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.