Debates of April 25th, 1994

Sahtu Dene And Metis Land Claim Settlement Act

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her speech. I would like her to comment on a few observations I have.

The original treaty signed by the treaty Indian people with the agents of the crown were in part land settlements. They have never worked out, not that they could not have because in some areas there has been an enormous amount of wealth generated from Indian lands.

The reason they have not worked out is because of the power and control the department of Indian affairs has over the Indian people. They cannot sell their grain without approval from the superintendent of the department of Indian affairs and so on. It is all there in the history of the treaties and the treaty research many of the bands have conducted.

Our party is supportive of the fair, equitable and rapid settlement of these land claims so that the aboriginal people can form a base upon which they can become economically independent.

My concern about this agreement is that we are creating another bureaucracy. It seems to be a fairly formidable one according to what I have read.

Does the hon. member see the economic viability of this agreement? In other words, will we see a time when the people of Canada will no longer have to provide support through the various programs for this particular group of Indian people? I think there would be a lot of support from the people of Canada if that is the case, if that is what we can see within this agreement.

[Marlene Cowling, Liberal, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the hon. member's first question, one of the reasons they never did work is because they were never honoured. They were left out in limbo.

I am very optimistic about this process we are doing today. I want to quote some information for the hon. member. The agreement guarantees the participation of the Sahtu Dene and Metis. They will be able to manage their own renewable resources within their settlement area; land use planning within the settlement area; environmental impact assessment and review within the Mackenzie Valley; and regulation of land and water use within the settlement area.

I believe this is the road to take for the dismantling of Indian affairs. This is the road to take to initiate self-government.

[John Duncan, Reform, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have one more question.

There was some discussion about the history of these kinds of negotiations in the member's statement. I just wondered whether the member was familiar with the comprehensive western Arctic Dene-Metis agreement. It was signed in 1990 and included a larger settlement area, but it included this specific area within it. Would the hon. member comment as to why the fee simple transfer of ownership in that period of time to this group of people has approximately doubled in size since 1990?

[Marlene Cowling, Liberal, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in 1990 there was some disagreement between the Sahtu and the Metis. Why we are here today is so that they can take on their own initiatives and their own mandate, so that they can do this themselves.

I encourage hon. members across the way to support us in this venture. I believe we must work together on this venture.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to give the member for Dauphin-Swan River a break.

I wonder if she might not agree that the degree of compensation seems to be setting a very high precedent in terms of what the compensation level is.

[Marlene Cowling, Liberal, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member did not hear what I had said earlier. I would hope that we could be very positive and take a look at the positive side of this matter.

I am going to mention again that the agreement guarantees the participation of the Sahtu Dene and the Metis. They can control their own destiny. They can be managers of their own resources, land use planning, environmental impact assessment and review within the Mackenzie Valley, and regulation of land and water use within that settlement area.

I encourage hon. members on the other side of the House to accept our philosophy. Let us get on with self-government. Let us allow the aboriginal peoples of the country to have some dignity.

[Maurice Godin, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity this afternoon to speak in the debate on second reading of the bill tabled by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the purpose of which is to approve, give effect and declare valid the agreement signed on September 6, 1993, with the Dene and the Metis. This agreement was concluded following land claims made by these peoples, which must be considered by this House in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution Act, 1982.

I am the elected representative for the riding of Châteauguay and, as such, I am particularly aware of and concerned by all matters connected with aboriginal affairs. The riding provides a good example of the Amerindian problem or, should I say, the problem of co-habitation between our peoples. The facts are clear: sharing the lands of this continent first meant living with them, then it meant hostility, then pushing some into the back country and then creating reserves after a conquest in which they lost everything. We cannot deny and we cannot get around this historical truth, since we are faced with it every day. The proud descendants of these peoples are only too willing to remind us, each in their own way, of the cost of being neighbours on such a fragile basis.

The most troubling challenge to us today is to find the right way to deal with the problems we have created. There is the silence of the young suicide victims in Davis Inlet. This is our own third world, within our borders, the result of wanting to share this land without respecting the aboriginal culture and way of life.

The most troubling image is that of this anonymous Algonquin in the subway, crowded all sides by the ultimate cultural mosaic, and no one else realizes that his ancestors were there first. Another troubling image: two faces staring impassively at each other, their silence an eloquent metaphor. With the reserve of Khanawake within its boundaries, Châteauguay knows all about that, and that is why it placed its trust in the Bloc Quebecois.

The Bloc Quebecois recognizes aboriginal peoples as distinct nations, as it recognizes the two founding peoples of this Canadian federation. Mutual understanding will depend on our ability to share the same sphere of economic, political, legal and commercial activities, as opposed to the present situation, where we live in parallel worlds.

This partnership must succeed and, with them like with the people of Quebec, the best way to achieve mutual co-operation is by recognizing first of all their existence as partners, as neighbours, in their integrity, with all their rights and obligations. The days when one nation exercised trusteeship over another should be over.

In that context, the Bloc Quebecois welcomes Bill C-16 as a form of recognition of the Sahtu Dene and Metis as nations. Major exclusive territorial rights are being recognized to a group of 2,000 people living on 41,437 squre kilometres in the Mackenzie Valley, in the Northwest Territories, including subsurface rights on an area covering 1,813 square kilometres, some $75 million over 15 years and an annual share of the royalties on the valley's natural resources.

Sahtu lands will be neither public property nor reserves. Trough this agreement, the Dene and the Metis are guaranteed private lands, which will enable them to be involved in land use planning, protect their exclusive hunting rights, and determine their economic development prospects as well as their future.

This is one more step toward self-government. That is exactly what we are wishing for all peoples: the capacity to take in their hands and have a say with regard to the management of their natural resources, heritage conservation and regulations concerning their lands and waters.

One point of particular interest to me is the impact of this agreement on the land holding system. Since the Colonial era, we had known two main types of property: private property and public property. The former was a vested right of lords, settlers and inhabitants, and today, it is a privilege enjoyed by citizens, corporations and speculators alike. The latter was a prerogative of the Crown, the clergy, the Colonial administration, and today, the state, our governments.

The mid-19th century saw another type of property be established, namely Indian reserves. It was then, and still is, a special status granted to lands, a status nonetheless ambiguous. We are dealing here with collectively owned lands which are neither public, since they are not accessible to everyone, nor private, since they are not controlled by individuals, but rather by a tribal council which is responsible for administering the reserve.

I have some difficulty understanding why, in 1994, we have yet to clear up this ambiguity. I think back to a time full of promise when, in 1969, the government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau promised action to bring about the full participation of native communities. Even then, the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, today the honourable the Prime Minister, said that the legislative and constitutional basis of discrimination must be removed. The government of the day was adamant that services must come through the same channels and from the same government agencies for all Canadians. The lawful obligations of natives must be recognized and, to this end, responsibility for administering native lands must be transferred to native communities.

Despite the Trudeau era and his minister, 25 years later, the problem of native self-government has yet to be resolved. Why is this? Because the promised action was never taken, despite the fact that, on June 25, 1969, the Minister of Indian Affairs made a commitment to this House to act so as to give natives control over and title to their lands. Listen to what was said at the time. The minister promised to transfer to the provinces federal funds normally provided for native programs so that the provinces could take over the same responsibilities for natives that they had for other citizens in their provinces. He was committed to dismantling the department of Indian affairs and giving its mandate to other federal departments.

What was this minister talking about? He was talking of transferring jurisdictions to the provinces, according to the Trudeau government; of eliminating costly and unproductive duplication and overlap. What did he actually do? The department is still in place. It will spend over $5 billion. As for transferring jurisdictions, in today's federal arena, only the Bloc Quebecois maintains that it is necessary.

The Sahtu agreement paves the way to something other than reserves for Natives. The Sahtu lands will fall under two categories: those covered by the regulations and municipal lands.

In the case of regulated lands, certain special conditions will ensure the Dene and Metis' title to the lands. These lands cannot be sold, mortgaged, seized or expropriated without being replaced. Municipal lands, on the other hand, can be sold or ceded, but if it is to an individual, they will no longer belong to the Sahtu. The Sahtu's improved municipal lands will be taxable, but those that are not improved will be tax-exempt.

This issue of ownership raises several questions, especially since the Native crisis of the summer of 1990. This crisis arose from claims for territorial autonomy and self-government. The claims made at that time almost amounted to an offense affecting

urban areas inhabited by thousands of people with deep roots in their community.

In my mind, the Bloc Quebecois' support of the agreement with the Sahtu Dene and Metis does not mean opening the door to all land claims from a distant past. Neither the Bloc Quebecois nor any other political party can recognize the rights of one people at the expense of another. That is why negotiations on self-government are so sensitive. We must consider these negotiations in the light of today's realities, without forgetting the past, of course, but by acknowledging that lasting relations are based on mutual respect.

As the member for Châteauguay where the Kahnawake reserve is located, I know that this agreement is good. I salute the Mackenzie Valley agreement; I hope that it is only recognizing today's reality, above all, and that it does not discriminate against anyone.

[Jack Iyerak Anawak, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

I rise to address the House on Bill C-16, the Sahtu Dene and Metis Land Claim Settlement Act.

I am extremely pleased to speak in support of the legislation. Bill C-16 fulfils one of the most important commitments made in the red book, a commitment to resolve outstanding land claims. As has been stated on a number of occasions this is a priority for the government.

In the speech from the throne the government made a more specific commitment to put before Parliament legislation to further the implementation of northern claim settlements. Bill C-16 is such legislation. It is an action to back up our words.

Bill C-16 completes some unfinished business. It is a result of governments and aboriginal people working together in a new partnership of trust and mutual respect to ensure more certain and prosperous futures for all northerners.

As hon. members are aware, Bill C-16 implements the land claims agreement signed last September by Canada and the Sahtu Tribal Council, which represents some 2,000 Dene and Metis in the Sahtu settlement area of the Northwest Territories.

In the ratification vote held last July, 87 per cent of the Dene and 99 per cent of the Metis were in favour of the agreement. Voter turnout was very high.

As the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has stated, the House is now being asked to support the wishes of the Sahtu Dene and Metis as expressed in their ratification vote. I should say that the interests of the non-aboriginal people, northerners and all Canadians are amply protected in the agreement. The certainty of land ownership and rights provided

through the agreement will allow the major resource development projects to proceed. The moratorium on oil and gas exploration will be lifted. I remind hon. members that the government is committed to putting Canadians to work. This agreement will help us do that.

Because of the many benefits it will bring to the settlement area, the Government of the Northwest Territories is also a strong supporter of Bill C-16.

The opening sentence of the preamble in the Sahtu land claim agreement states:

The Slavey, Hare and Mountain Dene of the Sahtu region have traditionally used and occupied lands in the Northwest Territories from time immemorial.

The location of that statement as the first sentence in the preamble is significant. It is the reason we are here today.

The land claim agreement and the bill before us recognized that the Slavey, Hare and Mountain Dene as the original inhabitants of the Sahtu region have aboriginal and treaty rights. These rights have been translated and affirmed through negotiation into the rights contained in the land claim agreement before us. It is a fact that the rights of the original inhabitants of the Sahtu have not been adequately dealt with in the past. The agreement returns to the Sahtu some measure of control over what happens to land and resources in their homeland.

I draw the attention of hon. members to the objectives of the land claim agreement. The objectives stress the cultural and economic relationships which the Sahtu Dene and Metis have with the land. The preservation and the strengthening of these links, along with the clarification of land and resource rights contained in the agreement, provide the basis for a renewed partnership in a very important region of the western Arctic.

The Sahtu settlement area encompasses some 280,000 square kilometres of land in the Mackenzie Valley. Under the land claim agreement the Dene and Metis will own more than 41,000 square kilometres of that area, including the mineral rights of about 1,800 square kilometres. The Sahtu Dene and Metis will also own a wide range of specified substances under settlement land. These include carving and construction stone, gravel, gypsum, peat, sand and other substances.

Under the agreement there will be two categories of Sahtu land. The first category is settlement land, which will be outside municipal boundaries. Sahtu municipal land, the second category, will be those lands located within municipal boundaries. Certain special conditions will apply to settlement land to ensure that it is never lost to the Sahtu Dene and Metis.

For example, these lands may never be sold, mortgaged or seized under court order. They will enjoy special tax treatment. If any of the land is expropriated, the government guarantees that it will be replaced so that the initial amount of settlement land is never reduced. Sahtu municipal land will be treated like other privately owned municipal land in that it may be sold or mortgaged. However, if Sahtu municipal land is sold or granted to an individual, it will no longer be considered Sahtu land and the provisions of the agreement will not apply to it.

In this agreement third party interests will be protected and will continue. As I mentioned earlier, the certainty of ownership and rights this agreement will bring about are important for the non-aboriginal people of the Northwest Territories, as well as the aboriginal beneficiaries.

The settlement agreement should lead very quickly to new investments in the oil and gas sector, which in turn will mean employment and business opportunities for all northerners. Before any oil and gas developments can proceed, however, Canada must provide the Sahtu Tribal Council with an opportunity to present its views on the matter. This is a key principle of the land claim agreement.

As well, any operator proposing such activities must consult with the beneficiaries on such issues as environmental impact, potential impacts on wildlife harvesting, and Sahtu Dene and Metis employment opportunities. Similar consultations will also be required prior to the development or production of other types of minerals.

The settlement agreement also provides a fair and equitable financial settlement to the beneficiaries. Over the next 15 years the Sahtu Dene and Metis will receive payments totalling 75 million in 1990 dollars. They will also receive a share of the resource royalties from projects in the Mackenzie Valley. This will amount to 7.5 per cent of the first $2 million of resource royalties received by the government and 1.5 per cent of additional royalties.

Special efforts will be made to strengthen the traditional economies and economic self-sufficiency of the Sahtu Dene and Metis.

As the minister has already stated, governments are committed under the agreement to providing economic opportunities related to guiding, lodges, naturalist activities and commercial fishing.

These and other provisions will enable the five Sahtu communities in the settlement area to improve their social and economic opportunities to control their own destiny. It is they who will make the decisions. Promoting self-determination by aboriginal communities is a goal that is shared by all Canadians.

The settlement agreement accommodates the government's objective of increasing the participation of aboriginal peoples in the decision making process.

The Sahtu Dene and Metis will be full and equal partners in a renewable resources board that will be created to manage wildlife harvesting in the settlement area.

The board will also have the power to establish policies and propose regulations for all aspects of wildlife harvesting and commercial activities relating to wildlife.

The Sahtu Dene and Metis will also participate fully on boards responsible for land use planning, environmental reviews and the regulation of land and water use in the settlement areas. These boards will be institutions of public governments within the settlement area. The agreement will also provide constitutional protection of the special wildlife harvesting rights the Sahtu Dene and Metis will have in that settlement area, including the exclusive right to trap.

If for conservation reasons harvesting quotas must be set on certain wildlife species or populations or in certain areas, the harvesting needs of the Sahtu Dene and Metis will have first priority.

The wildlife harvesting provisions of the agreement are extremely important to the Sahtu Dene and Metis and other northerners. Each Sahtu community will establish a renewable resources council to manage the harvesting rights provided under land claim agreements.

I am pleased that Bill C-16 provides for the negotiation of self-government agreements with the Sahtu Dene and Metis. It guarantees them a role in any process to reform the constitution of the Northwest Territories.

I assure my hon. colleagues the agreement that will be put into force by Bill C-16 does not affect any aboriginal rights the Sahtu Dene and Metis may have to self-government.

A great deal of effort has been devoted to ensuring full and proper implementation of the Sahtu Dene and Metis land claim settlement agreement. In mid-1992, when the terms of the agreement were taking effect, a special working group was established to develop a 10-year implementation plan. This plan, which was signed at the same time as the land claim agreement, identifies all the obligations contained in the agreement, the activities required to fulfil those obligations and various other responsibilities, time frames and resource requirements.

The implementation plan however is an accord among the parties to the land claim settlement. It is not part of the settlement agreement and therefore will not receive constitutional protection. Nevertheless it is a vital document because the land claim settlement must be properly implemented in order to fulfil its aims.

The implementation plan is extremely detailed. It reflects the commitment of all parties to ensure that the letter and the spirit of the agreement are fulfilled. It sets out more than 100 separate obligations, some of which may involve up to 20 distinct activities. All parties to the plan have responsibilities to fulfil many of these obligations. This underlines the fact that the Sahtu Dene and Metis land claim settlement imposes obligations not just on Canada but on the aboriginal beneficiaries and the Government of the Northwest Territories. It also emphasizes the need for all parties to work together in implementing the agreement.

A key focus of the implementation plan is to give substance to the commitments in the land claim agreement that the Sahtu Dene and Metis will have genuine and meaningful participation in the institutions of government.

To further the goal of successful implementation of the agreement an implementation committee will be formed comprising representatives of Canada, the territorial government and the Sahtu Tribal Council. The committee will guide the implementation process for at least the first 10 years, monitor the status of the implementation plan and, if necessary, amend the plan. It will also report each year on the implementation of the Sahtu agreement.

One of the first orders of business will be to establish an enrolment board which will determine eligibility for benefits under the agreement. Eligible Dene and Metis living within or outside the settlement area may also enrol with the board as beneficiaries of the agreement. To be eligible they must be Canadian citizens and Sahtu Dene or Sahtu Metis as defined in the agreement.

An aboriginal person who is not Sahtu Dene or Metis but lives in the settlement area and is a Canadian citizen may also be eligible to enrol after the settlement is in effect. This will be achieved through a community acceptance procedure which will be decided by the Sahtu Dene and Metis.

The Sahtu claim is the second regional Dene and Metis claim to be settled. The first settlement with the Gwich'in in the Mackenzie Delta came into force in December 1992. This agreement is now being implemented.

With the co-operation of hon. members on both sides of the House we can ensure the Sahtu Dene and Metis will also soon be benefiting from their own land claim agreement.

I urge my hon. colleagues to support Bill C-16. This claim will benefit all Canadians.

[John Duncan, Reform, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it seems a bit like the further we get away from the first presentations the more murky some of the debate becomes.

I would like to make a couple of points and then ask a couple of related questions. We are really looking for open debate. We are talking about an area three-quarters the size of Nova Scotia to be set out in fee simple and constitutionally entrenched. We wanted to create a circumstance in which we could get input from members interested in inputting into the process. There will be a diversity of opinion. There is no doubt about that. We are certainly not looking to be obstructive in any way, shape or fashion.

I am reminded of a current example in British Columbia where we have quite a raging debate right now on the Kemano project. That project was signed by two levels of government in 1951 originally and in the ensuing 40-some years many societal values and other things have changed. That agreement was not constitutionally entrenched, but we have a very complicated agreement here that is planned for constitutional entrenchment.

My first question for the member who just spoke would be: Is there not some sympathy with the argument that constitutionally entrenching this level of detail has some inherent dangers?

My second question relates to a statement the hon. member made relating to the Sahtu Dene and Metis co-operating on amending the constitution of the Northwest Territories. I would like clarification on that because that statement is something I am certainly not clear on.

[Jack Iyerak Anawak, Liberal, Nunatsiaq, NT]

Mr. Speaker, my answer to the first question is no.

In 1999 there is an agreement to divide the Northwest Territories into two. One part will be Nunavut which is the area I presently represent and hope to continue to represent after 1999. The western Arctic will be the area the Sahtu Dene and Metis land claims fall under.

I suspect there will be a lot of discussion on the constitution of the western Arctic portion of the Northwest Territories. It is pretty well settled as to who will define the constitution of the Nunavut area and that is us, the Inuit.

I think all the land claims groups in the western Arctic portion of the Northwest Territories will have a great role in defining the constitution of that western Arctic territory prior to 1999 in order to ensure proper implementation of the western Arctic territory.

Presently all the claimant groups in that western Arctic area are about equal to the non-aboriginal people in that area as well. Therefore I think the groups will have a large role in defining the constitution of the Government of the Northwest Territories in the western part.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Okanagan Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in what sense is the hon. member using the word constitution? Is he using the word constitution in the sense of what constitutes the western Arctic lands, or is he using it in the sense of the British North America Act, which is really a legal provision that determines how government shall function and so on? Could he clarify that, please.

[Jack Iyerak Anawak, Liberal, Nunatsiaq, NT]

Mr. Speaker, in the Northwest Territories we are basically colour blind. The proposal in the Northwest Territories is to have two new territories which are public government concepts. However a large role is played by the aboriginal people in that area.

I answered the question on the basis that the hon. member asked it in terms of the constitution of the Government of the Northwest Territories as it relates to the British North America Act. I was using it in those terms because all the aboriginal people will have a large role in a public government as well as the self-government again because of their sheer numbers.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a follow-up question on the hon. member's response.

If the territories are going to create their own constitution, then I would be interested in knowing whether or not the aboriginal individuals will continue to have the protection of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as guaranteed to all Canadians within the Constitution of Canada.

[Jack Iyerak Anawak, Liberal, Nunatsiaq, NT]

I am sorry I did not get that very important question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

If I could be of assistance, I might ask the hon. member for Crowfoot to repeat his question to the parliamentary secretary.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as the hon. member's response to the last question indicated there is going to be the creation of a constitution for the Northwest Territories, my question and concern is whether the aboriginal people involved will continue to enjoy the protection of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms within the Constitution of Canada as all Canadians now do.

[Jack Iyerak Anawak, Liberal, Nunatsiaq, NT]

As I said, we are basically colour blind in the Northwest Territories. All the residents will continue to enjoy that privilege.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to Bill C-16. Although there are many positive things in this agreement, there are also many problems with it.

I wish to direct my comments to the compensation package given to the Sahtu Dene and Metis in this land claim agreement. I have many concerns about the precedent this agreement sets for land claim settlements and other negotiations in the rest of the country.

With every right there comes a corresponding responsibility and obligation. I see many rights in this agreement. The Sahtu are receiving a generous compensation package of land and money, rights to resource royalties, rights to restrict public access over large tracts of land and water, rights to participation in resource management decisions and environmental assessment, and rights to review economic plans and resource development initiatives.

Where are the responsibilities outlined? Where are the obligations summarized? With this agreement the government has lost certain rights by handing them over to the Sahtu peoples, but what is the diminishment in government responsibilities? These are questions which need to be answered.

The monetary compensation package in this agreement is generous. The Sahtu have been awarded a non-taxable $75 million cash settlement to be paid out over a 15-year period with accrued interest. This will add up to approximately $130 million for the current population of 1,755 people.

The agreement does not explicitly state why this money is being awarded. If it were compensation for not having had the use of the land they were entitled to under treaty, they are receiving $1 million for every year the government failed to fulfil the treaty land entitlement provisions of 128 acres per person. But there are few fences in the Northwest Territories so they have had the use of the land for traditional purposes.

In the recent Saskatchewan Treaty Land Entitlement Framework Agreement funds have been set aside to enable the First Nations to purchase the shortfall in treaty land themselves. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been set aside for this purpose, but they will not be able to buy anywhere near the amount of land the Sahtu have been given in addition to their cash compensation.

Apparently this money was just part of the settlement. Does this mean that the government would have given them even more land if they had not received the $75 million? This is extremely generous.

What is the responsibility that goes with the awarding of the cash payment and these royalties? If the Sahtu Dene and Metis have not lost any of the privileges which accrue to them under the Indian Act, then what does this mean? Does the crown have a fiduciary obligation with respect to Sahtu monetary decisions? On the face of this agreement it would appear that it does.

Settlement dollars and land title are vested in Sahtu organizations, not individuals. If five or ten years down the road the Sahtu people from a community charge that one of these organizations have mismanaged their money or land, who will be responsible? If, as the former Indian affairs minister implied, this settlement has given the Sahtu the necessary land and resources for a brighter future, do the Sahtu also have the obligation to actively pursue that goal for future generations?

This agreement also provides the Sahtu Dene and Metis with resource royalties. As previously stated they will receive 7.5 per cent of the first $2 million of resource royalties received by the Government of Canada in any given year and then 1.5 per cent of any additional royalties. These royalty shares will be from the entire Mackenzie valley. What is the explanation for this? How can the government justify this royalty deal to the Canadian people?

The Sahtu are given fee simple title to more than 41,000 square kilometres with subsurface rights on 1,800. This agreement gives them traditional use rights and significant input on resource development decisions on over 280,000 square kilometres. Now they will receive a share of government royalties over 900,000 square kilometres of the Mackenzie valley.

All resource royalties are calculated on a different basis. Oil and gas royalties tend to be based on production. Mineral royalties are based on profit. Exploration for diamonds and other minerals is on the increase in the Mackenzie valley. We do not know what our proven resource potential is north of 60.

Just exactly how much money are we talking about here? It appears the Sahtu do not know, the government does not know, no one knows. Only the taxpayers of Canada will know when they have to make up for the royalty shortfall out of their pockets.

As each northern comprehensive claim is settled more groups will receive a share of the government royalties. The Gwich'in are already a part of this deal as was stated earlier. As each group is added on, the government share of royalties decreases proportionately. What precedent does this set for claims settlements in the rest of Canada?

If the government gives up most of its resource royalties based on these precedents north of 60 other taxes will clearly have to go up. The Canadian people are already overtaxed. As a result of this agreement obviously they will have to pay more in the future.

Is this government being responsible? Is it giving hope to future generations of Canadians?

This new right to resource royalties the government has given the Sahtu people does not appear to have any responsibilities attached. The minister talks about giving them some control over resources so they can control their own economic destiny. That is certainly a worthwhile objective, but where does it say any of this money will be used to further the aspirations of the Sahtu people? They continue to rely on the federal government to provide special programs and funding.

The government may suggest Sahtu responsibility for all of these functions will come later after self-government agreements are reached. However this government is taking great pains to point out that no one knows what the eventual form of self-government will be. This government has no idea what

responsibilities the Sahtu or other aboriginal groups will assume under their specific self-government formulas.

We are talking about the rights and responsibilities that arise out of this particular agreement. The Sahtu are receiving many monetary rights without the attachment of any significant fiscal responsibilities. They are receiving a land base and royalties without an obligation to use them to further the economic and self-sufficiency objectives outlined in the agreement. I am very concerned that it sets a bad precedent for fiscal responsibility in future self-government negotiations.

This agreement also establishes a number of boards for resource management and environmental assessment. In some ways this is a positive development. The Sahtu have recognized that many of the board activities, functions and decisions are technical and not political.

Opening up the appointment process allows the Sahtu to nominate technically competent people to represent their views and interests at the table. If those people are not doing their jobs in the future, they can be removed easily without the repercussions removal of a political nominee would create.

Increasing the number of boards also adds to an existing problem. In 1992 one Toronto paper said there were already 6,200 bureaucrats and 800 boards and agencies in Yellowknife. There are fewer than 60,000 people living in the Northwest Territories in 62 communities. That is more than one bureaucrat for every 10 people and one board or agency for every 70. Surely that is enough. Imagine the chaos if we tried to run the rest of the country as inefficiently.

Yet this bill proposes more boards and with one or two exceptions does not propose to eliminate parallel boards at other levels of government. All stakeholders should have the right to have input into resource management decisions and these boards provide the Sahtu people with a mechanism for that participation.

Will these boards provide a more informed and cost effective way for northern residents to ensure that environmentally and economically sustainable decisions are made in the best interests of all Canadians? Will they take the responsibility to represent all interests seriously? I hope that is the purpose of these boards. I hope that this was not just a Tory job creation scheme for the north. Only time will tell.

The Sahtu, Dene and Metis received title to more than 41,000 square kilometres. The settlement lands of the Sahtu peoples fall within the treaty 11 territory. In 1921 treaty 11 was signed by the crown and the ancestors of the Sahtu Dene who are now signatories to this land claim agreement.

Among other things treaty 11 provided for the establishment of reserve lands. It is obvious now and it was obvious then that the whole reserve system envisioned by Ottawa bureaucrats was unworkable.

It was even more irrelevant for the people living under completely different conditions in the Northwest Territories. Reserves do not make sense to people who must follow the caribou to survive. One only has to look at the tragedies of substance abuse and suicides in communities like Davis Inlet to see the end results of past misguided policies of clumping people who traditionally ranged much further afield into small groups.

It is because the crown never upheld its promise in 1921 to provide treaty lands that we find ourselves discussing this agreement here today. The government did not have to make reserves out of this land entitlement. It could have spread the entitlement out as land in severalty in traditional camps or along family trap lines. This should have been a specific claim settlement because it lies within treaty 11, not a comprehensive claim settlement.

During the 1970s the Dene and Metis people took the position that they had never surrendered their rights to all of the land. It appears that the government chose to agree with this position rather than uphold or slightly modify the provisions of the treaty.

Under treaty 11 people were entitled to 128 acres per person. If the government had fulfilled its lawful obligation under the terms of the treaty even at this late date far less land would have been transferred. Although the Metis would not have received land under the old treaty, including them now means that the Sahtu Dene and Metis beneficiaries would have received just over 900 square kilometres of land with subsurface rights.

In this agreement the government doubled the treaty land entitlement to 1,800 square kilometres. Then it stepped completely outside of the treaty and beyond its lawful obligations and added another 39,000 square kilometres without accompanying subsurface rights. Instead of 128 acres per person the Sahtu have received 20 square kilometres per person. I would call this quite generous.

After doubling the treaty land entitlement and after guaranteeing traditional use rights over the entire settlement area of 280,000 square kilometres, why did the government give the Sahtu fee simple title to 39,000 more kilometres? I would ask the question is this fair and is it a just settlement?

Recent court decisions in Canada have recognized aboriginal rights to the land. In the Delgamuukw Court of Appeal decision last June the court clearly distinguished between land ownership and land use. The traditional use rights are to be determined on a case by case basis. The aboriginal rights referred to are for the use and enjoyment of the land according to tradition and culture while recognizing there are other third party interests which also require use of the land base.

The courts do not currently hold that the aboriginal right to the land is a right of ownership but of use. This agreement goes far beyond that. Not only have fewer than 1,800 Sahtu Dene and Metis retained the right to hunt, trap and fish throughout the settlement area, but they have a share of resource royalties in perpetuity, a generous cash compensation and a significant land and resource base.

For all the rights the Sahtu have received, what are their accompanying responsibilities and obligations? Despite the generosity of this agreement, the crown retains responsibility for program delivery and for special economic development programs to encourage self-sufficiency. These programs are in addition to the many government programs the Sahtu and other Canadians are eligible for.

Where is the incentive or the responsibility to become economically self-sufficient if the government is committed to providing programs indefinitely?

The crown has gone far beyond its lawful obligations and is not getting any diminishment of its responsibilities in return. Although the agreement states that government is not liable for damages or losses due to the failure of a Sahtu organization to comply with its administrative obligations, what does this really mean?

If the government does not get any concessions from the signatories regarding their assumption of program funding and delivery in this settlement then it is certainly not going to get it from south of 60 where governments cannot afford to be quite so generous.

The continuation of government's involvement will incur increasing fiduciary obligations despite the fact the Sahtu now have the land and money to begin to take responsibility for these functions themselves.

This agreement is setting a precedent for self-government negotiations down the road. Where First Nations in the future may have a tax base and the economic means to provide for their own programs, will they choose to rely on government funding? Instead of downsizing with the devolution of programs and authority away from Indian affairs, we seem to be encouraging greater bureaucracy with little fiscal responsibility at the local level.

What precedent is the crown setting for negotiators in other treaty territories and in comprehensive claim areas throughout Canada? There is a clause which extinguishes all future Sahtu claims to additional land and water, but treaty 11 also had an extinguishment clause. The government chose to renegotiate the land entitlement provisions and resource royalties even though it takes the position that the Sahtu did surrender title to the land in 1921. The extinguishment clause in this agreement apparently provides greater certainty to the government, but extinguishment is extinguishment.

Modern day treaties are far more complex and it is hoped more equitable, but will they be any more binding on the parties?

The Indian Act was created in an era when paternalistic government believed that the Indian and Inuit peoples of Canada needed protection from unscrupulous land speculators and others, but it evolved into the misguided monster we see today.

The Indian Act created dependencies where none existed before. Government assumed responsibility for all decisions regarding monetary or land transactions and removed all responsibility and decision making authority from the people it sought to protect.

It is time that government got out of the business of making decisions for people. Government must restore the dignity of the Indian, Inuit and Metis people by letting them make their own decisions and allow them to be responsible for the consequences of those decisions.

Government has given the Sahtu a settlement with extensive rights. Now it must ensure that the Sahtu assume the responsibilities that go with those rights.

The government of the day has the right to negotiate fair and just settlements with aboriginal peoples who have outstanding claims, but the government also has the responsibility to ensure that those settlements are fair for all Canadians.

[Jack Iyerak Anawak, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, the attitude of the Reform Party reminds me of the story of Rip Van Winkle who slept for so many years that when he woke up things had changed drastically. I think Reformers are still sleeping with the attitude they have.

Their attitude is surprising when they say how generous the government is. I think the Sahtu Dene and Metis have been pretty generous by giving up 240,000 square kilometres of land to the Government of Canada and only retaining 41,000 square kilometres and 1,800 of subsurface and surface rights. I think that is pretty generous.

I would like to think that the Reform Party can see reason. However, that might be impossible to ask of such outdated thinking.

To the three speakers from the Reform Party, how would they feel if they woke up one morning and somebody said they can live on their land but laws are going to be proposed which they have to obey on how to live, where to live, outlawing their beliefs, taking away their dignity, taking away their hunting rights, not allowing them to vote, putting in a new justice system

that is totally foreign to them, and in the process infecting them with smallpox, tuberculosis and other communicable diseases?

How can they be so dense that they cannot understand that the Government of Canada and the people of Canada are now trying to correct a situation, an injustice that has been around for a few hundred years?

I will repeat my remarks from earlier. The Reform Party members talk as if the aboriginal people are invading their land. It is as if we are taking land away from them. They can record their history in hundreds of years. We can record ours in thousands and tens of thousands of years. The sheer audacity of this group-I am at a loss for words.

How would they feel if they woke up one morning and suddenly found themselves subject to a totally different kind of life than they had been used to for years and years?

Some of them make statements that they are all for aboriginal self-government, self-determination. Strip away that veneer and I think all we see is paternalistic statements from the Reform Party. It is like saying some of my best friends are Indians. It is good to say it but it does not really mean much, because the respect and the support have to be there from within rather than just saying it on the surface.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his comments. I do not think that anyone would deny that there have been injustices done. I detailed some examples of that, how that has taken place down through the history of our country.

I think also that what I was trying to get at in my presentation is that when rights are granted to individuals or to groups there are corresponding responsibilities that go with those rights. I do not see in this agreement where that is taking place within the confines of the agreement. I see all sorts of things being granted to this group of Canadians, and I think we have to distinguish here that we are all Canadians and we have all benefited from this great land of ours in different ways. Even the native people, the aboriginal people, have clearly benefited from Canada. My comment is that they also have to take responsibility. If they are going to go down the road toward self-government-there clearly does not seem to be any definition of that forthcoming from the opposite side of the House-then obviously there should be this devolution of power, to the Sahtu people in this particular case, to the aboriginal people in Canada, but also they should be seeking to give up any further rights to aboriginal programs.

My hope always was that once we came to a reasonable and fair settlement and self-government for the aboriginal people that at some point we would all be treated equally. There would not be any programs specifically based on race any more.

I see that this agreement does not accomplish that, even though the monetary compensation is paid, even though the land use is guaranteed, even though the fee simple land is given over, even though subsurface mineral rights are given to these people from the Government of Canada. The bottom line still appears to be that they do not give up any future access to aboriginal programs, either existing ones or ones in the future. That was the thrust of my speech. That is my concern.

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Halton—Peel, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member and I have a hard time coming to grips with the root of his reasoning.

He suggests somehow that Canada is giving them something. In his speech he even goes on to suggest that other agreements would have given them less. I cannot really comprehend it. Then the hon. member goes on to say we are going to give them these things but what are their obligations. In other words he wants to pay homage or lip service to self-government but then turns around and says we should be making the rules for them and tell them what their obligations are. That is what I hear in the speech.

We are not giving the natives anything. It is already theirs. We are simply arriving at a suitable accommodation so that the country can forge ahead.

I saw a cartoon once where two Indians are standing on Mount Royal watching Jacques Cartier land. The soldiers are about to get off the boat and come ashore and one Indian is saying to the other: "Let them land. What harm can they do?"

Does the hon. member really believe that we are giving them something by these agreements? I have really failed to understand what direction he is coming from. We have already taken. It is already theirs.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question and comments regarding my presentation.

What I was referring to was that the ancestors of the Sahtu Dene did sign treaty No. 11. As signatories to that treaty certain things were decided on, one of which was that there should be 128 acres granted per person under the treaty. What we see under this new agreement goes far beyond that.

I believe that as a people and a country we are giving up something. If we are not then I would ask the member in return where is the $75 million coming from? It is coming from

somewhere. Someone is giving that money and it is we as a nation, which includes all the aboriginal people, all of us are giving that. I am not saying we as a race or we as a party or we as a government. I am saying we as a nation are giving up some of the things that are in this agreement. I dispute his point.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Given the nature of the debate today, if any one of you should be watching the clock very carefully you will notice that I am going to extend the period of questions and comments because I want to hear from the Secretary of State for Training and Youth.

I think all of us in the House would recognize her interest in this issue and that of others. But in this instance I would like to give the floor to hon. Secretary of State for Training and Youth.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Secretary of State (Training and Youth)]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member. I know that he has had intense briefing this very day and put forward quite a few ideas concerning this claim.

I just want to say that some of the things I am hearing in this debate are very disturbing. It is a very ethnocentric view that is being perpetrated, but then I suppose that is the reason why we have different political ideologies. We totally support the land claims process. In fact as a government we want to make that process fairer and more equitable for the aboriginal people.

It is unfortunate that this particular claim is receiving all of the concerns that the Reform Party has. It is not specifically the Sahtu claim that is being dealt with here. It is the Reform Party's political agenda regarding aboriginal issues: self-government, compensation. However there are a number of things I want to hit on.

Talking about treating all Canadians the same I think is very misguided and misdirected through this claims debate because talking about treating aboriginal people the same is not treating them fairly necessarily.

If you know the language of constitutional debates and of aboriginal justice you will know that treating people who are poor, who are probably one of the poorest groups in the country, who have the highest unemployment, who have the highest rate of suicide-in Big Cove one a month-if you think about the social statistics, the under representation of aboriginal people in the financial institutions, the political institutions and when you think about the over representation of those people in terms of incarceration, poor health, poverty, suicide and a number of other social malaise, you will know that treating the people the same is not treating them fairly. Maybe we can eradicate that view.

Second, I would like to say that you are talking about the finality of the claim. It was my grandfather, Chief George Zault Blondin who signed treaty 11. It was with the good intent of holding in trust those things that we hold dear to us. I know from the history of my people that it was not to forfeit anything. It was signed to secure and hold close the things that mean something to aboriginal people.

This is a peculiar arrangement, a very difficult process, which for the last 20 or 24 years these people have undergone. They voted for it. They want it. We recognize that as a government. By taking the debate one step further, the hon. member alleges that if we have a deal there has to be finality, there has to be an element of certainty, that if we reach an agreement the people have to be responsible and must not ask for anything else.

My question to the hon. member is this. Is he alleging that once provinces become provinces they should not ask for any more transfer payments? Is he alleging that once municipal governments are formed they should not look for any subsidies in terms of tax benefits or anything like that? Is he alleging that any form of government that is established outside of the federal government should have that same finality as well? If we are going to treat people the same, so should governments be treated the same.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I will certainly give the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River the same generosity of time to respond.