Debates of Oct. 23rd, 1995

British Columbia Treaty Commission

[Margaret Bridgman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have one question of the hon. member which relates to the five commissioners.

I realize the act states in the beginning that it is the chief commissioner plus four and there is quite a good dissertation on how the four are selected, including the chief. I do not quite understand how this fifth one came to be. In that relationship also in the term of office, I understand the chief commissioner is a three-year term of appointment and the others are for two-year terms. Does the hon. member know if there is any number of reappointments or consecutive terms, that type of thing?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yes the fifth commissioner who is of course the chair of the representatives, is chosen through consultation among the two governments and the First Nations who are part of the treaty process. It is done essentially by a consultative process and agreement in principle on an individual.

That was the case with Chuck Connaghan who served as the first chief commissioner and who set up the process. It was also the case for Alec Robertson who is currently the chief commissioner.

With reference to the period of time, I understand the member is correct. There is a set period of two years but reappointment is quite in order. If any of the organizations, be it either of the governments or the First Nations people, wish to reappoint one of their appointees, that is perfectly in order and would happen. It is also true that the chief commissioner can be reappointed, although I have to say that is my understanding rather than my firm knowledge. I will get absolutely accurate information for the hon. member.

It is important to make sure that in such an organization with five people in it we do not come to the end of the period of appointment and then start afresh with new commissioners. As the hon. member quite correctly pointed out in her question to the hon. member for Western Arctic, this is a difficult issue with respect to time. A continuity of personnel will be most important in making sure that we do not slide backward at any point in the process. I will get the actual terms dealing with the period of appointment for the hon. member.

[Morris Bodnar, Liberal, Saskatoon—Dundurn, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak in support of Bill C-107 today.

In 1990 Price Waterhouse estimated, as the hon. member who just spoke indicated, that about $1 billion of expenditures involving up to 1,500 jobs in the mining and forestry sector were likely to be affected if claims were not resolved. When we hear these numbers we must keep in mind that these are only two industry sectors and this study was over five years ago. In that report Price Waterhouse indicated that comprehensive land claims generate uncertainty for companies operating in British Columbia. I will get back to the factor of uncertainty.

Factors creating uncertainty include right of access to land and resources, possibility of production or shipment disruptions affecting reliability as suppliers, and possibility of unsatisfactory compensation if a company is affected by a land claim settlement.

Forestry and mining companies reported that they required a premium to invest in British Columbia rather than elsewhere because of the uncertainties related to comprehensive claims. Currently the premium is generally less than 1 per cent but it is expected to rise in the future. As indicated, the economic impact on the province of British Columbia is substantial.

The report goes on to indicate that uncertainty surrounding settlement of the land claims issue will ultimately have an impact on the provincial economy. It is estimated that almost $1 billion of currently proposed mining and forestry industry investments could be affected by the non-settlement of comprehensive land claims, although land claims are generally not the only issue to be resolved before development can proceed.

The economic impacts of such delays or cancellations could be summarized as follows: $50 million of capital expenditures could be lost each year; $75 million of capital expenditures could be delayed resulting in both lost opportunities and continued operation of less than efficient plants; and some 100 jobs stand not to be created each year because of the economic uncertainty. Such loss of growth of primary industry jobs means that the service sector will also be impacted and grow more slowly. Using generally accepted employment multipliers this is equivalent to a further 200 jobs not created throughout the province each year which might otherwise materialize.

The report indicates based on the projects identified in the survey that ultimately some 1,500 permanent jobs could be impacted, together with related indirect and induced employment.

It is important to refer to particular parts of the report because of the details contained therein. It is important to look at different aspects. There is reference made to the mining industry. The situation is a bit different at the mining development stage. A number of the participants indicated that they expected difficulties from unsettled land claims. Together the projects the participants indicated they had problems with represent about $680 million in capital expenditures.

Extrapolating the results and analysing expected impacts, Price Waterhouse estimated that the mining investment of about $100 million a year was likely to be affected by uncertainties related to comprehensive land claims in British Columbia. This represents about 12 per cent of annual private and public capital investment in the British Columbia mining industry. Based on the survey results about half the projects affected were expected to experience delays of about three years. The other half were expected to be cancelled.

Along with these losses one has to look at another ancillary loss, legal costs. Comprehensive land claims in British Columbia result in legal costs to governments, companies and native organizations estimated by Price Waterhouse at about $5 million a year.

In 1987, it is important to note, forestry, logging and wood products, manufacturing and pulp and paper manufacturing accounted for about 30 per cent of the GDP of the goods producing industries of the province of British Columbia and about 10 per cent of the province's GDP. In 1988 the industry was responsible for 87,000 direct permanent jobs representing about 6 per cent of total employment in British Columbia. The multiplier effect creates at least two more jobs for each direct job. Thus 261,000 jobs in British Columbia can be attributed to the forestry industry, 17 per cent of the total provincial workforce.

Mining, oil, gas and related manufacturing account for about 15 per cent of goods producing GDP and about 5 per cent of the provincial GDP. This is half the size of the forest industry in terms of GDP contribution.

We must note the Price Waterhouse study was completed over five years ago in March 1990. A lot has happened in the resource industry and on the land claims front since that time. However the one thing that has remained consistent is the need to establish certainty in the province of British Columbia through the negotiation and settlement of land claims.

The study conducted by Price Waterhouse involved leaders in the mining and forestry industries including senior executives, presidents and vice-presidents of companies, as well as general managers, chief foresters and managers of exploration and woodland operations. This is a critical point to understand the real impact of the lack of certainty on the land claims front to resource development and the impact the study has had in the industry. It signals the very broad recognition by industry from the boardrooms out to the field. The issue cannot be more emphatic. The settlement of land claims is long overdue.

Price Waterhouse reported that unresolved, comprehensive land claims generate uncertainty to companies operating in British Columbia, as I have already mentioned. I will mention it again to emphasize it for third party members and get through to them that it is an important factor.

Factors creating this uncertainty include the right of access to land and resources. For these companies the most important factors affecting the premium include future uncertainties regarding the outcome of injunctions related to land ownership or access, the possibility of production disruption, and future considerations regarding royalties and taxes.

The respondents to the Price Waterhouse survey generally agree that companies, employees and governments all pay the cost of uncertainty related to comprehensive land claims. The survey respondents also agreed that generally the higher cost could not be passed on to consumers because the resource sectors in British Columbia sell on world markets and are price takers. None of the respondents reported having considered compensation for comprehensive claims when applying for federal-provincial government funding. Very few respondents actually reported having applied for government incentive programs in the past.

These are very real concerns in resource based sectors in the province of British Columbia that consequently the economic stability not only of that province but the rest of the country as well.

There has been considerable action on the claims front since the study was done. The province of British Columbia has entered into the negotiation process and over 47 nation groups in the province of British Columbia have submitted statements of intent to negotiate.

The federal government is committed to resolving the uncertainty issues caused by the lack of treaties in B.C. The tabling of legislation for the creation of the B.C. Treaty Commission is one step toward the resolution of uncertainty.

There is no doubt in anyone's mind that the Price Waterhouse numbers demonstrate a clear and resounding indication of the impacts and the costs associated with not resolving land claims in the province of British Columbia.

We know we are losing over $1 billion in investment and over 1,500 jobs in mining and forestry. The door is open to resolve the land claims issue, to achieve certainty and to move forward. We must act. The opportunity is here today with the B.C. Treaty Commission legislation.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's comments with regard to the issue.

A number of bands in B.C. have not agreed and have refused to sign on. They are actually arguing with other bands over who has what lands. Yet the member is saying to go ahead and spend the money with no commitment from the other bands. I do not understand this at all. It will be an ongoing argument between the bands and there will be no settlement.

He blames this for impeding industry. It will impede industry. I will not disagree with that. It will not impede industry as much as the government has since it was elected. The government's regulations have tied up mining far tighter than any land claim agreement. Even the mining and logging industries would agree with that.

I fully understand that land tenure is a big problem in Canada. However that is into the area of provincial jurisdiction. They are trying to put the horse before the cart. It has already taken place without the legislation passing through Parliament and I do not understand that either. Maybe you can answer some of my questions.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Before I give the floor to the hon. member for Saskatoon-Dundurn, I remind members to direct questions and comments through the Chair.

[Morris Bodnar, Liberal, Saskatoon—Dundurn, SK]

Mr. Speaker it is nice to know that members of the third party recognize that this uncertainty is having an impact on industry in Canada. Hopefully, rather than being critical of what is being proposed, the third party will propose whatever it believes may be better. If its proposals are better we can discuss them.

It is interesting to note the land claims, overlapping claims and the problems with them. Of course it is voluntary and entrance is voluntary. However it is hoped that as we proceed the parties and other groups in British Columbia will see the process is working. Since it is voluntary, hopefully other groups that are somewhat reluctant will join the program.

A step has to be taken. We cannot throw our arms in the air and say that we have this problem but will do nothing about it. We cannot say that. We have to try to bring the matter to a resolution and help industry and people in the province of British Columbia and elsewhere in Canada bring the matter to a head. I just wish the hon. member had some constructive suggestions on how this matter could be dealt with if he is not happy with the process we have introduced.

[Beryl Gaffney, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too am very pleased to speak to Bill C-107. This is a very important bill and is long overdue. However the understanding should be that we are now at this stage and let us get on with it.

Today marks the culmination of a long and at times very difficult struggle. It is born of British Columbia's history and is the product of many years of hard work and a lot of acrimonious debate.

The issue of aboriginal rights in B.C. has remained unresolved for years. The negotiation process has gone on for decades. Many people have played a part. Many times the negotiators did not understand the cultural differences they were dealing with.

My comments this afternoon will be very short. I will address only what one company in British Columbia has done to improve cross-cultural awareness which not only improves relations but improves business for all concerned.

Aboriginal and non-aboriginal people often work in the same circles in both the private and public sectors, yet the level of awareness across cultures is often lower than it should be. Misinformation about the culture and beliefs of First Nations can create tension within an office and across the boardroom table. This tension negatively impacts on interpersonal and business relations.

One of the best ways to increase knowledge about First Nations is through cross-cultural awareness training. An example of this is what I am going to speak about today.

B.C. Hydro is a leader in this field. Once B.C. Hydro realized the benefits of working with aboriginal peoples it developed the aboriginal cross-cultural awareness training program to increase employee knowledge of First Nations culture. "Taking an interest in learning about First Nations issues was the first step in improving relationships between two cultures," says Patrick Kelly, training co-ordinator of B.C. Hydro.

The program has been so successful it is now offered to organizations outside B.C. The hydro program was developed in collaboration with aboriginal people and is delivered by First Nations people familiar with community, corporate and government operations.

The program has three levels. Participants start with an information session about First Nations history, culture and languages. An overview on relationship building and conducting business with aboriginal people is also presented. Participants then progress to the next level which provides in depth information about a specific aboriginal group relevant to the client. The client also has the opportunity to acquaint the aboriginal group with its structure and interest. The third level of the program includes a facilitated face to face meeting between the client and the aboriginal group.

To date B.C. Hydro has provided training for several organizations and businesses such as CN Rail, the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the Insurance Corporation of B.C., and the B.C. Lottery Corporation. Reaction to the program has been very positive. Two CN Rail employees who recently attended the session noted that the training will strengthen partnerships with First Nations and stimulate new ideas and strategies.

Cross-culture awareness training can assist any organization that deals with First Nations. Ian Tait, B.C. Hydro's manager of business development and communications says: "In light of the current treaty making process in B.C., it has become even more important for companies to build stronger relationships with First Nations". I am sure anyone who is wishing to have information on this could contact someone at B.C. Hydro with regard to its aboriginal cross-culture awareness training program.

I have recently been assigned to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. If ever we are to have an interest in the heritage of this country and who probably has the most to gain or to lose, we certainly have a lot to gain by knowing our aboriginal and our

First Nations people and knowing more about their history and their culture. It is important that we understand what their culture is and try to work with it. If First Nations would understand our culture too, I believe that all in the community would be better served and business would be better served.

My comments are very short. It is only to create awareness, which in turn will give better understanding, which will lead to a resolution and hopefully, passage of Bill C-107.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I remind the House that we are presently at the last stage of debate on Bill C-107, in which members are entitled to a 10-minute maximum intervention without questions or comments.

[John Murphy, Liberal, Annapolis Valley—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-107. As a member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, I know the importance of the bill. I will spend a few moments talking about the federal government's perspective on the B.C. treaty negotiations.

The federal government has a dual objective in entering into treaty negotiations: to achieve certainty as to the rights and obligations of all lands and resource users; and to establish a new relationship between First Nations and other citizens. It is important as Canada evolves to achieve a better relationship between our native people and the rest of Canadians.

The interests which Canada brings to the treaty negotiating table are outlined in the preliminary document dated June 27, 1995. This was prepared by the federal treaty negotiations office.

The Government of Canada has primary jurisdiction over issues such as financial benefits, governance and fisheries, while in other areas such as lands and wildlife it may exercise varying degrees of authority. Although the federal government does not have primary jurisdiction over all the topics which will be subject to negotiation, it has nevertheless declared its interest in every area. Overall, in concluding treaties in B.C., Canada's interest is ensuring that fairness, affordability, clarity and durability are present.

The federal government has also identified its specific interests in negotiating the key components of the treaty. Those key components are lands and resources, financial benefits and governance. Let me outline some of the key elements of each of these components.

In the area of lands and resources, we want to ensure the conservation of resources for the future use and benefit of all Canadians. We want to ensure that we promote and integrate a co-ordinated approach to land and resource management. We also want to identify and consult with all interested and affected third parties and deal with them equitably. We obviously have to respect the legal rights of all of our citizens. The promotion of self-reliance of the First Nations is important and is one of the reasons I sit on the parliamentary committee. Last, with respect to lands and resources, we must safeguard Canada's over-arching obligations.

In the area of financial benefits, we want to ensure in concluding agreements that they are affordable for all Canadians. That is very important. I believe we can work together with all parties to make sure that happens. We also have to ensure that there is no burden to Canada's economy and taxpayers.

Most important, we must ensure there is fairness and equity among all the treaties concluded in B.C. and elsewhere in Canada. That is important for our government. We talked about that in our red book, that there be fairness and equity in all of our conclusions when we do these treaties. The last and most important one is promoting self-reliance in the First Nations communities.

The main elements in the area of governance are establishing new relationships with First Nations. That is an important element for us. We are always striving to do that. I am watching this happen more and more in my committee. We are looking at it in a subcommittee on education of which I am also a member. We are looking at how those new relationships can be built so that First Nations can take their proper roles in the country.

We want to establish clear and harmonious jurisdictional arrangements among all levels of government. We also want to maintain Canada's over-arching sovereignty and the application of the charter of rights and freedoms.

We must make sure that First Nations institutions of government are democratic and accountable. This is coming more and more into play. Our native people want to be more democratic and accountable for their ongoing performance in Canada.

We want to recognize the unique needs of various First Nations. That is very important as well. There are so many unique needs of our First Nations people. Through this treaty and this commission those needs, unique as they are, can be highlighted and accentuated.

The means whereby Canada will achieve its interests will be determined through extensive consultations with third parties and ultimately through a process of negotiations with the First Nations and British Columbia.

What is the vision for post-treaty British Columbia? The federal government has a vision for British Columbia after treaty negotiations have concluded with the province's First Nations. Canada seeks a society in which new relationships are forged with First Nations, a relationship obviously based on respect and trust, one

that reconciles modern Canadian realities with the traditional native aspirations.

Although Canada has a vision of what it would like to see at the end of the day, there is no prescription to define this new relationship. It will be built on a process, that trust I talked about, the respect I talked about. That will be negotiated by the three parties: the First Nations, Canada and British Columbia.

The fundamental elements of Canada's vision for post-treaty B.C. include certainty, equity and finality, practical arrangements, and opportunities for economic development. That is very important because our First Nations are striving to build their communities. They are striving to be more independent, but that independence can only come if there is economic opportunity and development, if native people can forge their design and abilities around economic development and make their communities more productive. That would give the independence and self-reliance which is so important for our First Nations people.

We have to make sure that the vision is workable, efficient and cost effective with these governance arrangements. What we will see in this vision at the end of the day are healthier First Nations. Nobody wants that more than the First Nations people themselves.

Last, we want more harmonious relations and better neighbours. That goes without saying. I am very pleased to have had the opportunity to speak on Bill C-107 and, obviously, very pleased to support it.

[John Finlay, Liberal, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a new member of the aboriginal affairs and northern development committee, I am pleased to rise and speak on Bill C-107, an act respecting the establishment of the British Columbia Treaty Commission.

The B.C. treaty commission will be charged with the task of facilitating treaty negotiations, including the implementation of the inherent right to self-government. The bill will help all of us to understand something of the complexity involved in this process and something of the patience that is required. It will also help us to understand what that elusive phrase "inherent right to self-government" means.

Self-government will be dealt with at the same treaty table as other items such as land and resources. The same principles and practices of openness which currently characterize the B.C. treaty making process will also apply to self-government negotiations.

The federal government will not establish additional processes. These negotiations will be with the aboriginal groups that are involved in the existing treaty process in B.C. As the act outlines, the current chief federal negotiators who work out of the federal treaty negotiation office will represent Canada in self-government negotiations.

The budgets allocated for the B.C. treaty making process and managed by the treaty commission will support self-government negotiations.

It is federal government policy to implement the inherent right of aboriginal people to self-government and it will focus on reaching practical and workable agreements on how self-government will be exercised. Rather than trying to define it in abstract terms or through lengthy and costly litigation, while there are different views about the nature, scope and content of the inherent right, negotiations among governments and aboriginal peoples are preferred over litigation. Consultation and co-operation, not confrontation.

It seems to be without cause for any contradiction that in our modern society, and perhaps because we tend to follow practices from south of the border, that we are becoming less and less able, sometimes in government and civic affairs and interpersonal relationships too, to sit down and solve some of these problems without the help of high priced lawyers and legal experts. We could give many examples of the increasing cost of this sort of thing. Many of us have had first hand experience of that. I applaud the thrust of this bill.

Given the different circumstances of aboriginal peoples, implementation of the inherent right cannot be uniform, nor will it result in a one size fits all form of self-government. There are 625 First Nations in Canada and I am sure we would find at least 450 different interpretations of what the inherent right means, depending on whether these are the Crees of northern Quebec or the members of Walpole Island or the Sechelt in B.C. Therefore, there are 625 negotiations to be completed.

It would do us well to remember that for 200 years we have treated our aboriginal people in a paternalistic way. They see themselves as occupiers of this land before our ancestors arrived. They see themselves as people who agreed in a peaceful way to share that land with us. All too often our answer, when they were outnumbered, was to ignore them completely and push them on to the poorest land we could find and call it a reserve.

Self-government arrangements will be tailored to meet the unique needs of aboriginal groups and will be responsive to their particular political, economic, legal, historical, cultural and social circumstances.

Let me add that the inherent right of self-government immediately does not include a right of sovereignty in the international law sense and will not result in sovereign, independent aboriginal nation states. On the contrary, implementation of self-government should enhance the participation of aboriginal people in Canadian

federation and ensure that aboriginal peoples and their governments do not exist in isolation, separate and apart from the rest of society.

It is envisioned that these agreements about self-government will provide for the aboriginal First Nations a form of government somewhere between municipal government or provincial government where they will have self-government authority over the immediate day to day lives of their people and they will have a continuing relationship with the federal government.

Lest we feel that these things are all going to be done very quickly and expeditiously and that Bill C-107 suddenly outlines the path before us with sign posts that will be met one after the other, it might be wise to summarize some of the subject matter that will be open to negotiation in the first instance, in other words the scope of these negotiations.

They will involve the establishment of governing structures, internal constitutions, elections and leadership selection processes; membership; marriage; adoption and child welfare; aboriginal language, culture and religion; education; health; social services; administration and enforcement of aboriginal laws; policing; property rights; land management; natural resources management; agriculture; hunting, fishing and trapping on aboriginal lands; taxation in respect of direct taxes and property taxes of members; transfer and management of moneys and group assets; management of public works and infrastructure; housing; local transportation; licensing, regulation and operation of businesses located on aboriginal lands. Subject matters beyond those integral to aboriginal culture or strictly internal to an aboriginal group are open to negotiation.

In these instances, primary law making authority would remain with the federal or provincial governments as the case may be and would prevail in the event of a conflict with aboriginal laws.

These matters need to be understood and negotiated. They would include such things as divorce; labour and training; administration of justice issues, including matters related to the administration and enforcement of laws of other jurisdictions which might include certain criminal laws; penitentiaries and parole; environmental protection, assessment and pollution prevention; fisheries co-management; migratory birds co-management; gaming; and emergency preparedness.

The third heading is subject matters where it is essential for the federal government to retain its law making authority. These are grouped under two headings in the act: the powers related to Canadian sovereignty, defence and external relations, international-diplomatic relations in foreign policy, national defence and security, security of national borders and international treaty making; immigration, naturalization and aliens; international trade, including tariffs and import-export controls.

Other national interest powers involve the management and regulation of the national economy, the maintenance of national law and order, the protection of health and safety of all Canadians, federal undertakings and other powers including broadcasting and telecommunications, aeronautics, navigation and shipping, maintenance of national transportation systems, postal service, the census and statistics. While law making power in these areas will not be the subject of negotiations, the federal government is prepared to consider administrative arrangements where feasible and appropriate.

The policy principles on which self-government negotiations will be based are the following: the inherent right is an existing aboriginal right under the Canadian Constitution. Self-government will be exercised within the existing Canadian Constitution. It should enhance the participation of aboriginal peoples in Canadian society. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms will apply fully to aboriginal governments as it does to other governments in Canada.

Due to federal fiscal constraints, all federal funding for self-government will be achieved through the reallocation of existing resources as outlined in the 1995 budget. Where all parties agree, rights in self-government agreements may be protected in new treaties under section 35 of the Constitution as additions to existing treaties or as part of comprehensive land claims agreements. Federal, provincial, territorial and aboriginal laws must work in harmony. Laws of overriding federal and provincial importance such as the Criminal Code will prevail and the interests of all Canadians will be taken into account as agreements are negotiated.

Members have spoken previously about respect and trust which are absolutely essential. I suggest another essential element if Bill C-107 is going to fulfil its promise and if we are going to get land claims on the road to settlement will be patience.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in support of Bill C-107, an act respecting the establishment of the British Columbia Treaty Commission.

It is important that we go back to the last Parliament when the Liberal members from eastern and western Arctic came to the House and made sure that parties on both sides of the House were fully acquainted with some of the difficulties, frustrations and road blocks that our First Nations have had over the years in trying to get some of these outstanding treaties resolved.

I can reflect back to our very first year as rookie members of Parliament. Mr. Speaker, I remember being with you and our

caucus colleagues when we spent a long weekend in Iqaluit. We were all immersed in the community and the culture. Many of us realized that old expression "out of sight, out of mind" reflected what has been going for many years with many of our First Nations communities.

As I mentioned, the members from the eastern and western Arctic urged us on and we as a caucus and now as a government are fully participating in ensuring the realization of some of those priorities which interest the First Nations are becoming legislation.

It is also a tribute to the government, specifically to the minister responsible for Indian and northern affairs. As one of our members mentioned earlier, some of these issues have been on the books for over 100 years. We just keep putting these treaties aside. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development probably had to twist some arms, because this has always been a tough issue to get on the front burner and get to the point where it becomes legislation on the floor of the House.

Today we can celebrate. Maybe there are some members in the opposition who do not like the process that is evolving as we get the issue resolved, but I am happy to hear that in spirit they are essentially supportive of the legislation. I think that is fair ball. There is always room for improving the process in this place.

At times it strikes me as funny that the Reform Party tends to come from a background where they want less government, less red tape, and the activity around this particular bill has been that. A lot of entrepreneurial people from all levels of government and all sectors of the economy have worked together in a very constructive way. They have worked expeditiously, and now when they seem to be getting some real results the Reform Party is saying hold on a minute, we are getting a little head of ourselves; let us not be too efficient here, because we have to make sure that the MPs ratify this and place the seal of Parliament on it before we confirm or negotiate transactions.

The Reform Party should know that all of those discussions and activities and exploration that have taken place are really conditional upon the work in the House. The Reform Party should not get too upset about the process, as long as in the end we get this resolved. I think that is where we are all coming from.

I have worked over the last six years with my colleague from the Western Arctic, who has made me as a city member of Parliament much more aware of some of the difficulties some of our first peoples are having trying to get their dreams, policies, and objectives resolved. I believe all members would agree that our member for the Western Arctic has been very passionate about making sure that her communities and her people have been represented in this Parliament over the last six years.

On behalf of my constituents in downtown Toronto, we support the government on this bill. We hope that our first peoples, with the

help of this bill, will realize a good part of the dream they have been working on for so many years.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in today's debate on a bill respecting the establishment of the British Columbia Treaty Commission.

I should start by congratulating the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie, the hon. Minister of Indian Affairs, for succeeding in bringing this matter before the House, a very difficult task because of the full parliamentary calendar, and in convincing us all of the importance of this bill because it is indeed a very significant bill.

I see that some of the members across the way do not share my opinion but this is nonetheless what I think about the whole issue.

In May 1991, the Government of British Columbia made a commitment to ensure that the province would pay its fair share in the settlement of the land claims in question.

In June 1991, the provincial minister of aboriginal affairs announced the approval in principle of the establishment of a treaty commission in charge of co-ordinating the start of land claim negotiations, as recommended by the task force that had been set up for this purpose and whose members included representatives of the various levels of government.

In November 1991, the federal minister of the day, the hon. Tom Siddon as you may recall, approved 19 of the recommendations in the task force's report.

In December 1991, the Premier of British Columbia, Mike Harcourt, and the provincial minister of aboriginal affairs, Andrew Petter, approved the task force's recommendations regarding the land claims in B.C.

In the next 10 months, representatives of Canada, British Columbia and the summit negotiated the agreement on establishing the British Columbia Treaty Commission. The agreement on the BCTC specifies the commission's role, membership, financing, location, duties, powers, decisions, immunity, mandate and reviews.

On September 21, 1992, the Government of Canada, then represented by Prime Minister Mulroney and Minister of Indian Affairs Tom Siddon, the Government of British Columbia, represented by Premier Mike Harcourt and Minister of Aboriginal Affairs Andrew Petter, and the leaders of the First Nations summit formally approved the commission's constitution by signing the agreement on the British Columbia Treaty Commission.

The agreement on the BCTC requires the principals to establish the BCTC through legislative means. The federal and provincial governments agreed to adopt legislation to achieve this goal, while the summit agreed to pass a resolution to that effect.

To enable the BCTC to start operating as soon as possible, commissioners were appointed on an acting basis by provincial and federal orders in council dated April 13, 1995 and April 14, 1993 respectively and by a summit resolution dated April 5. These orders-in-council gave the commissioners the authority to carry out the agreed mandate pending the adoption of legislation to establish the BCTC as a separate corporate entity. This is of course the beginning of the process we are involved in.

On April 15, 1993, chief commissioner C.J. Connaghan and commissioners Lorne Greenaway, Barbara Risher, Carole Corcoran and Doug Kelly were appointed to the BCTC.

On May 11, 1993, the Summit passed a resolution to fulfil its role and support the establishment of this entity. On May 26 of the same year, the provincial bill was assented to pending the implementation of a federal statute. Political parties support the BCTC legislation.

The hon. Tom Siddon, acting on behalf of the federal government, and the province of British Columbia managed to complete their negotiations on cost sharing by June 1993.

In December, the BCTC started accepting statements of intention to negotiate from First Nations in British Columbia.

You can see the series of events that finally led to us debating this bill in the House today.

In April 1995, Alec Robertson was appointed chief commissioner and Peter Lusztig and Wilf Adam commissioners, while Carole Corcoran and Barbara Risher were re-appointed. Adjustments were made to expiring mandates. Some commissioners were re-appointed and, in other cases, new ones were appointed. On October 5, 1995, the Summit accepted Ms. Corcoran's resignation and designated Miles Richardson to replace her as the First Nations' representative.

I would now like to take a moment to look at the duties of this commission we are in the process of officially establishing. The duties of the commission are as follows: to assess the readiness of the parties to begin negotiations, the parties being of course Canada, British Columbia and the first nations; to finance the participation of first nations in the negotiations, in accordance with pre-established criteria; to encourage timely negotiations; to maintain a public record of the status of negotiations; to assist, at their request, the parties to the negotiations in obtaining dispute resolution services; and to report on the status of negotiations to the Parliament of Canada and to the British Columbia legislature.

In the few minutes that I have left, I want to discuss the status of negotiations. Forty-seven groups are engaged in the BCTC process. These groups represent 77 per cent of the 196 first nations in British Columbia. For those who are not from that province, it always comes as a surprise to hear that there are 196 first nations in British Columbia. In my riding, which you know well, I have the honour of representing the Akwesasne first nation, which is a Mohawk nation.

This is not the time to talk about some of the problems which exist in that region of the country. However, I hope that, at some point, during a parliamentary debate, I can express my wish that the problems which we have been experiencing in the Akwesasne region can end, so that all can live in peace and harmony, and enjoy a degree of prosperity, while complying with the laws passed by this Parliament.

I now go back to the progress made regarding the legislation before this House. The parties have indicated their readiness to negotiate. The negotiators signed framework agreements concerning, for example, the Teslin, Ditidaht and Gitanyow nations. The federal Minister of Indian Affairs, the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie, signed framework agreements concerning the Sechelt and Gitksan first nations. He also signed other agreements concerning the transborder land claim made by the Champagne, Aishihik and Wet'suwet'en first nations. I apologize to aboriginal members for not pronouncing these names properly, but it is not out of disrespect.

I hope that the House will quickly pass this bill, which is so important for these negotiations. I also hope that all members of this House will support this bill. Mr. Speaker, as you may remember, there was a rather sad episode in this House about a year ago when we discussed the issue of land negotiations in the Yukon. A parliamentary committee even had to sit throughout the night in an attempt to have a bill approved in committee.

Indeed, the committee sat all night, until six or seven in the morning.

Needless to say that I hope we do not have to suffer such delays, and that we will proceed as quickly as possible to pass the bill currently before the House.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

On division.

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

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-93, an act to amend the Cultural Property Export and Import Act, the Income Tax Act, and the Tax Court of Canada Act, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Cultural Property Export And Import Act

[John Manley, Liberal, for the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to.)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[John Manley, Liberal, for the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Mississauga East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House for third reading a bill on the creation of a mechanism to allow appeals of decisions made by the Cultural Property Export Review Board.

Bill C-93, an act to amend the Cultural Property Export and Import Act, the Income Tax Act, and the Tax Court of Canada Act, passed second reading on October 3. I thank my colleagues for their comments in the House and the progress of the bill. I thank those who gave input at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

The purpose of this bill is to establish an appeal mechanism against decisions by the Cultural Property Export Review Board concerning fair market value of cultural property offered as a gift to museums, galleries, archives and libraries in the public sector.

The mechanism is twofold: first the donor or the recipient institution may ask the Review Board to reconsider its first evaluation of fair market value. Donors who have obtained a second evaluation from the Board and are still dissatisfied may then go on to the next stage, appeal of the Board's decision to the Tax Court of Canada.

As announced in the February 1990 federal budget, the responsibility for determining fair market value of cultural goods donated to designated Canadian museums, art galleries and libraries is transferred from Revenue Canada-Taxation to the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board.

The legislative amendments implementing this change became law in December 1991. In January 1992 the review board assumed this new responsibility.

Inadvertently, no provision for appeal from decisions by the board was included in the amendments, despite the fact that a right to appeal had existed previously.

When Revenue Canada still had this responsibility, the lack of an appeal mechanism had raised considerable concern among donors and custodial institutions. The Minister of Canadian Heritage, in co-operation with the Review Board, undertook a series of consultations with the community concerned on the need for an appeal process.

Subsequently we decided to propose legislative changes that would provide for the right to appeal to the Tax Court of Canada. Why should we adopt this bill?

What we want to do through this legislation is restore a natural right that existed up to 1991. With these amendments we have actually proposed two avenues of appeal over disputes concerning the fair market value of donations of cultural property to museums, art galleries, archives, and libraries.

The two tier process is effective in that it gives donors a chance to obtain satisfaction more quickly without having to go to court. The latter process is always very long and costly for all parties concerned.

This mechanism is not only a boon to present and potential donors of cultural property. It is not only essential for museums, art galleries, archives and libraries, as present and potential beneficiaries of donations of cultural property. It is important for Canada as a whole and for all Canadians, now and in the future. It encourages donations of items that are outstanding examples of our heritage, so that these can be preserved, exhibited and appreciated, for the greater benefit of future generations.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage is responsible for a department where the concept of heritage is given its broadest possible meaning. Heritage means the set of values we share and the signs by which we recognize ourselves as being members of a group and, indeed, a country.

Today, we can no longer restrict the meaning of heritage to what we have inherited from the past. Heritage is far more than just a

collection of historical remains. Canada's heritage is first of all an expression of the ties that bind its citizens and of the unique identity of this country within the international community.

One could say that the concept of heritage cannot be separated from our identity. In the present economic situation, the concerns of heritage and identity are sometimes seen as redundant or of lesser importance.

Heritage and natural identity lie at the heart of economic and fiscal matters, for they animate and inspire the people and activities that drive the economy.

As a result of the various ways in which it interacts with other commercial enterprises, the arts and culture sector generates considerable expenditures which stimulate a direct demand for goods and services produced by other industries.

In 1992-93, the direct and indirect financial impact on GDP totalled more than $24 billion.

More than 600,000 corresponding jobs were created directly and indirectly the same year. The amendments we are proposing to the Cultural Property Export and Import Act, the Income Tax Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act will consolidate the sectors of the arts, culture and heritage by making it easier for those who give valuable cultural property to museums, art galleries or libraries.

Investing in our arts, culture and heritage is investing in our collective future. These amendments are therefore of the highest importance to all Canadians, and particularly to the 60 million visitors to our art galleries and museums annually.

I would like to point out here that Canada's museums were the first of its cultural institutions to be established. For example, what is now the Canadian Museum of Civilization was founded in 1881. It can be difficult for museums, galleries and libraries to acquire new collection items. They have not escaped the financial challenge of these difficult times.

They have had significant cuts to their funding. Our museums, our art galleries and our libraries must therefore depend on the generosity of Canadians from all walks of life, on people who could have made money selling their artifacts, on people who, instead, have generously given them to us forever.

To offset the drop in funding faced by our museums, art galleries and libraries at the moment, it is our job to come up with ways these cultural and heritage institutions can acquire cultural property that will enrich their collections. Collections are not simply the irreplaceable assets of museums, art galleries and libraries, they are their raison d'être.

Policies and activities involving collections are among the basic mechanisms museums, art galleries, archives and libraries use to define and carry out their mandate. Museums, art galleries, archives and libraries may find it very difficult to complete their collections, for reasons such as rapidly increasing costs.

That is especially true for some art galleries, following the rapid increase in prices on the art market. The speed with which new products appear on the market make it very difficult for museums of science or history to show up to date collections. Donations of cultural assets to the collections are of definite financial value.

For instance, the Cultural Property Export and Import Act concerns a very large range of cultural items, including works of art, historical artifacts, natural science specimens, archives or scientific and technological material of historic significance. Our government has committed to supporting the cultural sector in Canada. Data produced by Statistics Canada show that the Government of Canada remains by far the one that supports the most the cultural sector in Canada. The government wants to go on doing so by continually seeking new ways of promoting the development of the cultural sector.

Innovative structural changes such as Bill C-93 will support the cultural sector without increasing the burden of Canadian taxpayers, so that they can donate their cultural properties instead of selling them to other countries. Canadians must be able to benefit from tax incentives such as those resulting from this legislation. These incentives encourage people to increase their support for our museums, art galleries and libraries.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order, please. The hon. parliamentary secretary will certainly have the opportunity to conclude her remarks after the deferred division.

The House resumed from October 19, 1995, consideration of the motion that Bill C-106, an Act respecting the Law Commission of Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.