economy or other areas. One of our success stories owns half of the biggest airline.

This is just a great success story. I want to congratulate the negotiators in the federal government, the Tsawwassen and the B.C. government, the people of Tsawwassen and the Coast Salish people, the federal government and everyone else who brought this great day to this state.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to some of the issues that my friend across the way was raising. Some of them are rather troubling in their inaccuracies. Let me just briefly touch on them.

The member suggested that after the conclusion of the treaty, band members would be paying taxes just like everyone else. That is not the case. I, along with everybody else in this room, pay taxes to the federal government, the provincial governments and municipalities. When this treaty is completed, band members and others, non-band members who live on the reserve, will be paying federal income tax, but they will be paying it to the band, not to the federal government. GST will be going to the band, as will half of the PST.

On the fisheries file, this fisheries is not split up in any kind of even fashion or even a realistic fashion. If the allocation that is given to the Tsawwassen is replicated on the Fraser River, it will require 180% of the existing total allowable catch. There will not even be enough fish for other band members, let alone anybody else, and that is based on a government study that was done by the former Liberal government back in 1993.

The member suggested that the charter applies. I would suggest that he read the treaty. The final agreement states:

The Final Agreement will be a treaty and a land claims agreement within the meaning of sections 25 and 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982....

In other words, the kinds of rights that the rest of us enjoy will not be forthcoming if one is a resident or doing business on that reserve.

The issue that I really want to ask about is this one. In my comments for the parliamentary secretary, I mentioned where these folks live. When we talk about the Tsawwassen Band members, we are talking about a total band membership of 350 people. Only 160 of those 350 live on the reserve. As I said, the rest of them are spread throughout the United States and Canada.

I want to know if Parliament should accord in perpetuity untold millions of dollars in special rights and privileges to persons who are not Canadian citizens, who have no appreciable connection with the Tsawwassen reserve or its long-time residents, and whose children and their children will in future generations have even less of a connection to the reserve. Why should we be doing that?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his great interest. I know he has a huge interest in this file and has studied it, and it is of course very important to the people who live in his area, but unfortunately none of the items he raises are a concern. I will explain.

In the first point he raised, we are both right. In my point, the people have to pay taxes. They are paying income taxes and PST and all of that, just like every other Canadian. If the federal government decides to provide that as own-source revenues to the first nation instead of other money they would have to provide the first nation, that is totally up to the federal government. That happens all the time.

I do not know the exact figures, but in the Yukon government funding, about $700 million of the approximately $900 million is provided as a transfer payment by the federal government. What the people do with those taxes is totally up to them, but the important thing is that they are on a level playing field with all Canadians.

Related to the fishery, as I said, the umbrella is conservation. Conservation overrules these fisheries, both the personal fishery of individuals and also, of course, as it always does, the commercial fishery. Sometimes a commercial fishery is closed completely. In that case, these licences, which are like everyone else's licences--and there are not any more of them because they were from people who were selling or retiring them--will be there.

The third point was about the charter. The charter applies, as I have already said, and it is right in the agreement. If the members come up with a situation, they can do a charter challenge. Unfortunately they will not be able to get the court challenges program to help them, because the government cancelled that program, but it does not mean that they cannot go and do a challenge. The government has a lot of lawyers. It would not put in things that could be challenged easily. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms will apply to everyone in their area.

The member has asked four questions and I have to briefly answer the last one. In regard to where people are living, there are millions of Canadians living all over the world. They do not lose their Canadian status. They do not lose their Canadian pensions. They do not lose their Canadian rights. It is the same for the couple of hundred people who may not at this time be living on the Tsawwassen reserve.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the very good comments on this treaty by the member for Yukon. I have a question about implementation. With the Yukon First Nations, implementation has sometimes been a problem because of the failure of the federal government to actually uphold its end of the agreement.

I believe that the implementation provisions and the dispute resolution provisions in this agreement are quite different from those in the Yukon agreement. Perhaps that will alleviate some of the problems we have seen with the Yukon First Nations in regard to the federal government's failure to move forward. I wonder if the member could talk about the things he thinks are important in terms of implementation and that make sure it moves forward in an expeditious way.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. I will try to be brief because I know there are others who want to ask questions and I would like to give them a chance.

As the member said, the Auditor General has pointed out that a number of claims in the north have not been implemented appropriately and a lot of work needs to be done. There still does. Actually, the biggest issue in my riding is making sure that the fiscal amount is available and that we have had a re-evaluation. I encourage the government to do that. I think it is working on that.

What I would say, though, is that signing the claim is not the end of the journey but the beginning of the journey. Whatever the legal provisions are for implementation, if we do not have governments and people on all sides who agree and believe in the spirit of it and will work to make it work, to make ongoing amendments, to provide the resources to make the system work, it will never work.

The good faith that has taken so long to get something like this together in B.C. has to be a great precursor for that. I know the member will be watching, as I will, in regard to this claim and the other claims that are signed, because the people who have signed claims in Canada are a comparatively small minority group out of the 640 first nations, and they sometimes get left out. They think that once a deal is signed, it is goodbye. They think it is done, and it is not.

We will keep watching and will be trying to make sure that these are all implemented in good faith, with the resources and any changes needed to make them into evolving great new governments.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member would describe for us how the non-members who are still living on Tsawwassen lands would have their rights protected under the treaty. If there is time, perhaps he could shed a little light on what economic benefits will come from this first nation final agreement.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, this is always a worry, but we have had some great examples so far, such as the Tlicho First Nation and the Westbank First Nation. The government has taken care of it in this agreement as well. People who are not first nation members but are there now will have rights. They will have abilities. They will have a lot of input. They can stay comfortably part of that society and not have to move out.

If there are any public boards or any public organizations such a school board, for example, of course they are going to be concerned about it. Maybe they are Chinese and they are concerned about the culture for their children. They are going to have seats allocated. They are going to be able to vote to be on those boards. For any public institutions that have an effect on taxation, they are going to be able to have a representative there. It may not be a majority, but they will have representation, so there will not be taxation without representation.

As people know, the delta around the ferry terminal there is a wonderful area, with all sorts of potential for shipping and economic development, so the government once again will be creating great revenues for itself, both to run itself and to help other people in that greater Vancouver area.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to Bill C-34, An Act to give effect to the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. The Bloc Québécois is in favour of the bill to give effect to this agreement.

We are basing our support on three fundamental principles. First, our party has always embraced the idea of the right to self-government for aboriginal peoples, and this agreement makes that right a reality. If only for this reason, we should support the principle underlying this entire agreement.

Second, a majority of the Tsawwassen—70%— voted in favour of this agreement in a referendum. It would be inappropriate for sovereignists to oppose this.

Third, the agreement is a fine example of self-government.

More generally, the Bloc Québécois is concerned about aboriginal claims for self-government. It acknowledges the aboriginal peoples as distinct peoples with a right to their own cultures, languages, customs and traditions, and a right to decide for themselves what path to take in developing their own identity.

Bill C-34 is the last stepping stone in giving effect to the tripartite agreement between the Tsawwassen, the Government of British Columbia and the Government of Canada.

In view of the nature of the bill giving effect to the final agreement, it seems to us that the role of Parliament is to debate and accept or reject this bill. There is no need for us to amend this bill. It was duly endorsed by the three parties who negotiated it. To amend it would be to patronize it, and that we refuse to support.

We would point out that the Bloc Québécois endorsed the essence of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, the Erasmus-Dussault commission. It set out aboriginal self-government as a level of government with jurisdiction over matters of good government and public well-being. In addition, the report as a whole was based on recognition of aboriginal peoples as autonomous nations occupying a unique place in Canada.

The Bloc Québécois traditionally stands behind aboriginal peoples in their quest for justice and the recognition of their rights. The Bloc Québécois recognizes Quebec's 11 aboriginal nations for what they are: nations. The Bloc Québécois recognizes the aboriginal peoples as distinct peoples who have a right to their cultures, their languages, their customs and their traditions, and a right to decide for themselves what path to take in developing their own identity.

In 1996, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples—the Erasmus-Dussault commission—released a comprehensive report that proposed far-reaching changes over a period of 20 years leading to self-government for aboriginal peoples by respecting their customs, cultures, languages and ancestral institutions. Since then, the Bloc Québécois has pressured the federal government to act on the recommendations made in the Erasmus-Dussault report.

The Bloc Québécois believes that aboriginal peoples must have the tools to develop their own identity, namely the right to self-government and the recognition of their rights.

The Bloc Québécois has for many years recognized aboriginal peoples’ right to self-determination. As far back as 1993, the manifesto of the Forum paritaire québécois-autochtone recognized the right to self-determination as the basis for relations between Quebeckers and aboriginal peoples. In fact, we have recognized this right since the Bloc Québécois was founded.

The Bloc Québécois is of the opinion that there is no universal instrument that protects the rights of indigenous peoples, who continue to be among the poorest and most marginalized people in the world.

Our party understands that the draft declaration represents a compromise between member states and indigenous peoples, but it is an acceptable compromise, and we feel it should be supported. Quebec already has a number of positive agreements with first nations and has everything to gain from the signing of the declaration.

Our party believes that the aboriginal communities in Quebec must have adequate housing, decent public infrastructure and the human and material resources they need to improve social and health conditions.

The Bloc Québécois believes that Ottawa must shoulder its responsibilities and respond to the “10,000 possibilities” project, which is aimed at creating 10,000 jobs, encouraging 10,000 dropouts to return to school and building 10,000 housing units. The project was unveiled by the first nations of Quebec at the forum in Mashteuiatsh.

The Bloc Québécois is also proud to be working with the first nations of Quebec to organize the first day of awareness of the first nations of Quebec, which will take place in the House of Commons on December 10.

The Bloc Québécois believes that, in order to develop harmonious relations with Quebec's aboriginal peoples, we must first listen to them and understand them by taking an interest in their reality, their differences and the challenges they face.

This bill would give effect to the Tsawwassen First Nation final agreement. Once ratified, the treaty will provide a comprehensive and final settlement of the ancestral rights, including title, of the Tsawwassen First Nation. It defines the Tsawwassen First Nation's rights under section 35. It specifies the geographic area where those rights apply and the limitations on those rights set by agreement by Canada, British Columbia and the Tsawwassen First Nation.

The treaty can be amended after it has been ratified, but the three parties—Canada, British Columbia and the Tsawwassen First Nation—must agree on any amendments. Once the treaty is ratified, it cannot be amended unilaterally. “This treaty, the first in the Lower Mainland, abolishes the Indian Act through self-government, not assimilation,” said Chief Kim Baird. “It gives us the tools to build a healthy community and the opportunity to participate fully in the Canadian economy.”

Obviously, because 70% of the community ratified the agreement, we must accept it as presented to the House of Commons, without amendment. Why? It serves as an example for other aboriginal nations, including other nations in Quebec. It is the first modern, urban treaty.

Thus, it is important to the aboriginal communities listening. This agreement is estimated to be worth $120 million, including land worth $66.7 million, $16 million in compensation, and other royalties worth $37 million. The agreement gives them 724 hectares of land. They will have municipal-style self-government, with the ability to levy taxes. The Indian Act will no longer apply to this first nation, except when it comes to designating Indian status.

Tsawwassen First Nation members are Coast Salish people who belong to the Hun’qum’i’num linguistic group. In their language, Tsawwassen means “the land facing the sea.” Historically, they have travelled and fished the waterways of the southern Strait of Georgia and the lower Fraser River. Tsawwassen First Nation has approximately 358 members, about half of whom live on reserve in an area situated on the southern side of the Lower Mainland, between the BC Ferry Terminal and the Deltaport Container Terminal and Roberts Bank Coal Port. The community straddles Highway 17, along the Georgia Strait shore.

The Tsawwassen have a long history that dates back to 2,260 B.C. The occupation of the land has been demonstrated by carbon-14 tests. It has taken some time to regain the autonomy they had back then. This treaty has a lot of history behind it.

In 1791, the Spanish and the British explored the coast. Epidemics killed between 80% and 90% of the Coast Salish population. In 1851, the Tsawwassen territory was split in two when the border was established with the United States. Point Roberts is now in the state of Washington. The first contact with the Catholic church took place when the Saint Charles mission was established in 1860.

In 1871, the reserve was created and by 1874 the reserve had an area of 490 acres. In 1906, a delegation of Salish chiefs travelled to England to claim their ancestral lands. In 1958, the nation's longhouse was torn down to make way for the ferry terminal and the highway. At the same time, the reserve was again cut in two.

In 1993, a formal claim was filed with the province. In 1995, construction of the longhouse began almost 40 years after the first one was destroyed. In 2003, the Tsawwassen First Nation, British Columbia and Canada reached an agreement in principle, which was signed in 2004. On July 25, 2007, 70% of the nation's members voted in favour of the agreement. Debate in the British Columbia legislature began on October 15, 2007. On December 6, 2007, the agreement was signed in Ottawa.

Given that the Tsawwassen nation dates back to 2260 B.C., it has been waiting a long time for self-government.

The general idea of the Tsawwassen First Nation final agreement is to eliminate the uncertainty that has surrounded the ancestral rights of this aboriginal nation to land that it claims as its traditional territory and which covers 279,600 hectares, including the waters of the southern Strait of Georgia.

This agreement will give the Tsawwassen First Nation modern governance tools enabling it to establish solid and viable relations with the federal, provincial and municipal governments and to support an atmosphere of certainty and economic prosperity for the entire Lower Mainland region.

The final agreement covers approximately 724 hectares of treaty settlement land including approximately 290 hectares of the former Indian reserve and 372 hectares of provincial Crown land. Tsawwassen First Nation will also own in fee simple an additional 62 hectares of waterfront land comprised of the Boundary Bay and Fraser River parcels. This land will remain under the jurisdiction of the municipality of Delta, known as the Corporation of Delta.

Tsawwassen First Nation will have the right of refusal for 80 years after the treaty takes effect to purchase approximately 278 hectares of lands north of Tsawwassen lands—known as the Brunswick Point lands—if the people currently leasing these lands choose not to buy them or decide to sell them later.

If Tsawwassen First Nation purchases land within the Brunswick Point lands within 50 years after the effective date of the treaty, these lands may be added to its “treaty settlement lands”.

Following this 50-year period, Tsawwassen First Nation can add land within its territory to its treaty settlement lands, but the federal, provincial and municipal governments must consent to the addition.

Federal and provincial laws, as well as Tsawwassen laws, will apply to Tsawwassen lands. However, the provincial agricultural land reserve designation continues not to apply to the former Indian reserve lands and will apply to about half of the additional former provincial Crown land that will become Tsawwassen lands. The agricultural land reserve designation will apply to the Boundary Bay and Fraser River parcels.

This agreement also has a financial component. It is important that our viewers understand this.

First of all, it includes a capital transfer of approximately $13.9 million over 10 years, less any outstanding negotiation-related loans.

There will also be funding of $15.8 million to support all one-time start-up and transition costs, as well as $2.8 million in funding for programs and services and the incremental implementation of governance activities.

In addition, Canada will pay $2.0 million in consideration of the release by Tsawwassen First Nation of the rights to the mines and minerals under previously-surrendered reserve lands. Furthermore, $100,000 will be paid for forest resources to compensate for the fact that Tsawwassen First Nation will have no access to economic forestry activities in their territory.

As for wildlife, migratory birds and forest resources, this agreement guarantees the right to harvest wildlife and migratory birds for food, social and ceremonial purposes within specified areas, subject to conservation, public health and public safety.

The federal and provincial ministers will retain authority, within their respective jurisdictions, to manage wildlife and migratory birds and their habitats.

Tsawwassen First Nation will manage the designation and documentation of Tsawwassen First Nation hunters.

With respect to fish, under the treaty, Tsawwassen First Nation will have the right to harvest fish and aquatic plants for food, social and ceremonial purposes, subject to conservation, public health and public safety.

The final agreement provides for Tsawwassen First Nation’s treaty allocations of salmon for food, social and ceremonial purposes.

The following quotas would be established under food, social and ceremonial fisheries: 12,000 sockeye, 625 chinook, 500 coho, up to 2,000 chums, and other advantages.

A harvest agreement, separate from the final agreement, provides for economic access to salmon for the Tsawwassen First Nation.

With respect to culture and heritage, Tsawwassen First Nation can make laws to preserve, promote and develop culture and language, conserve and protect heritage resources on its lands, and deal with archaeological materials, sites and ancient human remains.

With respect to governance, with the exception of determining Indian status, after a transition period the Indian Act will no longer apply to Tsawwassen First Nation, its land or members. Instead, constitutionally protected self-government provisions will enable Tsawwassen First Nation to make its own decisions on matters related to the preservation of its culture, the exercise of its treaty rights and the operation of its government.

The final agreement requires Tsawwassen First Nation to have a constitution that provides for government that is democratically and financially accountable to its members.

Tsawwassen First Nation will consult with non-members who are resident on Tsawwassen Lands about decisions that directly and significantly affect them. Tsawwassen First Nation will provide those non-members an opportunity to participate in decision-making processes that significantly affect them.

There will be non-member representation on any government or public institution that makes decisions relating to matters that directly and significantly affect non-members, including taxation. The non-member representative will be selected by non-members and have the ability to participate in discussions and to vote on matters that directly and significantly affect non-members.

As far as taxation is concerned, the government of the Tsawwassen First Nation will have the ability to levy direct taxes on its members within treaty settlement lands, known as Tsawwassen lands.

The tax exemptions for transaction taxes and other taxes under section 87 of the Indian Act will be phased out after 8 and 12 years respectively.

British Columbia will share with Tsawwassen First Nation 50% of provincial income tax and sales tax revenue collected from Tsawwassen First Nation members. British Columbia will share with Tsawwassen First Nation 100% of real property tax collected from anyone residing on Tsawwassen Lands.

In terms of local government relations, the Tsawwassen First Nation will become a member of the Greater Vancouver Regional District and appoint a director to sit on the GVRD board. The Tsawwassen First Nation will pay for core mandatory services, such as air quality, strategic planning, 911, regional parks and general government services.

Tsawwassen First Nation and the Greater Vancouver Water District may enter into a local water services agreement and Tsawwassen First Nation may enter into service agreements with other local governments.

The agreement gives the Tsawwassen the tools to achieve financial independence. The agreement also gives them more power to protect their lifestyle, stimulate economic growth and improve the welfare of their community.

It is for all these reasons that the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-34. Our support sends a message to all of Quebec's aboriginal communities that may want to achieve self-government. They can always count on the Bloc Québécois's support.

What is happening with the Tsawwassen nation is easy to understand. Its land, which is now defined and belongs to them, will be governed as a municipality. It will be able to levy taxes and have a seat on regional organizations.

For example, a community in Quebec that wants to be part of a similar agreement could be considered as a municipality, which would allow it to sit on the board of the regional county municipality.

I am thinking of the Papineau regional county municipality in particular, where I was reeve for a number of years—some might say too many years. If by chance a reserve located in that region had had a style of governance like the one suggested in this agreement, then the reserve would have had a representative at the table of elected members, the council of mayors of the Papineau RCM. The representative could have taken part in the debates and benefited from the available programs to which this community could have belonged. That is just an example, of course.

The Bloc Québécois fully supports this agreement. Again, we will not accept any amendment since this agreement was accepted without change by 70% of the community. We therefore expect there to be no change and for Bill C-34 to incorporate this agreement exactly as it was adopted by the people and representatives of the Tsawwassen community.

This example could be used by other aboriginal communities we support.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

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 Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, Saint-Hubert Airport; the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, Aboriginal Affairs; the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Post-secondary Education.

Questions and comments. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention by the member from the Bloc Québécois. As he has just stated once again, his party will be supporting this agreement and, of course, honouring the community's ratification vote.

This agreement is going to provide considerable economic enhancement to the Tsawwassen First Nation by allowing it to take part in the opportunities in the region. It will also allow us to move forward as a country by settling some of these outstanding treaties.

I would like to ask the member whether or not he believes that this process has been helpful for the Tsawwassen agreement as he has read this document? Does he feel that this first step is going to provide further agreements in British Columbia.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope so. However, we must recognize that this is an agreement covering land in an urban setting. We hope that the same objectives will be attained with the same determination and the same effort in rural areas. Territories are much larger, of course, in regions outside urban centres.

However, it does set an example for other communities, including the 11 aboriginal communities in Quebec. We hope they will be able to analyze the agreement and choose to participate in or to initiate discussions on this type of agreement. We hope that this agreement will lead to others for aboriginal nations in Quebec and also in the rest of Canada.

I hope that the government will realize that this agreement applies to land in an urban area and that the discussions, pitfalls and problems in rural areas will be different. Nevertheless, it is a step in the right direction.

I repeat that we must ratify this agreement as submitted and without amendment. We will do so. It bodes well for the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the member's comments. He did have his facts straight. The interpretation of them may not have been as good, but at least the facts were straight.

The member mentioned that 67% of the folks there voted in favour of the treaty. I just want to remind him that out of 350 members, only 160 actually live on the reserve. The vote was largely carried by people who live elsewhere in Canada and in the United States.

The other point I want to make is in regard to the issue of land. The member mentioned land value and there are a couple of points I would like to make about that.

That land was essentially a salt marsh until farmers went in and diked it, and started to cultivate it. That land was not of much use to anybody. I know that the member was quoting the government when he said that the value of the land was about $67 million. That is a long way off the real value of the land.

We are talking about 1,700 acres, I believe, that are being transferred to the Tsawwassen. When the government first acknowledged the treaty, it gave the treaty a total value of $70 million. At that time I went to the real estate authorities to check the value of farmland for half of that 1,700 acres. I put an industrial value on the other land that is going to be transferred into the port. I lowballed the value of both the industrial land and the farmland and came up with the figure of $250 million for the land alone.

There is a strong NDP supporter back home who sat in the Barrett government in the seventies and has been a Richmond councillor for over 30 years. In fact, the community of Steveston is named after his family. He said “[The member for Delta--Richmond East] has got it all wrong”. He said the real value of that land is at least $500 million.

We have been somewhat misled. We somehow think that this is going to turn out great for everybody. But remember, I said 500 acres are going to be industrialized. A rail line from the port is going in to that land. There is going to be container storage to service the port and warehousing.

The key question here is: Would that member want to live adjacent to that kind of industrial area? If anyone anywhere else in North America or the western world is living that close to an industrial area that is servicing a port, they are living in a slum. A minority number of Tsawwassen band members are going to be living next to an industrial area in an area that anywhere else in the western world would be called a slum. Is the member in favour of that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I should point out to my colleague that there was in fact an agreement arrived at through negotiations with the provincial government, in this case British Columbia.

It was voted on by the community. Obviously, I hope that the main concern was for the people living in the community as opposed to those, as he said, who were in the United States. The Government of Canada took part in the negotiations, and I hope it acted in good faith.

As for the value, it depends on what the land will be used for. If we leave it to developers, it could be worth $500 million. The nation probably wants to use the land for another purpose, and so the value could change. For example, agricultural land in Quebec is worth less than land in an industrial area. However, we have to be able to protect land and have a vision for the future. I hope that this is what guided the British Columbia government, the aboriginal representatives and the Government of Canada.

Everyone accepted this agreement. Who am I to challenge the value or anything else? As I explained, the nation voted and almost 70% of the citizens were in favour. That is enough for us. Who are we to question this agreement, which is now accepted by these citizens who form an independent nation, who have their own independent government, and who want to be in charge of their own development? I have confidence in them. I realized that they have been wanting this outcome for years, and all the better if they have it in 2008. I will not be the one to stand in the way. On the contrary, I want to make it easier for this agreement to be implemented. They have waited far too long for this.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Simcoe North for a short question.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is aware that the Tsawwassen First Nation has been really without a substantive land base for many years. This is because treaties, of course, in B.C. have not been signed. Is this not in fact a good first step in moving us in the right direction?

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

Mr. Speaker, yes, because, once again, more than 70% of the nation was in favour of it, and the province agreed. So, in my opinion, the federal government should ratify this agreement. It is a step in the right direction. I hope that this will be used as an example for other aboriginal nations, including those in Quebec.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak to Bill C-34, An Act to give effect to the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. New Democrats will be supporting this very important piece of legislation.

This piece of legislation is the culmination of many years of negotiation. As other members of the House have pointed out, this is not the end of the road. I would say it is actually the beginning of the road.

This agreement will provide some economic certainty to the Tsawwassen people and to the surrounding community. It will promote autonomy for Tsawwassen. It will also provide compensation.

As we well know, this final agreement covers everything from the use of the land through to parks, migratory birds, taxation, eligibility, enrolment, dispute resolution, and so on. It is a comprehensive agreement.

I would offer congratulations to Chief Kim Baird and the Tsawwassen people for their patience, courage, wisdom and their ability to continue to stay at a very difficult process. It is important that we recognize the historical context around these kinds of agreements.

British Columbia has a very long and sad history in not moving forward on agreements. The Tsawwassen First Nation has a history of determined people. It is a lengthy history, and I am not going to go through every step of it, but it goes back to 10000 BC where there is evidence of aboriginal civilizations in North America. There were hundreds of thousands of people living in North America at that time.

I am going to skip ahead several thousand years to 1865. At that time the Tsawwassen chief wrote a letter to the colonial lands department asking for land to be set aside for the people of Tsawwassen First Nation.

Other members of the House talked about it being unfortunate that the Tsawwassen First Nation had not signed an agreement. There was certainly no lack of effort on the first nation's part. We can see the history going back to 1865 asking for an agreement. In 1866 there was new legislation that prohibited land pre-emption by Indians. The size of the reserves were actually reduced, allowing only 10 acres per Indian family on new reserves, and that was further eroded over the years. In 1871 Indian people were not allowed to fish commercially. In 1872 the right to vote in B.C. elections was withdrawn from Indians. In 1894 federal regulations restricted Indian fishing devices, and permission was required to fish food. Of course throughout this sorry time many of the cultural practices were taken away, including the potlatch.

This brings me to 1920 when Arthur Meighen as superintendent-general of Indian affairs introduced and Parliament passed a bill authorizing land cut-offs without Indian consent. Simultaneously, officials conducted a wave of potlatch arrests and some chiefs were convicted and jailed.

In 1927 the Indian Act prohibited raising money or hiring lawyers to pursue land claims. This stayed in place until 1951. When people talk about the fact that there was a failure to sign land claim agreements it was very difficult to do it when people actually were not allowed to hire lawyers to pursue their agreement.

In 1956 the Tsawwassen bluff lands were sold to a developer. In 1959 the George Massey tunnel was opened. Some of this will not be familiar to people who are not from British Columbia, but these are significant events in British Columbia.

In 1960 construction on the Tsawwassen ferry causeway began. The Tsawwassen First Nation's traditional long house was torn down to make way for Highway 17. In 1976 there was an agreement between Delta and Indian and Northern Affairs to provide the Tsawwassen First Nation water for domestic purposes only. The Tsawwassen First Nations pay for it by the metre, which is twice the cost of what Delta residents pay.

Finally in 1993 the Tsawwassen First Nation filed its statement of intent with the B.C. Treaty Commission meaning that the Tsawwassen First Nation was ready to negotiate a treaty.

We can see that over a lengthy period of time, right after right was taken away from the Tsawwassen First Nation. I want to bring it into the present day so we can see what this erosion of rights and access to the economic benefits and the resources of the land has resulted in.

This is a quote from the Tsawwassen First Nation about who they are:

Our population is young and growing fast. We number 328 today; 168 live on our reserve. About 60 per cent of TFN people are under 25 years old, compared with neighbouring Delta, where 36 per cent are under 25 years old.

On our reserve, the average family income is $20,065, compared to Delta, at $67,844. Sadly, about 40 per cent of our people are on welfare or some other form of social assistance. Our unemployment rate is 38 per cent, compared with neighbouring Delta at 7.4 per cent. Our high school graduation rate is 47 per cent; Delta’s is 77 per cent.

Members can see the sad state that this continuous erosion of access to the benefits of a very rich and bountiful land resulted in the kind of poverty that we see on Tsawwassen and many other reserves in British Columbia and throughout Canada.

I want to turn for a minute to the speech that Chief Kim Baird made in the provincial legislature, which is titled “Making History, Tsawwassen First Nation, First Urban Treaty in Modern-Day British Columbia”. I am going to quote from a couple of different parts in her speech because Chief Kim Baird's words are very powerful. They are the words that should be read into the record in this House because they are the words that come from the people.

She was addressing the legislature. The rules are quite different in the provincial legislature. She was able to be in the legislature and address the members of that House. It is unfortunate that our rules here do not allow that. That is why it is important that I read some of her words into the record. She said:

For the Tsawwassen people, this is a time of great hope and optimism--a challenging, yet exciting time. It is a time for revival and renewal. It is a time when we will take back our rightful place as a community, equal to others, through our treaty.

I say “take back our rightful place” because we have a long and proud history that predates the birth of this province. For thousands of years, we used and occupied a large territory that was abundant in fish, shellfish, wildlife and other resources

I do not have time to read the entire speech so I am going to skip through it. Further on, she talked about some of the challenges her people had to face before they got to this historic moment of signing the treaty. She said:

We can’t underestimate the impact European contact has had on our communities. Over the past century our lives were much diminished by newcomers who first took our labour for furs and fish, but then later took our lands and resources, and considered us a nuisance when our labour was no longer desired. Residential schools forever changed the face of our communities due to the apprehension of our children and discouragement of our culture and language. These impacts will face us for many more generations and as a mother of two small children, I cannot tell you how distressed I feel when I think of what happened to our ancestors.

One of the things that she talked about in this speech is the language. In these agreements there is a provision for when the Tsawwassen people want to have documents in the Hun'qum'i'num language. That is a very positive step because that is one effort in terms of revitalizing and keeping the language healthy. She went on to say:

...tools of land title and other rights of newcomers were mapped over our territories--effectively erasing our presence and marginalizing us to the fringes of our territory, and broader society.

She went on to say:

Critics choose to ignore Tsawwassen's history of being victims of industrial and urban development to the benefit of everyone but us. The naysayers do not seem to care that they are calling for the continued exclusion of Tsawwassen from opportunities everyone else has enjoyed.

In her conclusion, she said:

Our treaty is the right fit for our nation. More land, cash and resources provide us the opportunity to create a healthy and viable community, free from the constraints of the Indian Act. We now have the tools to operate as a self-governing nation, for the first time in 131 years since the first Indian Act was introduced.

The Tsawwassen treaty, clause by clause, emphasizes self-reliance, personal responsibility and modern education. It allows us to pursue meaningful employment from the resources of our own territory for our own people. Or in other words, a quality of life comparable to other British Columbians.

Surely, that is a goal we would wish for our own children and grandchildren, and it is certainly a goal that should be honoured for the Tsawwassen people.

This agreement has not been without challenges. The leader of the opposition in British Columbia, Carole James, addressed part of that in her speech in the legislature. I want to quote from her speech because this is an important context, as well. She said:

Another challenging issue that we hear a great deal about is the issue of overlap. All B.C. first nations have competing claims to lands in their traditional territories. One first nation might have used a river valley for one purpose; another may have used it for entirely different ends. One may have hunted it; one may have fished its waters. To successfully conclude treaties, both nations' interests must be addressed.

There's nothing new in any of this. All treaties deal with this issue, as did the Yukon land claims settlement, as did the Nisga'a. In fact, the Tsawwassen treaty section on overlapping claims is the same as the text of the Nisga'a agreement. It's interesting to look at the history of other areas that have dealt with first nations claims. In the Yukon, first nations had to resolve their overlapping claims before signing treaties.

In British Columbia that hasn't been resolved, and here's an area where I think improvement could be looked at. This is a situation in which the B.C. Treaty Commission could actually play a much larger role.

When the Treaty Commission was established in 1992, many hoped that it would extend its facilitation activity into the area of mediation. Many governments resisted. However, I think the issue of overlap and overlap areas is a perfect subject for active mediation by the Treaty Commission.

In this particular treaty there are some challenges, and I would say that there are some unresolved issues. In my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan, the Cowichan people, Coast Salish people have had thousands of years of traditional use of some of this territory, the Penelakut people who have been relocated to Kuper Island, the Sencoten, the group from the Saanich Peninsula; there are overlaps with different uses. There certainly does need to be more work done in order to adequately resolve these issues.

In fact, the Auditor General herself pointed that out. In chapter 7 of her 2006 report, on the B.C. treaty process, she talked about the overlaps, but there were a number of other issues that were identified in this report that are very important to talk about in the context of treaties.

The Tsawwassen agreement is a celebration for the Tsawwassen people, but there are many other nations in British Columbia that are not remotely close to this step. In particular, before I talk about the Auditor General's report, I want to talk about the unity protocol.

There are 60 bands that have signed a unity protocol in British Columbia because of the lack of progress on treaties. I am going to quote from a press release of August 2, 2007 from the Globe and Mail regarding what they want:

Specifically, they want governments to end their insistence that all treaties must include the ceding of further aboriginal rights and land claims, an agreement to pay government taxes and a switch of native land ownership to the provincial system of fee simple.

They go on to talk about the fact that this lengthy period of treaty negotiation is resulting in lands being developed from underneath first nations while these negotiations go on and on.

The unity protocol itself highlights six key issues and the Hul'qumi'num Treaty Group's Robert Morales has played a key role in this. The Hul'qumi'num Treaty Group covers the nations from my riding. It includes certainty, constitutional status of treaty lands, governance, co-management throughout traditional territories, fiscal relations, taxation and fisheries.

These are critical issues. Chief Kim Baird said that the Tsawwassen treaty cannot be used as a template, as a cookie cutter for other nations. Other nations have the right to their own self-determination and the right to negotiate their own treaties.

In that context, the Auditor General identified a couple of key problems. One of them was the differing views. She said:

Successful negotiations require that the participants share a common vision of their relationship and of the future. Our two audits found that the participants have differing views on the nature of the treaties being negotiated. For example, the two governments base their participation in the treaty process on their own policies, and do not recognize the Aboriginal rights and title claimed by First Nations. Many First Nations base their participation in the process on the assertion that they have Aboriginal rights under Canada's Constitution and that these rights should be acknowledged before negotiations begin.

Many times the parties to the negotiations are starting from a place that is very far apart. It is little wonder that there is such little progress.

In the same report the Auditor General talked about what was found:

While some treaties are expected to be signed in the near future, most negotiations are either inactive or are making limited progress. Moreover, about 40 percent of First Nations (Indian Act bands) are not participating in the treaty process, and there is a growing number of activities outside the process that are being used to deal with questions related to Aboriginal rights and title.

Although the policy process has been able to respond to some issues raised during negotiations, several other issues remain to be addressed. For example, due to changes in the legal environment, dealing with overlapping claims may make concluding treaties even more complex.

In this kind of context what we see is a long process that is extremely expensive, that has first nations borrowing against their final settlements. What is happening is that they are racking up a debt of thousands and thousands of dollars in order to get to a treaty, and they are really caught in a bind because if they should withdraw from that treaty process, the money that they borrowed becomes due and payable. Therefore, they are forced to stay within a treaty process that may not be working for them and they really do not have any other option.

For nations that have chosen not to get involved in the treaty process, they have a couple of options. They can do nothing and continue to see their lands developed from underneath them and continue not to have access to the resources, and not to develop their economies, or they can litigate, which is hugely expensive and can take years. Often, by the time a decision comes out, again they are in the same situation of having their lands developed from underneath them, or they can enter this treaty process. Either way, it does appear that they are caught between a rock and a hard place.

In conclusion, I believe that it is important that we do celebrate the Tsawwassen people getting the treaty that they have negotiated and voted for. I believe it is important that we celebrate the fact that they will have some self-determination, that they will have access to resources, that we can expect to see their economy grow, and that we can expect to see their children graduate from high school.

It is a long term plan. I believe that band members will be engaged in that process, from everything I have seen, but we need to encourage this government and the provincial government in British Columbia to come to the table in a meaningful way and settle treaties that are going to work for the nation that is involved.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan standing up in this regard. She has sat on the aboriginal affairs committee for a number of years, including the short tenure that I have been there over the last two years. Those two years have been very strong and progressive ones, I believe, for aboriginal people, as we have accomplished many great things at our committee.

I look forward to our committee being able to have the opportunity to go through this important agreement for the Tsawwassen First Nation. I would like to ask her a question in relation to the overall treaty process in British Columbia.

Clearly, this is a process that, unfortunately, had a number of years go by with little accomplishment. However, more recently, we are seeing some progress. I would like to ask her whether she feels that this Tsawwassen final agreement will be representative of potential further agreements being negotiated?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be able to say that the Tsawwassen agreement will mean that other agreements will follow along. Unfortunately, I do not think that is true. Chief Kim Baird herself said that the treaty that was negotiated on behalf of her people was right for her people. It was the right fit. It was the right treaty, in the right place, at the right time.

As I said regarding the unity protocol and the 60 bands that have signed on to the unity protocol, there are many bands in British Columbia that are simply not in that same place.

In fact, with the unity protocol, what they are asking the federal and provincial governments to do is come and work with them at a common table, so that the 60 bands that have signed on to this protocol can be dealt with and some ground rules can be set around negotiations so that they are not being one-upped.

I would encourage the government, with the success on this particular treaty, to go back to the bands that have signed on to the unity protocol and work with them, so that perhaps we can see success in some of these other very complicated treaty areas.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan to elaborate on a point that she made. She talked about the long process that was engaged in to get to this point, that the Tsawwassen First Nation entered into the tripartite B.C. Treaty Commission process in 1993 to negotiate a treaty. Would the hon. member elaborate on this historical piece in which this community has been long seeking a land base of its own?

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

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Churchill is very well aware and has spoken about quite passionately, the road to treaties is a long and onerous one. Once treaties are in place, often the honour of the Crown is not very honourable. The terms and conditions of treaties are often disregarded and first nations land is stolen out from under them.

In the case of Tsawwassen, as I said, although it got into the tripartite process in 1993, it had actually been trying to get a settlement since 1865. There have been generations of people working toward a fair, just and reasonable settlement.

The whole 1993 process resulted because of the lack of movement in British Columbia. Sadly, for many years it was the British Columbia government itself that refused to come to the table, but finally when the New Democrats became government in British Columbia, that process moved and they developed the B.C. Treaty Commission process. That was the initial impetus to see some movement in treaties in British Columbia.

I am sure the House is well aware that there are a number of other treaties that we hope to see come through the House over the next while.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Delta—Richmond East for a short question.

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

Mr. Speaker, the previous member mentioned a land base. I should remind her that the existing land base for the Tsawwassen is roughly 600 acres. The band actually sold off about 70 acres on its own volition in 1950 and after that it developed a stake in properties on long term leases. A land base has not been an issue.

I appreciate the earnestness of the member's comments and it is okay to justify the need for a treaty, but the issue today is to evaluate this particular treaty that is before us. It is a large document. There are over 460 pages in two volumes and there are seven side agreements. She said very little about that. There are a number of issues that I am curious about. Let me ask her two questions.

One has to do with the issue of competing claims. In clause 49, chapter 2, it provides:

If Canada or British Columbia enters into a treaty or a land claims agreement...and that treaty or land claims agreement adversely affects the Section 35 Rights of Tsawwassen First Nation...Canada or British Columbia,...will provide...additional or replacement rights or other appropriate remedies;--

Does she have any idea of the expense and foofaraw that is going to be involved with that kind of an open-ended process? The other question is, does she think--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Order. I am very sorry, but the hon. member does not have time for another question. I had been very precise that I wanted a short question. The clock has now run out. I will pretend that I am not seeing the clock and ask the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan to give a short reply.

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

Mr. Speaker, the issue around competing claims is an enormous one that the B.C. Treaty Commission and the Auditor General have identified as a problem. In the agreement there is a provision where there are overlapping claims. I wish I had a crystal ball to forecast what expenses would be, but there is a provision to deal with it in here and we will have to let this agreement play itself out.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

When the House returns to the study of Bill C-34, there will be three minutes left for the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan and I would hope that the Speaker at that time would recognize again the hon. member for Delta—Richmond East so that he could ask his second question.

The House resumed from May 15 consideration of the motion that Bill C-34, An Act to give effect to the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, on July 25, 2007, less than 200 Tsawwassen Indian Band members participated in the referendum on the terms of its treaty with Canada and British Columbia. A majority of the band approved of the treaty in a vote that was tainted by promises of $15,000 cash payments, free trips and other enticements not permitted by law in any other jurisdiction in Canada.

None of the million or so non-band residents in the area the treaty refers to as Tsawwassen territory, an area stretching from the Gulf Islands to Langley and Maple Ridge, will have an opportunity to vote on their treaty. Equally disturbing, the terms of this agreement were negotiated behind closed doors with next to no meaningful consultation with those most impacted by the treaty and, significantly, no formal direction from either the provincial legislature or the federal Parliament.

There was no careful consideration of the terms of this agreement before the passage of the bill by the B.C. legislature. In fact, there will be no real debate in this House. We will be setting a precedent for a new relationship between our longstanding elected governments and a new order of government created by the treaty, all without serious public discussion or parliamentary debate.

Amazingly, this treaty does not create real opportunities for aboriginal people. It will simply transfer dependency from the federal government to the new band government, but without any safeguards to ensure an equitable distribution of benefits and opportunities.

This treaty will create a company town, where the band government controls or owns virtually all the jobs and resources. This treaty bears little resemblance to the traditional free democratic governing systems by which we govern ourselves and under which a free enterprise economy allows us all to flourish.

Nowhere in this treaty are there provisions for individual rights and initiatives. We will find out too late if the structures created by this treaty will withstand the pressures of corruption, be resilient enough to provide opportunity, and ensure the protection of political and civil rights, all the while coexisting in the larger world where individual rights and a free enterprise economy are at the heart of our democracy.

Once ratified, the treaty settlement will have constitutional status and, as such, will be virtually impossible to change. We will only be able to watch as trial and error exposes the failings of a collectivist model for economic and political rights embodied in this treaty. We all know that such experiments have proved disastrous for the freedoms of people in other countries that have put collectivism ahead of individual rights and initiatives.

Moreover, the lack of serious scrutiny and open public debate about this first of a kind urban treaty, the Tsawwassen settlement, will mean that non-aboriginal people will never be able to ask the serious questions about the value of the trade-offs made to reach this settlement and their long term cost to our way of life and the kind of country we leave our children.

We will not have had the opportunity to consider the disenfranchising of the 500 or more non-Tsawwassen living on the former reserve lands now to be governed by the new Tsawwassen government, a government in which they cannot fully participate. These non-aboriginal residents on reserve lands will no longer have the opportunity to vote for those to whom they pay their municipal taxes.

We will not have had the opportunity to explore the impact on the rights of the million or so non-Tsawwassen band members living in the area designated by the treaty as Tsawwassen territory.

We will not have had the opportunity to consider the overlapping claims from other bands to the area that now forms the Tsawwassen territory.

We will not have had the opportunity to consider the impact on the Fraser River fishery, as this and future treaties largely exclude all persons without treaty rights.

We will not have had the opportunity to consider whether the loss of farmland and wildlife feeding areas will be a tipping point, leading to further destruction of farmland and wildlife.

We will not have had the opportunity to consider if the treaty was more about providing an easy way to expand the Vancouver port, with its road and rail corridor, than providing a just and final settlement of aboriginal claims.

These are some of the fundamental questions that need answers now, questions which our children and grandchildren may answer with some regret generations from now, and they may question where we stood when the mistakes were made.

Some may be surprised to know that as the member of Parliament representing the area most impacted by the treaty, my input was not sought when the treaty was being negotiated, nor has any effort been made to convince me of the worth of the final agreement.

To vote for this treaty would be to do a disservice both to my constituents, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal, and to the people of my province and my country. I will not do that.

While the treaty allocates 1,772 acres to the Tsawwassen Indian Band, the band's rights under the treaty extend over the whole of their claim territory, defined in the treaty as the Tsawwassen territory. The Tsawwassen territory covers some 1,079 square miles and is home to nearly 2 million people.

The territory covers all or parts of 16 B.C. municipalities, stretching from, as I said, the Gulf Islands to Langley and Maple Ridge, including South Vancouver and Pitt Lake. In this vast territory, the band may have considerable say on matters thought the exclusive purview of municipal, provincial or federal governments.

The proposed treaty establishes a recipe for deadlock and confrontation throughout the 16 municipalities that form the Tsawwassen territory. Decisions cannot be made or work initiated on a wide range of federal, provincial and municipal matters until the consultation mandated by the treaty is completed.

There are about 30 different places in the treaty where consultation is necessary.

In the treaty, “consult” means more than merely asking someone's opinion. Its meaning and use in the context of a constitutionally protected Tsawwassen treaty borders on “asking the band's permission” and can conceivably be used as a stick to make demands on other matters long thought settled.

In the memorandum of understanding signed by the Vancouver Port Authority, the band agreed not to raise issues that would derail the environmental assessment of the container port expansion at Roberts Bank. In return, the band got a commitment from the Vancouver Port Authority to fund a container handling facility on agricultural land reserve protected farmland, as well as other concessions.

With the power to require consultation, the band acquires the power to make demands and interfere in matters in which it has no real interest. It is not inconceivable that it might want to block the expansion of a national park or a highway simply as a bargaining chip to get other governments to concede on some matter of importance to the band.

As will be demonstrated, this is a band government that is controlled in part by members living elsewhere who have only a tenuous connection to the reserve residents, a band government that will conceivably be able to block developments in Delta, Richmond, Maple Ridge or even the Gulf Islands.

Who are the beneficiaries of the treaty? Band members live in California, Washington state, Oregon, Manitoba and Ontario, as well as elsewhere in British Columbia. For many, their only connection to the Tsawwassen band is that one of their grandparents may have been a reserve resident.

No one has satisfactorily explained why Parliament should accord in perpetuity untold millions of dollars in special rights and privileges to persons who are not Canadian citizens and who have no appreciable connection with the Tsawwassen reserve or its long-time residents, and whose children and their children will in future generations have even less connection.

Payments to these new band members will mortgage the future of long-time reserve residents who Canadians assume are the primary beneficiaries of this Tsawwassen treaty. Many long-time residents will actually be in a worse position as a result of the treaty.

Bertha Williams' family has lived on the Tsawwassen reserve for generations. In a recent speech, Bertha stated:

A lot of our elders...are new to our community...They lost their status years ago. They went off, got married, they didn't want to be labeled as native...These elders...don't know our history...don't know our culture.

I have never surrendered my birthright.... I have never left my homeland....

[But] we are outnumbered...The majority of those who are voting members live off the reserve.

These are people that live in Alabama, Los Angeles...across the Prairies...They are band members but they have no intention of ever living on the reserve. Yet they are voting on our business.

A lot of them have never even visited the reserve. It is just ludicrous how they have so much to say on our livelihood...I see it as the demise of my people.

Let me take a moment to explain why Bertha Williams is upset.

In 1982 the band undertook to develop part of the reserve known as Stahaken on a 99 year lease basis. In 1982 the band had 62 members, 43 living on reserve and 19 off.

In 1985 the band distributed the proceeds from the development to existing band members. They each received some $23,000. There were then 69 members, 50 on reserve and 19 off. In June 1985, Parliament passed Bill C-31. By 1998, membership had swelled, leaving the original band members in a minority.

In 2003 it was decided that 116 new band members were entitled to the same $23,000 payment the original band members had received for the Stahaken project, plus $15,000 in interest. The cost was $3.5 million. The new members, now a majority, had no hesitation in voting themselves the $3.5 million even though it indebted and mortgaged the future of long-time members like Bertha Williams.

From that commitment to pay $3.5 million to the so-called Stahaken claimants came pressure to develop reserve land for commercial purposes, including port related development. The main proponents of the treaty and related port developments have been the Stahaken claimants.

But what about Bertha Williams?

Bertha has recently been advised that the property her family has occupied for generations is likely to be used for port development, apparently to pay off those Stahaken claimants and those band members living in California and elsewhere, whose first concerns are not about how the treaty will maintain Tsawwassen traditions but how much money it will put in their pockets now and in future years.

Prior to the initialling of the treaty in December 2006, the Vancouver Port Authority inked a deal with the band leadership that could only be seen as an enticement to okay the treaty for the new non-reserve resident members of the band.

In exchange for the long term use of the reserve lands for a rail marshalling yard, container storage and warehousing, the band would receive $47 million. The affront to long term residents like Bertha Williams is that at best their homes now would be immediately adjacent to up to 500 acres of a busy, 24/7 international port, a rail marshalling yard and all the disturbance that would entail.

A person in Bertha's place would see the property that she lives on, and which her family has owned since the reserve was created more than a century ago, expropriated for port development.

So who really gains from the port deal? Not Bertha Williams. Not the farmers who lost the best farmland in the Fraser delta. And not the hundreds of thousands of migratory birds that depend on the land for forage.

The only real winners are the new band members who live in Los Angeles or elsewhere and who may have had a grandparent who was a band member. For them, the cheques will roll in and nothing else matters.

We are now being asked to bless this environmental and human tragedy.

Canadians have been told repeatedly that after the Tsawwassen treaty is signed Tsawwassen band members will pay taxes to our federal and provincial governments just like they do. According to the Department of Finance and the B.C. Treaty Commission, the answer is no.

Tsawwassen band members will not start paying taxes to the federal government like the rest of us, nor was it ever intended that they would do so. When the Tsawwassen band members eventually pay income taxes, the money will be paid to the Tsawwassen band government, not to the federal government.

The B.C. Treaty Commission states:

--the income tax of any person (First Nation or non-First Nation) who resides on Treaty Settlement Lands will flow to the First Nation government no matter where they earn their income. The First Nation government will also receive 100% of the GST generated and 50% of the PST generated on Treaty Settlement Lands. And all First Nation government-run businesses will be exempt from income tax on profits earned on treaty lands.

When the 500 or more “non-citizens”, meaning non-band members who reside on the reserve, pay their income taxes, the money will go to the Tsawwassen band government, not to the federal government.

The Department of Finance, in a closed door briefing to band members, advised them that Canada was not seeking to gain tax revenues as a result of the treaty. Furthermore, according to the Department of Finance, most of the band's tax revenue will not come from band members, but from non-citizens living on the reserve or members of the public who might shop at stores located on the reserve. Finance estimates that the band will collect three to four times more from non-citizens than from its own band members.

Canadians have been misled. The Tsawwassen treaty is not about ensuring band members start paying taxes like other Canadians. The taxation provisions of the treaty are about the band government getting its hand on income tax, on GST and PST revenues, most of it paid by non-band members.

The Tsawwassen file agreement removes the right to vote for the majority of residents on the Tsawwassen Indian reserve. There are approximately 160 registered band members living on the reserve and about 500 persons who are not band members.

For local government purposes, the non-band members have been considered residents of Delta, and vote and pay their taxes there. These non-Tsawwassen band members, or non-citizens as they are called by the Department of Finance and the federal treaty negotiator, will now pay taxes to the Tsawwassen band, even though they have lost their right to vote and effectively participate in their local government.

The Department of Indian Affairs, in a briefing document prepared for members of Parliament, states, “The power to tax is a basic feature of governments...[I]t also serves as a means of the government's accountability”.

That is unless one is a non-citizen living on Tsawwassen lands.

There is no democratic accountability for the majority of Tsawwassen residents. How is it that this democratically elected House would even consider ratifying a treaty that would strip the overwhelming majority of residents of their full rights of citizenship?

Under the Tsawwassen treaty, the Tsawwassen band is the recipient of two allocations of sockeye salmon: a trade and barter allocation of roughly 13,000 salmon per year, which is more than double the food allocation in 2006; and a commercial allocation of 0.78% of the total allowable catch on the Fraser River, which averages out to approximately 30,000 fish per year. The combined allocation of 43,000 sockeye per year divided among the 273 band members provides approximately 157 sockeye per person per year.

In 1993 the Departments of Fisheries and Oceans and Indian Affairs undertook a study for treaty negotiators that assessed the coastline implications of the Nisga'a treaty allocation of 26 sockeye salmon per person. The study concluded that an allocation of 26 salmon per person would utilize about 30% of the available sockeye in B.C. However, the allocation in the Tsawwassen treaty is about 157 sockeye per person, or about 6 times greater than the Nisga'a allocation.

The math is pretty simple. It follows that an allocation of 157 sockeye per person would take about 180% of the available sockeye. Thus, based upon the government's own study, the Tsawwassen treaty, if replicated coast-wide, would mean the entire Fraser salmon fishery would be insufficient to satisfy Indian acclaims. Remember, the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Sparrow and Van der Peet clearly rejected the trade and barter of food fish in any claim of an aboriginal right to sell salmon.

The treaty gives the Tsawwassen government power to make laws that prevail over federal or provincial law in at least 28 areas, including child protection services for both band and non-band children living on the reserve and kindergarten to grade 12 education, including home schooling for all children.

Does the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protect Tsawwassen residents with regard to the actions of the Tsawwassen government? The answer, quite simply, is no.

There are also 10 outstanding, competing claims to the Tsawwassen territory. Chapter 49 says that if the government enters into another treaty that adversely affects the treaty rights of the Tsawwassen band, the government is required to provide additional or replacement rights and other appropriate remedies.

This is not a final agreement. The final agreement is a two volume document of over 460 pages and there are 7 side agreements. The House should be carefully examining its implications, and it is not.

Let the record show, the real beneficiaries of the treaty are the new band members, many living outside of Canada, and the Vancouver Port Authority, which was able to get port expansion without environmental objections from the band.

The treaty negatively impacts long standing band members and reserve residents like Bertha Williams. It will means the destruction of valuable farmland and loss of habitat for migratory birds. Its legacy will be a more segregated and divided nation.

To vote for this treaty would be to do a disservice to my constituents, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal, and a disservice to the people of my province and my country. I will not do that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Delta—Richmond East for demonstrating the courage to stand up for his convictions and to speak out and say things that may be politically incorrect, but that get to the heart and the root of some fundamental issues and values that aboriginal and non-aboriginal people embrace.

He gave a very eloquent speech. It should be required reading for anybody who is interested in this issue. He presented a very well researched assessment and analysis on this. He has done an extraordinary amount of work on it and there is a lot of background information to it. Anybody who is interested in the issue, I am sure could contact his office or look on his website, as we have, and receive that information.

For those of us in British Columbia, it is a fundamentally important issue. About one-third of the bands in Canada are in the province of British Columbia.

What is needed to change and amend the bill to enable the aboriginal people living on the reserve to really be the masters of their destiny, to have the control and accountability mechanisms that seem to be lacking in the agreement?

The hon. member eloquently spoke about the plight and the concerns of people like Bertha Williams, a band member of the Tsawwassen, that after the treaty is signed, there will be a lack of accountability.

She has spoken about the fact that many families will be excluded from the benefits of being members and that there is not necessarily an adequate and fair distribution. The checks and balances that occur between the grassroots aboriginal people and their leadership may be wanting.

What is needed to ensure that grassroots aboriginal people on the Tsawwassen reserve will have the checks and balances so their leadership can be accountable to them and they can have a fair share in what will be accrued to the reserve?

Also, there is the issue of the non-aboriginal people living on the reserve. As the hon. member said very eloquently, they pay taxes but they cannot vote. That is a fundamental violation of a person's basic rights. Could the member expand on that issue as well?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the kind comments from my friend.

On the issue of what goes on the reserve, in any municipality in Canada one must be a resident if one is going to vote for a council which puts in place zoning by-laws. That should prevail on native reserves as well. If we are to establish local government and responsibility for local government, then the responsibility should be local. The only people who should vote on land use plans on any reserve in the country should be people who are actually resident on the reserve.

One of the issues, and it is an issue that needs addressing by Parliament, is the impact of Bill C-31. It is quite clear, when we look at membership lists, and it is very difficult to get hold of those membership lists, and talk to people on the Tsawwassen Reserve, many of them, who have lived on the reserve all their lives and whose families have never left, are offended by the fact that some who left generations ago are now reserve members and will share the benefit.

Birth is instant and with the instance of anyone living on the reserve, they are the people who, since the beginning, have put up with the noise, light and air pollution from the existing Roberts Bank terminal of the Vancouver port. It is right off the shore of the reserve. They are the ones who over the last 50 years have lived with the disturbances caused by that port. Yet the benefits of the arrangement that has been cut with the port will accrue to people with the name of Martinez who live in Los Angeles or people who live in Ottawa or Winnipeg. They are not the ones who are suffering because the port was built. It is the people who live there. Therefore, the very basis for this treaty, in fact, is undermined.

The other question about the non-aboriginals living on the reserve is a special case. This instance happened with the Westbank arrangement a couple of years ago. My view is that these people need to have the same rights as any other citizen, that if a band wants to set up an enclave where non-band members live, then those non-band members need to have the same voting rights on their taxes as other Canadians do. There can be no other way. If that must be somehow physically separated from the rest of the reserve, then so be it.

However, people should not lose their democratic rights in this way because the fallback will always come to Parliament. In the future we will be asked to justify why we allowed that to happen, and it is an explanation that I would not want to have to give.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on a couple of occasions, the member in his presentation referred to the agreement and said that it was not a final agreement, that should the agreement pass, it would not be an end to the issue. If he feels this is the case, would the member explain, in some detail, why that would be the case?

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

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of reasons why this will not be a final agreement, but let me focus on one, the competing claims.

Eight bands have filed with the B.C. Treaty Commission with claims which overlap Tsawwassen. Two bands have not filed any treaty documents, but they also have claims on that territory. This poses a serious problem. In the treaty document it says that if any concessions are made to these bands, and eventually there will be because these bands will conclude treaties as did Tsawwassen, I am sure, the Tsawwassen will be entitled to compensation. There is no defining what that compensation means There are no limits put on it in the treaty, so it is an open-ended compensation. That in itself is troublesome.

The other implications are that with these overlapping treaties, the bands have this right to consult built into the treaty. We assume other bands will have the same and they can impact on developments in municipalities that municipalities thought were their purview. Now we will have this overlaying number of bands that will be able to ask to be consulted over matters that should be municipal.

I think the treaty will be very troublesome for local municipalities and it is one that I do not think the municipalities have really come to grips with yet.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-34. I compliment the member for Delta—Richmond East for his fine speech on this complicated issue. Perhaps one of the most important things I can do is reiterate that people ought to go to his website to see the extensive analysis he has done on this bill because it is a landmark bill. It is the first urban treaty in Canada.

I think everyone wants to see an end to the land claims issue. Aboriginal people definitely need these treaties to be negotiated and completed. They have gone on for far too long. Moneys have been drawn to areas where they should not have been and away from the absolute needs of aboriginal people living on and off reserve. Unfortunately, there is an area of the bill where there are some deep concerns.

I want to reiterate what this bill is about. It deals with about 160 band members and 500 non-resident members on the reserve. The bill would actually give $20 million to the band reserve and would distribute about 334 hectares of land.

In part, this a good thing because it would remove members of the Tsawwassen band away from the shackles of the Indian Act, a 132 year old act that, in my view, is a major obstacle to aboriginal people being masters of their destiny. The Indian Act, as governed and executed by the Department of Indian Affairs, spends about $9.2 billion a year for about 640 bands and those moneys are distributed through a staggering 1,200 organizations. As a result, only a small amount of money trickles down to the grassroots aboriginal people.

Aboriginal people are also encumbered by a structure where they are not the masters of their destiny. Do members know that aboriginal people living on reserve cannot own that land? Do members know that the lack of ownership impedes the ability of individual aboriginal members, band councils and chiefs to go to banks and borrow money. If they could borrow money, they could use it for economic development. It is heartbreaking to see band members, councils and chiefs, who desperately want to develop their land, to be hamstrung by the Indian Act which prevents them from moving forward.

Do members know that a chief on a reserve must go through a shocking six different federal departments to move forward on a plan? Why does an aboriginal chief councillor or band member need to go through six federal departments, through a period four times longer than a non-aboriginal person and are then confronted with a whole raft of rules and regulations if they want to develop? That is fundamentally wrong and it is racist.

The structure we have right now is appalling because it creates a two tiered situation. It separates aboriginal people and non-aboriginal people, not in a positive way but in a horribly negative way.

We should, in my view, have a place in our country where aboriginal and non-aboriginal people can come together in the sharing of cultures, language, art and history, and can come together in a beautiful way. In sharing those things, it enriches all of us. Unfortunately, however, there are very few opportunities for this.

Some people are trying to do this, such as Arthur Vickers, a very famous aboriginal artist in my province of British Columbia. He is now trying to lead on the pulling people together. He is building a centre where aboriginal and non-aboriginal people can come together and share their histories, their past, their future and come together as one race, and that is the human race. People like Arthur Vickers are trying to do that but it is very difficult.

Another person, Chief Russell Chipps of the Beecher Band Reserve in my riding of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, is reaching out to a community that has been devastated by sexual abuse and violence. It is a small community where many of the children have been sexually abused and many of the adults have fetal alcohol syndrome or fetal alcohol effects. Out of this swamp of devastation, we have the leadership of Chief Chipps and the men and women on his reserve who are trying to build something. They are building a canoe out of a very large log and are inviting aboriginal and non-aboriginal people to come to their reserve and share in the building of this canoe. What will they do with it? They will get in the canoe this summer and take it out to another part of Vancouver Island.

The beauty of this is not only in the canoe but in the wisdom of Chief Chipps and the people in his community in Beecher Bay who are trying to reach out, in the midst of the devastation, destruction and horrible socio-economic situation, with love and affection. They want to share what they have with all of us, which is the beauty of their history, their culture and their language.

Those acts of heroism should be applauded, embraced and encouraged.

The bill has some good parts but there are also some other fundamental issues that my colleague, the member for Delta—Richmond East, and people like Bertha Williams, have articulated. I did not know this, but I cannot imagine why $15,000 in bribes were given to band members to vote for this particular agreement. That is not democratic.

What are the checks and balances to ensure that members of the Tsawwassen band, those who live on the land, work the land, build for the future and build the socio-economic conditions for their people, for themselves, for their children and their grandchildren, are the people empowered to do what they need to do to share in the bounty and benefits of the land and of this country?

That is not necessarily happening. Bertha Williams and others have deep concerns and those concerns must be responded to factually but those concerns are not being responded to. I have not seen any evidence, quite frankly, that those concerns have been responded to. If they are not responded to, what does this mean for future treaties? What does this mean for aboriginal people living on reserves where these treaties are negotiated but where their rights may be trampled upon, unbeknown to most of us?

This bill is a well-meaning treaty. I know what is intended but I wonder whether our intentions will marry up with the future outcomes?

We have all seen, on too many reserves, where band leaderships have taken it upon themselves to engage in acts of nepotism that leave certain groups within their reserves completely disarticulated from their communities. The level of abuse that takes place is horrific. Could this happen? What are the checks and balances in the bill to prevent this from happening? People like Bertha Williams and the members who did not vote for this treaty, and the people on the reserve who will be confronted by this need answers. It is the responsibility of this House to ensure those questions are responded to.

People like the member for Delta—Richmond East must be at the centre of the consultation, with people like Bertha Williams and members on the reserve who have these questions. We would be abrogating our responsibility as elected people if those people who are at the heart of this did not have their say.

The bill can go forward in a constructive way or it can go forward in a way that conditions could be put in place and the law of unintended consequences could occur so that people who want to live their lives and enjoy in the bounties of their land would not be able do that.

The member mentioned a fundamental violation of rights, which is to pay taxes but not be able to vote. Could anyone imagine that we would pass legislation in this House enabling people to pay taxes but depriving them of their vote? That must be in some way be a violation of the charter and it should be challenged.

Those are the questions that need to be answered.

The other issue concerns control over housing and jobs. If this bill is passed, what would be there to ensure that band members who live on the reserve will have fair and equal opportunity for housing and job opportunities? Will that be there or will it be subject to a degree of nepotism that could run amok? We have seen that before and we cannot allow that to happen. It is too important for this to occur because of the downstream implications of this.

The other issue concerns people who are not living anywhere near Tsawwassen, or even living in other countries, but are receiving economic benefits because they are members of the band. Is that fair, reasonable and responsible? This gives money to people who have no connection whatsoever with the land in practice and takes money away from those band members who live on the reserve and who need money desperately for economic development, housing, economic opportunities and health care.

My colleague, who spoke eloquently yesterday about the aboriginal peoples, is an aboriginal woman. I am sure most Canadians do not know this but aboriginal people fall between the cracks on health care. The federal government has a fiduciary responsibility in health care but it downloads it to the provinces. The provinces say that it is not their responsibility, that it is the responsibility of the federal government. What happens to an aboriginal person who is a patient is that he or she frequently falls through the cracks. Aboriginal people are in no man's land, limbo. At a time when they are sick and they need surety in where they are going so they can receive the care they need, they fall through the cracks.

When the bill goes to committee I would strongly encourage the government not to fast-track the bill. I would ask committee members to travel to Tsawwassen to meet the people on the reserve and listen to the community, not just the community leadership, but to people like Bertha Williams on the reserve. We need to ensure the process is fair and that the voices of all the people are heard. It is our responsibility to ensure their concerns are addressed.

I also would strongly encourage the committee members to ensure that the member for Delta—Richmond East is on the committee, that they go to the reserve and that they listen to the people on the reserve who want to be in a situation where they will be the masters of their destiny.

I have another fundamental question with respect to this. Are treaties the panacea, the magic bullet, that will enable aboriginal people to truly be the masters of their destiny? Is the model of collectivism that this bill entrenches going to enhance the ability of individual aboriginal people to be the masters of their destiny or would it impede the innovation and dynamism that aboriginal people have shown for thousands and thousands of years, which is their historical birthright?

If treaties were the magic bullet, then where treaties have been negotiated one would assume that the socio-economic conditions for aboriginal people would be markedly improved, correct? If we were to use the Rocky Mountains as a dividing line, which is where those treaties were negotiated, east of the Rockies versus west of the Rockies, one would think that the socio-economic conditions for aboriginal people would be markedly better, correct? The answer is no.

The spine of the Rocky Mountains is quite an intriguing dividing line. If we look at the lives of aboriginal people east of the Rocky Mountains and look at the conditions west of the Rocky Mountains, whether we are dealing with urban or aboriginal people who live on reserve, we find the same horrific conditions that are far too prevalent: the level of sexual abuse, violence, unemployment, lack of housing, the whole incidence of FAS/FAE, the list goes on and on.

The number of aboriginal men incarcerated is 11 times higher than the number of non-aboriginal men, while the number of aboriginal women versus non-aboriginal women is a staggering 250 times greater. Can members believe that? One does not see a difference on either side of the spine of the Rocky Mountains. Both sides are the same whether there are treaties or not.

We all want to ensure there is finality to land claims. We all want to work with aboriginal people to ensure that their land issues are dealt with in a fair and secure fashion. We recognize and honour fully the importance of land to aboriginal people. We know what it means for their culture, their history and for their soul. We understand that.

Who speaks for the men and women living on reserve who cannot get employment or health care? Who speaks for the men and women living in houses that are falling down because whoever built those lousy homes essentially acted in a fraudulent fashion? How are those people going to get out of those situations? Their children have to travel nearly two hours to get to school and then another two hours to get home. Is it any wonder the dropout rate is what it is? The children are fatigued. They are wiped out by the time they get home. They cannot do their studies. They cannot participate in the extracurricular activities that children need for their development.

What do people who cannot get clean water on reserve do? Aboriginal people living on the Pacheedaht reserve in my community do not have a secure water source. The water is poisoned with iron. Six groups have been tasked to do the work on the reserve. Non-aboriginal consultants went to that reserve, did lousy work, took the money and ran. They saddled the reserve with a huge debt. Now the Department of Indian Affairs has said it is not going to give the band any more money to fix the water problem until the band finds out where the other money went. We know where the money went. It was stolen by fraudsters. Can 160 people living on reserve afford to retain a lawyer to get that money back? No. They are stuck in a situation they cannot get out of, and that is fundamentally unfair.

How can we allow this to happen? How can we allow a reserve that is desperately poor but has great economic potential to be saddled with structures that do not enable the people on the reserve to move forward? It is immoral and criminal to allow that to happen. That is not fantasy. That is happening right now. It is not only happening in my community, but it is happening in communities in many other parts of the country.

In Fort Ware, north of Prince George where I used to fly in to do medical clinics, the chief is begging for help because of the destruction to the forest caused by the pine beetle infestation. Aboriginal people are living in a tinderbox. This summer when the temperature rises they will be living in a significant fire hazard. A 200 metre barrier needs to be plowed out around Fort Ware and other communities now. If that does not happen, those aboriginal communities will be faced with a significant health hazard. They risk being burned to death.

There is an urgent need for firebreaks in communities in British Columbia. This is not an option. It is urgent because the risk of a fire is going to increase as soon as the temperature starts to rise. A spark alone could cause a fire which could raze the reserves. Where would these people go? Who would evacuate them? How would they be evacuated? Who would save their lives? They do not have any place to go.

I strongly recommend that the Minister of Indian Affairs embrace this issue wholeheartedly. This problem will occur in the coming months. All of us will work with him to ensure that the lives of these people are not put at risk, but the interventions that must occur, must occur now.

In closing, while this bill has some very good parts, there are some significant concerns. Let us send it to committee. Let us take our time. Let us work with the members of the Tsawwassen, the members who are living on the Tsawwassen reserve. Let us make sure this bill works for the benefit of the aboriginal people on the Tsawwassen reserve in a way that is fair, reasonable and just.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Given the time, I suggest that we defer the questions and comments consequent on the member's speech until following question period. I believe it is time to proceed with statements by members.

I therefore call upon the hon. member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-34, An Act to give effect to the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

When we were last discussing Bill C-34, there were 10 minutes left under questions and comments for the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and the hon. member for Delta—Richmond East has a question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for his very astute and acute observations on this particular topic.

My friend opposite mentioned it but I want to note that in her opening address to the treaty negotiations, Chief Baird noted the low levels of education, the high unemployment and the high number of people who were on welfare in her community. My friend asked a very pertinent question: Are treaties the magic bullet to fix that problem? He made a clear case that it was not so. I would agree with him and say that those kinds of problems are the problems of families, not the problems of governance.

He also noted that in Tsawwassen there are only 160 members living on the reserve out of the 350 and asked the question: How does one ensure that nepotism is not the order of the day? That is a very real question. How does one ensure that democratic principles are followed?

I want to point out that in the last election, Bertha Williams ran for chief and yet she was denied the membership list of the band which she wanted in order to run an effective campaign. Again, I believe that is a violation of charter rights, something that would not be tolerated at the federal level but certainly was at that level. With this treaty, charter rights will not be recognized.

Another question I have for the member is this. The industrialization of the reserve that will flow from the agreement with the Vancouver Port Authority will result in the expropriation of Bertha Williams' property so that band members living in Los Angeles and Alabama, not to mention Winnipeg, can cash in on the money that will flow. Does the member opposite think that this is a worthy result of a treaty?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend who has been a leader on this issue. He really hits a point that the committee has to grapple with. It is extremely troubling when people who are living afar have the ability to make decisions on the reserve for people on the reserve, when they have no physical connection or economic interest in the reserve and they are able to make decisions.

The second issue is the question of process, that Ms. Williams can actually have her land taken away from her. The question that would come to my mind is what recourse does she have, what recompense does she have, and what abilities does she have to plead her case if that is not of her will. We know that the Government of Canada can take away land from people under certain circumstances. What kinds of rules and regulations are there to protect the individual member of the Tsawwassen Band if their land is going to be appropriated.

I also want to say something about a study that has been done in Vancouver. I know members of the House will be very interested. It is called the CEDAR study. The CEDAR study looked at 500 aboriginal people living on the street who are IV drug abusers. The study found that half of those aboriginal people living on the street had been sexually abused and the median age of sexual abuse was six.

That has to rip at one's heart. Can we imagine that level of sexual abuse, the volume of sexual abuse, the age at which this is occurring, and the impact that it has on people? It makes one want to cry. That is the situation.

As an aside, I would like to mention that the Insite supervised injection site is up for renewal at the end of June. I would plead the case to the government that in light of the findings that we are seeing of what is behind some of the people who are living on the street and who are IV drug abusers, let Insite continue for as long as there is a demand and let other cities that want supervised injection sites have them. It is a matter of life and death. It is absolutely essential to save lives and save the lives of some of the most beaten up, impoverished and destitute people that we have in our society.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's discussion on this treaty. He had talked about the problems with the Indian Act. I certainly think that what we have seen in our region is a problem with Indian affairs and the inability of communities to get the most basic levels of support, basic levels of health care, and basic levels of infrastructure.

In our region, in the isolated James Bay coast lands 100 years ago we had the Hudson's Bay factor, then we had the Indian agent, and now we have the DIAND bureaucrat. I am not really sure if at any point it is a different person or not because of the continual heavy hand of interference on the most basic of things.

The member mentioned health care. In some of my communities, Kashechewan and Attawapiskat, we have 20% to 25% of the people who simply do not have health cards. The provincial Government of Ontario does not bother to go up the James Bay coast. It will not go up there and provide health cards. The problem is when people have to be medevaced out, the cost on the regional health units is considered a debt because many of these families are not covered provincially. They turn to the federally run health unit. Health Canada says that the James Bay authority is not doing proper medical service because it is running up a debt. The debt is actually servicing the people.

These people are falling through the cracks. When we meet with Health Canada officials, they say to talk to the province. When we meet with the provincial officials, they say talk to Health Canada. We see third world conditions in these communities time after time.

I would like to hear the hon. member's suggestion. What do we need to do? Do we need to eradicate Indian affairs and replace it with a simpler structure? What do we need to do to ensure that these communities are actually getting the same level of service or even a bare minimum of service which they are being denied?

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

Mr. Speaker, we should ask the aboriginal people what they want and need. We must work with them to ensure their needs are met.

Grassroots aboriginal people living on and off reserve have told me that we should scrap the Indian Act. Why on earth should they be encumbered by a 132-year-old act that puts all manner of obstacles in front of them? That is immoral.

I cannot believe that in the 21st century we have an Indian Act that treats people entirely different, wraps an anchor around their ankles and tells them to move forward, engage in development, have health care, social programs, education and economic development but they cannot do that. If we were to have a non-aboriginal act parallel to the Indian Act, we would be destitute. We would have the same problems that aboriginal people are facing because we would be labouring under the same conditions.

We need to remove those shackles and liberate aboriginal people by working with them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend's comments on these social issues that are addressed by the treaty.

The minister says that the treaty is to provide certainty and economic opportunity, including the development of the Vancouver Port.

I would like to know from the member where in the treaty there is an initiative to build and strengthen families, which are the basis for a strong society and a society where these social issues are addressed. Where in the treaty does he see any indication that this is a concern of the government?

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

Mr. Speaker, Chief Baird has spoken eloquently about the unemployment levels on her reserve and the plight that her people face. We all want to ensure these issues are addressed but the current structure does not enable that to happen.

We need to ensure that the structure being built will enable the grassroots aboriginal people to have the checks and balances and accountability to be participants. We must ensure their rights are protected and they receive the benefits. The benefits should not go to people living in another country who have nothing to do with the reserve other than being a member.

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-34, the enactment of the Tsawwassen First Nation final agreement.

I listened with great interest to some of the debate on this legislation. I stand rather reluctantly, I guess, because this is like déjà vu for me. I am hearing the same statements and arguments being made that were made for the Nisga'a treaty. We have people asking why people should still be bound by a 132-year-old Indian Act and yet we are trying to give an opportunity for bands to get out from the Indian Act, move forward and create a more positive future for their people. Each time a Parliament has tried to get Indian bands out of the rules of the Indian Act, we see resistance everywhere, even from some of the people who are affected by the land claims agreements.

I know we will never have one land claims agreement that every member will agree with. It saddens me greatly that people are looking for only negative consequences of these agreements.

Again I go back to the days when we were trying to get the Nisga'a treaty passed in this House. We heard many arguments from the same members who are speaking against this one in the House of Commons and yet, democratically, this agreement was passed by its members. If a bill is passed or an agreement is ratified by its members democratically and the majority approve it, then people argue that it was not done fairly, that it was not done in a way that passed the scrutiny of fairness. It is difficult to convince naysayers because they will never agree that this can benefit people.

I have been to some of those communities where they have absolutely no hope of getting out from the oppression of poverty. We have heard sad stories from across this country about what is happening on reserves that we would not tolerate anywhere else in the world.

We have people fighting in Afghanistan to create opportunities for the people there to receive good education and for women and children to participate in education, opportunities that we in our own country would never consider denying anyone. People in our Canadian Forces are dying fighting for the rights of the people of Afghanistan and yet here in Canada we continue to hold people under the thumb of the Indian Act and allow them to live in poverty, with no hope for the future. They live in conditions that we would not tolerate anywhere else and yet we find ourselves in the House of Commons today debating the Tsawwassen First Nation final agreement that would give opportunity for a band to move forward, to take advantage of economic opportunities and create hope for their children.

Some people have asked what we see in this agreement that would lead to the social improvement of the people. I have said this before and I will say it again. We cannot bottle the hope that we give people. We cannot put a dollar figure on the improvement in people's well-being when it is in their heart. We cannot say that it will cost x number of dollars to see someone finish high school and become a contributor to their society instead of landing in jail and becoming a statistic or becoming a statistic in suicide.

We can count all the negatives that happen to people. We can do statistics on how much money we are spending on welfare. We can see numbers for the amount of money spent for children in care among our aboriginal people and yet we cannot put a dollar figure to the positive lives that we have been able to see from the different land claims that have been achieved in this country.

As a beneficiary to our Nunavut land claims agreement, I can tell the House what that means for me, for my parents and other people I encounter in our communities. However, I cannot give the dollar figure and the statistics of what that means for people in that they are finally able to be part of the decision making process that governs our lives.

As Chief Kim Baird said, ”every land claims agreement is a compromise”, but it must be if we are going to get all parties at the table agreeing to a settlement or an agreement. At the end of the day, we all need to be able to walk away from that table feeling that we have made some contribution and that everyone worked together to come up with the best agreement that people can ratify, support and move on with their lives.

Many people do not realize just how much the Indian Act controls people's lives, which we would never be allowed to happen anywhere else. Just because it has been around for so long and people have started to accept it as a normal way of life, does not excuse the governments of the day for not improving how we deal with aboriginal lives on reserve. We are dealing with different pieces of legislation. We have Bill C-21 , which tries to remove section 67 of the Human Rights Act. We have the legislation that is before us now. We already spoke to Bill C-30. Those are all the different pieces of legislation that try to make improvements to an Indian Act that has controlled the lives of a group of people who were one of the first peoples of this country.

I have a story here about this agreement that was written in the Canadian Geographic. One of the stories talks about how, when the provincial government broke ground for its ferry terminal in 1958, the first anyone knew about it was when a foreman knocked at the chief's door at six in the morning asking where his crew should park their trucks. This was a statement by Kim Baird, the current chief of the Tsawwassen. Because there was a long house in its path, the government contractors unceremoniously tore it down.

This might not seem that significant to people, but I ask members to visualize someone coming through our communities and tearing down a longhouse or a very important part of a community and the uproar that would happen today if any of us saw that happen in one of our communities. It is very difficult to speak of.

I have stories from my own history of people coming in and deciding that they knew better than we did how to run our lives. They just took control and took action that we would never tolerate today. Those different standards for many situations are not tolerable today but were acceptable in the past.

However, to completely break down people and expect them to rise above all of that without any assistance is asking too much of people.

We see natural disasters happening all over the world, where everything in a community is destroyed. The generosity of people in helping rebuild those communities is something that we can all strive to help with. The human part of us always wants to help those whose lives have been devastated by circumstances beyond their control.

Why we would not apply that same generosity to people who live among us in this country is beyond me. If only most of us really knew what conditions people live in. Then we would not just hear about it, have it fly over our heads and say that we have heard about this for so many years that the story is getting old. We would not be saying that we should move on to something else.

It is very sad and troubling that we have to keep advocating on behalf of people who want to control their own lives. It is very sad that we have to see obstacles all the time when people want to accept responsibility for their communities, move on, make their own decisions and create a future for their people.

The history of this country is built on people overcoming great adversity. The history of our country is that people have had to overcome great challenges to build this country up to where it is today. We aboriginal people are no different. We want to overcome our history and become contributors to society and to this country and its economic development.

We want our children to finish high school, go on to post-secondary education, provide for their own families and live in healthy, safe communities. This is no different from any person born in this country or who comes to this country as an immigrant.

If we do not provide the basic and I feel fundamental assistance to people who want to rise above the poverty and the social challenges in their communities, I do not know what more to say to convince people. We have to support people who want to move on.

I know there are many details that I am sure my colleague across the way will ask me about in trying to convince me why we should not support the legislation. However, at the end of the day it is about people who democratically voted to support an agreement that they know will create some uncertainty for their members and may give them uncertain times in the future, but it does provide certainty in the realm in which they can work.

The Indian bands that are operating under the Indian Act cannot even go to a bank, ask for loans and carry on with economic development opportunities in their communities. They cannot participate in any of the benefits that are happening on the very lands to which they have an attachment, because there is no obligation for many of these private companies--or even provincial governments--to come to an impact and benefit agreement with them.

It is very sad that the people who most need the economic development opportunities and who most need the jobs and the training do not benefit from the prosperous activities happening on the very lands that are in question.

That is why we went ahead with Bill C-30. That will take care of some of the specific claims, which will help bands come to some economic opportunity, or it will settle claims where they feel they have been wrongly treated, although I am having difficulty with the words for this. However, I know that in the specific claims process people will be able, hopefully, to settle the very issues that are hindering them from moving forward.

I am in support of the Tsawwassen First Nation final agreement because I see it as one way of settling some of these long outstanding issues that have plagued many first nation bands across this country. I have been a member of Parliament for almost 11 years. I have seen great strides in bringing to a close some of the longstanding issues. I have seen many land claims agreements signed and put into place in the time that I have been a member.

I am very proud that all Inuit in Canada have now settled their land claims. Of course, this is not the be-all and end-all or the only solution for improving the lives of aboriginal people in this country, but it is a fair step that we can move forward from.

I am not saying that since we have signed our Nunavut land claims agreement every problem has been solved, but it certainly has given hope and an opportunity to people who feel that they now have a role to play in helping make decisions that concern their lives.

Yes, it was a compromise, as is this very agreement that we are talking about for the people of Tsawwassen. No, it is not going to solve every problem for them, but it gives them a framework that they can work in and they will know that they have the legal opportunity to help make decisions in their area that affect the lives of their people.

I urge people to support this bill so it can be sent to committee. I look forward to hearing from witnesses there. Hopefully we will move this file forward to the Senate and see a conclusion for the long hours of work that people have done on this agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the comments of the member opposite, who mentioned that there is resistance, as she termed it, each time the government tries to get people out of the Indian Act. She said it saddened her that people are only looking at negatives.

With all respect, I would remind my friend that the job of this House is to scrutinize bills that are put before it. That should be the case with this bill, as it is with others. This treaty was negotiated by some bureaucrats. I have been the member of Parliament in that area since before these negotiations began. Never once during the whole process was I asked by either government for my comment or what I thought the people in my constituency might be thinking.

The folks who did participate in the process were sworn to secrecy, the councillors and whatnot from the municipalities, such that they could not even report back to their own councils. These folks walked away from the table.

It was not an open process and the issue was sidestepped in the provincial legislature, so the fact of the matter is that this is the last place this treaty will go before it is brought into effect. Our job here has to be to scrutinize this bill.

Bertha Williams was in town the other day. I had hoped that she would be able to meet with the member opposite and express her concerns to the member, because Bertha has been there all along. Her grandfather was a chief. Her father was a chief. Her brother was a chief of that reserve. Also, Bertha served on the council, yet she is the one who is going to pay the bill because the land that her family has owned since the reserve was created is going to be expropriated and industrialized.

I would like to know from the member if she thinks that is appropriate. Is it appropriate that the members who are living on that reserve are to have their property expropriated so that folks who are living elsewhere, as I say, in Los Angeles, Alabama, Winnipeg and elsewhere on the North American continent, can benefit? I would like to know if she thinks that is okay.

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, as I previously said, there is no agreement of any kind that will satisfy every member. Whether we are talking about a union agreement or a collective agreement by a group of people or a municipality, we are never going to get 100% agreement. If there is one like that, I would be glad to see it.

That is what this country is built on: democracy. We say that if the majority of the people support it, then that is what goes ahead. If we were not a democratic country, I probably would not be sitting on this side. I would just decide by myself that I wanted to sit on that side even though I was democratically outvoted and it was declared that I could not be in the government. I would take an individual position and just say that I did not like the way that was done, so I would just sit on that side and decide for myself that this was the way I was going to do it. That is not the way we do things in this country.

As for talking about people living outside of the country making decisions, there was a court decision saying that it did not matter if people were not living on the reserve. They could still vote in their band elections and on issues happening on their reserves. That is a court case.

Are we going to respect the judicial system of this country? It was not the people who said they were going to vote whether they lived there or not. This was a court case, already settled, which allowed people to have the right to vote on their band elections and issues affecting their band. It was not that the people of Tsawwassen unilaterally decided that they would allow everyone with connections to their band to vote.

It is up to the band to make the agreement work for everyone, because as much as we might not agree with certain issues in any agreement, when 70% of the band members accept an agreement it says that the people have decided to take the risks that come with that agreement. Hopefully people can work out the local matters in a way that will work for everyone.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague because she has seen the conditions in these communities.

I find the discussion in the House sometimes absurd when I hear people ask how we can make innovation happen on first nations reserves and how will they be able to start buying property.

Two first nation communities in my area do not even have schools. Not only are there no schools, but there is no plan for any schools. They are just not considered a priority. Attawapiskat has no school. Kashechewan has no school. Neighbouring Fort Severn has no school. Communities negotiate and meet with the government and fill out reports and do studies and do further studies when requested by Indian affairs bureaucrats. They go through all these hoops just so their kids can be in a safe environment. At the end of the day at the absolute arbitrary whim of the Indian affairs minister, a plan for a school could be cancelled. How can this be done in a country like Canada?

There is no standard for education in our first nations communities, not even an obligation to meet basic standards. Provincial jurisdictions have standards for education. They have to meet certain basic obligations in terms of special education, funding and class size. One minister can support a plan for a school and the next minister can come along and decide there is no need to build schools for young native kids and spend the money on something else. That is appalling.

What is more appalling is that the communities have absolutely no voice. They are not asked. They are not part of any consultation about how moneys should be spent. They do everything they can to play by the rules laid out by the government of the day and by the Indian Act, and yet at the whim of a particular Indian affairs minister the kids will be helped, or the money will be sent back to Treasury Board, or something completely different will be done.

There is a sense of hopelessness in the communities. They just want to get to first base. They actually want to get out of fourth world conditions and into third world conditions and some day get into second world conditions. This is the debate we need to be having in Parliament as opposed to discussions on how we can start moving toward an innovation agenda within these communities.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Nunavut, equal time.

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, I fully understand where the member is coming from because sometimes we seem to be talking apples and oranges. When we hear things being discussed in the chamber, we tend to think of how it would actually relate to our communities and we see a total disconnect.

In previous speeches I have given in the House, I have gone on about the basic needs in our communities. We just want a place to live in. We just want our kids to be able to go to safe schools, and as the member said, to have a school. I live in a community without a hospital and without a doctor. We just want to be able to access health care. At the end of the day, these are very simple requests.

For a country that prides itself on democracy, we forget that some of these communities have great difficulty participating on that very basis in our country.

I sometimes see notices in my mailbox about someone who wants to make improvements on his or her land down the street. As someone who lives on that street I have the opportunity to say that I do not think the person should be improving his or her house in that way. I get a--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

It is with regret that I must interrupt the hon. member, but I had warned her about equal time.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, May 26, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.