Debates of Nov. 28th, 1995

Small Business Loans Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on Motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at the report stage of the bill now before the House.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous consent among the parties to defer the vote just requested.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Under this section it is required that the whips of all parties agree. It is acceptable to all of the whips?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45(7), the chief government whip with the agreement of the whips of all recognized parties has requested that the division on the question now before the House stand deferred until the end of Government Orders today, at which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-107, an act respecting the establishment of the British Columbia Treaty Commission, as reported without amendment from the committee.

British Columbia Treaty Commission Act

[Jon Gerrard, Liberal, for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

moved that the Bill C-107 be concurred in.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to.)

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Jon Gerrard, Liberal, for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to initiate the final stage in the House of passing Bill C-107 into law. It is a day which I am pleased has come at last.

I am grateful for the non-partisan approach taken by parties opposite on this bill. The history of the British Columbia Treaty Commission has been one of partnership among people of diverse political stripes, and I am glad that spirit has continued in the House.

The tone set in this debate reflects and reinforces all of those who across the years and across party lines have joined hands in a common cause. That cause is simple: to bring justice to aboriginal peoples and certainty to British Columbia.

During the course of debate on the bill we have heard the historical incidents which have made the legislation necessary. We have seen that only a handful of First Nations in British Columbia ever signed treaties with the crown. As a result, 124 years after becoming a province, the key questions of aboriginal title over land and resources remain unresolved, and the majority of British Columbia remains subject to outstanding aboriginal land claims. With those claims come uncertainty and confusion.

We have also seen the historic step taken by the Government of British Columbia in 1990 to agree to the negotiation of treaties and the subsequent establishment of a task force to make recommendations on the process and mandate for treaty negotiations. We have heard of the key recommendation of that task force: the creation of an arm's length B.C. Treaty Commission.

Since its creation in 1992 the commission has received statements of intent to negotiate from 47 First Nations, representing over 70 per cent of First Nations in British Columbia. Clearly there was a need for this type of process, a need now being met.

Today we honour the commitment made by our predecessors to establish the commission in legislation. However, the bill is about more than just creating a certain status for the commission. It is about creating opportunity for all British Columbians.

Because the failure to deal with these issues has greatly limited opportunity in B.C., the uncertainty over ownership of land and resources has exacted a high cost. Uncertainty has meant lost investment.

The Price Waterhouse study, referenced in second reading debate, prepared in 1990 estimated that $1 billion in investment in the forestry and mining sectors had not occurred because of unresolved land claims. Three hundred jobs had not been created

and $125 million in capital investments had not been made. Since the time of that study the price has continued to be paid year in and year out. It is a price we can no longer afford and it is a price we will no longer have to pay.

Settling land and resource issues will create an environment for investment and increased local economic activity. Therefore I commend members from all sides of the House for their support of the legislation. Certainty will be good news for the forest worker and the miner. Certainty will mean an expanded tax base, as the infusion of settlement funds stimulates economic activity and creates jobs. Certainty will mean lower social costs associated with poverty and unemployment in aboriginal communities. It will mean an end of conflict and litigation and the beginning of co-operation and negotiation.

The mandate of the B.C. Treaty Commission is straightforward. It is to facilitate, not negotiate, modern day treaties. Its main functions are to assess the readiness of parties to negotiate, allocate negotiation funding to aboriginal groups, assist parties to obtain dispute resolution services and monitor and report on the status of negotiations.

Because these negotiations will affect all British Columbians, we have established a province-wide consultation process so that all interests will still be heard.

This consultation process, as I indicated at an earlier stage of debate, operates at two levels. The first is a 31-member treaty negotiation advisory commission, which brings together the perspectives of municipalities, business, labour, fishing, wildlife, forestry and environmental groups to the treaty making process.

The second level brings the diverse interests of the various regions of B.C. to bear on the land claims process. Regional advisory committees are being struck in each treaty negotiation area so that local voices may be heard. These committees work directly with federal and provincial negotiating teams.

As land claims issues are resolved, the land base and access to resources they provide will establish a foundation on which aboriginal peoples can build self-sufficient communities. The growth of strong, self-reliant, economically vibrant aboriginal communities strengthens us all because it will bring positive economic spillover into non-aboriginal communities.

For too long the aboriginal peoples of British Columbia have been denied both their rights from the past and their hopes for the future. For too long we have denied ourselves the contributions they can make. With the rights and obligations clearly defined by treaties, all British Columbians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, will be able to get on with realizing the potential of their province and expanding their opportunities for advancement.

On August 10 our government released its approach on the inherent right of aboriginal self-government and presented the principles which will guide the negotiations. In the case of British Columbia, the policy provides that negotiations on self-government will take place at the same table as discussions on land and resources. In other words, the process and structures already in place for treaty negotiations will also be used to negotiate self-government issues.

These two sets of discussions, self-government on one hand and land and resources use on the other, complement each other perfectly. Treaties will clarify and define the issues and self-government will establish the authority to manage them.

What this means is that for the first time the parties will be able to have all of their issues dealt with at one table, under one set of negotiations. This will be more cost effective, as it eliminates overlap and duplication and permits a much more comprehensive approach.

I spoke earlier of the high cost associated with leaving these issues in British Columbia unresolved. If the price is high for the general population, for aboriginal peoples it has been yet higher. For aboriginal peoples it has meant great hardship and grinding poverty. It has meant generations of frustration, of dreams deferred and promises unkept. It has meant a quality of life few of us can imagine and none of us should accept.

Some of those conditions are appalling. Diseases such as hepatitis and tuberculosis, virtually eradicated in the non-aboriginal population, persist in aboriginal communities. Death by fire is three and a half times the non-aboriginal level because of unsafe housing and the lack of proper sanitation. Aboriginal peoples are more than three times as likely to die a violent death and about twice as likely to die before the age of 65. The suicide rate among aboriginal peoples is 50 per cent higher than non-aboriginal peoples. That difference is even more pronounced in the 15 to 25 age group.

This country simply cannot afford to lose another generation of aboriginal peoples able and willing to make their contributions. We cannot afford to continue to condemn aboriginal peoples to lesser lives in a lesser land.

I do not mean to suggest that all of this will be magically solved with the passing of this legislation, but it will constitute a true beginning. It will take us off the rutted road of confrontation and litigation. It will send a signal to all parties that this is how we resolve problems in this country.

This legislation does several things. It ends uncertainty. It honours our obligations. It creates hope for tomorrow. It also does something else, something even more important. It confirms

negotiation over confrontation, consultation over litigation. It stands as a vivid reminder of what can be achieved by men and women of understanding. It is an eloquent reminder that progress is possible, that persistence prevails. It is a testament to the simple fact that more can be achieved by joining hands than by shaking fists.

This must always be our approach, but it is an approach which is by no means automatic. It is one we must work to adopt. That is why legislation such as this is so important. It creates a process and a forum for negotiation.

If we fail to demonstrate our resolve to negotiate, we leave the field and the resolution to those with little regard for the law to those who seek solutions through less democratic and less peaceful means.

We should not underestimate the historic qualities as well as the substantive importance of this bill. To all of those who have fought so hard for so long to see it through, I offer my admiration and appreciation. I again want to thank this House for its wisdom and its support.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak to Bill C-107 at third reading.

When this bill was at second reading, I talked about my very extraordinary trip to western Canada this year. I visited several First Nations in western Canada, including the Nisga'a, the Chilcotin and the Carrier-Sekani.

I will not go over this trip again, but I think it is important to address the situation of the Nisga'a because the current debate on the proposed legislation to recognize the British Columbia Treaty Commission has some precedents.

I think it is worth mentioning that the Nisga'a have succeeded in negotiating agreements, probably because of their perseverance and determination. They may be the precursors of what is before us today, which follows an act of the legislature of British Columbia and a resolution of a summit of official representatives of the First Nations.

All this was achieved, and we must, I think, recognize the Nisga'a's commitment to try to negotiate agreements.

When I visited the Nisga'a last summer, negotiations were unfortunately at a standstill and people were somewhat discouraged because these negotiations had been going on for 19 years; people were working very hard to get things moving again.

I am happy to see that things are starting to move again. Only 20 minutes ago, I talked with the chief negotiator, Nelson Leeson, who is chairman of the Nisga'a education committee and their negotiator in this matter. They have a negotiation meeting today and I will be happy to give the House a progress report on these talks.

But why spend so much time on the Nisga'a? Of course, they are precursors to the process we are reviewing today. But, moreover, the Nisga'a hold the key to negotiations in British Columbia. Most of the First Nations I met with last summer told me, "You know, Mr. Bachand, if the Nisga'a negotiations do not resume, the other nations will be wasting their time. It is useless; we would have no faith in the proposed process if we see that 19 years of negotiations have failed".

That is why it is important to always start our speeches on the British Columbia Treaty Commission by supporting the cause of the Nisga'a and what has been done so far.

Only 20 minutes ago, I was given a brief update on the negotiations. I can report that there does not seem to be a problem with self-government for instance. Ninety-eight per cent of the objectives relating to self-government were achieved.

A final agreement on self-government is imminent. One stumbling block seems to be fisheries, and commercial fisheries in particular, because of licensing requirements and, unfortunately, as we known, fish stocks are dwindling. Fishing licences have been issued and licensing authorities are looking into the possibility of transferring a number of them to first nations. As we speak, there is a bit of a problem there.

This matter has not yet been settled for good. Another major problem is the apparent lack of firm offers concerning land claims. Many difficulties emerged regarding land claims. I will explain in a moment. At times, B.C. columnists even suggested that it made no sense, as first nations ended up claiming 125 per cent of the territory because of overlap. So, there is a great deal of qualifying to do there.

I think that both provincial and federal authorities might be afraid of giving up too much land. All of this needs to be put in perspective. That is how negotiations go; it is better to start by asking for a little more rather than less.

The Nisga'as are one case where, as I will explain in a moment also, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized that they indeed had title to all the lands they claimed. As we will see in a moment, the Nisga'as are claiming self-government and title over only 8 per cent of their claim site and certain things already granted by the Supreme Court of Canada.

I felt it was important to open the debate on the Nisga'a case. In British Columbia, there are some 200 reserves. There is a very rich aboriginal culture in that province, with 200 native reserves or communities and eight language groups. In addition, aboriginal

people who share common interests often get together in groups known as regional councils or band councils. There are nearly 30 such aboriginal councils.

This goes to show that aboriginal culture is pervasive and very strong in British Columbia. It came as a surprise to me. We are not used to seeing every second store on main street a native one, as is the case in Vancouver for instance.

This shows how predominant the aboriginal culture is in that part of the country. It is important to do a bit of history here. At one time, that region was one of the most populated on the American continent. Europeans settled there 140 years ago. Yet, and unlike in other parts of the country, only 15 agreements were signed during that period in western Canada.

Fourteen of these treaties relate to Vancouver Island. They were signed by the Hudson's Bay Company. These are pre-Confederation treaties, dating back to before 1867. The only post-Confederation treaty is Treaty No. 8, signed in 1899. In central Canada, treaties were numbered from one to ten. Only one of these treaties, namely Treaty No. 8, relates to British Columbia and part of Alberta.

Treaties were also signed elsewhere in Canada, including some in Quebec, such as the Murray treaty, as well as other important ones. However, it seems that, during those 140 years, people tried to avoid negotiating anything in western Canada. They did not wish to recognize the contribution of aboriginal peoples to the European culture. They did not want to negotiate,so they just ignored the issue. Ultimately, that approach brought about more serious problems. Indeed, problems do not go away if you bury your head in the sand or ignore them.

It is important to keep that historical context in mind. Over time, some changes were made.

As I said earlier, the Nisga'as helped clear the road to negotiation. The Calder case was probably instrumental in the negotiation of territorial claims. At the time, in 1973, that decision was hailed as a victory for aboriginals since the Supreme Court confirmed their claim on aboriginal titles.

Following that decision, the federal government came to the conclusion that, since the Supreme Court had ruled that the claims on aboriginal titles were valid, it might as well start negotiating. Negotiations slowly got underway and the Nisga'as were the first ones to participate in the process.

There were other historic advances in terms of aboriginal values and culture and negotiations with aboriginal peoples, including the patriation of the Constitution in 1982, and I am referring to the often quoted section 35 which contains some recognition and affirmation of the existence of aboriginal, Inuit and Metis rights and treaties.

Of course there were other judgments that point out that a treaty is not necessarily a contract as we know it. It is not necessarily a document bearing the signatures of Europeans and aboriginal peoples. In many cases the oral aspect of treaties is recognized. This is not to say that aboriginal peoples were illiterate, because that is not the case. They had their own language, their own linguistic roots, but the language of the white man was not like theirs, and so when they had to sign a treaty, they would say: "We agree; let us have a verbal agreement, since we cannot sign in your language, the way you sign".

For me it would be like signing a contract with the Inuit. I do not know whether you ever saw Inuktitut, but I would not know what I was signing, and I think that is what happened at the time. The courts in their wisdom judged that treaties have a certain oral value; it is not only the signature that counts.

So in 1982 this was recognized by section 35 of the Constitution. In 1989, political action was stepped up, especially in British Columbia. It was decided to create a Department of Indian Affairs. This was quite a step. The government had no one who was responsible for conducting negotiations with the aboriginal people, although the problem had been around for 100 or 120 years.

In 1989, they really started to tackle the problem in British Columbia by establishing the Department of Indian Affairs.

Furthermore, the Premier of the province appointed a Premier's council for aboriginal affairs. So there was a new awareness following all the legal discussions and the problems generated by a failure to negotiate, problems that were becoming increasingly obvious. A decision was finally made to sit down and deal with the matter once and for all.

The cabinet urged the provincial government to change its past policies. In 1989, the Premier's council told the government: "Listen, we have to change our attitude and our perception of negotiating which is 120 years old and which has meant we simply ignored the problems". So they sat down and started to settle land claims. At that point they set up a task force which I see as the predecessor of the commission we are discussing today. They set up a task force whose members identified the need to conclude creative and far-sighted treaties with the First Nations, the provincial government and the federal government.

The treaties had to include three parties: the First Nations, the federal government with its fiduciary responsibility for the First Nations, and the provincial government, because it was often on provincial land that the federal government exercised powers in

areas that were the responsibility of the province. The report called for a new partnership to recognize the importance of Canada's natives and First Nations, based on voluntary, properly conducted talks in which the natives, the province and the federal governments would negotiate as equals.

The agreement in principle between the three parties I referred to earlier-the federal government, the province and the First Nations-was signed in September 1992. The legal entity empowered to sign for the First Nations is called the summit. This agreement implements the 19 recommendations made by the task force, including Recommendation No. 3. That is why I referred to it as a precedent earlier.

Recommendation No. 3 of the task force was to form a British Columbia treaty commission, which was done. The agreement also outlined the commission's role, mandate and operation. The purpose of Bill C-107 is to establish this commission on a legal basis. On May 26, 1993, the province followed up by tabling a proposal to create the commission. It has already passed an act to that effect. As for the First Nations Summit, it has already ratified the proposal through a recommendation signed by summit participants.

The parties were willing to go ahead. The only thing missing was the federal legislation before us today, which, I hope, will be passed as soon as possible, although some of the work has already started. I think it is important for the House to adopt this legislation once and for all, to prove that the third signatory to these agreements, the federal government, is acting properly, and that is the purpose of the bill before us today.

So why should we negotiate treaties? I think that we should put things in their historical context. Commissioners have pointed out that, if the role of treaties and their historical context were explained clearly to B.C. residents, they would be much more open to the land claim settlement process. In my introduction, I talked about overlapping land claims covering 125 per cent of the territory.

Just the same, there are individuals who are, in my opinion, adding fuel to the fire in B.C. right now by saying: "Look, we cannot give the natives the whole thing". I must stress the fact that this is an initial bargaining position. I believe the provincial government promised to reply: "Look, we cannot give you more than 5 per cent of the land. We shall see".

In other words, the federal government's opening position is five per cent, as opposed to 125 per cent for the First Nations. As usual in any negotiation they will settle somewhere in the middle. For the time being, I think that what matters is that the government sit across the First Nations at the negotiation table, listen to what they are asking for and see what we can offer. That is when negotiations are most valuable.

It is also very important that treaties be negotiated to prevent challenge strategies. Events like those that took place at Gustafsen

Lake or, in Quebec, at Oka and Kanesatake, must not be allowed to happen again if it can at all be helped.

It is therefore important that indications be given that the legal dispute and tangle can soon be resolved once and for all, not by force, endless legal controversy or roadblocks, but rather through negotiation.

At present, in B.C., there are even non-native groups who are quite familiar with the negotiation process and are siding with the natives to force the appropriate authorities to reach agreements once and for all, in the hope of avoiding unfortunate incidents such as roadblocks and illegal land occupation, which often lead to disaster and crystallization in relations between natives and non-natives.

Why negotiate treaties? To avoid confrontation and promote a peaceful settlement around negotiation tables.

In that context, the role of the commission is to facilitate the negotiation of treaties. It does not participate directly in negotiations, but, if they stall, it must step in, try to sort out the problem and basically act like a mediator by bringing parties together.

The commission is made up of five commissioners. This is important. Two of these commissioners are appointed by the First Nations Summit. This is almost a majority, since one commissioner is appointed by the federal government and one by the provincial government, while the chief commissioner is selected by these four commissioners. The chief commissioner will be selected because of his expertise and may often be an aboriginal who has a great deal of knowledge regarding treaty negotiations. Consequently, aboriginals will have a strong representation.

The commission approves the participation of first nations and organizes an initial meeting between the parties. I will try to explain this six-stage process and discuss it at length later. It is interesting to note that, when the parties meet for the first time, traditional ceremonies often take place. This helps government officials become acquainted with aboriginal culture. It is also a way for aboriginals to show that there is no animosity. Their culture includes certain traditions which are quite fascinating. Often, inviting someone to a traditional ceremony is a gift, as well as an indication of the open-mindedness of aboriginal people. Such ceremonies are common procedure during initial meetings.

The commission then puts in place the structures that will ensure smooth negotiations. Obviously, the commission has certain tools available to it. It can provide loans and contributions to first nations. That program is funded by both levels of government. The commission also provides expertise to solve disputes and ensure progress in the negotiations. This is more or less the role of

mediator to which I alluded earlier. Finally, the commission acts as keeper of the process.

It goes without saying that it does not participate in treaty negotiations. None of the commissioners sits at the negotiating table with a nation which has opted to use the BC Treaty Commission process.

The Commission is also required to produce annual reports. According to the first report, apparently, 42 first nations, groups or tribal councils have indicated a desire to establish negotiations. It should be pointed out that the Nisga'a will not fall under the commission's jurisdiction, because both levels of government have agreed that the negotiations had been long underway. Because they were so far advanced, there was no question of their being started over again or integrated at the stage they had reached. The decision was made to move ahead.

I have already told you what stage the negotiations had reached. The aboriginal nations of British Columbia breathed a great sigh of relief to see that the negotiations with the Nisga'a are moving forward.

Before I begin to talk about the six distinct steps in the process, I must also point out the optional nature of the process. In other words, a BC nation can decide not to make use of this negotiating mechanism but to explore other paths. To date, however, it seems that the first nations are greeting the process with a great deal of approval and are readily integrating themselves into the process.

The first step of the process is to file a statement of intent to negotiate. The First Nation concerned identifies itself, the people it will represent, its geographic area, and the territory it claims as its ancestral land. It appoints a resource person with whom the two levels of government will get in touch. Often, the important thing in negotiations is to know who to contact in case there is a hitch or if further details are required. In the first step of the process, it is clearly specified that the First Nations must meet these conditions.

The second step consists in preparing for negotiations. A first meeting must be held within 45 days of the first contact. As I pointed out earlier, this first meeting is usually held on the ancestral land. It starts with a traditional ceremony to which the negotiators and the various observers involved are invited.

At this stage, the First Nation is asked to appoint a negotiator with a full and specific mandate. It must get resources from the commission, adopt a ratification process, and identify the substantive and procedural issues to be negotiated.

Another very important point is that it must identify and file its claims on its ancestral lands. Reference was made earlier to overlapping aboriginal land claims. Negotiating first nations are required to consult neighbouring nations to make sure that their land claim does not encroach on other nations' claims. It is important that this be done early on, and negotiations cannot resume as long as this requirement is not met.

Governments must also consult non-natives and ensure that appropriate information is gathered. This too is important in my view because all the people living on a first nation's ancestral lands are not necessarily native people. There may also be non-natives, European families who, in many cases, settled there many decades ago, perhaps 120 years ago, sometimes at the very beginning of the colony.

There people feel rather insecure. That is why this is so important. At this stage of the game, commissioners should be consulting non-natives and gathering information to be prepared to answer any question that may come their way.

Once the commission is satisfied that the three parties to the negotiations meet the requirements, negotiations on the master agreement begin. Stage 3 is the negotiation of a master agreement. At this stage negotiation goals and objectives are set and a time frame suggested, but of all the negotiations under way none have gone further than stage 3.

In fact, none of the 42 first nations I mentioned earlier, who are taking part in the process, have gone past stage 3. The closest one is the Nisga'a. Earlier today, I spoke to Chief Leeson, who told me that they hope to sign an agreement in principle before Christmas. Although such an agreement would not be binding, they hope to have it. Even though this is an unusual process, some form of negotiations existed before. The Nisga'a are now at the agreement in principle stage, and they hope to have such an agreement before Christmas. We all hope that they do.

Negotiating an agreement in principle means negotiating substantive issues. For example, it means finalizing the agreements on self-government and territorial claims, defining the real basis of the treaty that will follow, and discussing what is to be included in that treaty. This all takes place at stage 4.

Stage 5 involves the negotiations to finalize a treaty. This is the stage at which a treaty officializes the content of the agreement in principle. All that was agreed to is finally put together and confirmed in a treaty. Following that stage, the treaty is signed and officially ratified.

Stage 6 is, of course, the implementation of the final treaty.

I must mention here a criticism that was made. Some aboriginal nations told me that, indeed, negotiation, and not confrontation, was the way of the future. However, given this series of stages and the fact that it took 19 years for the Nisga'a to reach stage four,

some think that setting up the British Columbia Treaty Commission is a delaying tactic.

That criticism must be pointed out. I share that concern, to some extent. However, it seems to me that the investment made in establishing that commission is worth it, both in terms of time and ideas put forward. I think this is better than letting each community in British Columbia, and there are 200, progress at its own pace, which would hardly be conducive to orderly negotiations. Some people might use this as an excuse to say: Listen, next door they are getting nowhere fast and the same here, so we do not want to negotiate any more.

In this way the process is more uniform. Perhaps it will take a little longer, but I think it is worth it and time will tell us we were right. Treaties will be signed on a peaceful basis, and I think the confrontation that has existed in British Columbia for 120 years will finally disappear. Time will tell us we were right and that negotiating is more important than protests.

Of the 43 First Nations participating in the process today, 14 have finished stage one. Seven have finished stage two and are now negotiating a framework agreement, 11 have basically finished stage two; according to the commissioners, these 18 First Nations are expected to reach stage four by 1995-96.

The process is picking up speed, and it is a process that is supported by the First Nations and will become fully operational in the months to come.

No group has yet finished stage four. I also want to say that the First Nations have my full support. If they ever reach an impasse, in a democracy, in the House of Commons, there is an official opposition, and I want to take this opportunity to tell people, and I admit it has happened before, that when negotiations reach an impasse, the First Nations of British Columbia can count on my full support. I could intervene within the limits set in a democracy, by going to the minister or the provincial authorities to ensure negotiations are successful.

Incidentally, I also looked up some recommendations the commission made in its annual report, which I feel are important.

The first recommendation made by the commissioners is that federal legislation should be passed and federal and provincial laws ratified as soon as possible to give the British Columbia Treaty Commission the status of a corporate entity. That is what we are doing today. The commission will be recognized as a corporate entity once we have passed Bill C-107.

The second recommendation is also very important. The commissioners recommend that the parties to the agreement and the negotiating parties continue to make every effort to ensure that the public is better informed and that the parties to the agreement are more involved in educating the public. Any initiative in this respect is to take place at the provincial, regional and local levels.

This is one thing the Nisga'a pointed out to me the last time I was there. They told me it was important to get a lot more information out to the public, because there are people whose interests do not coincide with those of the First Nations and who, as I said earlier, were fanning the flames of controversy. They claim that land claims cover 125 per cent of the province, that aboriginal people want all the land, and so forth.

The Nisga'a saw to it that their part of the contract was fulfilled, that is to say they informed non aboriginals and the population in general of the appropriate nature of their claims, of the appropriateness of dealing with them on the same footing. I think they did just that. But from what I know about the process to date, the federal and provincial governments have not made much progress in raising public awareness of the relevancy of the process I explained just now.

If the process is properly explained and the people of British Columbia can be confident that the aboriginal people do not pose a threat, this should speed up the process, preparing the ground for negotiation.

It is important to acknowledge that, if the climate for negotiations is propitious, the process progresses a lot better than if it is tense and government officials are told, "Now listen, we cannot go too fast because our people are not all that much in favour".

It is very important for this public awareness to be, not just maintained, but stepped up, particularly by governments.

Another recommendation which struck me, and I feel I must raise it here, is that the Government of Canada and the Government of British Columbia use all methods of consultation available to them to let the community as a whole know that it has been understood and its concerns taken into account.

My colleague has just spoken of a degree of uncertainty. There are all kinds of companies out there and what struck me on my last trip was the speed with which natural resources are being taken out of the area. It is as if the companies on these ancestral lands said: "We are in a race, because once these lands are transferred to the native people, we will not be able to continue our present operations".

I saw up to 500 logging trucks a day coming off Chilcotin, Nisga'a and Carrier-Sekani land. That really impressed me. It really disappointed me as well, and I even mentioned it to the Premier of British Columbia and to the Minister of Indian Affairs. To my mind, those forests were being clear cut and would have a hard time recovering. Moreover, for the trees coming out of B.C. of late, no money is going to the first nations.

It seems to me, that the whole question of natural resource development could be included in the upcoming treaty discussions. In fact, we are looking into the possibility of joint management in the House standing committee. We will therefore conclude our work, but, in the meantime, I think it important to point out to the principal groups developing natural resources, particularly, that there is no danger, in our opinion.

The taxes they currently pay to develop these resources could be paid to the native peoples rather than to the provincial or federal governments. This is the sort of discussion being held, and I think it important that these financial groups be part of the process and not consider negotiations on these ancestral lands as a threat to their business. The entire community must know this as must the special interest groups.

In conclusion-I see my time is just about up-our objective is to put an end to 140 years of injustice. We are very lucky that the first nations have this mentality of sharing. You know that, when the Europeans appeared, regardless of where in Canada they appeared, the native peoples always said: "Look, the land belongs to everyone, so let us share it together".

We have been lucky up to now to have the use of this land, but I think an injustice has been done to the native peoples in their being confined to small reserves with few natural resources and not enough of a land base to enable them to take control of their lives.

The extent of their dependency is rather outrageous, in my opinion, because they are always depending on government grants. This means they are unable to really fly on their own and to take control of their lives. I think the process before us today will enable them to take off. We are lucky, as I said earlier, that they have agreed to share this land with us without violent challenges. We have had some of late, but they have to stop. We cannot have them.

The most logical and sure way to avoid any reoccurrences of such unfortunate situations is the process of negotiation before us.

So let us avoid roadblocks and events such as at Gustafsen Lake and Oka. Let us exchange aggression and argument for discussion and negotiation.

I wish the first nations of British Columbia good luck. The Bloc Quebecois will support Bill C-107.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on Bill C-107, an act respecting the establishment of the B.C. Treaty Commission.

I noticed at the beginning of the previous speaker's speech he talked quite a bit about the Nisga'a negotiations. I would like to point out that the Nisga'a negotiations are not part of the B.C. treaty process under the B.C. Treaty Commission as they predate it and are not subject to the same terms of reference.

There has been a high degree of increased public awareness of the ramifications of the B.C. treaty negotiations in the last two years in British Columbia. It has now risen to be the number one issue in the public mind in British Columbia.

The opposition political parties at the provincial level are adopting treaty policies very different from what has gone on up until now and very different from the federal government. There are concerns about the costs and the length of time the negotiations are going to be taking. There are concerns regarding the negotiating mandate of the two senior levels of government. There are also concerns regarding the consultation and ratification process for any negotiated treaties.

As we talked about the Nisga'a agreement earlier, this is a precedent setting agreement outside of the B.C. treaty process and at this point it will not necessarily be adopted by an incoming B.C. government. We are in the circumstance of having a government that is currently in the last year of its mandate and the other two major parties vying for government have made that statement.

Against this backdrop of a precedent setting negotiation which has largely been cloaked in secrecy and mystery, that is the Nisga'a negotiations, we do have this B.C. treaty process. The terms of reference for the Nisga'a negotiations certainly allow for a much greater degree of openness than has been demonstrated to date. In an overall context, this is not a good start.

Some of the history of the B.C. Treaty Commission is that in December 1991 British Columbia accepted all the recommendations of a task force. Those recommendations led to Canada and B.C. beginning formal negotiations on the roles and responsibilities of the two governments within treaty negotiations, including cost sharing. This was culminated in March 1992.

In September 1992, Canada, B.C. and the First Nations Summit leadership formally supported the establishment of a B.C. treaty commission and signed a B.C. treaty commission agreement. In April 1993 commissioners were appointed on an interim basis by provincial and federal orders in council and by First Nations Summit resolution.

In May 1993 the provincial legislation received royal assent which was pending federal legislation. The Governments of Canada and British Columbia then successfully concluded cost sharing negotiations in June 1993. This allowed for the treaty commission to open its doors in December 1993.

Virtually all of these actions, save the very last, occurred prior to the last federal election in October 1993.

Currently an estimated 77 per cent of the British Columbia bands are involved and signed up in this process. There are 196 bands in British Columbia. As I mentioned earlier, the Nishga negotiations are completely outside of the B.C. treaty process. All the remaining bands in British Columbia that are not a part of the B.C. treaty process have no option: they either go with the B.C. treaty process or there is no other negotiating option for them. Those are the terms of reference. This is problematic for those 23 per cent of B.C. bands that have concerns and do not want to enter into the process.

There is one major omission, which is not mandated by the act, by Bill C-107, which we are discussing today, and that is the consultation process. There has been a separate set of agreements. In July 1993 the federal and provincial governments announced the establishment of a 31-member treaty negotiation advisory committee to advise ministers in the treaty negotiations. That committee is not referred to in any way, shape, or form in Bill C-107; it has no recognition. In addition, regional advisory committees are being struck in each treaty negotiation area to represent local interests. There is much unhappiness about the consultation process and about the ratification process at this time.

I would like to point out that in the term of this 35th Parliament we have had previous legislation dealing with aboriginal issues. We have had the Yukon self-government and land claims agreements. We have had the Sahtu agreement in the western Arctic. We have had the Pictou Landing compensation agreement in Nova Scotia for environmental damage at the reserve level. We have had the Split Lake compensation agreement in Manitoba. And now we have this enabling legislation, which has been very late in following the provincial legislation and the agreement.

The reason I mentioned all of that is because each of these bills, every piece of aboriginal legislation that has come before the House in this 35th Parliament, predates the last federal election in terms of when the agreements were reached. There has not been one piece of legislation from this department in this Parliament.

In preparing to look at Bill C-107, one of the necessary steps is to talk to legislative counsel. Legislative counsel advises that no legislative changes are possible to Bill C-107 because neither the federal nor provincial governments can make unilateral changes, and the B.C. Treaty Commission agreement, the tripartite agreement between the federal, provincial, and First Nations Summit, which was signed in September 1992, and also the provincial enabling legislation override the ability to make changes. The only way a change could be made is if those agreements were also changed. This is really a reverse onus on this Parliament in many respects.

I have some concerns about this bill, many of which are quite basic. Who would enter into an agreement in which there is no satisfactory amending clause? Who would enter into an agreement in which there is no satisfactory cancellation clause? In both cases this bill comes up lacking. The agreement leads one to assume a lot.

If a band enters into the process, it receives funding that is 80 per cent repayable upon completion of negotiations. In effect, they are being given a loan to set off against the eventual settlement package. The agreement is silent in terms of what happens to these moneys should the band or the tribal council not complete negotiations. The act is also silent about those bands that do not enter into the process and may not want to enter into the process. There is no alternative open to them.

The First Nations Summit organization and their appointment of representatives is open to any band, whether they are participating or not. I find this a little strange. It is a very fluid thing. They are not elected. It is very difficult to pin down. And the compensation packages for the summit commissioners have no transparency whatsoever in terms of the arrangements for these appointments or the compensation for these appointments.

Clause 22 of the proposed act states that nothing in the act prevents the three parties from amending the agreement of September 1992. I mentioned this earlier. This is very problematic, because this very agreement has been shown to compromise Parliament's ability to amend the very act we are being asked to pass at third reading. Therefore this is an unacceptable reverse onus, in my view.

I have other concerns. The municipal level of government is not recognized in the act. They are simply a sidebar arrangement through the provincial negotiators. Also, funding of recognized interests beyond the bands is not addressed in the act. There is $15.3 million a year going into funding of the aboriginal negotiating parties. Right now, through the provincial government the municipalities are receiving $250,000 per year. They have many concerns about that.

From their meeting last month, the Union of B.C. Municipalities is certainly expressing great displeasure about what this process has done. They have a responsibility to take part to represent their interests. They have no choice but to get involved, because they are very much impacted. The ten regional groups that now represent municipal interests in the treaty talks are capped at a $250,000 funding level. According to the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the

municipalities are having to fund this thing out of local taxpayer funds to make up the difference.

The federal and provincial governments have spent more than $30 million on the negotiations since they began in 1993. Some of the municipalities in the lower mainland have competing aboriginal claims. Rather than having to deal with one set of claims, they have to deal with multiple claims over the same piece of ground. This is becoming very expensive for the municipalities. It is an unfair burden and one that should be addressed in this bill. The bill is silent on the municipal role.

There is no reference in the bill to readiness guidelines for the regional advisory committees. They are not in the terms of reference of the B.C. Treaty Commission. This has proven to be very problematic as well.

We have readiness guidelines for the other parties, but not for the advisory groups at the local level. Because the readiness guidelines are not there, there is a tendency for senior governments and the negotiating parties to set a few people in place at the local level and then carry on with negotiations. As the keeper of the process, the B.C. Treaty Commission should have terms of reference that also include readiness guidelines for the consultation groups. That is not addressed. It is not there. And because it is not there this is not happening.

It was identified in the 1993 and 1994 B.C. Treaty Commission annual reports that there was no federal enabling legislation for the B.C. Treaty Commission. As as result, the B.C. Treaty Commission had major concerns. I asked what the reason was for the lengthy delay in bringing forth the federal legislation. Apparently it is related to summit concerns over the wording of one clause in the bill. I have to ask, how can one party's concern over one clause hang up or protract this legislation for more than two years?

The province has negotiated interim agreements, which have compromised the B.C. Treaty Commission process. The B.C. Treaty Commission made that statement in its 1993 annual report. The bill does not empower the B.C. Treaty Commission to deal with that kind of concern.

In summary, Canada and British Columbia have budgeted $77.6 million over the period from 1994-95 to 1997-98 to the process. Given the weaknesses inherent in the bill, I will not be able to support the legislation.

[Jon Gerrard, Liberal, Secretary of State (Science]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to join in the third reading debate on Bill C-107, an act respecting the establishment of the B.C. Treaty Commission. It is helpful to have the co-operation of the opposition members in support of the bill.

The events of the last few months, whether in B.C. or elsewhere, are convincing that issues of aboriginal rights and land claims can only be resolved through negotiation. It is very important to get on with the process. The sooner we can get the land claims settled, the faster we can get on with economic development and other government issues.

I want to talk about the process upon which we have embarked in British Columbia and also about the importance of the economic development aspects, which need to coincide with this process, and the role in particular, in view of my position as Secretary of State for Science, Research and Development, of science and technology in promoting economic development for First Nations people.

The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has recently visited British Columbia several times, the latest being November 24. During the summer he met with the First Nations Summit to report on the inherent right of self-government policy and he formally signed two of the four framework agreements. The signing of framework agreements with the Champagne and Aishihik, the Sechelt and the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en First Nations are visible examples of the benefits and results of resolving these issues through negotiation.

Many other First Nations are working on framework agreement negotiations or completing the readiness stage. The government is committed to moving negotiations to conclusion rather than pursuing endless negotiations. That is evident from these recently signed agreements.

About 140 of the almost 200 B.C. First Nations want to sit at the table with federal and provincial governments to solve these issues. That represents over 70 per cent of the First Nations of British Columbia. Of the 47 nations in the process 25 have completed the readiness requirements. In 12 of those the 2 governments have also met our readiness requirements and 9 have completed or are working on framework agreements.

Clearly this process deserves the support of the House so that it can continue toward its goal of reaching acceptable, affordable and fair settlements.

It is important to note that we need fair settlements for all British Columbians and for all Canadians. That is the basis on which we must work.

It is important that third party interests be well taken care of in this process and indeed they are being taken care of. The British Columbia Treaty Commission process is the product of extensive consultations. In 1990 the federal and provincial governments established a task force to come up with a made in British Columbia approach to map out a negotiation process that could accommodate the many First Nations in British Columbia that wanted to negotiate settlements.

The recommendations of the task force were accepted by both governments and the representatives of the First Nations. One of the key recommendations was the establishment of the British Columbia Treaty Commission as an independent keeper of the process.

The task force also made several recommendations on public information and education as well as on consultation. The members recognize that treaty negotiations will succeed if both aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities understand why we need treaties and what those treaties mean.

As the negotiations for framework agreements proceed, governments must obtain background information on the communities, people and interests likely to be affected by the negotiations and establish mechanisms for consultation with non-aboriginal interests. These are among the criteria the treaty commission considers when it assesses the readiness of the parties to begin working toward a framework agreement.

In other words the commission will not give the green light to negotiate unless proper consultation mechanisms are in place. There is already a province-wide treaty negotiation advisory committee which my colleague spoke of but for each claim regional and even local committees are established, and these committees are becoming more and more active as parties move into the framework negotiations.

To date there are advisory committees up and running in Bulkley-Skeena, in Lilloolet-Pemberton, Westbank-Kelowna, the Lower Mainland, on Southeast Vancouver island, the west coast of Vancouver Island and the Sunshine Coast.

Regional advisory committees are also being formed in Central Cariboo, Kitimat-Skeena, Central Coast, the Desolation Sound area and in the Prince George and Nechako Valley. Clearly third party interests are a central part of the treaty making process in British Columbia.

It seems the demands of some to halt the negotiation process seem aimed at avoiding the issue rather than finding workable and honourable agreements.

The government remains firmly committed to negotiating treaties with First Nations across Canada where needed. We will stay focused on that objective because it is the only way uncertainty can be ended and all British Columbians can benefit.

I will speak for a few minutes on the importance of this process in going forward in economic development and in particular in the potential in the area of science and technology and telecommunications for economic development for First Nations people in British Columbia and elsewhere.

It is important we get through this process, that we sort out the settlements and finalize the situation. It is also important that we start building the economic framework and in particular the telecommunications. The telecommunications, the information highway infrastructure which the government has promoted from the moment we were elected is vitally important for communities in rural and remote regions of Canada and particularly for First Nations communities.

As we outlined early on in our mandate, this information highway infrastructure is essential for jobs and learning in rural areas. It is essential we move quickly in areas of access and it is fundamentally important that we move quickly in developing Canadian content. We need aboriginal First Nation content so First Nations people are not only receivers but providers of content in an increasingly important way.

One major effort we have made is in the SchoolNet process. This process is one to which we are committed to ensure that schools in all First Nations communities are linked to SchoolNet and to the Internet and can join the information highway as one important step not only in learning but in community development as we have moved into the community access program.

In British Columbia there are some important advantages in technology becoming available with ATM networks giving broad band, multimedia access on the information highway.

As recently as last week I was in British Columbia to announce the establishment of the telelearning network centre of excellence, linking communities across Canada and centred at Simon Fraser University. The development of teaching materials on the information highway using the worldwide web and other multimedia tools will enable delivery of learning and jobs at a distance.

In this context it is important to realize a big change is occurring. Universities like Simon Fraser are already putting courses on to the worldwide web so they can be taken from anywhere around the world. In a few years a number of courses will be dramatically increased and therefore the possibility of taking courses and learning materials from anywhere in Canada, from any First Nations community in Canada, will be there and realized.

The people at Simon Fraser are already working on the possibility of having all courses on the worldwide web by the year 2000. If that happens, what a remarkable achievement and what important new access to learning and post-secondary education it would give to people across Canada.

There is another side to the question. Even as the learning material becomes more available it is now more possible and more important to develop learning materials based in and coming from the First Nations people of Canada. This is also an important objective of the SchoolNet program and an important objective of economic development, to enable teaching materials to be shared from one First Nations community to another to develop content

and learning materials which can be very important as cultural expression for First Nations people into the next century.

As we proceed in settling land claims, providing the framework, it is also important we proceed with economic development, with the information highway so that it will allow people across the country and particularly First Nations people access to the information they need when they need it and where they need it.

This will allow better management of natural resources and a remarkable new array of economic development opportunities and jobs, particularly in remote locations, as is already starting to happen in small communities in northern British Columbia and remote communities in Newfoundland, setting up businesses on the information highway and worldwide web and to operate around the world.

It is a very different world from what we have lived in, one fundamental reason it is important to move quickly to settle land claims so we can move forward in development, learning and in new possibilities.

I urge my hon. colleagues to show support for this process, which will bring certainty to the province of British Columbia and renewed hope and prosperity to the people of British Columbia and particularly First Nations' people.