Debates of Dec. 7th, 1995

Supply

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in my place today to respond specifically to the motion of the hon. member for North Island-Powell River that the House:

-not enter into any binding trilateral aboriginal treaty or land claim agreements in B.C. in the last year of the provincial government mandate-

Inherent in the motion is the issue my hon. friend referred to recently, which is the lame duck issue that seeks to nullify the powers of any government in the last year of its mandate. This is the most cynical statement I have ever heard from any party of any legislature or House.

Does this then suggest that any process-and one in this case that is so clearly in the best interest of the people of British Columbia and of the aboriginal people-must be put on the back burner for political consideration?

Surely Canadians deserve to know that their governments can make policy decisions that are sustainable and not politically biased but people biased in the best interest of Canadians.

Government serves the people. Whatever the stripe of government, good public policy and the integrity of government as a whole must be kept sacrosanct.

Reformers are suggesting then, or are they, that they do not want to be bound by the decisions legally and morally agreed upon in a trilateral, provincial government, aboriginal people and federal government negotiated contract.

Since the 1800s, that is over a century ago, aboriginal people have been trying to negotiate validity of land claims with the British Columbia government. It has constantly rejected this validity based on the fact that it was a federal responsibility, or this is what it said.

The process has taken so long that finally in 1990 the B.C. government, a Social Credit government, took a major step and began a process to right this wrong. The three parties, that is the First Nations, the federal government and the provincial government, have since agreed to the process, and this is what is happening now.

I hope we will not accept this motion which in effect seeks to further delay the process. The people of B.C., the aboriginal people and the people of Canada have been waiting for far too long.

During the second reading stage of the bill that sets up the commission, members of the third party stood repeatedly and complained about how long the process was taking. Now they are seeking to set up another barrier to the process.

In 1989 we witnessed the end of the cold war and the Berlin Wall coming down. One year later it seemed that another longstanding barrier had been removed, a barrier that had stood between aboriginal peoples in British Columbia and the economic and social development to which they aspired.

Good governments must bring down barriers, not raise them as I see the third party in effect attempting to do with this kind of doublespeak. Future generations may well regard 1990 as a singular turning point in the history of British Columbia's aboriginal peoples, the year in which they were offered a glimmer of hope.

Settling land claims is the single most important thing that can be done in British Columbia to help aboriginal communities. Uncertainty over land claims has been a barrier to economic development for all British Columbians for quite a while. Uncertainty has hindered aboriginal participation in land and resource management. All British Columbians know that when we solve these problems it will mean greater self-sufficiency. It will mean jobs. It will mean employment for the people who have long been disempowered to take their rightful equal place in Canadian society.

In addition to the ownership of settlement lands in the area covered by the treaty, the final agreements may include specific measures to stimulate economic development. This may include resource revenue sharing. This may include sharing of royalties derived from resource extraction throughout the area.

It is not only economic good that we seek in these treaty negotiations. We have seen in the aboriginal sacred summit that began across the river in Hull last week, a summit of aboriginal elders organized by the hon. member for Churchill, that the attachment to nature and to the Creator by aboriginal peoples is a central element of their spirituality. Land claims are more than just economic; they are spiritual to the people of British Columbia's aboriginal communities.

I think the House would agree the decision by the provincial government to come to the negotiating table was of paramount importance. Prior to 1990 aboriginal Canadians in British Columbia were offered no hope and no equality of benefits. I remind the House of some of the developments that led to that turning point because in those developments there is a profound irony.

One key player in convincing the British Columbia government to reverse its historical opposition to negotiating treaties was the minister of native affairs for the province at that time, Mr. Jack Weisgerber. Mr. Weisgerber was a Social Credit cabinet minister when British Columbia decided to negotiate. Today he is the leader of the Reform Party in British Columbia. What irony that the decision was taken by a man who had vision unlike what is being proposed across from the House.

In 1989 provincial governments appointed the premiers advisory committee on native affairs. The council travelled through the province and met with bands and tribal councils to suggest a solution to address the social and economic issues facing aboriginal people. They were not seeking to continue to erect barriers. And so the province began the process of coming to the negotiating table.

The advisory council made its recommendations to cabinet in 1990 and shortly thereafter Mr. Weisgerber signed the Nisga'a framework agreement. For the first time in the history of British Columbia a province was negotiating a land claim. Soon the B.C. government was deeply involved in the process of bringing the First Nations to the table.

B.C. participated in the First Nations summit and the province met with the federal government in B.C. By the time Bill 22 that created the legislative authority for the B.C. treaty commission came into the legislature, Mr. Weisgerber was no longer a cabinet minister but sat on the opposition benches.

However the new NDP government continued the process begun by the Social Credit government although it was of a different political stripe. By doing so it reaffirmed people's faith in the certainty of public policy free from the vagaries of petty subjective politics.

I quote what Mr. Weisgerber said at the time of the debate in the legislature. He pointed out that the strategy for government in British Columbia for 125 to 130 years had been to deny that a problem with treaties existed, a philosophy it seems the third party still continues to espouse. He said:

It became increasingly clear to us, as we travelled and met with groups around the province, that if we were going to address the root of the social and economic problems, we had to deal with the land claim question.

This was a bold and visionary conclusion to make. It took great political courage. It overturned the accepted political wisdom of the day. It acknowledged a simple reality. It was a a daring act of great statesmanship by a politician who put the public good before political ideology. I urge members of the third party to take a leaf from that book.

In 1991 a new provincial government, the NDP government, accepted the recommendations of the last government. Also in 1991 a federal government accepted the recommendations of a provincial government that was not of the same political stripe.

Mr. Weisgerber went on to predict to the B.C. legislature that the First Nations would be very able negotiators. He urged the provincial government to negotiate every bit as effectively for the interest of all British Columbians. He said that negotiations had to be tough but fair.

These are the views of a British Columbian who is not only one of the founders of the current treaty process. I have quoted him at length because of the motion by the hon. member for North Island-Powell River. He asked that the federal government not enter into agreements in order to respect the views of British Columbians on the land claims issue as expressed by both major provincial parties. The leader of one of those provincial opposition parties, the Reform Party of British Columbia, is Mr. Jack Weisgerber, the man who in 1990 put justice before politics.

It is clear British Columbians want to get on with the task of resolving land claims and to become a stable environment for economic growth once again. The process is a good one. The aboriginal peoples approve and both levels of government agree. We cannot put the process on hold each time a government nears the end of its mandate. It is unjust, unfair and cruel.

Where would we be today if we had followed the logic of the hon. member's motion? We would actually be a federal Liberal government and an NDP provincial government not taking up a policy that was carried on in good faith because it was in the best interest of the people.

Back in May 1993 the previous federal government had been in power for nearly five years, since the 1988 election. The former Prime Minister had announced his intention to step down and the Progressive Conservative Party was in the middle of a leadership convention. Did the provincial government and the aboriginal summit say at that time: "Wait a minute. Maybe we shouldn't pass this legislation. After all, the federal government is nearing the end

of its mandate. Let's wait until the next federal election?" Did they say that? Of course they did not.

Canadians elect their representatives to serve for a full mandate. The people hope that vicarious politics will not stop good public policy. This would leave to massive destabilization in Canada every four years and to a meaningless international trade and provincial controls. We have seen how this type of political grandstanding brought the United States government to a halt recently.

Let us allow the British Columbia government to get on with its business in a way that it deems appropriate. Let us get back to our own responsibilities for taking measures that will improve the economic and social prospects of aboriginal people in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about the motion somehow being cynical.

Under normal circumstances a government in the last several months of its mandate does not enter into major binding commitments. If it does so, it is at the peril of the arrangements being cancelled. There is a clear precedent for that in the province of British Columbia and there is a clear precedent for that federally. This administration should know that better than anyone. This administration cancelled the EH-101 project. This administration tried to cancel the Pearson deal.

The province of British Columbia should voluntarily back off. However it has indicated that it wants a deal by January. The likelihood is that there will be an election between March and June. This is totally inappropriate for a precedent setting agreement. There are 47 other agreements being negotiated and this would become the precedent. As I mentioned earlier, $10 billion is the early price tag put on this business.

There was discussion about the Nisga'a framework agreement entered into by Mr. Weisgerber in 1991. I talked about it earlier in my speech. I quoted section 7.1.1 which is often used to say there was no openness in the agreement and that Mr. Weisgerber had agreed to it. I do not have to defend Mr. Weisgerber. However I can read what the agreement says. To me it does not say what it has been interpreted to say. I will read it again:

The parties will together develop and implement a process of public information and consultation and will attend meetings with such selected individuals, organizations or groups as they may agree will assist in the process of public consensus building, and the parties may separately carry out such additional consultation and communication initiatives as they see fit, including initiatives to obtain a broad range of input and consensus.

Those are hardly cloaked in mystery, secret or non-transparent negotiations.

There is a further interpretation by the member that somehow our motion is suggesting there should not be any negotiations. That is not what we are saying at all. We are saying there should not be no conclusive negotiations, no conclusive agreement during this latter part of this current mandate at the provincial level.

It is a very simple, limited request. The member is misinterpreting it.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to answer the two points. The first is that is appropriate to create a lame duck government in the last year of any government's term. This is so inappropriate.

This is a process that has spanned two governments. It is a process that began in the last year of a Social Credit government. It was picked up by an NDP government and continues to be carried on. It occurred because it was good public policy. Obviously, good public policy will be seen to be such and it must be a process that can be carried on.

If a provincial government should stop in a tripartite process with another level of government and with a group of people duly set up by their own people to negotiate in good faith, then when the provincial government does that in the last year of its mandate and the federal government does that in the last year of its mandate, once in every three years will we have any negotiation at any signatory. It makes every single level of government ineffective.

It also makes the aboriginal people, who are the third party negotiating with them, wonder whether this is a worthwhile process at all. It makes a mockery of any type of negotiated process.

Second, the hon. member referred to what Mr. Weisgerber said and to the changes in the process of the Nisga'a treaty sinceMr. Weisgerber had set it up. He is right.

What Mr. Weisgerber did say, and I listened carefully to the quote, is not that we stop the process but that we continue to refine it as we find flaws in it. That is extremely appropriate.

What this member is asking is that we stop the process that has been on the table. Negotiations are going on. People may come to a conclusion any moment now and we must ignore all of the year's work that has been done to get to that point. This does not make any sense to me. It is an ineffective way for any government, any negotiations to take place.

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

Mr. Speaker, Reformers will be splitting their time from this point onward today.

I would like to rebut one thing the hon. member preceding me said. She seemed to imply that somehow Reformers would be creating a lame duck government, as she called it. In actuality, the NDP in British Columbia has done a very good job of creating a lame duck government all by itself. That responsibility rests with it and no one else.

We are now entering the 21st century. As we look at the B.C. treaty process we have an obligation to future generations of Canadians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal. We must enter into negotiations with a clear view of what we are trying to accomplish. I believe a fundamental objective to any negotiations with native Canadians should be equality.

If there are historical grievances they should be resolved. The end result should be equality, not the creation of two classes of citizens and not the creation of more special rights to individuals depending on race. We are all Canadians and government policy should not be based on guilt or some misguided sense of righting past wrongs.

British Columbians have recognized this. The opposition parties also realize the underlying principles of the current treaty negotiations in B.C. are flawed. It is time to look forward, not backward.

Certainly we must learn from the grim history of past Indian policies in Canada. However, what is the fundamental lesson to be learned? It is simply that policies which have given Indians special rights and status under the guise of protecting them have utterly failed. For many years Indians lost their status and right to live with their families on reserves if they received a university degree or if they defended our country or values in wars overseas. They were not even allowed to vote until the 1960s. Children were taken from their families and sent to foster homes or residential schools. Although Indian communities have known about it for decades, the stories of physical, emotional and sexual abuse suffered by those children are only now coming to light in the mainstream press.

Just this week the church has finally issued an apology for the suffering caused by its members.

That Indians were mistreated, used and abused is well documented. However, it does neither natives nor non-natives any good to dwell on the past. It will not solve today's problems. We must learn from mistakes to make sure we do not repeat them, but it is time to move on.

The treaty process in B.C. is going in the wrong direction. It is designed to perpetuate inequality. In the Constitution Act of 1982 aboriginal and treaty rights were given constitutional protection. That means any treaties we enter hastily into now will be virtually unchangeable, no matter how flawed or unsustainable they may prove to be.

Any legal obligations to Indian communities should be cleared up as soon as possible because until we do, the question of aboriginal title will remain unresolved and the legal uncertainty over the ownership of land and resources will continue.

Settlements must be affordable and settlements must be final. If the federal and provincial governments purport to represent the interests of all Canadians they will only negotiate what the courts have stated the government is legally liable for.

As far as I know, the courts have not said the government has to turn large tracts of land over to native communities. In the Delgamuukw case, as has already been stated, the judges recognized an aboriginal interest in the land but not an outright title. Therefore legally the crown does not have to turn over title to all lands that a band claims as traditional territory, but it does have to recognize certain traditional rights to use those lands.

We must respect these court decisions because they are based on the constitutional protection of aboriginal rights. Therefore any agreements the government signs should fully meet our legal obligations but should not go beyond them. If the government feels it has a moral obligation to offer more, then all such offers should be made outside of the treaty process.

The governments of the day do not have a mandate to incur unsustainable debts beyond their legal obligation in the name of our children. They do not have the right to create citizens-plus by enshrining new treaties which give additional rights based on membership in a particular band or community. This will soon be the 21st century, not the 12th.

I would be very pleased if any member opposite, in fact anybody participating in the B.C. treaty process, could point out where in the Constitution it states we must enter into new treaties. I recognize that existing treaties have constitutional protection but I have not found the section that states we must enter into dozens, perhaps hundreds, more treaties.

Government has a legal and moral obligation to resolve disputes or grievances with all Canadians, whether aboriginal or not. I am not aware of the case law which states we must use a treaty process to do it. In every other segment of our society grievances are settled with some type of finite, quantifiable compensation. Why not Indian claims?

It is long past time that historical differences were dealt with, but the end result should be some sort of cash compensation, not a treaty with constitutionally entrenched special rights or status. Cash settlements would allow individual natives to determine their

own futures. They could start their own small business, buy land or put it in the bank for their children if that was there wish.

If land is to be on the table also then it should be transferred to individual recipients on the same fee simple basis as to all other Canadians who own land.

The tax exempt status of the current reserve system afforded by the Indian Act was based on a paternalistic idea that Indians would sell off the land to the first unscrupulous businessman who happened to walk by. Nobody, aboriginal or non-aboriginal, wants the Indian Act any more. That also means getting rid of the tax exempt status. If natives are to participate in today's economy they must participate on an equal footing with all other Canadians.

Anyone who might suggest this would not be just or fair as a settlement is guilty of paternalistic racism. If government or native leaders suggest land can only be transferred as reserve lands held in common, they are suggesting native Canadians are incapable of making sound business decisions and government must still be responsible for protecting native interests because they cannot do it themselves.

What is the legacy of past treaties? First and foremost, it is the reserve system. This was a deliberate policy by the government to isolate and concentrate natives in easily managed groups. It was a bad policy from start to finish. The poverty, low life expectancies, health problems and social problems found on so many reserves across the country cannot be a fluke. Natives from the east coast, from the north, from the prairies and from fishing communities on the west coast are not from the same cultures or traditions. The problems we see on reserves are not because the people are Indians. The biggest part of the problem is the reserve system itself.

I believe first and foremost that all Canadians should have the right to equal opportunities. No one should have special rights or privileges based on race. This means we all pay taxes and we all have access to the same programs. All third party interests should be taken into consideration. This is not what is happening in B.C. today. The majority of British Columbians have grave concerns about the current B.C. treaty commission process.

We must reach just settlements with B.C. natives as soon as possible so we can all move on. These settlements must be final, affordable and must extinguish all future claims to land, resources or special rights and privileges. Without equality we will never have long term social and economic stability in Canada.

The enormous social problems we see on reserves today cannot be addressed through treaties. Treaties and reserves are, in my view, a big part of the problem.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member stated there should be direct cash compensation instead of negotiated settlements with aboriginal peoples. Cash does form part of the settlements negotiated with aboriginal peoples. However, cash alone will not provide the kind of certainty and long lasting, enduring settlement necessary in this type of negotiation. This type of negotiation will benefit all of British Columbia in the end because we will be able to put these negotiated settlements to rest once and for all.

Negotiated agreements have been based on a range of benefits. There is a necessity to provide that range to continue to have an enduring and lasting distribution of rights for the native peoples, which have to cover harvesting rights, participation in wildlife and environmental management.

The hon. member said he did not know where there was a legal basis for settlement comprehensive land claims. In 1973 the supreme court ruling in the Calder case acknowledged the existence of aboriginal title in Canadian law. More recently, in the Sparrow case the supreme court recognized a constitutionally protected aboriginal right to fish for food. The courts have emphasized in these cases that the proper way to resolve outstanding claims to aboriginal rights and title to land and resources must be through negotiated agreements.

The hon. member said we should fee simple or its equivalent. That is exactly what we are doing. Perhaps the hon. member might acquaint himself better with what the treaty negotiation process is all about.

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

Mr. Speaker, as usual the hon. member opposite has covered a lot of ground.

She said I said I favoured direct cash compensation and that I did not favour negotiated settlements. That is ridiculous. That is not what I said at all.

I said I was in favour of cash settlements but obviously it will have to be negotiated. How can government come to some agreement on how much cash to turn over to the natives without negotiating it? That is an absolutely ridiculous statement. That is not what I was saying. The only reason she said that was she was hearing, as is so often the case, exactly what she wanted to hear when she was listening to my remarks.

That points to the fundamental problem Reformers have in the House and outside the House. We try to shed light on subjects that are politically sensitive, as so many are, whether outstanding native claims or immigration or gay rights, whatever is deemed politically incorrect to speak on.

When Reformers and put forward the policies we want to put forward, we are attacked. If we spend all our time trying to defend ourselves from the statements we heard this morning once again in the House, we will never be able to put forward our own alternatives, which is the function of an opposition party, to put forward alternatives for the Canadian people.

That is the real question here. Will we have an open process? Will we have a process that welcomes input from everyone? Will we continue to see these types of settlements actually being done behind closed doors where there are a very few people included in the process: the native leadership, the native industry comprised of consultants and engineers and lots of lawyers. Will we broaden that to include the people themselves, not only the aboriginal people of British Columbia but the non-aboriginal people in the process and make them aware of what is happening?

Further, the member made a comment about the legal basis of these. What I was referring to is I do not see anywhere where there is a legal basis for entering into treaties. Yes, we have to have settlements. We have to have agreements. I do not see where we have to enter into a treaty which confers on one group special rights, constitutionally entrenched, not conferred on all Canadians.

As long as we have that we will see more divisiveness. We will be driving the wedge between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people deeper and deeper instead of trying to mend the problems of the past that I referred to in my speech and instead of trying to move beyond that eventually.

We cannot achieve equality overnight. The Reform Party is not saying we can wave a magic wand and all of a sudden we are all equal. We recognize that some segments of society, the poorest of the poor, are starting out a lot lower down and we have to give them a hand up. A hand up is not a continual and perpetual handout. The people do not want it and we should not want to give it to them because it is not the answer.

If a handout forever were the answer, certainly spending upwards of $9 billion a year on aboriginal programs within the confines the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and outside would have solved the problem by now.

We are spending in the neighbourhood of $9,000 million on these people. Yes, we all want to see the problem solved, but throwing money will not solve the problem or we would have done it long ago.

It has also been said repeatedly today that a very select few, although a growing industry, are profiting from that, this Indian industry. When I visit reserves in my riding like Fort Ware, a disastrous example of a reserve, I see the assistance that we all so desperately want to ensure gets to the poorest of the poor is not reaching them. It is not doing the job.

No matter how much more we spend every year, it is not doing the job. We have to look beyond that. We have to look for new answers.

The whole thrust of my speech was that in the end the ultimate goal for all Canadians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, must be equality, the equal treatment of all our citizens.

[Margaret Bridgman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate today. I will address the actual decision or policy to negotiate treaties.

This government policy is more advanced in British Columbia than elsewhere across the country. A growing amount of concern is arising in British Columbia as this process takes place. The concern is not only in British Columbia but is starting to spread across the country. There is input today from grassroots aboriginals. Their concern is that this negotiation progress may lead to a situation in which there is just a transfer of power to a more local level where they still would not have any say as to what is going to happen in their lives. On the non-aboriginal side there is a growing concern that we do not know what is being negotiated.

When we look at the concerns arising we tend to think an approach was taken to negotiate versus going to the courts. By negotiating it stays within the parliamentary jurisdiction whereas if it were taken into the legal field it would be within the court jurisdiction. It is still here in the House. This negotiation process is seen to be the route to go.

When we get a good idea we have to market it for it to catch on and be accepted. There was not that communication for this policy and this approach to the situation. The concerns are mounting to a point that the concerns are being expressed in the provincial legislature in British Columbia by the opposition sides.

There have been statements that they may not recognize the existing agreements. I believe the Nisga'a band is the one most advanced and used as the example.

I do not wish to debate all the examples occurring within the negotiation process. I would like to address my remarks to the concerns. They are not only communication concerns from both sides of the table and the public. There is also the whole process of negotiation. If we put negotiation into a management-labour context, the membership knows what is on the table and what is being negotiated. The doors may be closed to the negotiation rooms when that is actually taking place but we still know the types of topics on the table.

The municipalities are suggesting they are not represented at the table. Another comeback to that is the municipalities are repre-

sented by the provincial representatives we elect. However, the problem is the information from the negotiation is not coming back to the people or is not even put to the people beforehand so that we know what is on the table, what is being discussed and what the possible parameters are for a subsequent decision. That is one aspect of the negotiation process that is very faulty.

Another problem occurring and giving rise to concern is the various definitions. For example, there are a great number of Canadians who thought this negotiation process would be addressed to existing treaties or the historical treaties. I believe the government approach was to negotiate those treaties and come up with an extinguishment thereof, then satisfy that commitment made in our history and then get on to building life as Canadians in unity. What we are hearing now are things like modern treaties, living treaties, aboriginal rights, extinguishment. We do not really know what these terms mean. This again is causing concern.

When the Hamilton report came out it tried to address the extinguishment and aboriginal rights. One of the things identified in the Hamilton report, or before that, is that when the aboriginals go in to negotiate a treaty they leave all their rights at the door. They go in trying to see what they can get. That is not cricket in negotiations. When a negotiation is entered into, one does have rights somewhere which should be identified. Even between management and labour the previous contract is a starting point.

One of the things that is happening is the concept of rights. What does that mean? The Hamilton report tries to address it with the following point of view. When a treaty is negotiated, the decisions reached by all parties become the rights of all parties and the next time a treaty is negotiated it commences with those rights. The report also suggests we address the extinguishment aspect of this. Once the topic has been addressed and agreed on it is extinguished and no longer comes up. I believe there is an opening clause. If not, there should be an opening clause so that when society changes that can come back to the table.

There is some sort of finality which could address the extinguishment. That tends to give rise to where this modern treaty or the living treaty comes into play. I do not believe this concept was apparent when the original policy was established. Unless we hear more information as to where this kind of thing can lead us, that in itself will provide concern.

To get back to the process and concern aspect of it, there is concern from a parliamentary point of view of actually getting to the point. I do not wish to address the contents of the bill on the B.C. commission at this point. My point is we had a bill come into the House for debate that was actually established by an agreement between three parties that had representatives there. The House was actually debating something that had already been established.

I can understand that the possibility of defeating that bill creates a horrendous amount of work. We would have to backtrack to all that was done before that. However, because these are our representatives, it could possibly have been debated in the House before the parties went into agreement and that there were some parameters set so that we knew what was going to be on that table when the negotiations were undertaken.

Another thing that comes out of this when we are talking about cultural groups again is the process taking place. This concern arises when we hear such things as aboriginals referring to themselves as nations. The obvious conclusion to that would be nations within a nation. The perception of how that would work is unknown. That is a concern to us.

We also must look at the unity point of view. We have on the one hand a negotiation process that could feasibly terminate in this nations within nation concept or be the first step toward that in our future. On the other hand we have a parliamentary kind of process going on with the Quebec situation, which is again a divisiveness kind of thing. I should restrict my remarks to the aboriginal process. But are we creating through this process another possibility to be debating unity somewhere down the line? I have some concerns on that.

What we have to look at in this whole thing-and British Columbia is trying to get the message across to Canadians-is that a lack of information is getting out to the people. We do not know what is being discussed at the table. We are sitting here wondering with what we will be left.

The counter argument to that is we do have representatives there. My point is that they have not come out and discussed things with whoever they are representing and then taken that information back to the table.

To give my comments more clarity, think of management and union negotiations. We know what these people are talking about behind closed doors. We know all the parameters of it, but we know that their discussions will eventually lead to something. We may not get all we want, but we might get part of what we want.

I suggest very strongly to the government that it can no longer negotiate behind closed doors. It has to be up front. B.C. is in a position that it is much further ahead than the rest of the country on this negotiation situation. If we are having problems in British Columbia, then it is going to transfer all across this country as we go along, unless we change some of the things we are doing in the process right now. Municipal governments have to be informed of

how their concerns get represented at that table and there has to be a mechanism for that to occur, et cetera.

The other item that has to be put out in general terms is what is this self-government thing we are talking about. Is it a municipal kind of situation? Is it a provincial kind of situation? Will it lead to individual territories within our country, or will it lead to the possibility of future negotiations in relation to unity? These are some of the concerns I have about the whole process.

We should be looking at the British Columbia situation, not only with what is happening today, but where this will lead us in our future, 10, 15, 100 years from now.

Is the Hamilton report strictly based on negotiations and setting the parameters? I would assume it is not far afield from being incorporated into this process as it was commissioned by the minister.

The modern treaty, the living treaty, has to be identified. There has to be some kind of indication to the public, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal, that this negotiation process can be speeded up, that we are not looking at another 20 or 30 years to negotiate individual contracts.

There is concern for the situation in British Columbia and it has reached the ears of the political components in that province. They are also expressing concerns about aspects of this process. I sincerely hope and recommend that the government stop and have a look at what is actually occurring here and coming up with some sort of options, if they choose to follow this policy, in which they can address some of these concerns.

There is one other point I would like to make before I close. A great number of these negotiations are based on the fact that the self-government component of the band will be democratic. Yet for the band to establish that democratic process and hold elections, they really do not have an appeal process to a Canadian election officer, other than an appeal to the minister. This should be addressed as well and bring them into the Canadian process of elections.

[John English, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member referred to the Quebec referendum process at one point. I recall the Reform Party talking about the need to continue government as usual. However, in this case we are being asked to hold back a process until there is an election in British Columbia. That election could be in the far distant future. It has not been called and it does not need to be called for some time. This appears to be a contradiction in the policy of the Reform Party.

The second point which I want to make relates to the comment which was made about the negotiations being held in secret. It is very clear that any negotiation requires an element of secrecy. It is required when we buy a car. We do not let the bottom line be known right away. However, in the case of the negotiations about which we speak today, the Government of Canada has issued a statement indicating how it intends to ensure that the treaty making process will be open and accessible and how public records will be maintained. In fact, there will be a sharing of information.

I wonder if the hon. member is aware of the statement and what her comments would be on the analogy with Quebec.

[Margaret Bridgman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my comment expresses my concern about the situation in relation to unity. There is a unity debate going on between one province and Canada. However, there is the possibility of future unity debates happening with various aboriginal groups if we pursue this course without some clarification of what it means.

Those persons who are well informed on the process and the ultimate resolution may not share the same concerns I do. They may not see the aboriginal negotiation process as possibly leading us to another unity difficulty in the future. If that is not so, please share it with the rest of us in order to allay this concern.

My main message is that in Canada we have two different processes happening which could lead to similar debates in the future.

The second question concerned public information. I agree that there has been an effort made in the last year with respect to providing the public with more information. That stemmed from outspoken people expressing their concerns in the proper circles. However, a lot of the information, if not all of it, is after the fact. We still do not know the conditions we are negotiating. Basically what we are seeing are great claims for land. We do not actually know what is going to happen.

I am suggesting that if we follow our democratic process of electing representatives, we do have those representatives there, but we have absolutely no idea what they are doing until after it has been done. If they looked at the process they certainly could allay a lot of the public's concern by being a little more informative of what their objectives are.

With respect to the delaying of the process, that remark may have been related to political strategy concerning the election. Be that as it may, what I am addressing here is the fact that the delay should be to review what is actually happening because of these concerns. A stitch in time might save nine. The problem will not go away unless we see a concerted effort by those persons involved

and the government to come out with an outline of the objectives they are trying to achieve.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was hoping there would be some Reform members in the House to witness-

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member knows how angry he gets when that comment is made from the other side of the House. It is not permitted to make reference to the presence or absence of other members in the House and I would ask the member not to do it again.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

My apologies, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to support the comments made by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on the importance of treaty negotiations. As members of this House are aware, only a small minority of First Nations in the province of B.C. have ever signed treaties with the crown.

On lower Vancouver Island several First Nations signed treaties with Governor Douglas in the middle of the 19th century. By the end of the century the Peace River district was included in Treaty No. 8 signed by the Government of Canada.

In the past two decades the Nisga'a Tribal Council has been actively negotiating with the federal and provincial governments. When these negotiations are completed and an agreement is signed, it will be the first treaty with B.C.'s First Nations signed in this century.

We are approaching the threshold of the next century. British Columbians want to approach the 21st century secure in the knowledge that the unfinished business of the 19th century has been completed.

The land claims of British Columbia's First Nations must be resolved because resolving these issues creates an environment of certainty. Certainty means economic growth and job creation. Settling land and resource issues creates an environment for investment and increased local economic activity.

Over the past few years we have made a great deal of progress toward resolving this unfinished business. In 1990 the federal and provincial governments and the leaders of the B.C. First Nations agreed to establish a task force that would map out a negotiation process that would accommodate the many First Nations in B.C. that wanted to negotiate settlements.

The task force reported on June 28, 1991 with 19 recommendations. All of them were accepted by the First Nations summit, Canada and British Columbia. One of the key recommendations was to establish the British Columbia Treaty Commission or BCTC as an arm's length keeper of the process. I would remind the House that the current leader of the B.C. Reform Party was one of the key architects of this process. I congratulate him on his vision and wisdom.

The agreement committed the principles to establish the BCTC through the passage of federal and provincial statutes and the resolution of the summit. As my colleagues know, Bill C-107 was passed by the House last week and has now been put before in the other place.

The commissioners began their valuable work on December 15, 1993 and have made considerable progress. Forty-seven First Nations groups are involved in the BCTC process to date. They represent over 70 per cent of the First Nations of the province, with more likely to become involved in the near future.

The BCTC consists of five commissioners, two nominated by the First Nations summit, one by the provincial government and one by the Government of Canada. The chief commissioner is duly selected and appointed by all three of the principals.

The First Nations summit includes all First Nations in B.C. that have agreed to participate in the BCTC six-stage treaty negotiation process. The summit provides a forum for First Nations involved in the treaty process to meet and discuss treaty negotiations. It worked closely with the federal and provincial governments in the development of the treaty negotiation process and in the establishment of the BCTC.

As one of the principles of the process it continues to provide direction along with the governments of Canada and British Columbia. The B.C. summit chiefs believe that negotiation rather than confrontation and litigation is the best way to solve outstanding issues. It is unfortunate that the Reform Party does not think the same.

I would like to tell the House a bit about the men and women who have offered to serve Canada, B.C. and the summit as the BCTC commissioners. Carole Corcoran was elected by the First Nations summit as one of the first treaty commissioners. She also sat on the royal commission on Canada's future in 1990-91 and serves on the board of governors at the University of Northern British Columbia. Unfortunately Ms. Corcoran has recently resigned.

On October 4, the First Nations summit chiefs selected Miles Richardson of Haida Gwaii to succeed Ms. Corcoran as the second First Nation treaty commissioner. Mr. Richardson was a member of the B.C. claims task force which reported to the governments of Canada, B.C. and First Nations on how the parties could begin negotiations to build a new partnership. From 1991 to 1993 Mr. Richardson was part of the First Nations summit task group, an executive body reporting to the First Nations in B.C. on treaty negotiations.

The First Nations summit has also elected as one of its commissioners Wilf Adam of the Lake Babine Indian Band. Mr. Adam is a

former chief councillor of the band. He is chairman of the Burns Lake Native Development Corporation and is co-founder of the Burns Lake Law Centre.

British Columbia has appointed Barbara Fisher, formerly general counsel and Vancouver director of the Office of the Ombudsman. She currently practices part time as counsel to the B.C Information and Privacy Commission.

Since last April the Government of Canada's representative to the commission has been Peter Lusztig. Dr. Lusztig has been a professor of finance at the University of British Columbia and also brings considerable breadth of experience from the community. He has sat on the B.C. Royal Commission on Automobile Insurance and the B.C. Commission of Inquiry on the Tree Fruit Industry. In 1991 he also chaired the Asia Pacific Initiative Advisory Committee struck by the federal and provincial governments.

Since last May the chief commissioner has been Mr. Alec Robertson, QC. The legal community is familiar with his past work as president of the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association, chairman of the Law Foundation of B.C. and as a member of the Gender Equality Task Force of the Canadian Bar Association. Mr. Robertson spoke eloquently on Bill C-107 before the standing committee.

The House will recognize that the BCTC consists of five distinguished British Columbians. They are doing excellent work to ensure that the comprehensive claims process moves along in a timely and orderly manner.

The commission oversees the six-stage treaty negotiation process which includes: one, statement of intent; two, preparation for negotiations; three; negotiation of a framework agreement; four, negotiation of an agreement in principle; five, negotiation to finalize a treaty; and six, implementation of the treaty.

The commission assesses the readiness of the parties to negotiate. This involves making sure that the First Nations have the resources they require to make their case. It also includes ensuring that the federal and provincial governments have established regional advisory committees so that the interests of the local residents who are not aboriginal can be heard.

These regional advisory committees are part of an extensive and responsible effort to keep the public and all affected third parties informed of the developments in the negotiations as well as to ensure the advice of all sectors of B.C. society is considered. Other efforts include newsletters, public information meetings, a 1-800 number, numerous speaking engagements, information brochures and other publications, and participation in trade shows. The Sechelt negotiations are televised.

The commission allocates loan funding to enable First Nations to participate in the process. It works with all parties to ensure that they get on with the job in a timely manner. If required and if agreed to by all parties, the commission will assist the parties to obtain dispute resolution services if the negotiations seem to be reaching an impasse.

Finally, the commission helps ensure that the process remains open and accountable. It prepares and maintains a public record on the status of negotiations, and it reports to this House on that status. Its annual reports are tabled in this House. In summary, the B.C. Treaty Commission facilitates treaty negotiations; it is not a party to the negotiations.

I am sure that members on both sides of this House would agree that settlement of land claims in British Columbia is long overdue. British Columbia is home to 17 per cent of Canada's aboriginal population, yet treaties have been signed with only a small minority of First Nations there. The question of land issues surrounding undefined aboriginal rights must be brought to a successful conclusion.

The federal government is committed to settling land claims in a fair and equitable manner for aboriginal people as well as third parties and the general public. I urge the House to vote down this regressive and spiteful motion.

[Margaret Bridgman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member two questions.

The member made reference in the beginning of his speech to addressing the historical treaties. I agree. We have been 300 or whatever number of years at that. I also express some apprehension with this concept of the modern, living or new treaties, whatever we wish to call them.

Does the hon. member think that the creation of more treaties will put us in a similar situation as the existing or the back treaties have? Would it take us x amount of time to get these other treaties into some state of agreement between all parties?

The next question is in relation to the B.C. Treaty Commission. We understand that body is preparing parties to negotiate and actually does not participate in the negotiation process itself. In the preparation of that body's mandate, would it ensure that the people who are going to the table have consulted with those whom they represent so that they go into the negotiation process with the blessings of their membership, or are they going in based on their opinions?

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the whole treaty process is about making sure we give people a hand up and not a hand out. We want to end the dependence which has taken place over too many years while the treaties have not been solved. The native community has not had the opportunity to make a contribution and be self-sufficient.

There have been many questions regarding the legal basis for settling comprehensive land claims and what their status is. I can say that the 1973 Supreme Court ruling in the Calder case acknowledged existence of aboriginal title in Canadian law. More recently in the Sparrow case the Supreme Court has recognized constitutionality protecting the aboriginal rights to fish for food.

Since 1973, as a result of a number of court rulings the Government of Canada has as a matter of policy negotiated settlements with aboriginal groups that assert aboriginal title and where there is some evidence of continuing title. The Constitution Act, 1982 affirms and recognizes existing aboriginal treaty rights.

We want to end uncertainty associated with unsettled land claims. By addressing it we produce certainty. The production of that certainty would result in jobs and investment and a healthier B.C. economy.

Various studies have indicated that $1 billion in investment are forgone in the resource industries. Thousands of jobs could be made available if the treaty process were to be successfully conclude.

In terms of whether the people are representing their stakeholders, I would say that yes they are. Beyond that I would like to draw attention to the 31 members who are part of the treaty negotiations advisory committee. They virtually cover the whole section of the economic activity in British Columbia: the B.C. Shellfish Growers Association, the B.C. Fishing Resorts Association, sports fishing institutions, the Steelhead Society of B.C., the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the Community Fishing Industry Council, Fisheries Council of B.C., the United Fishermen, northern fishing representatives, the Interior Forest Industry Coalition. There is representation from the unions, the Industrial Woodworkers of America, a fine union I was a member of at one point. There is the B.C. Real Estate Association, the B.C. Federation of Agriculture and the list goes on and on.

It would seem to me that at some point we have to have some trust in the process. We have to end this injustice which has existed, and a costly injustice I might say. All studies have shown that economically British Columbia is suffering from the uncertainty. We want to establish some certainty on this question and give justice to the native people which I believe is long overdue.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that three government members have addressed our motion so far today. If memory serves me correctly, all three of them gave accolades to Mr. Jack Weisgerber, the leader of the B.C. Reform Party. I remember the hon. member's words: "I congratulate him for his vision and foresight". I would certainly agree that Mr. Weisgerber is a man with vision and foresight.

I would like to read into Hansard the following quote: ``The vast majority of British Columbians rejected the backroom deal that was Charlottetown. They rejected the constitutional entrenchment of an undefined inherent right of self-government and so I. They rejected a third order of government for native Canadians enshrined under the Constitution and so do I. We also reject the government's formal recognition of aboriginal title''. That is from a speech given on October 4, 1995 by Mr. Jack Weisgerber, the leader of the B.C. Reform Party.

I wonder if the hon. member who is so free with accolades for this gentleman, which are richly deserved, would agree with those statements and that he truly is a man of vision and foresight.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I referred to the decisions he made when he was a cabinet minister in the government of the Social Credit Party. Clearly, he is a perfect case in point as to how a reasonable person of the Social Credit Party can be transformed into a Reformer who does not make sense.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on the motion put forward by the hon. member for North Island-Powell River. I oppose the motion. I consider it to be ill-conceived. Why do I take that position?

The first reason is that the correct approach to the issue was set out by the government in its red book promises. In the red book the government made it very clear that if we were elected we would be committed to building new partnerships with aboriginal peoples based on trust and mutual respect. We stated in the red book what a Liberal government would do.

We stated that our goal was a Canada where aboriginal people would enjoy a standard of living and quality of life and opportunity equal to those of other Canadians. It would be a Canada where First Nations, Inuit and Metis would live self-reliantly, secure in the knowledge of who they are as unique peoples. All Canadians would be enriched by aboriginal cultures and would be committed to the fair sharing of the potential of our nation. It would be a Canada where aboriginal people would have the positive option to live and work wherever they chose. Perhaps most important, we set out our goal for a Canada where aboriginal children would grow up in secure families and in healthy communities with the opportunity to take their full place in Canada.

As a result, we also said that the resolution of land claims would be a priority. This is our vision and we have been moving step by step to bring it alive. In two years we have already made considerable progress.

On August 10 the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the federal interlocutor for Metis and non-status Indians announced the government's approach to the implementa-

tion of the inherent right of aboriginal self-government. We have fostered greater economic development opportunities for aboriginal communities through co-management agreements and support for business ventures. We have committed an additional $20 million annually to the Indian and Inuit post-secondary student support program. We have settled some 44 specific claims and we have seen five comprehensive claims come into effect. By any measure we have achieved a great deal in living up to the commitments we made to the people of Canada in the red book during the election.

Perhaps the most complex challenge to the government and to the people of Canada in this area is treaty making in British Columbia. I would like to remind the House that British Columbia is unique in Canada. If I could remind hon. members of the debate which was recently held in the House, it is a distinct society in this respect, in that the process of signing treaties has never been completed. Only a handful of treaties were signed in the pre-Confederation period and they cover parts of Vancouver Island only.

In 1899 Treaty No. 8 was signed with the First Nations in the Peace River area in the northeast of the province. However, in the rest of the province the issues of aboriginal rights remain largely unresolved. First Nations legitimately want to see a resolution to these issues.

We have repeatedly seen the First Nations of British Columbia press for treaty resolution. Until this decade, however, the provincial government had been unwilling to negotiate. It took the position that there was no need to negotiate because whatever rights to land and resources the aboriginal people may have had in British Columbia had been extinguished by an act of the crown.

The result was decades of legal acrimony. The First Nations first sought settlement through the courts of what they had been unable to achieve through the negotiation process. In 1973 the Supreme Court of Canada was asked whether the aboriginal title to the Nisga'a traditional territory had been extinguished in the Calder case. In that case the six judges were evenly split on the question. It fell on a very narrow technical issue in the way in which the case had been brought.

It was very clear from reading the judgments in the case that there was a recognition by the courts of the country of a legitimate claim to aboriginal rights in British Columbia which had to be addressed equitably if we were ever to resolve this extraordinarily important issue.

The courts for their part have expressed repeatedly and in the strongest terms that the issues brought before them ought to be settled at the negotiating table and not before the bar, settled through negotiations and not litigation. Many cases have determined this issue. I cite Judge Macfarlane in one who wrote:

Treaty making is the best way to respect Indian rights. The questions of what aboriginal rights exist-cannot be decided in this case, and are ripe for negotiation.

He went on to observe:

During the course of these proceedings, it became apparent that there were two schools of thought.

The first is an all or nothing approach, which says that the Indian Nations were here first, that they have exclusive ownership and control of all the land and resources and may deal with them as they see fit.

The second is a co-existence approach, which says that the Indian interest and other interests can co-exist to a large extent, and that consultation and reconciliation is the process by which the Indian culture can be preserved and by which other Canadians may be assured that their interests, developed over 125 years of nationhood, can also be respected-I favour the second approach.

I must say I agree. When I was in the private practice of law I had the opportunity of being involved in a case that was very interesting and very instructive in this area. It was the Baker Lake case. It took place in the Northwest Territories. The court also resolved and ruled that the applicants in that case had aboriginal rights, but the court failed to set out what those aboriginal rights were. It failed to set out what the specificity of those rights were.

Therefore the aboriginal peoples in the area were left with the unpleasant situation of knowing they had a right but not knowing whether they could exercise it in contradistinction against mining companies that might be in conflict with their claims and exercise it in contradistinction against other claims.

These issues cannot necessarily be settled by courts of law. The courts may lay out a general provision such as saying that there are aboriginal rights that have not been extinguished. That is a legal issue and an issue a court can rule on.

What is the exact content of those rights and how they will be applied in a modern complex society where there are conflicts between urban and rural uses of land mixed with that of the aboriginal peoples? They have to be addressed in the negotiating process. That is being sought in the circumstances. That is why I agree with what the judge said in the case to which I have referred. I am sure members of the House would agree that the co-existence approach, based upon consultation and reconciliation, is the appropriate approach.

I am sorry, I say to my legal fraternity friends, to suggest that court is not the place to be on this issue. There are places where we do not need lawyers and we certainly do not need judges to resolve them. We need the political will to have people sit down and resolve their disputes with a mutual trust and understanding among them.

It pains me to say that in the province of British Columbia today quality of trust is absent. I happen to come from Vancouver originally. I happen to have the privilege of going back to Vancouver regularly. I have seen the tremendous turbulent summer of pain and protest that took place last summer. These confrontations will not resolve the issues. It is only through negotiation and

mutual respect that we will be able to do that. It will not work through an all or nothing approach.

We cannot leave the resolution of the issues for those who have little respect for the law. That is what worries me about the resolution. It astonishes me that a member of the third party would bring forward a resolution suggesting that this issue be pushed over for a couple of years. Basically that is the suggestion.

I have listened to the passionate intensity with which members of the third party speak in the House about the rights of their constituents, about their need to defend their constituents, and about how their rights are not being properly regarded by the government and by the ways in which the laws of the country apply.

What would they advocate to their constituents about the resolution of their essential rights, how their lives will be conducted and how they will be able to earn their living? These rights have been in abeyance in some cases for 30, 40 or 50 frustrating years. Would they go back to their constituents and suggest that they just sit still and put this off? I find that difficult to believe. I do not believe they would do that. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. We should not be treating the aboriginal peoples of the country or of the province of British Columbia any differently than we treat other citizens in this respect.

We have a B.C. Treaty Commission. It establishes a solid foundation for consultation and reconciliation. At the heart of its operations are the coexistence approach and consultative approach. There are those in the House and those in the community who would maintain that the process concedes too much to First Nations. This too is starting to sow discontent.

I have heard radio shows in British Columbia. I have heard members say that 100 per cent of the province is covered by claims of the aboriginal peoples. However hon. members know better than this. We all know that claims are one thing, but to exaggerate them as a threat to the existence of the process is irresponsible. Claims are one thing. They are put forward but they can be resolved not necessarily in a court of law but in a framework of consultation, mutual respect and a desire to achieve a result that will be beneficial for all parties.

If that approach is taken, rather than an in terrorem approach of having huge claims, of the whole province being swamped and taken away from us, we would move toward a much more satisfactory resolution of the issue.

We know there are overlapping claims. The commission knows that is the case. They can be dealt with. We will not move forward by leaving the issue fester for another two years, until after another provincial government election; pushing it off into the future; and allowing the distrust, mistrust and exaggerations on both sides to prevail.

For those reasons I urge the House not to adopt an all or nothing approach. We should give to the British Columbia Treaty Commission its right to facilitate modern day treaties, to assess the readiness of parties to begin the negotiations, to allocate negotiation funding to aboriginal peoples, to assist parties to obtain dispute resolution services at the request of all parties and to monitor the status of negotiations.

In that way we could move the issue onward and start the process of achieving an equitable, just and lasting resolution of an issue that is extraordinarily important not only to the citizens of British Columbia but all citizens of the country who wish to see a harmonious social climate in which to operate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened quite attentively to my hon. colleague's comments about the Reform motion that has been put forward today.

We really have to describe the reason behind it. Perhaps we have not been explicit enough in explaining it. We feel very strongly that the British Columbia government at this time lacks credibility and does not have the confidence of the B.C. people to continue to proclaim it has a mandate to bring about some very comprehensive claims agreements and new treaties for British Columbia.

I listened to the member say that trust was absent in British Columbia. Certainly it is, but we have to ask why it is absent. I assert that it is because of the bungling of both provincial and federal governments in the past.

Given the claims in the territories which in the opinion of a great many Canadians were very generous, is it any wonder there is concern among Canadians about the extent of the claims in British Columbia?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a complicated issue. The first part of the issue concerns the governance of the country. He is saying that his sense of the political process in British Columbia or that of observers is that the present government lacks credibility.

I do not disagree the present government in British Columbia is in political difficulty. We live in a process whereby that government was elected for a certain term and has certain obligations to serve the people of British Columbia. This is not a new policy that has been brought forward. The argument would stand better both with the public and with the political process if this were some radical departure the present government was proposing, if it were something in the extreme. That is not what is happening.

The commission has been put in place to take the venom out of the process and to get the negotiations moving along. There is no guarantee they will be completed before the government changes, but the process must be allowed to continue.

To use the present government's unpopularity as a pretext to end what has been a long, extended historical process, which for some people has been going on for 40 years, would be unfair to the aboriginal peoples. It would be disrespectful to the political process of the country.

Sometimes in parliamentary debate we exchange views about one another, but I am sure the hon. member would be very unhappy if I were to stand and say that the polls indicated that the Reform Party has x per cent and therefore nothing he says in the House is to have any credibility. The member was elected. He has a right to speak.

That government was elected to do a job. It is doing its job. There is no sense that it will necessarily complete it but we must continue the process. We have a democratically elected process in the country that has established a mechanism by which we are finally seeing some chance for the resolution of these enormously complex, difficult and important social issues.

I for one would like to see the process continue and to see a peaceful resolution achieved. That is why I find it very difficult to accept the basic premise under which the motion has been moved.

[The Speaker]

My colleagues, it being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), we will now proceed to statements by members.

Dairy Industry

[John Finlay, Liberal, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago I had the pleasure of visiting a dairy farm in Oxford County as the guest of Jim Donaldson of Donaldson International Livestock Ltd., Lubor Dobrovic of the Slovak State Breeding Institute, and George Heyder of the Slovak Holstein Association. Also present was a member of the board of directors of Ridgetown College and the communications adviser of CIDA.

Donaldson International has arranged for training to be provided for key people in the Slovakian dairy industry over the next three years. This $800,000 development project will help to develop a modern sustainable dairy industry in Slovakia.

It is encouraging in the extreme to know that small Canadian businesses, Canadian educational institutions and CIDA can co-operate in such important endeavours.

This three-year project will prove beneficial to the dairy industry in both countries and will build closer ties between Canada and the new Republic of Slovakia.

East Timor

[Nic Leblanc, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today is a sad day in that it marks the 20th anniversary of the invasion of East Timor by the Indonesian army. As you know, this invasion resulted in one of the worst holocausts since 1945, with the genocide of more than one third of the population.

Unfortunately, East Timorians are still the victims of one of the harshest political repressions known.

Year after year, reputable organizations such as Amnesty International, denounce violations of human rights in that country. On this sad day, which reminds us that too many human beings die in the name of freedom, the Bloc Quebecois wants to denounce the very timid attitude of the Canadian government regarding the promotion of human rights.

Via Rail

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on December 6 the "Stop the Great Train Robbery" bus came to Parliament Hill. This bus was covered with thousands of signatures protesting gross over subsidization of VIA Rail at a time when Canadian are facing crippling government debt.

The bus carried supporters of the protest and a petition containing almost 10,000 signatures. The Minister of Transport had been requested to accept the petition from these concerned citizens but did not even bother to respond to the request.

I accepted the petition, but because it is not in a form deemed presentable in the House for the government I cannot present it here. As an alternative I invite the Minister of Transport to accept it from me outside the doors of the House immediately after question period.

I also ask the minister again to take action to stop VIA Rail from reducing already heavily subsidized fares so it can take Canadian taxpayers' money and use it to compete against customers unsubsidized in the private sector.

The minister can choose to send out a message of goodwill to Canadian taxpayers or he can continue to squander their money. Thousands of people who signed this petition are waiting for his response.

The Economy

[Vic Althouse, NDP, Mackenzie, SK]

Mr. Speaker, for more than 20 years successive federal governments have claimed to be fighting inflation and the deficit by cutting corporate taxes, raising interest rates and cutting programs. What have investors done with the interest earned and the taxes saved? They have used their surplus funds to bid up existing stocks to the point at which general stock values in Canada are reported to be up 35 per cent over last year.

To continue generating existing levels of profit, their prices for goods and services provided will have to be pushed up, as will inflation.

If the government is serious about fighting inflation and the deficit, a tax on transactions can both cool inflationary pressures and reduce the deficit. Such a multiple approach to fighting the deficit and inflation might actually work, unlike current policy fixation with high interest rates, low corporate taxes and deep program cuts.

Surely after 20 years of failure to meet even one deficit target it is time to try some things that might actually work.

Banks

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the big banks would like to sell insurance directly to their customers.

Many Canadians are worried about concentrating economic power in the hands of a few large banks, putting the safety of the financial system at risk.

In changing the Bank Act, the government should be careful not to reduce competition. Consumers would suffer from reduced choice in the financial industry. Banks selling insurance would have an unfair advantage over insurance companies. Insurance companies are not entitled to have the same government guarantees the banks have, including Canada deposit insurance. Banks will also have an unfair advantage if they are allowed to use confidential client information to help sell insurance.

Any changes to the Bank Act must be fair to the insurance companies and must protect the consumer. Banks should stick to their mandate and start lending money to small businesses, the engine of the country's economy.

Rather than letting the banks expand into insurance, we should tax their record profits and force them to lend more money to small businesses.