Debates of Oct. 23rd, 1995

Motion No. 383

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, through you I seek the unanimous consent of the House for me to withdraw my private members' Motion No. 383, now in the order of precedence, on the subject of cigarette lighters and the Hazardous Products Act. The government has already taken the action intended by my private motion since it was tabled last February 6.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion withdrawn.)

Petitions

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton—York—Sunbury, NB]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing order 36, I am pleased to present on behalf of over 100 signators from the the riding of Fredericton-York-Sunbury a petition which deals specifically with the proposal from the interdepartmental committee on household goods to remove services and change the way the federal government purchases moving services by offering all federal government moves to one carrier.

The petitioners pray and call on Parliament to direct the interdepartmental committee to drop the proposal and to work directly with the Canadian moving industry to develop other alternatives to reduce federal expenditures.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Okanagan Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I present to the House a petition on behalf of our young children. It is a petition signed by 65,000 people. The petitioners ask the House to amend the Criminal Code to prohibit pardons for those convicted of sex offences against children.

They also ask that the Criminal Code be amended to prohibit for life all those convicted of sexual offences against children from holding responsible positions of trust and or great responsibility regarding children.

I ask the House to take seriously a petition from 65,000 citizens from British Columbia.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition that has been circulating all across Canada. The petition has been signed by a number of Canadians in Calgary, Alberta.

The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value to our society. They also state that the Income Tax Act discriminates against families that make the choice to provide care in the home to preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.

The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families that decide to provide care in the home for preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, considering the very unfortunate events that have taken place on the lower mainland relative to the murder of a young lady and other events relating to that, it is very timely that I received in my office today a petition to return the rights to the citizens from criminals.

Some of the points refer to keeping dangerous sex offenders and pedophiles locked up for life, eliminating statutory release and imposing stiffer sentences for violent offenders.

[Roseanne Skoke, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have a petition to present on behalf of my constituents.

It has been traditional that the Government of Canada divide the national defence related furniture moving business among local independent movers on an equitable basis, which policy has provided excellent service at reasonable rates.

The petitioners pray and call upon Parliament to resolve to veto any proposed change to the present tendering process of the Department of National Defence and to support the present system of tendering.

[Margaret Bridgman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of Surrey North constituents and other Canadians. There are about 400 signatures.

The constituents draw attention to the record of the merchant navy in World War II as the fourth arm of the armed forces and call upon the government for benefits similar to those enjoyed by veterans.

It is also my hope that the government will follow through on its commitment to recognize veteran merchant seamen who were put in harm's way due to the war.

[Beryl Gaffney, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have two sets of petitions to present. The first group of petitioners, some 63 of them, is saying that the cutting of old growth forests diminishes the national diversity of our environment, our country, our culture and our people.

The petitioners request that Parliament order an immediate moratorium on the cutting of old growth forest reserves to promote the policy internationally.

[Beryl Gaffney, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from 94 petitioners who say that job experience is a vital part of an individual's education and that we need to positively influence all aspects of business potential.

Therefore the petitioners request that Parliament increase the co-operative aspect between productive business enterprises and education systems.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have before me a petition that has been signed by 424 people.

These people are very concerned that high risk offenders upon their release from prison are more and more frequently committing crimes that result in serious personal injury.

The petitioners believe that there would be fewer such incidents if Parliament would enact legislation permitting the use of post-sentence detention orders. Specifically the petitioners request that Parliament pass Bill C-240 dealing with high risk offenders.

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present, two of which concern the Young Offenders Act.

The first one was motivated by the sad death of Vivi Leimonis or Georgina Leimonis. The petitioners request that Parliament recognize and address the concerns stated in the petition and amend the Criminal Code of Canada and the Young Offenders Act according-

ly, providing heavier penalties for those convicted of violent crime. Police departments must also be provided with adequate funds to ensure the safety and security of the public.

The second petition was occasioned by the violent death in my riding of Mr. Louis Ambas and the petitioners are primarily from my riding.

They pray and request that Parliament amend the Young Offenders Act to provide that young offenders charged with murder be automatically tried in adult court; that, if convicted, they be sentenced as adults; and that their identity not be hidden from the public.

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my final petition is signed by people from all across Canada but primarily from British Columbia.

It calls upon Parliament to ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the law that would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-107, an act respecting the establishment of the British Columbia Treaty Commission, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

British Columbia Treaty Commission

[The Speaker]

The member for Edmonton East has the floor and has 17 minutes left.

[Judy Bethel, Liberal, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rose today in support of Bill C-107 respecting the British Columbia Treaty Commission and the process that has been developed in treaty making in British Columbia which included, specifically, third party consultations.

The process aspect of treaty negotiations has received considerable attention from TNAC members. Their demands for a more open negotiation process and less stringent confidentiality requirements have really stimulated media interest and some public criticism. The government has responded by removing TNAC confidentiality requirements. This has improved the members' capacity to consult with and to represent their organizations more effectively.

The provincial minister of aboriginal affairs, the hon. John Cashore, attends most of TNAC meetings and the federal minister has met with TNAC on four occasions including most meetings held so far in 1995. The member of Parliament for Vancouver East has agreed to be the personal representative of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to TNAC. However I will take this opportunity to introduce members of the House to some of the people participating in the treaty negotiation advisory committee and to the TNAC group.

The key treaty negotiation advisory committee member is Michael Hunter. He is a representative of the Fisheries Council of B.C. He has significant government experience as part of the federal team that negotiated the 1985 Canada-U.S. Pacific Salmon Treaty. He is a former employee of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and has been on the fisheries council for about nine years. He has served on numerous fisheries advisory committees as well as on international trade consultations. His organization, made up of the major fish processing companies, is most concerned with ensuring that claims settlements do not create more problems for the B.C. commercial fishing industry.

Paddy Greene is a lifelong commercial salmon fisherman from Prince Rupert. Mr. Greene has also been actively involved in the advisory processes of the DFO on fish allocation and fisheries management. He has served as commissioner on the Canada-U.S. Pacific Salmon Commission and was recently manager of the Prince Rupert Fishermen's Co-op. He sits as the northern representative on TNAC and chairs the fisheries committee. He has been most concerned about the implementation of the DFO's aboriginal fisheries strategy and legal sale of aboriginal fish food.

Dennis Brown is a representative of the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union. Mr. Brown has risen through the ranks of the union, serving in various capacities including Fraser River organizer before becoming an executive member. He has worked effectively on easing tensions between commercial fishermen and recent Vietnamese entrants. The UFAWU includes both harvesters and plant workers, many of whom are native people. The union is most concerned about job losses in an already downsized industry. He will point to the many aboriginal plant workers and commercial

harvesters as examples of how to create and maintain job opportunities for natives.

Guy Rose is a representative of the British Columbia Cattlemen's Association. Mr. Rose's family has been in the business for three generations. Usually soft spoken, he is concerned by the apparent lack of understanding some politicians have displayed concerning the impact of claims policies on third parties. He perceives that the general population is concerned by the generous benefits that may be provided. His group's main concern, however, will be continued access to provincial crown land at reasonable cost for grazing needs.

Susan Anderson, although designated as the alternate for the B.C. Federation of Labour, has attended almost all committee meetings on behalf of the president, Mr. Ken Georgetti of the B.C. Federation of Labour, and is a historic supporter of native rights. Ms. Anderson has referred frequently to the need for better compensation and adjustment programs for those industries and workers affected by claims agreements.

Bill Wimpney is a representative of the B.C. Wildlife Federation and is outspoken and direct. He is usually constructive and well prepared. He is continually mindful of the BCWF members' interests. He also chairs the wildlife sectoral advisory committee. The BCWF represents about 40,000 anglers, hunters and outdoor admirers throughout B.C. Mr. Wimpney has worked on preparing a statement on his organization's position on native issues and some bottom lines his members expect in negotiations. These relate specifically to access, endangered species protection and jurisdiction.

Marlie Beets is the vice-president of aboriginal affairs with the Council of Forest Industries and was the former alternate for the Cariboo Lumber Manufacturers' Association. She is from Williams Lake and has been associated with the forestry industry for many years. COFI is most concerned about the further loss of harvestable timber resources and has indicated that minimum land transfers balanced with a larger cash component would be preferable.

Lloyd Whyte represents the interior forest industry coalition, an umbrella group for the three interior forestry organizations. He has been concerned about the cost sharing formula between Canada and B.C. and believes it will provide more land to native people in the interior than on the coast. He also chairs the lands and forest committee on which he sits as representative for the Cariboo Lumber Manufacturers' Association.

Ken Sumanik is the representative of the Mining Association of B.C. He was the chair of the energy, mines and petroleum resources committee. His organization represents large mining and exploration operators in B.C. They have indicated they are facing serious economic difficulties due to commodity prices and environmental standards. The industry is most concerned that claim settlements not impede its ability to explore efficiently developed mineral deposits. It is not so much concerned about to whom royalties are paid as long as the opportunity remains to explore and develop B.C.'s mineral and petroleum resources.

Jerry Lampert is president of the B.C. Business Council. He recently stepped down as the organization's designated representative but usually attends agenda items involving the ministers. He was appointed by the B.C. Business Council when the respected James Matkin stepped down. Representing a large, diverse group of major private sector corporations, the business council acts mainly as a group to lobby governments. It will be most concerned with ensuring ministerial participation in TNAC meetings as the best means of ensuring its views are heard by the decision makers. The council also seeks to minimize the impact of settlements on B.C. employers by ensuring that the cost of treaty settlements does not add to the tax burden of businesses.

Dick McMaster is the representative of the Fishing Resort Operators Association and the Council of Tourist Associations. Mr. McMaster speaks for a growing sector in the B.C. economy. Many of the areas seen as ideal for tourism and recreation are also priority areas for many claimant groups. Tourism and sport fishing operators will seek to ensure their continued access to and use of those areas. This includes freshwater fishing and wilderness enjoyment. Mr. McMaster has been an active member of the committee and frequently participates in committee discussions.

At a March 1994 meeting he stated:

The more economic effort natives are involved in now, the less there will be the pressure for more land and cash when treaties are settled.

Although Richard Taylor is an alderman for the Union of British Columbia Municipalities he chairs the governance sectoral advisory committee. He chaired the early negotiations with the government to establish and define a joint third party consultation process. He has promoted the UBCM position on the need for local governments to be represented or present at the treaty negotiation table.

These are very respected British Columbians. The Government of Canada appreciates the time they have taken from their very busy schedules to participate in this very meaningful and important consultation process.

The job before these people is a great one. They carry the responsibility of representing vast interests of B.C.'s economy. They are building economic well-being not only for the immediate generation but for generations to come. They carry the responsibility of representing the vast interests of B.C.'s industry. TNAC is an integral part of the process. TNAC will develop positive, realistic and fair recommendations to enhance the negotiations.

The long term success of the process lies with the partners of the process. We need to encourage and congratulate all those who will participate.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, as I listened to my colleague from Edmonton East I could not help but get a sense of one reason the bill was going through the House so quickly and with so much co-operation. Obviously it is because of the tremendous team that has been put in place and the co-operation the team is bringing to the table not only in the sectors of tourism, mining, forestry, et cetera, but in all levels of government.

My community, which is downtown Toronto, is going through a very difficult time. The brotherhood of carpenters and joiners, the drywall lathing and installation workers, a very large union of about 2,800 members, has been on strike on and off since June and has voted recently to go on strike. Less than 1,000 members decided this. At a time when our economy needs to be working at full throttle we have in Toronto a situation in which the leadership and the various principals cannot seem to co-operate. The people who are affected by this, the thousands, are suffering.

Yet here in western Canada we see a beautiful example of all levels of government coming together. All the principal stakeholders and all the various sectors of the economy have come together. We see that a piece of legislation goes through the House in no time flat. The community in western Canada and ultimately all Canadians will be the beneficiaries.

I appeal to the leadership of that very strong union in my city to use this example in British Columbia as a possible model on how to get all of those people back to work in Toronto.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the debate on second reading of Bill C-107 regarding the establishment of the British Columbia Treaty Commission.

The negotiation of treaties offers Canadians a chance to look at the issue not only from a historical perspective but also from a modern reality. The tabling of this legislation on the British Columbia Treaty Commission gives us an opportunity to discuss the implications and the importance of treaty negotiations in B.C.

Members from British Columbia, including my hon. colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, understand only too well the importance of these negotiations. The history of British Columbia and the various interests speak for a process, in a sense beg for a process such as this.

This legislation reflects not only how current treaty negotiations are done but how critical they are. The situation we have today regarding negotiations is much different than when the numbered treaties on the prairies were settled. It bears discussion on the kind of relationship aboriginal people across the country have with their treaties.

I stand in the House of Commons as a representative of the Government of Canada and as an elected member for my constituents. I stand here also as someone whose whole life has essentially evolved around the whole issue of treaties in terms of the kinds of inalienable rights that aboriginal people have discussed, debated and put on their priority list throughout the years of discussing the Constitution and land settlements. The treaties have always arisen as a major priority.

If people have a sense of passion, a sense of direction and vision about their interpretation of the treaties, it comes from the fact that it is a much analysed subject but also very personal. My grandfather who is a chief, Zaul Blondin, was a signatory to Treaty 11. In that signatory I see many things not just for me but for the future of my people. In relation to British Columbia I can see the same kind of intent, the same kind of compassion, passion, dedication and determination about the process when it relates to not just one group but all of the groups. My frame of reference is from my experience. My experience is from the perspective of the First Nations.

I know the numbered treaties for the First Nations I referred to in my area, 8 and 11 in the Northwest Territories, set a very interesting perspective for the future of a people; the Dene people guided by these two treaties, the language itself, the immense vision by the people who signed those treaties, the people who had the vision. It was not colloquial. It was not parochial. It was not odd and simple. It was very visionary.

This language, as long as the grass grows, as long as the sun shines, as long as the rivers flow and as long as this land shall last, are not just words. They have given the opportunity for aboriginal young people to have post-secondary education. They have given the opportunity for people of aboriginal descent, no matter where they live and who are treaty, to have accorded to them the appropriate health programs and services to deal with taxation issues, health issues, hunting and fishing rights and related issues and issues still debated like housing. Those issues are being constantly debated.

The numbered treaties in the prairies were signed in advance of settlement. The government of the day sought to ensure that certainty and title were confirmed before Europeans settled in what are now Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Although certainty was the intention, the issue is yet much debated, the treaty is much debated, and most of the results are as of yet lacking definition or implementation and are not at all conclusive. That also begs for a process and hence we have the British Columbia one.

There needs to be certainty. There needs to be very clearly spelled out the future for aboriginal people. I have a document

called "Sovereign Injustice-the Forcible Inclusion of the James Bay Crees and Cree Territory into a Sovereign Quebec". On page 5 it talks about the unilateral alteration of aboriginal treaties:

Existing land claims treaties provide for a permanent federalist arrangement and include federal and Quebec governments (as well as aboriginal peoples) as parties. How can the PQ government claim it would be legal or legitimate for a secessionist Quebec to unilaterally alter existing treaties with aboriginal peoples in Quebec? On what basis could Quebec claim it can simply take over existing federal treaty obligations and unilaterally determine that the Canadian government would no longer be a party to the treaties concerned?

That question has a lot to do with certainty. Aboriginal people feel this is their homeland. They have an inalienable right, as my colleague from Churchill indicated earlier on in debate, that aboriginal people feel they have an inalienable right to this country. They cannot be separated from this country because it was the creator who put them here. They did not come from somewhere else.

Treaties have a number of interpretations, some very spiritual. It is not only legal analysis, it is also a spiritual commitment, a spiritual determination that the aboriginal people have that relationship with treaties.

In British Columbia the situation was much different. Certainty over the land question was never resolved prior to settlement. As a result we are now dealing with a situation that presents challenges that did not exist at the time the early treaties were concluded. Much development has occurred in British Columbia. There has not always been that attempt for partnership.

In Canada and in the world there are no entities unto themselves that feel they can exist without partnership.

Aboriginal communities understand with good measure what there is to be gained from those partnerships and of working together with other groups which is happening across the country, including in British Columbia, in the Queen Charlotte Islands. In the Haida Gwaii we have the first ever bicultural model, a Haida Gwaii trust. This is a trust fund between non-aboriginal and aboriginal people that resulted from an arrangement that came about with the federal government, the provinces, industry, as well as the aboriginal peoples themselves.

These things can happen but they are not easy. No one will tell anyone familiar with the negotiation process that it is simple or easy. It is not. However it is necessary. It is necessary to go through rough waters. It is necessary to have a dialogue that is challenging.

One of these challenges is the need for the government to represent third party and public interest at the treaty table. Let me put it this way. Those third party interests in terms of the treaty negotiation advisory committee are well represented. The list was read previously by the member for Edmonton East. It explained there is representation and fairness there. There is nothing secretive or conspiratorial. It is an open process and very transparent.

Canada recognizes the need to consult with third parties and to provide information to the public if treaties are to be lasting and beneficial for all Canadians. Some of my colleagues and I have spoken on a number of occasions about the importance of an open treaty negotiation process. How can we best as a government address the challenges in the areas of taxation, health, education, justice, policing, hunting and fishing rights, to name a few, in a global sense without a proper process?

This year this negotiation process will lend to and aid this whole situation. Nevertheless, many people continue to falsely believe the treaty process in British Columbia is secretive, conspiratorial, that the whole truth is not being told and that a special deal is being made. This is not the case. This belief has been fostered by a lack of awareness, understanding, compassion and sensitivity. If those people were as informed as they should be this would not be the case.

Information is a great enlightener. It pays to read and it pays to go to the source to negotiate to be with those people. Go to the source and meet with those people. That is what this country is all about.

The negotiation of treaty under the auspices of the British Columbia Treaty Commission process is not one based on backroom deals or secrets. The treaty process has never been as open and as transparent as it is in British Columbia today.

In B.C. we have set in place a province-wide treaty negotiation advisory committee made up of 31 organizations representing major economic sectors in that province. There was a time when this group operated under confidentiality rules. This is not uncommon. It happens when people are dealing with issues they feel deserve that kind of arrangement.

Today, however, when providing advice to the government on treaties being negotiated under the B.C. Treaty Commission an openness protocol is at work. Many of the recent TNAC sessions have had and will likely continue to have media present. How much more open can it be?

On local and regional levels negotiators meet regularly with regional and local advisory committees to discuss the topics being addressed at the treaty table. Of course this is part of the consultation process and allows public and third party interests direct access to the negotiators. That accessibility is one way of demonstrating to people that there is not any kind of conspiracy or a cover-up. It is a partnership.

As far as actual treaty table talks, one of the items to be initially discussed during the readiness stage is the procedural document referred to as the openness protocol.

These openness protocols have been agreed upon by the three parties at the table, the federal and provincial governments and the First Nations. Many of the treaty table members of the public and third party advisory committees can, if they so desire, attend and observe main table negotiation sessions. So it is open and people are welcome to attend.

I know of one instance, the Sechelt treaty negotiations, where negotiation sessions are videotaped and replayed on the local cable station. I cannot imagine a more open process than that. I was in Sechelt in my previous incarnation, if I might, as the critic for the aboriginal portfolio for the Liberal Party. Their process on self-government, which is renowned throughout Canada and the world, has also been very open. The Sechelt people do not have anything to hide. They have a lot to be proud of and a lot to share, and they do.

I assure members the public has not been shut out of the process; rather, it has been invited in and encouraged to attend. We are well aware the treaty process cannot happen in a vacuum. The public and third parties need to know about and be involved in the process. We encourage their input and involvement.

This is a fairer process, much more acceptable than the kind of imposing process previously engaged in. Now it tends to be more of a partnership, one of equality. Maybe that is what is so objectionable to some.

There are many threads the negotiation teams need to weave together for the modern treaty process to work, including representing the Canadian public and federal government at the treaty table, balancing effective negotiations with openness, ensuring the consultation process is an accountable one, and providing the public and media with timely information. Under the B.C. Treaty Commission process all of these threads are coming together. We are only at the beginning of the process, but we are moving toward strengthening the social, economic, and legal fabric of British Columbia with regard to land claims.

In Canada the treaty process has a past that forms an integral part of our history. It has a present. Many of us here in the House of Commons have seen the passage of modern treaties, as in the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the Inuvialuit Final Agreement. It has a future through the passage of legislation establishing the B.C. Treaty Commission and the negotiation and settlement of treaties under its auspices. That is why I am here today, to help usher in Bill C-107 and to ensure the job of treaty negotiations can continue in the province of B.C. so these negotiations can ultimately reach a successful conclusion.

I conclude by saying that treaty making is a world-known process. Treaty making is done between nations. Treaty making is done between various groups. It is an honourable process. It is not a process that begs criticism or any kind of misunderstanding. It is an honourable process. It is a process that will allow partnerships to develop. It is generally a process of honour that when you have made a treaty it will in fact help to deal with some of the tougher questions governments have to deal with. It solidifies for governments, for communities, for peoples the programs and services. The arrangements that are made become clearer. They should, anyway.

In the myriad of claims and the whole conglomeration of land questions regarding title in British Columbia, with the whole issue of hunting and fishing, fishing rights and the Sparrow case, let us hope this process will lend some clarity, some definition, some partnership that will allow these groups to come to some conclusion and reach some of the results that have long been sought after and long wanted.

[Margaret Bridgman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe I have two questions for the hon. member. One is in relation to the time element here.

We know this process has been going on for a considerable amount of time. The only reference I noted concerning time, which I believe was in the agreement of September 22, which this bill is based on, was in relation to funding, where it said "the first five years". Does the hon. member foresee this as a long, ongoing process again, or do we have a five-year or ten-year objective here?

My second question relates to the bill. I think in clause 3 it actually says that the commission will assess the readiness of the principals to participate in the negotiations. What kind of authority does the word assessment mean? Does it mean they will assess and advise the principals that they are ready or not ready, or that they will assess and tell the principals that they can or cannot negotiate?

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, on the whole issue of time, the only answer I can give is what has been prescribed in the working documents of the bill. I believe the member mentioned five years. For instance, Treaty 11 goes back to 1921.

Each treaty has a life of its own. We should say that the B.C. Treaty Commission has been set up to facilitate the negotiation of modern treaties in B.C. Once the process is completed the B.C. Treaty Commission will no longer be required. The B.C. Treaty Commission agreement states that the principals, Canada, B.C., and First Nations Summit, "shall terminate the BCT upon completion of their duties under their agreement or where BCT is no longer performing its duties". It is based on whether it is able to complete its work or not. Once its mission is completed, then as a mechanism the commission will essentially be disbanded.

The member talked about the authority. I do not have the answer to that. I can take it under advisement. I am sure the appropriate departmental officials are watching and will be able to get back to the member with an answer.

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak in this debate on Bill C-107, following the member for Western Arctic. She has referred to her grandfather, a signer of Treaty 11 in the early 1920s, and talked of the passion, vision, and wisdom of the men who signed that treaty. I can tell the House and those watching the debate today that those qualities are very much in evidence in the granddaughter, in our hon. friend the member for Western Arctic. I would like to pay tribute to her as my colleague in the House, in caucus, and in cabinet for the qualities she brings to issues such as this. She contributes so much to assist us in our deliberations. It is indeed a pleasure to speak following her in the debate.

The events this summer in British Columbia and in Ontario have made all members of the House painfully aware of the tension in native communities across Canada. This is the result of years of injustice and poverty. This government is resolved to overcome these problems through the new partnership it envisages with Canada's First Nations. One of the first and most important unresolved problems in this relationship and in creating a better relationship between aboriginal peoples and other Canadians is the question of treaties in my home province of British Columbia.

I remind the House that British Columbia is unique in Canada, in that the process of signing treaties has never been completed. Only a handful of treaties were signed in the pre-Confederation period. These include the Douglas treaties of southern Vancouver Island, the area that includes my riding of Victoria, which indeed were signed by Governor Douglas with the First Nations of the area in a very farsighted move. And in 1899 Treaty No. 8 was signed with the First Nations of the Peace River area in northeastern B.C. Generally speaking, British Columbia is without a treaty system. In the rest of British Columbia the issue of aboriginal rights remains largely unresolved due to hundreds of years of neglect by successive colonial, federal, and in particular provincial governments.

The First Nations have wanted to resolve these problems. Repeatedly they have pressed for treaties, but only in this decade did the provincial government have the willingness to negotiate with them and with Ottawa. Previously it maintained that there was no need to negotiate and it said that whatever rights to land and resources the aboriginal people may once have had were extinguished long ago. The result was decades of legal acrimony as the First Nations sought settlement through the courts of what they were unable to achieve through the negotiations process.

I would like to mention in particular one case of great importance. In 1973, more than 20 years ago, the Supreme Court of Canada was asked in the famous Calder case whether aboriginal title to the Nisga'a traditional territory had been extinguished. Chief Frank Calder, with whom I had the privilege of sitting in the British Columbia legislature and who is now a constituent, a friend, and adviser of mine, led the way in achieving recognition of aboriginal land title. In that case all six justices accepted that aboriginal title had existed in the past. Three ruled that it had been extinguished, but three ruled that it was unextinguished and that the government was obliged to negotiate treaties.

Since then the federal government has accepted the need to negotiate treaties in British Columbia. We have been negotiating with the Nisga'a people for these last 20 years, but resolution of the negotiations was next to impossible without provincial participation because of their responsibility under our Constitution for crown lands. That changed in 1990, when Jack Weisgerber, who was then the minister for aboriginal affairs in the province of British Columbia, announced that the province of British Columbia was willing to drop its traditional opposition to tripartite negotiations. It was this announcement of Mr. Weisgerber, who is now the leader of the B.C. Reform Party, that paved the way for the B.C. Treaty Commission.

I would like also to pay tribute to Mr. Weisgerber's premier at the time, Mr. Vander Zalm, who was indeed responsible for this major breakthrough in the attitude of the British Columbia government toward the question of negotiation with First Nations people.

Today Mr. Weisgerber is leader of the provincial Reform Party and apparently is an opponent of this negotiating process, like his federal Reform brethren. I find it sad and ironic that Mr. Weisgerber, who should be proud of his role in the historic process of resolving this longstanding injustice, is now renouncing what is in my mind the finest moment of his political career.

I would ask the federal Reform Party to support the old Jack Weisgerber, the old Social Credit Jack Weisgerber, who was willing to help break a 120-year of pattern of injustice, and not the new Reform Jack Weisgerber, who wants to continue with the 19th century attitudes into the 21st century.

Many critics of this process, including many in this House, have emphasized the high costs of settling land claims. Indeed, there will be costs. I look at the Sun newspaper of Thursday, October 19, where the title on the city and region section says ``$10 billion

figure baffles Ottawa". There is cost to settling land claims. When we are trying to settle issues that should have been resolved over a century ago, there will be a cost, a cost for long delay as well as the cost of the settlement itself. But there are also steep costs if we keep putting negotiations off and if we keep putting them off any further than now.

For example, in 1991 a Price Waterhouse study indicated that every year land claims go unsettled in British Columbia the province suffers the following consequences. $1 billion in potential investment in forestry, mining and other resource sectors is lost. Second, 300 jobs which would otherwise be created are not created. Third, 1,500 jobs are adversely affected. Fourth, $125 million in capital investment is lost or deferred.

That is the price of inaction as outlined by the Price Waterhouse study. It is the price the critics of the process would have us continue to pay year after year until eventually it would be the courts which would force governments to pay billions more than they would have to pay if we settled these negotiations and these matters through fair, open negotiations with the First Nations people.

To help achieve this goal the B.C. Treaty Commission was established. It consists of five commissioners, five outstanding British Columbians, who represent the interests of all the parties to the negotiations. Two of the commissioners are nominated by the First Nations Summit, one by the provincial government and one by the federal government. The chief commissioner is duly selected and appointed by all three of the principals, namely the First Nations leadership, the federal and provincial governments.

The First Nations Summit includes all the First Nations in B.C. which have agreed to participate in the B.C. Treaty Commission's six-stage treaty negotiating process. The summit provides a forum for First Nations involved in the treaty process to meet and discuss negotiations. As one of the principals of the process it continues to provide direction along with the governments of B.C. and Canada.

Carole Corcoran was elected by the First Nations Summit as one of its first treaty commissioners. She also sat on the royal commission on Canada's future from 1990 to 1991. She serves on the board of governors of the University of Northern British Columbia. Unfortunately she had to resign recently.

On October 4 the First Nations selected Miles Richardson of Haida Gwaii as the second First Nations treaty commissioner. Mr. Richardson was a member of the B.C. claims task force which reported to the governments of B.C. and Canada and the First Nations on how the parties could begin negotiations to build a new relationship. Mr. Richardson's appointment is pending order in council approval at this time.

The First Nations Summit has also elected as one of its commissioners Wilf Adam of the Lake Babine Indian Band. Mr. Adam, a former chief councillor of the band, is chairman of the Burns Lake Native Development Corporation and is co-founder of the Burns Lake law centre.

The British Columbia appointee is Barbara Fisher, formerly general counsel and Vancouver director of the Office of the Ombudsman. She currently practises part time as counsel to the B.C. Information and Privacy Commission.

Since last April the Government of Canada's representative on the commission has been Peter Lusztig, who is a professor of finance at the University of British Columbia. He also brings considerable breadth of experience from the community, having sat on B.C.'s royal commission on automobile insurance and the B.C. commission of inquiry into the tree fruit industry. In 1991 he also chaired the Asia-Pacific initiative advisory committee which was struck by the federal and provincial governments.

Since last May the chief commissioner, the fifth commissioner, has been Alec Robertson, Q.C. The legal community is familiar with his past work as president of the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association, as chairman of the Law Foundation of British Columbia and as a member of the gender equality task force of the Canadian Bar Association.

I have given some details of these individuals to show all members of the House that the B.C. Treaty Commission consists of five distinguished Canadians who are doing their utmost to ensure that the comprehensive claims process moves along in a timely and orderly manner.

It was mentioned earlier that one area where much progress has been made is with respect to consultation with the citizens of British Columbia and the rest of the country. That is of course consultation outside of the responsibilities of the First Nations and the two governments.

One of the recommendations contained in the commission's annual report which was tabled in the House last week is: "Canada and British Columbia make full use of their consultative processes so that the community at large will be confident that their voices are heard and their concerns are considered". This government strongly supports that recommendation. An effective dialogue, an effective exchange of accurate information is absolutely essential to concluding sound and sustainable treaties in British Columbia.

Governments are using a number of consultative mechanisms to ensure that third parties affected by the treaty process voice their perspectives, their concerns, their interests, their ideas. We heard from one of the previous speakers on the government side, the hon. member for Edmonton West, how the treaty negotiations advisory committee provides advice to both governments on sectoral issues on a province-wide basis. To ensure that the interests of regional parties are being addressed, the negotiating teams work with local sectoral groups to form regional advisory committees or RACs as they are called.

There is an overall umbrella of 31 organizations to which the member made reference which cover the general interests of people in the province. In addition, there are the local bodies or the regional advisory committees. They are formed in areas where negotiations are beginning. They include representatives from the local non-aboriginal governments as well as from a variety of sectors such as industry, business, social services, resources and environment.

The establishment of a regional advisory committee is one of the conditions for the British Columbia Treaty Commission declaring a negotiating table ready for negotiations to commence. Eight regional advisory committees have been established in communities across British Columbia so far.

The lower mainland regional advisory committee, which meets in Vancouver, provides advice to the provincial and federal teams that are or will be negotiating with the Burrard, the Katzie, the Musqueam, the Squamish and the Tsawwassen. Issues which are of concern to this regional advisory committee include the use of federal crown lands, treaty settlements, Stanley Park, taxation and provision of services to the aboriginal community.

The Bulkley-Skeena regional advisory committee located in Smithers provides advice on negotiations with the Gitksan, Wet'suwet'en and the Gitanyow. Their concerns centre on the use of lands and resources, particularly forest and fish. Governance is also an important component.

On my own Vancouver Island there are two regional advisory committees. The west island RAC in Port Alberni is working with the negotiators for the Ditidaht First Nation and the Nuu-Chah-Nulth tribal council to ensure that the interests of local communities are addressed. Issues such as interim measures, fishing, forestry and environmental concerns are being addressed.

The south island RAC covers Victoria and extends north to Nanaimo. There are currently two First Nations in the first phases of the negotiation process, the Temexw and the Nanaimo. As other First Nations enter the treaty process, this regional advisory committee will be expanded to include representatives from additional interest groups.

There are others. There are a total of eight in other parts of the province. I will not go into each one in turn but to say that the overall system of regional advisory committees is well in place. It is working well and all local interests in those areas are involved in the negotiation process.

The regional advisory committee sets its own terms of reference including the meeting times, locations, subjects for discussion, openness of meetings and membership. The regional advisory committees are becoming more active in areas where the parties are moving into framework negotiations.

Despite the regional advisory committees and despite the umbrella organization discussed by my colleague, there have been public criticisms of the consultative process. Concerns have been raised that the interests of non-aboriginal people were not being properly represented at the negotiating table. As has been indicated by my colleague from the Western Arctic, this is incorrect. In order to dispel many of these concerns, federal and provincial representatives have made significant efforts to convey information about the treaty process. Local community officials are contacted for input on appropriate representative organizations for inclusion on any RAC being formed in their area.

The treaty commission process ensures that both the federal and provincial governments are responsible for representing the non-aboriginal interests at the table. It is the role of both governments to listen to all these other interests, to consider their positions and their views and to develop a balanced negotiating strategy that fairly represents the interests of the communities involved, as well as of course the interests of the province as a whole and the country as a whole.

This government recognizes that the treaty process is important to everyone and will affect not only aboriginal people. A consultation process that works effectively is critical to the success of the treaty making process. The federal government is committed to consulting non-aboriginal people and third parties throughout the negotiating process.

Third party interests have been active in British Columbia throughout the treaty negotiations to date. They will continue to play an important role as these negotiations progress. The challenge before us is to ensure that we continue to develop a new relationship that encourages open dialogue and permits us to carefully consider all available options.

It was a pleasure to rise today to speak in favour of Bill C-107.