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.