Debates of Dec. 7th, 1995

Penitentiaries

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice did not have the opportunity to express sympathy, but I am pleased to hear at least a partial answer from the solicitor general.

I will repeat my question. Since the solicitor general indicates that something is being done, when will he do it, an exact date, and what exactly will he do?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member obviously did not listen to my answer, I suggest he read Hansard tomorrow and consider whether he wants to ask the question again.

Contraventions Act

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Presently there is no effective enforcement for people who misuse our waterways and endanger the lives of other Canadians. The Contraventions Act, passed in 1992, would fix this situation but has never been proclaimed into law.

Will the minister tell the House how he intends to ensure boating regulations are enforced and Canadian lives are protected on our lakes and rivers?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, no member of the House has worked harder in the cause of facilitating the enforcement of safety rules on the waterways than the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. I thank him for his help in that regard.

It was through the work of the hon. member that I met with the executive of the Muskoka Lakes Association which brought home to me the urgency of dealing effectively with this matter. As a result, officials in the federal Department of Justice have worked with provincial counterparts to put the provincial schemes and mechanisms for ticketing of offences at the disposal of the federal government through the federal Contraventions Act.

I am pleased to say that next week I intend to introduce legislation which will amend the Contraventions Act federally to enable us to use the provincial mechanisms. This not only allows us to keep the waterways safer and have effective enforcement but it also avoids duplication, overlap and needless expense. It serves to that extent the interests of the people of Canada.

Mobility Rights

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister will know that British Columbia has become a destination province as of late with up to 92,000 Canadians moving to the province, many of them paid for by their own provincial governments, and consequently falling on welfare.

Recognizing that labour mobility is a national issue, would the Prime Minister give some consideration to examining the possibility of providing labour mobility grants to the province of British Columbia to offset some of the costs of 92,000 Canadians moving into the province each year?

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. It allows me an opportunity to update the House of Commons.

This morning the British Columbia minister of social services, Joy MacPhail, and the federal Minister of Human Resources Development met to discuss the issue relating to residency requirements. As you know, Mr. Speaker, we have no choice in this matter. The British Columbia government is contravening the act, particularly sections 5 and 7 of the Canada assistance plan.

As to the idea raised by the hon. member, he can rest assured that ideas such as the one he cited will be part and parcel of discussions that federal officials will undertake very shortly.

Employment

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

In the past when profits were made, more jobs were created. In light of record corporate profits in some sectors, the banks especially, can the minister explain why there are also a record number of layoffs? Does the minister have any plan to encourage reinvestment of these profits to create new jobs for Canadians?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, the member raises a question that is really one of the most difficult of the modern economy which is that because of globalization and because of new technologies a lot of companies are seen maintaining or increasing their profits, not as a result of increasing sales but because they are cutting costs. They are letting people go. Of course this sets in motion a vicious train of events where one company lays off and then others have to.

As a result of this, the government has embarked upon a series of fundamental reforms in its job creation activities. The unemployment insurance reform announced last week deals directly with that question as do a number of the measures in terms of the information highway by the Minister of Industry and of course the very important activities of my colleague, the Minister for International Trade.

At the same time the fact is we have to get a rising economy. That is why when we embark upon deficit reduction we do it in a balanced way. We do not slash and burn.

Presence In Gallery

[The Speaker]

I wish to draw the attention of members to the presence in the gallery of two guests: Gregory Rockman, member of Parliament for the African National Congress and Gerhard Koomhpof, member of Parliament for the National Party of South Africa.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

Business Of The House

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it would be appreciated if the Leader of the Government would indicate the order of business until Christmas.

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, today and tomorrow are opposition days. Votes arising from these days and from other business of supply will be taken at the end of business on Monday, which is when the House will also vote on Motion No. M-26 which completed debate yesterday.

Our first priority next week is to dispose of report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-110, the constitutional amendment bill, that is to say the regional veto bill.

We would also like to refer Bill C-111, the unemployment insurance bill, to committee before second reading, pursuant to Standing Order 73(1). The House should take this as notice of our intention to do this.

On Monday we will probably start with Bill C-111 in the morning and turn to Bill C-110 in the afternoon, that is to say the bill on the regional veto.

We would also like to complete before Christmas as many bills as possible that are now at report stage or third reading stage. There will be ongoing discussions between the parties in this House for this purpose.

I am told the Standing Committee on Finance will have an interim report on budget consultations presented to the House before the middle of next week. We would like to have the House consider the report of the finance committee on Thursday and Friday next week.

[The Speaker]

I have a point of privilege by the hon. member for Scarborough Centre. I must ask the hon. member, does this point of privilege arise from today's question period?

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

No, Mr. Speaker. It arises from an incident which occurred this past Tuesday.

[The Speaker]

Then I would have to receive written notice unless it occurred today. I would be happy to entertain that as soon as the hon. member puts the information into my hands.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Supply

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

Mr. Speaker, it should come as no surprise today that the Bloc Quebecois has decided to vote against the motion presented by the Reform Party, a motion that of course aims to prevent and obstruct current negotiations.

It is clear, in our opinion, that a variety of concepts are implicit in this kind of motion. It is clear that trilateral negotiations between the federal and provincial governments and the First Nations must be redefined. The First Nations have consistently said that the status quo is unacceptable. They are not alone in that respect. I think that as far as Quebec is concerned, the results of the last referendum indicated that the status quo was unacceptable and that the only option is sovereignty and greater autonomy. Sovereignty will give us that greater autonomy, and we see the same need for autonomy among the First Nations.

The Reform Party's motion also implies a desire to block negotiations for strictly political reasons which I will be glad to enumerate later on. But how could anyone consider putting a stop to a peaceful and equitable process that will redress the injustice perpetrated 150 years ago? We are about to begin a negotiating process, and out of the blue, for purely political reasons, the Reform Party introduces a motion to block negotiations that are peaceful and will correct past injustice.

This is totally unacceptable to us, and as I said before, it should come as no surprise that the Bloc Quebecois intends to vote against this motion. We should remember that cases involving aboriginal peoples and aboriginal rights are probably the oldest human rights issues in Canada. These issues remain unresolved, and this is a chapter of Canada's history that has been left unfinished. Attempts are being made to remedy this elsewhere. Attempts are being made across Canada, and in British Columbia the circumstances seem to have been ideal for bringing these negotiations to fruition.

Now we have a proposal that would simply terminate these attempts. The debate on aboriginal rights started only twenty or thirty years ago and has been pursued openly and with great zeal in the political and public arena. Unfortunately, this proposal would simply extinguish those rights, blocking the whole process that led up to the current situation where we have all parties in a position negotiate on the same level. This is a proposal we cannot accept.

I want to read the motion, because we feel that the Reform Party is not the only one to blame here. I think the motion reveals the true colours not only of the Reform Party, but also of the Liberal Party. The motions reads 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.

I talked with some of my colleagues from British Columbia and I learned that one of the two major opposition parties in B.C. is the Reform Party. Of course, my colleagues hastened to tell me that the national Reform Party does not recognize any provincial subsidiaries. However, I find it strange that the Reform Party would put forward a motion supported by an opposition party in B.C. which happens to have the same name as it does.

We now see the true colours of the Reform Party. But we also see the true colours of the Liberals. I heard my colleagues talk about their opposition to this motion. When we listen to the members of the Liberal government and when we look at the measures they take, we can see the true nature of these people. We can tell by their attitude towards the native people.

When I look at everything the Liberal Party has proposed for the native people and when I see that the B.C. Liberal Party is behind this motion, the first question I ask myself is why has the Liberal Party here, in Ottawa, not contacted its brother, the B.C. Liberal Party, to try to settle this issue.

I think that the current government here, in this House, is hiding behind the public opinion, which, as we may see later on, might well be unamenable to this initiative. Why is it that the Liberal Party and the indian affairs minister have not called the person in charge of the B.C. Liberal Party, one of the opposition parties in that province? One has to wonder about that. Especially since the policies put forward by this government in its famous red book have not even been implemented yet; we think that the Liberal government is dragging its feet on this issue.

The famous self-government policy that was denounced by all aboriginal representatives in Canada is a case in point. This policy was developed behind closed doors, without consulting aboriginal leaders and representatives. We now have a proposal that will be difficult to put in place because it was not approved by aboriginal representatives.

The same goes for the red book promise to create a land claims commission. The other day, a British Columbia member tabled a motion stressing the importance of creating an independent commission. Once again, the Liberal government is dragging its feet on this issue. Even with their speeches opposing the Reform motion before us, we wonder if they are not in fact a little responsible for what is now happening in British Columbia.

This is a purely political matter. If we look at the motion before us, we know that an election will be held one year from now. What does this mean? I see this as a dangerous precedent. It means that the world stops turning just before an election. The things that have been put forward, that have been working for a while, must stop because opposition parties are opposed to them. This is complete nonsense, in my opinion.

When I say that this is purely political, I mean not only for opposition parties but also for the party in power in that province, the NDP, which is going through a very hard time. I think that only 10 or 12 per cent of people intend to vote for them in the next election. This process was also held up by the Premier of that province a while ago, mainly as a result of public opinion because the public is unfortunately misinformed.

In British Columbia, the issue of negotiations with aboriginal people has simply been held hostage by this type of political resolution. I think that such tactics should be condemned.

These people have suffered injustices for 150 years. They have probably been the most patient in agreeing to peaceful negotiations. Today, we are being asked to stop this process, something we find totally unacceptable.

I also raised a number of points when the legislative assembly appeared before us during consideration of the B.C. treaty commission legislation. I raised them because the B.C. commission legislation provides that we should educate the people of that province to dispel the rampant rumours and misconceptions and to set the record straight. I found out the worst misconception when I arrived here as native affairs critic. It came from my Reform colleagues from B.C. who were trying to show me that 125 per cent of the B.C. territory was the subject of land claims.

So I said: "Does this 125 per cent mean that the native people would take over all of B.C. and then push the white people into the sea?" They then explained to me that this figure was mostly due to overlap between land claims, that if we plot these claims on a map of the province, it is clear that their total surface area is bigger than all of B.C.

I think that the people of B.C. must be told that this is an initial bargaining position. Some of my colleagues also expressed their views to the land claims commission last week. They said that some Quebecers sometimes fear that the map of Quebec will be cut up and that native people will own 80 per cent of the territory. But I think that many realize that this is an initial bargaining position. As the negotiations conducted in Canada in the past few years show, a native people's initial position may change by the time negotiations are concluded.

This education work must be done. People also feel that negotiations are conducted in secrecy. What are the current headlines in B.C. newspapers such as the Vancouver Sun ? Remarks made by Reformers often exacerbate this kind of paranoia toward First Nations. And this kind of motion goes exactly along the same lines. Members from British Columbia say: ``Look, they are going to take 125 per cent of the land and that will cause a great deal of uncertainty. Companies invest less in certain regions of B.C. than others because they are afraid that the land will be taken over by the aboriginals''.

That is not how bargaining works. In fact, a six-step process was instituted by the commission, and we should give it a chance to lead to a conclusion that is to everybody's satisfaction. These are the fundamentals of bargaining. You start at the beginning and you end at the finish line, and everyone has to compromise a little along the way to end up with a satisfactory position.

I think it is important also to mention the contribution of the Nisga'a nation to the kind of discussions we are holding today. While legislation was passed last week respecting the British Columbia Treaty Commission, the Nisga'as were intentionally excluded from such negotiations, because they have been discussing vigorously with the government to settle a land claim and a self-government issue. We must always bear in mind the historical background and realize, with the help of examples such as the one I will give the House today, namely the case of the Nisga'a, that it is refreshing to see that First Nations are able to use peaceful tools known to everyone, and used in the British parliamentary system for ages. I am referring here negotiation.

I myself had the pleasure and the privilege to visit the Nisga'a last summer. They live along the Nass River and they never signed a treaty with the government. In fact, this is a characteristic of British Columbia; very few treaties were signed in B.C. That is why the commission was established: to develop a process to encourage every First Nation in British Columbia to enter into agreements with the crown and the province.

So, they never signed a treaty. Yet, they represent about 6,000 people and they are pioneers as regards aboriginal negotiations in Canada. The case of the Nisga'a is a good example of the quest of Canada's aboriginals for legal recognition of their rights.

Let us review a bit of history here. In 1763, aboriginal titles were recognized by the proclamation of King George III. Governments were the only ones allowed to buy Indian land, and could do so only through treaties. As I said earlier, the first nations of British Columbia signed only 15 agreements, and 14 of them deal with Vancouver Island. The Douglas treaty was signed by James Douglas, of the Hudson's Bay Company.

In 1858, British Columbia became a colony. It joined the Canadian Confederation in 1871. At the time, the majority of the province's population was made up of first nation members. Yet, the first nations agreed to share the land with newcomers. The result of all this is that, today, these people are to be found in close to 200 reserves in B.C., while the rest of the land is occupied by white people who develop its natural resources. The aboriginals have been left to fend for themselves. This is why it is so important to establish the British Columbia Treaty Commission and give it

time to reach agreements with the first nations. However, the Reform Party motion would keep us from doing that.

I will move along in time to get to more contemporary events. In 1910, Prime Minister Laurier promised, in Prince Rupert, that the land issue would be solved. In 1913, the Nisga'a, ever careful when negotiating, sent a first petition to the Privy Council, in London. Some years later, in 1927, in response to that initiative, the federal government prohibited aboriginals from organizing themselves for the purpose of discussing land issues and claims. The government's reaction was: "Listen, there are problems, but we do not want to discuss them, and we do not want you to discuss them". The way things were done at the time is somewhat reminiscent of Reform's 1995 proposal: preventing parties from talking to each other.

I think that what was hardly acceptable in 1927 has become totally unacceptable in 1995. My B.C. colleagues may be surprised to learn that the first native member of Parliament in the Commonwealth was a Nisga'a. The first native member of this House, Frank Calder, is behind the Calder decision to which I will come back later.

In 1955, the native lands committee was re-established thanks to the Nisga'a tribal council. In 1968, the Nisga'a went to court to have their aboriginal titles recognized. In 1973, there was the Frank Calder case I referred to earlier.

After over 14 months of deliberations, the Supreme Court of Canada handed down a divided ruling. Of the six judges who concluded that the Nisga'a did hold aboriginal land titles, three ruled that these titles had expired while the other three decided that they were still valid.

This ruling was important because, in 1972, Pierre Trudeau was still leading a minority government. The opposition parties during and after the ruling urged the government to recognize its obligations and settle the land claims in that province. On August 8, 1973, the current Prime Minister announced that the government was committed to settling the claims.

In 1976, land claims negotiations started between the Nisga'a and the federal government. The claims had been filed almost 70 years earlier. And the province entered into negotiations in 1991. As I indicated last time I spoke on this issue, at third reading of the bill dealing with the British Columbia Treaty Commission, the B.C. Indian affairs department set the whole thing in motion.

Why negotiate treaties? So far, the status quo has proven costly in terms of energy, legal and strategic battles, but also battles in the streets, on highways and on the reserves. Those who advocate violence to resolve their problems must not be proven right. We have here a nation who keeps believing in going the way of peaceful negotiation. I think we should give them a chance to complete their quest for peaceful negotiation.

The Reform Party is probably motivated by financial considerations, although the motion does not say so. Perhaps we could respond to that that current provincial and federal profits on the land in question are very substantial. I have seen with my own eyes forest harvesting in British Columbia. Natural resources are plentiful in B.C., so money is not the issue. It is more a matter of knowing where the money is going.

Right now, some private interests in British Columbia may be on the side of the Reform Party, or have that party on their side, and demand that motions like this one be debated in the House. Maybe this is the case because the Department of Natural Resources is currently racing against the clock-and I know because I saw it-to get, as quickly as possible, natural resources out of lands that will sooner or later belong to aboriginals. The process is simple: all the natural resources are taken out of the land. Once that process is completed, the government will tell aboriginal nations: "We are now prepared to negotiate to give you the land and its natural resources". But there will be nothing left.

Is this what the Reform Party wants? Why does the Liberal Party not go further? Why does the federal Indian affairs minister not call the Liberal opposition party in British Columbia and say: "Look, forget about that. It does not make any sense. We have to reach a settlement with aboriginal people".

I want to ask the Reform Party-since its members will ask me some questions in a minute-when would be a good time for the federal to sign an agreement with the province and the First Nations. What solutions is the Reform Party contemplating to conclude land claim negotiations in British Columbia? What does it think of aboriginal land titles that have been recognized by the courts?

It seems that, as far as the Reform Party is concerned, there will never be a good time to sign an agreement. As for us, Bloc Quebecois members, we feel that the First Nations should not used as a political pawn. The time has come to put an end to the injustices. Quebecers have realized that and this is why we set up model conventions and agreements on land claims. I ask Reform Party members to do the same, and I also ask Liberal members to put pressure on their B.C. fellow Liberals, so that they do not get involved in a scheme that would prevent peaceful negotiation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech with interest, as we both sit on the aboriginal affairs standing committee.

The member and other members in the House are misreading our motion. We are saying there should be no final agreement in the next few months because the next few months is the length of time that we expect the provincial government that is currently in place to be there. That is all we are asking for. We are not asking for everything to be thrown out. We are not building a brick wall.

The member talked about 500-year-old grievances. To me that is very indicative of how little people not from the western part of Canada understand about British Columbia and other parts of western Canada. Five hundred years ago was long before contact with Europeans and certainly long before any grievance.

As for the statements that were made about negotiating positions, I concur with the member. That is what negotiating is all about. All of us in our life enter into all kinds of negotiations.

The B.C. treaty process has been in effect since 1993. It has been given a chance to work. The member talked about giving it a chance to work. It has been found lacking. We are asking for some changes. The public is asking for some changes. This will be complementary to the process.

I do realize the Nisga'a have been negotiating for 20 years with the federal government. That is one added rationale why the next two or three months should not have all the importance attributed to them. I fail to understand that. To me it reinforces the point we are trying to make that we should not do a last minute rush on an agreement that will set a precedent for the 47 other negotiations going on in British Columbia.

There was a reference in the member's speech to the royal proclamation. Once again British Columbia is different. The jurisprudence is that the royal proclamation has no implications or ramifications for British Columbia because of the time of the royal proclamation and the age of British Columbia, when it came into Confederation and so on. It has no ramifications in British Columbia.

The member talked about British Columbia as a population that consists of natives and white people. That is so far from reality. British Columbia is probably the most multicultural, pluralistic society in North America. I would not be surprised if it was the most multicultural and pluralistic of almost anywhere other than some parts of South America.

There is every hue of colour and every culture on earth represented in British Columbia. That is significant because we are very used to respecting, working with and living with other cultures, which is pluralistic. We are trying to create a pluralistic society, not one divided.

There was more than a suggestion in the member's speech that we are trying to prevent the parties from coming together. What nonsense. There was a total misrepresentation of the Calder decision. I suggest the member read the Calder decision, not somebody's summary that is a misrepresentation of what that decision actually was and what it said.

As someone who spent 20 years in the resource industry, the forest industry in British Columbia, some of the statements made about the condition of the forests and the logging in the province I find quite distressing. I do not believe the depth of knowledge is-

[The Speaker]

My colleague, you have used up half the time for comments and questions. I will give the hon. member for Saint-Jean the opportunity to respond.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised several points. I can tell him that, yes, he is right about the multi-ethnic society. I myself have seen the high numbers of aboriginal people in the culturally mixed city of Vancouver.

The aboriginal people are a bit fed up with trying to gain recognition. They have gained cultural recognition, but when it comes to business and finance, to recognition of their right to territorial self-government, to total financial autonomy, the path is a rougher one.

The motion before us is very clear. It asks the government not to enter into any binding trilateral agreement. This means that, in the negotiations with the Nisga'a where we are in the final stages of negotiation right now, if a conclusion is reached they are being told not to sign.

Why not? Because there will be elections in a year, in order to respect the views of British Columbians on this issue as expressed by both major provincial opposition parties. Clearly, totally political motives.

As I was just saying, and I will repeat it here, it is not acceptable for aboriginal negotiations to be held hostage, whether the negotiating process as a whole, or the beginning of the process, or the signature stage. Everything must proceed as set out in the British Columbia Treaty Commission. It absolutely must continue.

This past summer I met with the Chilcotin, the Carrier-Sekani and the Nisga'a, and I have seen the destruction of their forests, both from the air and on the ground. I feel it is urgent for these matters to be settled at the fundamental level, so that agreement may be reached once and for all to remedy this injustice.

It is my feeling that the process currently in place in B.C. is working very well and will lead to a settlement. The motion before

us is quite simply aimed at slowing down the entire process, and that is why we are opposed to it.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time.

I rise to express my concern and shock at the motion of the hon. member from North Island-Powell River. He asks us to delay the land claims process in British Columbia during the final year of the mandate of the provincial government.

It makes me wonder if he and his colleagues will not be here next year with a similar motion asking us to delay it for the first year of the mandate of the next government while it gets itself organized. It seems to me that in Canada we cannot proceed in that fashion.

The Government of Canada has maintained that providing justice and equity for aboriginal peoples requires two ingredients, self-government and a process for making modern day treaties through comprehensive claims. Canadians have been wrestling with these issues for years. The Reform Party has used the self-government issue to fan the flames of fear and apprehension during the debates over the Charlottetown accord. Now it continues to stir up controversy in British Columbia through its misrepresentations of the treaty process.

I heard hon. members opposite make a great deal of the media reports of the total First Nations claims adding up to 110 percent of the province of British Columbia. The total should not surprise us. Why should the claims not overlap one another? The First Nations have shared the land and its resources for centuries. They have migrated and tapped the resources of different locales at different times.

They have been asked as a part of the treaty making process to describe the geographic area of the First Nation's traditional territory of British Columbia. They provide a map of the traditional areas of their ancestors. This map depicts the territory of a nation as it occupied it historically. These maps are used to provide negotiators with a general idea of what area of land is under question. This is simply part of stage one of the process which is called a statement of intent.

A statement of intent is not a settlement. A claim is not a treaty. A treaty is the result of negotiations, and those negotiations are just beginning. The claims are but the starting bargaining position. No First Nation would expect to receive the entire region described in its statement of intent. The First Nations do not expect a fee simple title to the entire province. When two First Nations have overlapping traditional territories, they will settle the matter as the negotiations proceed. The federal and provincial governments do not participate in negotiating an overlap settlement.

Several members from across the floor, members who ought to know better, have been using the claims to instil fear among British Columbians. They infer that these opening positions will lead to lost property for third parties across the province. They ask British Columbians: "What will become of your summer cottages? What will happen to jobs in the mining and forestry sectors? What will happen to the fisheries?" They raised these fears without adding that the treaty process provides for cottage owners and a broad spectrum of the industries of British Columbia to have a voice in the process.

They neglect to tell the people at town hall meetings or on radio talk shows the Government of Canada consults with a treaty negotiations advisory committee representing many of their interests. They do not tell people no negotiations can proceed until a regional advisory committee has been created to provide the views of British Columbians from that part of the province who are not at the negotiating table.

This pattern of misinformation and fear mongering is typical of the tactics some members on the other side of the House have used to score cheap political points. They have often criticized the government for its dedication to the inherent right of self-government as a cornerstone of the Government of Canada's aboriginal policy.

We have said since the beginning, since the red book that provided our election platform, that we believe the inherent right of self-government is an existing right within Canada's Constitution.

Hon. members across the floor have often made the case that no one has defined what self-government means. That argument has been erected as an obstacle to prevent justice from getting through to aboriginal communities across the entire country. That argument speaks to a kind of mean spirited and narrow minded approach that has thwarted efforts to bring justice to aboriginal issues. It speaks for the tyranny of the status quo. It speaks for the preservation of the paternalism of the Indian Act. Is that what Reform members want to uphold? I like to think not. Do they really want to impede progress, impede the righting of past wrongs, impede certainty for the future, impede economic stability, impede job creation?

All Canadians want the claims settled. They want an end to the uncertainty, an end to ancient wrongs. The negotiations are about how, not whether, the settlements should be resolved.

We want to make progress. One way we are doing this is by acknowledging that the inherent right to self-government is an existing right. We are now negotiating with the First Nations on how that right is to be implemented.

I would like to remind the House of the six stages that a claim must go through before a treaty comes into effect. I think hon. members will observe this is a very thorough process.

In the first step a First Nation files a statement of intent with the B.C. Treaty Commission. The commission makes sure the statement is complete and forwards it to the federal and provincial governments. It is at this stage that the First Nation describes the geographic area in British Columbia it considers its traditional territory. Forty-seven statements of intent have been filed. These represent over 70 per cent of the aboriginal people of British Columbia. That is progress.

Second, the commission convenes a meeting to prepare for the negotiations. All three parties exchange information, consider the criteria, discuss the research they will do to prepare for the negotiations and identify issues of concern. Each party appoints a negotiator with a clear mandate. Each party establishes a ratification procedure, and the parties agree on the substantive and procedural matters that will be negotiated.

This is the stage at which Canada and the British Columbia government establish their own mechanisms for consultation with non-aboriginal interests. One requirement the B.C. Treaty Commission imposes on the two governments is the establishment of a regional consultative mechanism to represent thirty party interests.

When the commission determines that all three parties have met the criteria for readiness, it confirms they can proceed to stage three. This is where all three parties negotiate a framework agreement, a negotiated agenda that identifies the issues to be negotiated, the goals of the negotiation process, special procedural arrangements and a timetable for the negotiations.

So far four framework agreements have been signed and another four initialled by the negotiators. Again, this is progress.

In the fourth stage of the treaty process the parties negotiate an agreement in principle. These are substantive negotiations and the parties examine the framework in detail.

Fifth, the principals negotiate to finalize the treaty. Any remaining technical and legal issues are resolved at this stage. Then, and only then, the sixth stage is the implementation of the treaty. Long term implementation plans need to be tailored to specific agreements.

All commissions agree that significant progress has been made by the treaty process. The B.C. treaty commission process is working. It is fair, equitable and open. No one denies that the negotiations ahead will be tough. There are some very complex issues to be brought to the table. However, it is time that we settled these claims so that all British Columbians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, can get on with the job of building a prosperous society in that province, a society where all groups can enjoy the wealth of resources the province can offer. It will benefit all British Columbians.

It is time to get on with the job. It is not a time for fearmongering. It is a time for fairness and certainty. It is certainly not a time for delaying while we wait for a provincial election which would create a precedent and would be very much uncalled for.

I do not represent aboriginal people who have claims that are hundreds of years old. I represent over 2,000 aboriginal people. Their treaty was signed in 1923, in modern times. Yesterday I attended a funeral in my riding of the first woman Indian chief in Canada. She died at the age of 73. In 1953, when she first became a chief, she was a young woman and a young mother who was concerned about these issues. When she died, only this week, she was still concerned about them. Her mother died two years ago at the age of 103. Throughout her life she was active in trying to resolve the problems of the First Nations in my riding.

The native people would like to negotiate. I think all Canadians would like to negotiate. Every time we have a standoff all Canadians suffer. I am very concerned that the member would bring forward such a motion today.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it might be helpful if the member were to spend a little time in British Columbia rather than in Peterborough. Then he might have some comprehension of what is the content of the speech from the Department of Indian Affairs that he just read to us. He clearly has no concept of what is going on in British Columbia.

When the member says this is an open process, the people in British Columbia, who are concerned about this, which is probably the majority of British Columbians, would ask: What open process?

I am consistently asked: "Who is negotiating for us? Who are they? How were they selected? Where do they meet? When do they meet? I do now know who they are". More important, I am also asked: "What is their mandate? Who gave them the mandate? How do we even know what they are negotiating on our behalf?"

I am inclined to agree with the member that if we have a problem, which we clearly do in this situation or in any situation, that it is very helpful to have negotiations with people who are sitting down eyeball to eyeball.

However, what we have in my constituency in British Columbia is 3 per cent of the people that are represented by people who are constantly in touch with them, who clearly understand what the mandate is and, more important, who go back to their people to report regularly. They also know that they are going to be subject to a ratification vote at the end of the day. Therefore, they know that they have to negotiate in good faith on behalf of the people they

represent. The same is absolutely not true of the non-aboriginal side.

I ask the member if he would care to come to British Columbia and maybe we could clue him in a little bit.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say that I have relatives in British Columbia who live in Kamloops and I visit frequently. I know the riding of Prince George-Bulkley Valley well. I regularly visit the city of Vancouver. I have visited the Peace River country. However, I do not pretend to be a resident of British Columbia. I am a member of the Parliament of Canada and I am concerned about all Canadians.

The hon. member asked who was negotiating. It is the duty of members of Parliament to explain these processes. The B.C. treaty commission process is a good one. It is transparent. There has been legislation in the House related to it. It is for the Reform members to explain those matters in detail to the people of their ridings.

I would like to read something and members opposite can guess where it comes from. Perhaps this comes from Ontario too. I am proud to be a resident of Ontario, but I try to represent all the people of Canada. The quotation reads: "Statements made in the House of Commons that native people who live in inadequate reserve housing without running water or basic sewage should simply move away are naive and racist in nature. Those uninformed comments made by Reform aboriginal affairs critic Mike Scott show the true character of his party. Reform members have become notorious for making offhanded, uninformed accusations concerning First Nations". That is by David Neale of the Victoria Times .

"The Reform Party's campaign to kill comprehensive land claims settlements is characterized by its sheer misinformation, its deliberate confusion of separate processes and its shameless manipulation of media that seem ignorant-"

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is my understanding that we are not to refer to members by their names, even when quoting from a document.

[The Speaker]

The hon. member is absolutely correct. I would ask the hon. member to wrap up his comments.