Debates of Dec. 7th, 1995

Supply

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

You do not want to talk about it.

[Ron Irwin, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

-or a group of intellectuals sitting around discussing the Constitution. I will address the Reform. I am talking about the poorest of the poor, the constituents of the Reform Party that seems to think they do not count. Reformers do not consult with them. They do not talk to them. They do not meet with the chiefs and we have roadblocks. It is the job of the Reform Party to go out and represent these poor people. We were not elected to come here to cater to the rich, to the haves, to the white communities. We were elected to come here to cater to Canadians.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

What about the Bronfmans?

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Sorry, Mr. Minister. I ask for order, please.

[Ron Irwin, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Once in the four-year mandate I would like to hear Reform members talk about the housing conditions and what we can do on reserves. Once I would like to hear a Reform member talk about suicide problems. I have to go out there and meet with people who have lost their children. Once I would like to hear the Reform talk about health. All we get is denunciation, denunciation of Indian people for one reason, because they are Indians.

The country will not tolerate that. What Reform learned in New Brunswick and in Abbotsford it will learn in the next election. The people of B.C. want to be proud of the members they send here. The people of B.C. are nation builders and what they see strips away that pride. The Reform Party will learn that in the next election.

When the Reform Party came to my riding it said to the steelworkers of Sault Ste. Marie when the company went under and the unions had to take it over "do not give them a penny". They now have eight months of profit and two weeks ago the men did it, the men this party does not want to represent. They now have $400 million in the financial community and have invested it. They are working, no thanks to the Reform Party.

Every time the Reform Party comes up to my riding of Sault Ste. Marie every steelworker there will know that along with all the other things I have said about Reform and the groups it excludes, it has excluded the working people of the country.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to the minister. If he wants to blame the Reform Party for anything, he should first do his homework and pay close attention to this debate. He compares the Bloc Quebecois with Reform. Well, when I as a member of this House tabled a bill to limit the interest collected on delinquent mortgages, for example, Reform was not the only opponent. His party was also opposed, because it was eating into the fund, the large amounts put at its disposal by Canada's large banks, the so-called seven sisters.

So he is in no position to throw snowballs at the Reform Party. It is his party that abolished the council on the status of women. What I mean is that, in spite of everything, I recognize that native people have been here for 20,000 years, according to some experts, that they have rights, and that we must recognize these rights. What better way to do so than by signing treaties? I think that the party I represent in this House will oppose the motion tabled by Reform because it is unacceptable.

Some people who have been here for 20,000 years are being denied their very right to exist, while some first- and second-generation Canadians claim that they have all the rights. I feel that all the people here, whatever their origins, have rights, but why deny them to native people? Although I disagree with the minister, I say that we should oppose the motion tabled by the Reform Party because it does an injustice to an important group of fellow citizens.

[Ron Irwin, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate what the hon. member has said. I see the member for Saint-Jean out there working hard.

However, we have a fundamental difference. We just went through the referendum. Last week we heard the guru of the Bloc. I thought he was gone but he just stepped to the back of the bus. He was quoted in the Globe and Mail . What did Mr. Pierre Bourgault say? It is the Jews, the Italians and the Greeks who vote in an ethnic block who are the racists, not us. They only have one objective, to obstruct things. They are saying these Jews, Italians and Greeks, because they want to be Canadians, are obstructionists. If we multiply that by about fivefold we have an idea of the Cree, the Montagnais, the Attikamekw and the Micmac and their feeling of alienation within the province of Quebec.

We have to have a uniform philosophy. As much as I appreciate what the Bloc is saying today it cannot blame the Reform for what is happening out in B.C. and have a different philosophy in Quebec. Reform in B.C. cannot side with us to protect the Indians of Quebec because it fits its agenda and because it is taking an anti-francophone position, but not do the same thing in B.C.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am not going to get into a long diatribe of rhetoric as the hon. minister put forth today against the Reform Party. The Liberal government does not have a monopoly on caring and compassion nor a monopoly on stupidity.

The goal we have today is shared by the minister and by every person in the House. Each and every one of us wants to ensure aboriginal people, particularly those who as the minister referred to are the poorest of the poor, are able to stand on their own two feet, and that we are able to decrease the terrible parameters of rape, sexual abuse, crime and violence that occurs within their societies.

I was going to ask the hon. member a question, but he has departed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The hon. member knows we do not refer to the presence or absence of anyone in the House.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, the goal is to help aboriginal people, working with them in a co-operative fashion. That is the goal of Reform members, many of whom have aboriginal people in our ridings. We work closely with them to resolve these difficulties.

I listened to the individual responsible for the B.C. treaty process on Vancouver Island. I listened for one hour on what they were going to do for the aboriginal people. I asked: "At the end of the day will the B.C. treaty process actually help the poorest of the poor, the people I mentioned earlier? Will it actually help them?" That individual said: "I do not know".

That is the basis on which we do not approve of this process. The process will not help the poorest of the poor in aboriginal communities. That is what we want and I know that is what the government wants. The course the government is pursuing will not help the poorest of the poor.

Other concerns we have are in the resource management. Who will ensure the resources are taken care of? As the minister knows, at Stony Creek we saw a terrible tragedy with the timber on that reserve. We are also concerned about where the money goes. The minister well knows that aboriginal leadership in many cases have been known to pocket vast sums of money that were supposed to be going to those people who are the poorest of the poor. Those are our concerns.

Does the minister think the B.C. treaty process will truly help those aboriginal people who are the poorest of the poor? Who will preserve and safeguard the resources in the areas they are asking for in terms of land? Does the minister not believe that the fundamental and most important part of developing self-respect and respect in one's community is the ability for an individual, whether aboriginal or non-aboriginal, to stand on their own two feet and take care of themselves and be gainfully employed?

[Ron Irwin, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want this question because I often hear this member questioning the health minister and I have always wanted to respond to him.

This member is a doctor and we would think he would bring his skills to the House. If he brought those skills as a doctor to the House he would see the suicide problems we have in First Nations. He would realize that a lot of these suicides are a result of no self-sufficiency because there is nothing left. We took all the lands. We took it all.

He would realize that there is more than having social workers there. There has to be self-sufficiency. He would realize that where there is self-sufficiency, where there are richer reserves there is stability and there is health. He would go out and learn this. He would know what is happening there.

Instead he sits here in a nation that provided him with medical skills and encouraged him to go to school, subsidized him and encouraged him to go through school and become a doctor, to bring this knowledge and skill to the House. But he says: "Let us spread this poverty equally. They are poor. Let them go out and be self-sufficient".

The bottom line is when we negotiated these treaties, and he should know this, in many cases we spent a day or two. In British Columbia, with treaties 6, 7 and 8, in a couple of days with three treaties we took away a whole province. We took away the resources from the native people.

We have spent 200 years to not make the same mistake in B.C. and make sure there is some self-sufficiency there, that we have a vision and we can work together as partners. What does this hon. member do? He is going to vote: "Stop the process. Do not negotiate any further. Let those poor people fend for themselves". Shame on him.

[André Caron, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, the opposition motion.

I will read the motion, for the benefit of the members who are here. It goes as follows:

That the House urge the government to not enter into any binding trilateral aboriginal treaty or land claim agreements in B.C. in the last year of the current provincial government mandate in order to respect the views of British Columbians on this issue as expressed by both major provincial opposition parties.

My comments will be twofold. In the first part, I will discuss the constitutional validity of such a proposal, and in the second part, I will deal with the issue of aboriginal claims.

Does a government, democratically elected in Canada according to the laws of the land and in compliance with our constitutional principles, have the right to govern? In other words, does a government that is the government have the right to be a government?

The Reform Party's answer to that question is no. Indeed, it is asking this House to urge the Government of Canada to not enter into any agreements to which a provincial government, duly elected according to the Constitution, would be a party, because such an agreement would not reflect public opinion, as expressed by the two major provincial opposition parties. In other words, the Reform Party is asking the House to ascertain, before entering into an agreement with a Canadian province, whether public opinion, as expressed by the opposition, is favourable to the proposal.

Our friends from the Reform Party do not seem to understand the nature of our institutions. This motion is wrong in the sense that it is an attack against the legitimacy of our institutions. It provides that the House should ask the government to determine, through polls, through supposedly scientific studies, perhaps through open lines in B.C., or editorials from the Vancouver Sun , the opinion of British Columbians, before entering into an agreement supported by the legitimately elected government of that province.

I am not sure whether our Reform Party friends realize what they are asking from the House. People participating in a political meeting could say: "Since the B.C. government is in the last year of its mandate, it no longer has the democratic or political rightto -", and so on. As you know, it is easy to organize a partisan political meeting. It is easy to resort to inflated rhetoric and to exaggerate, so as to make an impact on public opinion.

The motion before us comes from an official party in the House of Commons. That party got 52 members elected in the last federal election and is now asking the House to pass such a resolution.

Let us change the wording a bit in order to examine the unbelievable nature of a resolution such as this. What, for example, would our reaction be if the motion were to read, selecting Quebec at random as an example: "That the House urge the government to not enter into agreement with the Government of Quebec on the sharing and devolution of manpower training until such time as the Government of Quebec has passed a motion in the National Assembly recognizing the landslide victory by the no side in the last referendum"? I think everyone here would say it was unbelievable.

To take another example, what would our reaction by if the motion were to read: "That the House urge the government to not enter into any agreement with the Government of Ontario as long as that government plans to cut back on welfare payments"? We would say it was impossible.

Yet here we have a government, the Parliament of Canada, being asked to pass judgment on the legitimacy of another duly elected government within a federation. The legitimacy of the B.C. government is just as important, just as valuable, just as constitutionally justified, as the legitimacy of the Government of Canada.

Just looking at the wording of the motion would be enough to make the Bloc oppose it.

But there are other grounds. Basically, this motion casts doubt on the entire issue, on the whole process for settling aboriginal land claims in Canada.

I have just listened to my Reform colleague's defence of the proposition. He touched on many topics. He spoke of territorial rights, of the fact that aboriginal people living on reserves pay no taxes. When it comes down to it, he has challenged the rights of these first inhabitants of Canada to demand any particular rights whatsoever to certain lands within Canada. He even referred to the B.C. Reform Party's program on aboriginal issues which proposes that it oppose inclusion of aboriginal self government in the province's legislation. Yet it has been in the Canadian Constitution since 1982. According to a Reform government out there, however, there must be no mention in any of the laws of B.C. of any entitlement whatsoever to aboriginal self government.

There was another resolution that I hesitate to mention here, because in many ways it challenges the position of minorities in Canada. According to the Reform Party's provincial platform, before aboriginal peoples obtain certain rights in Canada, they should first have the consent of the majority of the population.

It seems this party wants to propose that in British Columbia, minority rights shall be subject to the will of the majority. It is unthinkable, in a democratic country like Canada that recognizes the rights of specific populations subject to certain criteria, that these rights should be subject to injunctions or decisions by a majority of the population.

Basically, the Reform Party's proposal challenges the whole issue of aboriginal rights in Canada. That is its general purpose, but the Reform Party also challenges specific aspects. Somewhat

ironically, the Reform Party's comments were fuelled by several kinds of issues.

There is a reference to the Nass River agreement now being negotiated with the Nisga'a in British Columbia. In fact, the Reform Party would rather see the agreement dropped, because of issues like commercial fishing rights, for instance. There are groups who are making representations. However, I think we should keep a sense of proportion in all this.

Today in Canada we have a major problem concerning aboriginal land claims. It is a problem that must be dealt with as quickly as possible, in a way that is fair to all Canadians and respects the rights of all concerned. The issue should not be used as an excuse to postpone agreements that may be finalized very shortly.

I think they are playing with fire, because today in Canada, there is a polarization of positions on these issues. If we read editorials in Canada or Quebec and listen to open-line shows, we realize that non-aboriginal groups are critical. They think there is some exaggeration in the whole issue of aboriginal claims, and they are right, but as a result of this situation, prejudice is rife, which is not conducive to good relations between aboriginal peoples and the general public in Quebec and Canada.

Opinions are becoming polarized, often with somewhat bizarre results. As an example of what will happen if we do not deal with these issues fairly quickly, I was reading a speech made by the hon. member for Churchill yesterday at a sacred assembly held in Hull. Now we should realize the assembly is more or less religious in nature and often the language is very symbolic. Our colleague said in his opening speech that the Creator had put aboriginal peoples in this part of the world known as Canada.

I agree one can argue that aboriginal peoples have certain rights because they were here before we were, because they were the first occupants, but I think it is a bit much to say the Creator put the aboriginal peoples in Canada.

This was said in a particular context before an audience of important dignitaries.

The Prime Minister of Canada was present at this gathering. Ministers of the crown were also in attendance. There was little reaction. The context is, however, a particular one. If native peoples get the idea now that Canada was given to the aboriginal people, like in the Bible, things are going to get tougher.

So, I think, in order to avoid things getting out of hand-because I think it could happen, and I am sorry to have to say it, out of respect for my colleague for Churchill-native claims have to be settled as quickly as possible and, in British Columbia, where things are developing, matters must be resolved right away. Because, in British Columbia, things go back a long way.

Between the end of the 1880s and 1990, native claims were not considered valid. In 1990, the British Columbia government began to recognize native rights, but only then. I heard the Minister of Indian Affairs say earlier that the situation of native peoples in Quebec was terrible. He said that journalists and some people are making remarks about the referendum vote. People are saying it must be awful for the native population.

In 1985 or 1986, the National Assembly of Quebec recognized 11 native nations. One of these nations barely has 500 members, but it was recognized because it had rights. The people of Quebec did not vote on whether a nation of 150 people constituted a nation. There was no vote. The National Assembly looked at the cultures and the characteristics of all the nations and recognized them. That is what happened in Quebec.

There is the James Bay agreement, which was signed in 1974 or 1975, as the minister pointed out. It was the first major agreement between Canada and the native populations. It was concluded in Quebec, while, in British Columbia, it was not until 15 years later that the territorial rights of native peoples were recognized and the validity of their claims acknowledged.

I think Quebec can hold its head high. The Montagnais of Lac-Saint-Jean, the Montagnais on the north shore and the Mohawks have always been respected. The Attikameks and the Maliseet are few in number, but worthy of respect and have certain rights they are claiming. It happened in Quebec. We the people of Quebec were among the governments and peoples of Canada to recognize the First Nations. We know that there is a Quebec nation, a Quebec people. But Quebec also includes other peoples.

We recognized 11 other nations. We negotiated. Our National Assembly recognized them. Agreements were signed with some of these peoples. An agreement is being negotiated with the Montagnais of the North Shore and Lac-Saint-Jean. Things were done. No one in Quebec told the government that it should not sign.

No one in the 1970s tabled a motion here in the House of Commons urging the Government of Canada not to sign an agreement with Quebec because the Bourassa government, which signed this agreement, was in the last year of its mandate. It was the James Bay agreement; it was not about fishing rights on a river somewhere. The James Bay agreement covers a vast territory. The Cree hold property rights over some lands, surface rights over others, fishing and hunting rights over other parts of the territory.

We did not undermine these people's rights by signing treaties with them. We respected them. We told them: "You are a nation, you will have territorial rights, you will be given money for

development". It was not a bargaining session, as demonstrated by the fact that, in the last referendum, 95 per cent of these people-this figure is a little conservative; it is probably higher-voted no in the referendum. Ninety-five per cent is a lot of people.

What this means is that, on some parts of this reserve, not a single person voted yes. No one in Quebec questioned these results or these people's legitimacy. No one accused them of being ungrateful after we gave them territorial rights. That is not how we do things.

We did not give them rights. They already had rights, which we recognized and enshrined in legislation. This legislation, this treaty, this agreement was also ratified by the federal government, which also had fiduciary rights and was a party to the case.

I hope that the House will carefully examine the content of this motion. First, it should realize that the motion limits the rights of a democratically elected government in Canada. Second, the motion challenges the rights of people in Canada who belong to a nation different from the so-called Canadian nation and from what we call the Quebec nation.

I feel it is important to be aware of all this and of native people's right to demand some land claim agreements in Canada. We must hasten to correct some visible mistakes that are emerging so that we do not end up in situations that would adversely affect the future for the people of Quebec and Canada and for all the native peoples in Canada.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, it makes me curious when an hon. member refers to the Quebec people and the Quebec nation. I am not quite sure what he means by this in terms of the population of Quebec. This is a point of concern for me. Obviously I am a Canadian to be able to sit in this Chamber. I came to this country after the Hungarian revolution in 1957. My 10-year old daughter was born in Canada. My wife is Irish going back seven generations.

When we talk of people within the confines of a province, I want to make sure there is some definition to it. Looking at the demographics of the population in Quebec, the direct descent French is 74.6 per cent; British, 4.2 per cent; German, half a per cent; Italian, 2.6 per cent; Chinese, half a per cent; aboriginal, 1 per cent; Dutch, one-tenth of one per cent; east Indian, three-tenths of one per cent; Polish, three-tenths of one per cent; Portuguese, one-half per cent; Jewish, 1.1 per cent; Greek, seven-tenths of one per cent; Filipino, one-tenth of one per cent; Hungarian, one-tenth of one per cent; other, 5 per cent; people of multiple origins, 8.4 per cent.

Maybe the hon. member could clarify for me that all the people living in Quebec are indeed Quebecers and are indeed Canadian.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I question the pertinence to the subject of today's debate.

The hon. member may want to respond, but I do question the relevance of the question with regard to the motion.

[André Caron, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will gladly answer the question because some members may wonder how to define a Montagnais, a Malecite or a Nisga'a.

Allow me to answer by first asking a question and answering it. How do you define a Canadian? As far as I can understand, Canadians are persons who live in Canada and call themselves Canadians. Our hon. colleague told us: "I am a Canadian. I have been living in Canada since the late 50s". He said he came to Canada from Hungary after the insurrection over there.

I am sure the hon. member calls himself a Canadian, probably in his Hungarian or Magyar mother tongue, and never doubts for a moment that he is a Canadian.

Similarly, Quebecers are people living in Quebec who call themselves Quebecers. These people's ancestors may have been established in Quebec since 1636, or for 360 years, like mine, or for just two, three, four or five years. Perhaps their mother tongue is Greek or Spanish. Perhaps they are like my hon. colleague from Bourassa, originally from Chile, who calls himself a Quebecer.

Therefore, a Quebecer is someone who lives in Quebec, claims to be a Quebecer and recognizes that he or she and the other people living in Quebec share the same identity as Quebecers. Of course, this identity is coloured. The Prime Minister himself mentioned in his distinct society proposal that it should be recognized that, in Quebec, we have a French speaking majority and a unique culture, although the Prime Minister told us yesterday that there was no Quebec culture. At any rate, such are the vagaries of politics.

We have our own civil law tradition inherited from old France. Of course, the people of Quebec have a colour, as do the people of Canada. From what I can see, the predominant language among Canadians is English. There is a Canadian culture defending itself against the American culture, and Canada also has its social and legal institutions.

In short, a Quebecer is someone living in Quebec who claims to be a Quebecer, like a Montagnais from the Lac-Saint-Jean region, who speaks the same language as me and looks somewhat like me, come to think of it. It is someone who says: "I am a Montagnais from Lac-Saint-Jean, living in Mashteuiatsh, attending school in

Roberval, working at the Canada Employment Center in Roberval and proud to call myself a Montagnais".

A Montagnais is someone who claims to be a Montagnais and is recognized as such by other Montagnais, the same way that a Quebecer is someone who claims to be a Quebecer and agrees to belong to this nation, without any distinction based on culture, race or language. Quebec gladly welcomes everyone, as long as you call yourself a Quebecer.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Madam Speaker, because I did not have the opportunity to address the minister's comments on debate, I will take the first few minutes of my intervention to address some of the remarks which he made.

It is difficult to listen to the sheer arrogance of the minister and the government on the subject of aboriginal issues. The minister talked about it being a democratic process. He talked about the Government of British Columbia being a democratically elected government which has a mandate to engage in the negotiations which are currently taking place. I beg to differ.

The current NDP Government of British Columbia was elected by 40 per cent of the popular vote at the last general election. That means six out of ten people who cast a ballot did not vote for the policies, the platform or the party which is now governing British Columbia.

When we speak about democratic principles, we have to recognize that the system of voting does not allow for a proper representation of the views of a majority of citizens on many issues, and this is one of them. This is a very important issue for British Columbia.

The second thing I want to address with respect to the minister's remarks is that he made the comment that natives have waited for 200 years in Canada to have the issue resolved. I do not dispute the fact that since Confederation the federal government has had the clear constitutional responsibility to deal with the issue in British Columbia and in other parts of Canada. However, in British Columbia for whatever reason, the federal government chose to abrogate that responsibility. It is not the province of British Columbia which has the responsibility to deal with the issue, it is the federal government. I might also add that for the majority of the time since Confederation there have been Liberal governments in Ottawa. What is the minister doing throwing stones at the Reform Party or anybody else when it is clearly the federal government and a host of Liberal governments since Confederation that have created the problem in the first place?

The third point the minister made, and one which needs to be responded to most strenuously, is the point that the Reform Party is not interested in helping the poorest of the poor. It is his government and him, as minister of Indian affairs, who is really deeply concerned about these poor people who live on reserves in Canada. I suppose he has a lock on caring.

A lot of native people live in my riding. There are a large number of reserves and nine Indian bands in total in my riding. I have written on behalf of many people who have come to see me who have demanded financial accountability from the minister. Can they get it? This $5.8 billion a year that the minister and the government is funnelling into aboriginal affairs is going to benefit a very few at the top.

The minister does not have any lock on caring for the poorest of the poor because it is the very people in these communities who are the poorest of the poor and they are not receiving the benefits the taxpayers of Canada are contributing. It is because of the minister's refusal to take on his responsibility and demand accountability that these people are in the position they are in.

I ask the House to recognize that although the minister may be making these grandiose statements and engaging in the flaming rhetoric that he loves to engage in so much, the reality is that the minister cares more about the entrenched leadership in Canada's aboriginal communities than he does about the poorest of the poor or the ordinary people. It is very clear to me that the leaders in the aboriginal communities are as much out of touch with their constituents as this government is out of touch with the people of Canada.

In talking about the land claim situation in British Columbia, we started by saying that almost nobody in British Columbia disagrees with the proposition that we have to resolve these longstanding disputes between aboriginals and the Government of Canada. No one disputes the fact that we have to get these outstanding claims resolved and get on with life. No one disputes the fact that there have been injustices done to native people historically and I might add in contemporary terms.

How did we get to be where we are today? The government is saying that there is a a huge problem out there which has to be dealt with. The government says it has a mandate to deal with it, although there are many who would disagree with that, so it has get on with it and it is going to engage in a modern treaty making process in British Columbia.

We have to go right back to the Act of Union by which British Columbia joined Confederation to understand where we are today. By that Act of Union in 1871 British Columbia joined Confederation with an agreement that the federal government would be responsible for all existing and future obligations to aboriginal peoples. That is stated in the Act of Union. The federal government has a clear responsibility going right back to the day that British Columbia joined Confederation. However, it has never addressed that responsibility and that is why we are in the situation we are in today.

Going back to the 1970s some Indian bands decided they were going to commence legal actions to have their grievances aired and dealt with because they could not get them dealt with any other way.

The most famous legal case, the one that is the pre-eminent legal case in Canada today with respect to aboriginal issues, native land claims and the inherent right to self-government, is the Delgamuukw case. This was launched by the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en people who also happen to be within the riding I represent.

The B.C. supreme court listened to 360 days of testimony, to all kinds of anthropological evidence, oral evidence presented by the elders of the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en people, listened to all kinds of legal arguments made on their behalf. At the end of that process when the court rendered its decision it found clearly that there is no inherent right to self-government and there is no aboriginal title to land.

The court also found that the federal government had a constitutional obligation to address the issues of concern to aboriginal people and urged it to get on with it. In the meantime, after the court decision was rendered the Government of British changed. We had an outgoing Social Credit government and an incoming NDP government with an ideological bent on this issue, fervent in its belief it has to deal with the land claim issue in a way the province has never considered doing until then.

What did it do? The Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en people are continuing with their court action. They have appealed the decision to the B.C. court of appeal. The province of British Columbia fired the successful legal firm of Russell & DuMoulin, which had won the Delgamuuku case on behalf of the people of British Columbia, and replaced it with the firm Swinton & Company, a registered paid federal lobbyists in 1994 on behalf of the very people it was to be squaring off with in court, the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en people.

Furthermore, Swinton & Company was also engaged in an action on behalf of the Gitksan in the B.C. supreme court against the province of British Columbia at a time when it had accepted this landmark legal case to represent the province of British Columbia on the very issues it was fighting the province with on behalf of the Gitksan at the time it was appointed. Talk about a conflict of interest.

This is the way the NDP government in British Columbia has behaved with this issue. It wanted a political decision from the court. It was not prepared to allow the process to be followed through as it should have.

In following the ideological rather than the legal decisions of the court and totally ignoring how the people of British Columbia, and in Canada for that matter, voted against the inherent right to self-government in the Charlottetown accord, British Columbia in concert with the federal government went ahead and started to try to implement these things anyway, much as the federal government is trying to do with distinct society and a veto for Quebec in the unity issue right now.

This is a slap in the face to British Columbia and a slap in the face to democracy. When the people have spoken in a democratic referendum and the government ignores that decision and goes about implementing the decisions anyway, legislatively rather than through constitutional change, that is a clear slap in the face to the people of Canada, particularly the people of British Columbia.

The native population in British Columbia voted against the Charlottetown accord with almost the same percentage as the non-native population did. I have talked to enough native people to know very clearly they do not favour this notion of inherent right to self-government. I am talking about the ordinary grassroots people, not the chiefs, not the people benefiting from it.

Now we have a process in place designed to achieve ends the public does not support. They are not supported by legal jurisprudence. The public is shut out of the process. There is no opportunity for the public to even be involved. What do we have but a bunch of bureaucrats getting their marching orders from Ottawa and Victoria. They are up in my riding negotiating with the Nisga'a. We hear rumours of these negotiations although we do not even know for sure what has or has not been put on the table.

We hear rumours of a potentially massive conveyance of land, $175 million in cash, 2,200 square kilometres of land and a constitutionally protected right to 30 per cent of the Nass River fishery on a basis of forever and ever. Let us not forget the deals will be set in constitutional concrete. They will be forever. It is vital that we not make mistakes. Of course, the governments of the day are totally ignoring that.

I took the time to canvass people in my riding. One of the reasons I became so deeply involved in the issue is that I was receiving hundreds of letters and phone calls from constituents extremely uneasy with what they perceive to be a process taking place behind closed doors with the potential to alter the social fabric and the economic fabric of British Columbia with no legitimate opportunity for public input.

As I said before, there are many parallels to the current national unity issue we are seized with. There are two agendas in Canada, the government's and the people's. Most of the time those agendas are not in sync. The government is proposing to give distinct society status to Quebec and to provide vetoes on a regional basis, but it is not in sync with what the people of Canada want. We can understand why the people of British Columbia, in particular the people of rural British Columbia, are uncomfortable with the

current process. There is no legitimate opportunity for them to be involved. This is all going on behind closed doors.

The ratification process proposed by the government is that once an agreement in principle is signed it will be brought to the House for a vote. That means for the most part there will be members of Parliament from the rest of Canada voting on legislation which will have major, long term, far reaching consequences for the people of British Columbia, which has a leaderless, lame duck administration in Victoria that has lost virtually any shred of credibility.

That is the thrust of the motion today. It is in recognition of the fact that the Government of British Columbia has no mandate and has never sought a mandate to be involved in negotiations of this magnitude. It has no credibility with the public. Its administration is in shambles. It is caught up in scandal. The aboriginal people of British Columbia, the ordinary grassroots people, are saying: "We are not represented in this process. The people negotiating on our behalf do not have a mandate for us. We do not feel comfortable with it. We do not feel comfortable that this will ever benefit us. We think it will benefit the leaders. We think it will benefit the negotiators".

We are in the process of entering into agreements which will forever change the landscape of British Columbia. They have the potential to do that.

In canvassing my constituents, which I have taken the time and the care to do, they have said very clearly they are looking for finality and extinguishment. They want an end to the division. The root cause of most of the problems in which native people find themselves is that we have treated them separately from day one. We have never given them the opportunity to be ordinary Canadians. We have never treated them as if they are able and capable of looking after themselves. We have built a pervasive welfare system around native people in Canada which has robbed them of their dignity, their self-esteem and their initiative.

The minister was talking about the poorest of the poor and what we will do about aboriginal housing and about the plight of these people.

Friederich von Hayek talks about the Liberal philosophy and the socialist philosophy, which are virtually indistinguishable in this country, and he talks about fatal conceit. The fatal conceit is that people elected to government somehow feel like they have a God given ability to correct all the problems of people and society rather than letting those people have the opportunity to resolve their own problems.

It is because of these interventionist, elitist, arrogant, top down policies created by government and driven by government, supposedly to solve all the problems, that we have the problems we see on native reserves today.

What we are doing in this process right now, from my window, is creating new and better ways to separate people by race. We are saying the way we kept them separate and distinct and apart from Canadian society in the past has not worked. It has been a failure. The Indian Act is no good. Virtually everybody agrees with that now. We will find a new and better way to keep them separate. We will find a new and better way to give them a status different from that of ordinary Canadians.

In the long run and maybe even the short run that as well intentioned as some members opposite are on this issue, and they feel this will resolve the problems of native people, it will entrench them that much deeper. It will not solve their problems.

As the member for Esquimalt said in his remarks a few minutes ago, we should be considering what is right, doing what will actually work; an encouragement to these people to take control of their own lives on an individual basis and forget about expecting the government to solve their problems because the government has a disastrous track record in that regard.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague's remarks this morning, as I did with preceding speakers.

For the record I will read the subject of the motion the Reform Party put forward today and then talk about the hon. minister's objection to it and why that is. In part it states:

That the House urge the government to not enter into any binding trilateral aboriginal treaty or land claim agreements in B.C. in the last year of the current provincial government mandate.

The hon. minister said that for the federal government to do that would be insulting. I find that strange and more than a little contradictory because it is the same government that had no problem in arguing quite successfully that the EH-101 helicopter purchase which the Tory government had entered into was not right and we should not be doing that as a nation, that we should not be spending the money on that.

It argued the Pearson airport deal was not right because it was entered into in the dying days of the Mulroney administration and should be cancelled.

It does not find that insulting, to back out of commitments made by previous governments. Yet for some reason the hon. minister seemed to think today it would be insulting the government of British Columbia to insist that we do not enter into any trilateral agreements with B.C. and the natives of British Columbia in the

dying days of that administration. I find it more than a bit puzzling and I wonder if my hon. colleague would care to remark on that.

I note with interest that the hon. minister spent almost his entire 20 minutes bashing Reformers for being aboriginal bashers. I find that puzzling. That type of name calling and labelling is nothing new for Reformers. We have been labelled that and subject to those types of attacks right from the very beginning when we started our party. We are going to insist on carrying forward sensible arguments on this and other issues, even if they are non-politically correct arguments, regardless of how we are attacked or how often ministers openly attack us in the House.

Would the hon. member care to remark on what he has done. One of the things we have heard this morning is that the public is not well enough informed and the expectations of the native people have been raised. What about the awareness? What has this member actually done in British Columbia to bring to the attention of all British Columbians what is happening?

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

He is absolutely right. The minister began his remarks today by having the gall to question the Reform Party for even wanting to debate this issue in the House. He asked, how dare we to even want to debate this issue? Is this not a democratic institution? Is this not what this House is for? But, no, we should not be debating this. Anytime we even raise an aboriginal issue and want to debate it, we are labelled. Frankly that has an odour to it that I cannot abide.

Second, my colleague points out that the minister said that this would be an insult to the province of British Columbia if the government were to accept the motion of the Reform Party. For the benefit of members in the House who do not live in British Columbia, I could tell them how insulting the government of the province of British Columbia has been to the citizens of British Columbia in recent months. Its members have absolutely no regard for the public interest. They put their own interest forward all the time. They are so blatantly ideologically driven that there is no hope they could ever be re-elected as a government in British Columbia.

Yet this very administration is the one that is negotiating behind closed doors, in secret, with the Nisga'a and with other aboriginal groups right now and contemplating, as rumours go, making agreements that are going to have long term implications for British Columbia.

In response to the member's question on what I have done as a member of Parliament and as a representative of the people of Skeena since I was elected, I held a series of four town hall meetings in my riding, in Smithers, Terrace, Prince Rupert and Kitimat. I brought the issue to the people and said that we need to have a public discussion on this.

Subsequent to that, my colleague and I went around the province of British Columbia. We held town hall meetings at in Williams Lake, Quesnel, Prince George, Nanaimo, Cranbrook and in several areas in greater Vancouver. We have done as much as we possibly can to bring the issue to the people, something that the province of British Columbia, and I might add, the federal government have never cared one whit about doing, not one whit.

The reason I feel so passionate about this, and I mean this sincerely, is this. What is going to happen if the province of British Columbia and the federal government sign a deal with which the people cannot live? The native people's expectation levels are at an all time high. They have been led to believe that these agreements, once they are entered into and signed, are going to be abided by, that they are going to be honoured. We already have opposition parties in British Columbia saying that they do not intend to honour them.

Think of the tremendous social upheaval we are going to have if governments sign agreements with which the people are not going to live, which the people do not want and will not accept. It is absolutely critical that we do not sign agreements unless we are sure they are going to be supported by the public.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague from Skeena for actually standing up and saying what he wants to do to help those that the minister referred to as the poorest of the poor.

It is interesting to compare both speeches. The minister went on a 20-minute diatribe against the Reform Party instead of stating what he was going to do for the people who he claims are the poorest of the poor in our society.

While we stand in the House talking rhetoric among political parties, those aboriginal people who are on or off reserve that are suffering from sexual abuse, violence and the poverty that they endure, are still out there suffering. We should be ashamed in the House to be seeing that happening.

Previous governments have created for the aboriginal people an institutionalized welfare state. They have done this by giving money to people in the honest expectation that it would help them.

As my hon. colleague mentioned, one cannot keep giving things to people and expect them to have pride and self-respect. Pride and self-respect comes from within one's person and it is rooted in the ability of the person to take care of himself or herself.

Contrary to what the minister said, I would like to ask my hon. colleague from Skeena, and for him to reiterate if he could, that the pursuit of the treaties is constitutionally and legally from the court's point of view, illegal.

What does he propose to help those people on or off reserve who are suffering from the terrible things that I mentioned previously? How is he going to help the poorest of the poor stand on their own two feet and take care of themselves? That is the root of the problem.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. It is very clear that the plight of native people in Canada, the tremendous social problems that we see on reserves, are a direct result of the huge welfare state that we built up around them. It is the arrogance and the elitist notion on the part of government that it can fix problems by throwing money at them and creating new programs and so on that entrenches these very serious human conditions on native reserves.

What is required is for the government to say first, stop treating aboriginals as if they all think and act and want the same things. They are not communists. They are individuals just like we are. They are individuals who have individual aspirations, desires, visions, hopes and dreams.

We need to break that welfare state, start dismantling it. We need to give a hand up to those people and encourage them to get out into the private sector, to become ordinary citizens and provide them with a one-time opportunity to make that transition easier.

We have to understand that the corollary of success is failure. The government cannot guarantee success and it cannot guarantee that people will not fail. That is axiomatic. That is something that we have to live with. It is a human condition. It is natural law, if you will. One cannot guarantee that anybody is going to be successful. All one can do is try to make the conditions as fertile as possible for success to happen.

I believe very strongly that when the government backs out of this interventionist mode it is in right now and allows native Indian people to take the bull by the horns and start controlling their own lives, we will see some failures. There is no question about it. However, we are going to start seeing successes. We will see more success as time goes by.

When we talk about having native Indian people as ordinary Canadians, I am not saying that I do not respect the culture. I respect the culture and I respect that there are differences. Those differences can and should be celebrated, but not celebrated in law, not entrenched in the Constitution, not entrenched in distinctiveness and separateness in law that is going to keep us apart forever.

The gulf between native and non-native people is widening all the time because of the policies of government, not because there is a fundamental problem. It is the policies.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced he was going to increase access fees for fishermen, but the access fees were only going to go up by 50 per cent for native fishermen but 100 per cent for everyone else. I am convinced the native fishermen did not ask for that. It was this minister who came up with some woolly-thinking policy that this was what he should be doing. What it does is create division. Why is it that we have the problems with the native and non-native fishermen on the Fraser River system? It is because government created a policy that allowed access to a resource on a different basis based on race. That has to be done away with.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing time with my distinguished colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre.

The motion put forward is an interesting one and I respect the spirit in which it was put forward. It raises issues going to what is called the lame duck status of government. It is a principle of American constitutional law that I think sensibly could become part of Canadian constitution law, but it is limited in its potential application to actions taken by governments between the dropping of an electoral writ and the return of the electoral writ and the formation of a new government or the continuance of an old one.

Having said that, I would like to enter into discussion of some of the very interesting issues that have been raised. This is a subject, rightly said, of special concern to British Columbia. British Columbia, as we all recognize, is not a province like the others and in the area of land claims we do have elements of distinctiveness that separate us off from the other provinces of Canada.

The substantial absence of treaties is one very important consideration which has led to a proliferation of sometimes overlapping claims. Perhaps this is one of the reasons for the public discussion and the lack always of full understanding of how these complications can be removed.

I leave to one side the issue of the status of treaties, which is something that has always interested me professionally. Do they have international law status, as some argue, or are they simply constitutional documents within the ambit of provincial law?

Elements of concern have been expressed in this debate on which perhaps we could offer some clarification. I was, I think, the first to suggest the implications for Canadian law of the International Court's judgment in Western Sahara in 1975 and the two concurring opinions which rested very strongly on the argument

made by then counsel, Mr. Bedjaoui who is now the president of the World Court. Let me say that although I think they do raise the intellectual challenge very effectively, which the court has recognized, to the concept of acquisition of territorial title and sovereignty by European colonial powers, they do not necessarily raise any implications as to the dispositions in view of that and in substitution for that. These are issues to which a body constituted on an independent basis like the treaties commission, armed with the facilities for research and the time for thinking, can offer fresh light.

Let me say that it is a misconception to assume that automatically by querying the original basis of acquisition of sovereignty over North America one automatically displaces supervening claims. In fact, in the most recent international law act, the two-by-four treaty, the treaty between the four occupation powers of Germany and the two Germanies about to be reunited, there is a specific clause that effectively saves supervening third party rights. It leaves open the issue of how one balances the claims.

What I am saying is that one anticipates in British Columbia an orderly process of claims adjustments and settlements in which the claims of everybody can be and will be considered if properly presented by counsel as is counsel's duty. As yet no definitive answer can be given, but it should bring some satisfaction to many of the people who have raised these issues with us to know that the orderly process does allow taking into full account the acquired third party rights.

In a sense the legal problems in British Columbia are sui generis. They are peculiar to British Columbia. To a large extent we get into conflicts between different cultural conceptions of law: the European concept of fixed territorial frontiers and non-European concepts which may emphasize mobility and expression of territorial interests in which land is secondary or subordinate to the notion of ethnicity. It is an interesting example of the clash of legal concepts. It is the sort of thing I expect the commission will consider because it will have to be considered in the process of the settlement of land claims.

The issue of the participation and consent of local communities has been raised. It has been asked if there was full consultation. I cannot speak of the particular cases now being cited in the debate, but on the precedent that the federal government followed in the bill which was before the House in relation to the northern territories, there was a very substantial provision for consultation with local interests. I believe there is nothing in the implementation of the commission process which prevents local interests, local municipal authorities and others from bringing forward their views and making their arguments. It is not excluded by the act. The initiative rests with those concerned.

When an independent commission is set up, it takes on a life of its own. It develops its own precedents. It is very much dependent on intelligent lawyer-manship by those people who want to bring forward their own interests and their claims. The commission is a body which has interesting people appointed to it. They are independent in their outlook. I would suggest to hon. members that they exercise to the full the process of making known to the commission the different and sometimes conflicting interests of the different people involved.

One of the great problems in British Columbia which distinguishes it from the rest of the country is that, simply because of the absence of treaties, there has not been the process of the sorting out of claims which I encountered in my previous professional work in dealing with, for example, the province of Alberta. This accounts for the overlapping and competing claims which sometimes, in the superficial extent, exceed the total amount of land involved in a region. This can be sorted out and sensibly, this is the mandate of the commission.

Problems of this sort complicate the matter in the public perception. In terms of the commission, I believe it is an excellent step forward. I am satisfied with the independence and the quality of the people concerned.

I urge hon. members to indicate to their constituents, particularly to the very thoughtful people at the municipal level that the process is not closed. The door is open for participants to bring their interests forward. The commission itself is not in the position of deciding on a dichotomous basis all here or all there. There is room for the acceptance of third party claims. There is room for apportionment of benefits. Following the international law as it has developed since the western Sahara case, international law itself is in the making. One would expect equitable settlements in which the largest possible range of participants is involved.

It is a new approach to the pluralizing of our legal system and the participation in it. This is better than doing it through the court system as such. Of course, decisions of commissions are also subject to limitation and control by the courts in respect to ultimate constitutional principles. Everything done is under the Constitution and under the charter of rights. The charter of rights as we know is a house of very many rooms.

I compliment the speakers on both sides of the House on the fervour with which they have entered into this debate. I have taken note of the points they have raised, but I believe they can be achieved within this ambitious process that the bill the minister originally introduced involves.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about a substantial absence of treaties in British Columbia. That is correct. The assumption is often made that because there is a substantial absence of treaties and largely a reserve system in place, there is somehow an overriding legal obligation on the part of governments to enter into treaties.

A legal counsel for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development confirmed to me very recently that the current federal government position is that there is no legal obligation or imperative on the part of the federal government to enter into treaties in British Columbia. That is certainly consistent with what I had thought. It is also consistent with the position of the provincial government.

This means to me that government should only be entering into this process if there is something in it for all parties. This is the quid pro quo or trade-off I mentioned in my speech. My first question for the member would be whether that indeed is his interpretation as well.

There was some discussion about an independent commission. I assume the member is talking about the B.C. Treaty Commission. There was some debate about the B.C. Treaty Commission recently in the House when we debated Bill C-107, which is the enabling federal legislation, albeit quite tardy.

The terms of reference of the B.C. Treaty Commission actually leaves it rather toothless. In most areas of endeavour the commission can suggest but it is not very much of a decision maker. The commission is called the keeper of the process. Some things as basic as readiness guidelines for some of the participants in the negotiations were not foreseen at the time the enabling legislation was put together. For example, regional advisory committees do not have readiness guidelines that fall within the terms of reference of the B.C. Treaty Commission. This has been pointed out by many parties as a shortcoming. Therefore, it has no mandate.

What has happened in some circumstances in B.C. is that negotiations have pushed ahead by either the federal and/or provincial negotiators without the regional advisory committees actually being ready. This is quite a handicap and of course creates consternation at the local level. My second question would relate to that area.

The third and final area I would ask the member about would be the role of municipalities which he mentioned. Municipalities are recognized nowhere in the B.C. Treaty Commission terms of reference. There is a separate provincial memorandum of understanding. They are kind of a sidebar arrangement with the province. The municipalities through the Union of B.C. Municipalities are saying that their actual costs already, early in the process, are at least double that which the provincial government is compensating them.

I would say the door is not open. The door is ajar. It is a very unsatisfactory situation. There must be a much better way to approach this subject. Does the member have some suggestions in that regard?

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his very thoughtful series of questions.

On the first point, what we are talking about relates to what I spoke of as the ambiguity in the term "treaties". What one is really seeking is a movement from unwritten or customary law to written law. This could be done by a contract, by legislation or it could be done by something else. The ultimate aim of the process is to reduce to written uncontrovertible form what the legal rights are. The complication I referred to of overlapping claims is virtually inevitable and it has been demonstrated in jurisdictions other than our own when we do not have things written down. That was the big advantage of the treaties in whatever legal category we put them to.

On the commissions, my own experience in administrative law and public administration is that it depends a good deal on the imagination and the civil courage of the commission itself and the players in it. The players include the lawyers and others appearing before it. To a very large extent an ambitious commission establishes its own agenda. It redefines its own mandate. I encourage all parties interested in the equitable disposition of B.C. land claims to try to do that.

On municipalities, the hon. member was right in saying that the specific provision is not there. There is nothing excluding it. Since they are major players in relation to the third party claims, supervening claims, subsequent to any original title, such as it may be, municipalities are directly involved and they are important players in the political processes.

In the previous federal legislation relating to the northern territories there was an enormous amount of provision by the federal government for consultation of local interests. I think the encouragement would be to the municipal councils where they have legitimate interests that they feel they want to express to communicate them. The answer can only be no or "yes, we would love to hear you". I would think in a facultative sense a good commission tries to do just that.

It is law in the making. A good deal will depend on the good faith, good spirit but also the professional preparation that interested parties do. That would be the main message I would encourage our B.C. voters to adopt in this approach.

I thank the member for his questions. I would add that the debate we are having today constitutes in legal terms travaux préparatoires, which simply means that it may be cited as evidence for the future of what the law in this area should be and is.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is one further area I would like to explore with the member and I will do it very quickly.

There is a lot of concern and a lack of support for the way the negotiations are occurring. There is a lack of confidence in many people because the negotiations are run provincially by an aboriginal affairs department and federally by the department of Indian affairs. People consider it a total conflict of interest which is lopsided.

Could the member comment on that, please.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot comment specifically. My experience in negotiations in this general area was in situations where there were treaties in force, treaties 6, 7, 8 and 9. There the process of the negotiations was happy with all parties. If there is something at fault here it may go down to the handling of particular cases.

I just do not have the direct information. If there is a feeling of dissatisfaction, maybe that is a matter to take up directly with the commission and to be led as such. The commission would want to satisfy itself that negotiations have been properly conducted and evidence properly assessed.

I commend to the hon. member, if he has information, to bring it to the attention of the commission.