Debates of Nov. 16th, 1998

First Nations Land Management Act

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Deputy Speaker]

At the request of the chief opposition whip, the division on this motion is deferred until the conclusion of Government Orders later this day.

Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

moved that Bill C-56, an act respecting an agreement with the Norway House Cree Nation for the settlement of matters arising from the flooding of land, and respecting the establishment of certain reserves in the province of Manitoba, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[David Iftody, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House on Bill C-56, the Manitoba claims settlement implementation act. I am pleased to speak in support of this proposed legislation which will address outstanding commitments to Manitoba first nations and pave the way for greater economic self-reliance and self-government.

Hon. members will recall that when this government unveiled “Gathering Strength: Canada's Aboriginal Action Plan”, we made a commitment to renew the relationship with the aboriginal people of Canada. This is not a goal that can be achieved overnight. It will involve many steps, large and small. Bill C-56 is one such step.

The new partnership called for in Gathering Strength must be built on a foundation of trust and co-operation between Canada and first nations governments and communities. To establish that trust we must first of all fulfill our historical obligations to aboriginal people. Bill C-56 will help us do that for a number of Manitoba first nations. Although this proposed legislation is technical, its overriding objective is quite simple: to facilitate the implementation of claim agreements in Manitoba.

In doing this, Bill C-56 will address a number of specific commitments set out in Gathering Strength. It will affirm and honour treaties, which are the cornerstone of Canada's relationship with its aboriginal people. It will strengthen the capacity of first nations governments to make decisions about community lands and moneys as they move toward effective, legitimate and accountable self-government.

By overcoming obstacles that have slowed progress in the past, Bill C-56 will foster economic growth and development, consistent with our Gathering Strength commitment to support strong communities and people.

As hon. members can see, the bill has two parts. Part 1 deals with the flooded land master implementation agreement signed by the Norway House Cree Nation last year. Part 2 relates to the establishment of reserves in Manitoba under claim settlements, including treaty land entitlement agreements.

I want to make it clear at the outset that Bill C-56 will not give effect to any settlement agreement. The goal here is simply to ensure that land claim agreements, including those that may be negotiated in the future, can be implemented quickly and effectively.

I will review the key elements of Bill C-56 for the benefit of hon. members, particularly those across the way, who may not be familiar with the proposed legislation.

Part 1 of the bill is specific to a single Manitoba first nation, the Norway House Cree Nation. Hon. members will recall that Norway House was one of five Manitoba first nations that were severely affected by flooding caused by the hydroelectric projects in northern Manitoba in the early 1970s.

In an effort to address the devastating impact of the flooding on first nation communities, property and traditional livelihoods, Canada and other affected parties negotiated the northern flood agreement in 1977. Unfortunately the passage of time has shown the agreement to be flawed and difficult to implement. Despite years of effort, little progress was made in implementing many of its important and key elements.

In 1990 the parties to the northern flood agreement were able to reach consensus on a process for resolving the many outstanding issues. The proposed basis of settlement has provided a framework for negotiating master implementation agreements with four of the five affected first nations, the most recent being with Norway House.

I am pleased to report that the Norway House master implementation agreement is now being implemented. However, part 1 of Bill C-56 is needed to affirm certain elements of the agreement in law, just as previous legislation passed in this House has affirmed elements of the other three master implementation agreements.

Specifically Bill C-56 will ensure that any lands provided to Norway House in fee simple title will not become special reserves under section 36 of the Indian Act. This will enable the people of Norway House to use and control these lands as they see fit without the often burdensome administrative requirements the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development must impose under the Indian Act and other federal legislation and strict management rules.

In a similar vein, Bill C-56 will ensure that compensation moneys owed to Norway House will not be administered as Indian moneys under the Indian Act. Instead these moneys will be paid to and administered by a trust that has been established by the Norway House Cree Nation and which operates under its direction with proper accountability safeguards in place. Again, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will have no role in managing these moneys.

These exemptions from the Indian Act will have two strategic outcomes. Most importantly they will increase the Norway House Cree Nation's self-reliance and self-government capabilities. At the same time they will lighten the administrative load for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

The third thing this part of the legislation will do is give the master implementation agreement precedence over the northern flood agreement when a claim arises that could be settled or adjudicated under either agreement. The adjudication process set out in the master implementation agreement is widely regarded as being a superior approach.

Finally, part 1 of Bill C-56 will ensure that Canada has access to the provisions of the Manitoba Arbitration Act when dealing with disputes under the master implementation agreement.

The Norway House Cree Nation will also benefit from part 2 of the bill which is intended to advance the implementation of claim agreements in Manitoba by facilitating the transfer of lands to reserve status.

Gathering Strength calls for the development of vibrant on reserve economies. In order to do that we need to expedite the process of establishing reserves.

By way of background, part 2 of Bill C-56 has its origins in the issue of treaty land entitlements. As hon. members are aware, not all first nations received the full amount of land promised to them when they signed their treaties. For the past several years this government has been working to resolve this historical injustice by providing additional reserve lands to first nations with treaty land entitlements, including 26 first nations in Manitoba.

As part of this process, it has become clear that we need better legislative mechanisms to facilitate the transfer of lands to reserve status. Toward this end, part 2 of Bill C-56 will empower the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to set apart as reserves any of the lands selected by Manitoba first nations under a claim agreement. This will avoid the lengthy and cumbersome process of obtaining an order in council which is the approach currently used to establish reserve status.

However, the main objective of part 2 is to establish more effective mechanisms for accommodating and protecting third party interests that are identified during the reserve creation process. This will give first nations reasonable access to a broader range of lands that have development interests or potential. It will also significantly reduce the time required to add lands to reserves.

The sooner lands are identified and added to the reserve, the sooner they can contribute to the economic and social progress of the community. The key is to allow a first nation to consent to a third party interest on lands it wants to add to the reserve before those lands have actually been granted reserve status. The current wording of the Indian Act does not allow for this. A first nation can only consent to the creation of interests on land that is already part of the reserve, not on land that is simply being proposed for reserve status.

This effectively eliminates from consideration many parcels of land that have an existing third party interest, even something as basic as a right-of-way. The first nation cannot deal with the third party interest until the land is granted reserve status. The holder of that interest is unlikely to agree to the transactions without a guarantee from the first nation that its future rights will not be at risk.

Bill C-56 addresses the issue by giving Manitoba first nations a pre-reserve designation power as well as a pre-reserve permit granting power, each power being aimed at accommodating different kinds of third party interests. It also deals with the process first nations must follows to grant such interests.

The pre-reserve powers will not only apply to existing interests but will also allow a first nation to negotiate new rights that will come into effect upon reserve creation. This will ensure that first nations can take advantage of the development opportunities on their selected lands even before the reserve status is granted.

As I noted earlier, the impetus for the legislative changes set out in part 2 of the bill has been the desire of Canada, the Government of Manitoba and first nations to expedite the settlement of treaty land entitlement. At the same time these mechanisms will be made available to all other Manitoba claim settlement agreements, existing or future, that involve additions to reserves. These include the Norway House master implementation agreement dealt with in part 1 of Bill C-56, as well as the other three master implementation agreements signed under the northern flood agreement.

As a treaty land entitlement first nation Norway House will also benefit from the proposals to facilitate the transfer of lands to reserve status, which explains my earlier comment that Norway House will benefit from both parts of Bill C-56.

There is nothing controversial about the proposed legislation. It does not create new powers for first nations governments. Nor does it impose new obligations on Canadian taxpayers. In fact it will do the opposite by relieving the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development of some if its administrative responsibilities and by speeding the process of reserve creation. It also establishes clear cut legal mechanisms for protecting both third party and first nations interests in lands selected for additional reserves.

This is simply a good, clean piece of legislation that will move Canada forward in addressing its commitments to aboriginal people, strengthening the capacity for self-government and improving socioeconomic conditions on reserves. It deserves the support of hon. members, particularly hon. members of the Reform Party. I urge them to join me in voting to send Bill C-56 to committee for proper, due and quick review.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-56 which is somewhat different from other bills that have gone forward in relation to Indian treaty land claims.

It is a huge area of land to be transferred. It is something like 1,100,629 hectares and covers much of the northern part of Manitoba. Although we are talking about one specific band right now, it will include more with the total land claim.

The $76 million being provided is not a large amount, but I would agree with the hon. member on the government side who just mentioned speed. We in the Reform Party would like to see that an additional amount of land could be added to the particular reserve with speed so that some of the items outlined in the bill could be accomplished in a hurry. With that in mind, I think we will find support from the official opposition.

We agree that there are historical obligations. There is no question about that. Across Canada most people agree fundamentally that we should honour those treaties and it is time we got at it. We in the Reform Party are no different. We agree with that as well. We have these historical obligations. As the hon. member mentioned, this land will be added as quickly as possible to the reserve status.

The term self-reliance is a very important one. It is up to the government and all Canadians to see that self-reliance in fact takes place. However we do have some questions. I have some questions in particular within my own constituency. I would like the term self-government to mean the same thing for the settlement of a land treaty in Saskatchewan or one in northern Manitoba.

I am concerned that in this negotiation, the acquisition of land and the establishment of new reserves we could have different types of government for first nations. At the same time we would then have a quasi-judicial group of people not falling under the same piece of legislation.

It is incumbent upon the government to give us some idea and to give Canadians some idea of what the new partnership it talks of is about. I believe they are being sincere about that. I believe they are talking about a new partnership, a new way or a new understanding. To me partnership means a new understanding as well.

What puzzles me with land treaty agreements is that no one seems to be able to identify what is meant by self-government, as the hon. member mentioned. Is it right from reading the bill that self-government is up for negotiation by each of the land claims? As a new reserve is established or land is added to a reserve in my constituency, in moving toward self-government is it a negotiating matter, much like when they are given money to buy new land, which land is acquired through an agreement of the seller? Nobody quarrels with that, but as the land moves over into the reserve and falls away from the tax base, is there any compensation for the loss of another type of self-government, the municipal government?

We do not seem to have anything carved in stone or concrete about what we mean by the term self-government. I support the bill wholeheartedly. It was a long time coming. I believe it was started in 1977 and here we are 21 years later. That is nothing anyone can be proud of.

To be quite open with the government opposite, it is incumbent that the rest of Canada knows or has some idea in the settlement of treaty lands what is being negotiated. I have five reserves in my constituency and I know these people. I have 43 rural municipalities. They are all subject to one set of rural municipal law and regulations. I cannot imagine in rural Saskatchewan the government functioning without an act, some guidelines or some frames of reference. It just would not work. I think the hon. gentlemen opposite understand that.

If we are to have a new partnership then that partnership is between the new governments and the rest of Canada: other municipal governments, the provincial governments and with the federal government. Until that is clearly spelled out that partnership is an unknown quantity. This concerns Canadians.

I mentioned the other day that I first worked among the Nisga'a people the second year of teaching school. I was there with my wife. It was a great time. They were great people. I made a return visit there. I talked to the people I hunted moose with and the fellow who cut my hair. I had more hair then; I needed a barber. I asked them at that time what they wanted from self-government. They were not quite sure in this partnership. For instance, one chap was very interested in an economic venture.

If my hon. colleague opposite who just spoke to the bill and I were going into a business agreement, we would have to follow the business agreement criteria set out in the province in which we were working. I think he understands that. If we were to be in negotiation with the local RM, we would have to appear before that RM.

I understand that for people wishing to come on to reserve status land and wishing to enter an agreement need some government. There also needs to be rules in which they can operate and in which the other people coming in can operate. We could have all kinds of different agreements and arrangements without a clear definition of the statutory laws that must be in place. It would not be healthy for any first nation not to have some consistency.

In talking to these people I find that this is exactly what they want. They want to break from their traditional past. They want self-government but they want it from the grassroots up like in the recent municipal elections in Saskatchewan where so many are elected each year and follow the guidelines within the municipal act. We understand that.

I agree with the use and control of their lands as they see fit. We agree with that. We agree that a municipality, a city or a town can pass bylaws in control of their land. There will not be any opposition or quarrelling in that regard, but there will be strict management rules as was mentioned in a statement of another hon. colleague. Once that applies and if I live in the RM of 40 in southern Saskatchewan I must follow certain management rules of that RM. Therefore, if I move into another RM, for example No. 72, the same set of rules apply. Then there would be continuity. In this partnership we have an understanding not only among natives but among other citizens in Canada.

I like the term the hon. member used respecting accountability and safeguards being in place. In order to have accountability and safeguards in place we must move immediately to establish the groundwork of self-government.

We must have accountability. They are crying out for accountability. All Canadians are crying out for accountability, yet more and more we are moving away from accountability. The further government gets from people, the less accountability there seems to be.

While I agree with the bill and while I will be supporting it I do not support the continuance of further legislation unless the House has some idea of a bill or of anything else that may be used to describe the situation so all Canadians will know what we are negotiating. Are we negotiating self-government with each individual parcel? Does self-government mean the same with the Nisga'a as it does with the Norway House Cree? These are questions Canadians are asking. Can the hon. gentleman opposite answer those questions or does each individual Cree nation become a separate identity in itself where the laws and regulations regarding the people will not be governed by some other source?

It seems we are going down a trail in terms of future development, which may include mineral development or whatever, where there will be all kinds of lawsuits open to ourselves and all kinds of lawsuits open to the first nations unless we put together some kind of package. They cannot be sovereign unto themselves. That is not what Canadians understand. Canadians understand that the Government of Saskatchewan is not sovereign unto itself. They understand that its capital city of Regina is not sovereign and that it must fall under provincial jurisdiction.

There is a big vacuum out there, a big void in which we have no other answers. I wish we could have some. The hon. member just spoke very well on Bill C-56 and I wish we could discuss these issues. They are very important issues not just for the development of the new land treaties but important for the rest of us in Canada to know where we are going. It is incumbent on us that we do not proceed within a huge vacuum of misunderstanding concerning the meaning of self-government.

Reform will be supporting the bill and we are pleased to support it but we also raise the question being raised from coast to coast to coast of why we do not get down and finalize what accountability and partnership mean. Accountability and partnership mean nothing until we define what we mean by self-government.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at the request of my colleague, the member for Saint-Jean and Bloc Quebecois critic on native affairs, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-56 entitled An Act respecting an agreement with the Norway House Cree Nation for the settlement of matters arising from the flooding of land, and respecting the establishment of certain reserves in the province of Manitoba.

This bill has two parts. The first concerns the agreement reached with the Norway House Cree Nation on the settlement of matters arising from the flooding of land. The second provides for measures to facilitate the settlement of claims by the creation of reserves in Manitoba or by the addition of lands to existing reserves. Let us discuss the first part.

This part concerns the main agreement on implementation signed in 1997 by Canada, Manitoba and the Norway House Cree Nation. In the early 1970s, the latter was affected by a flood caused by the construction of a hydroelectric dam on the Nelson and Churchill rivers and by changes to Lake Winnipeg.

The 1997 agreement settles the obligations of the federal government under the 1977 Manitoba Northern Flood Agreement between the federal and Manitoba governments, Manitoba Hydro and the northern flood committee, on behalf of the first nations of Cross Lake, York Factory and Nelson House, and the Norway House and Split Lake Cree nations.

The 1997 agreement terminates the Norway House Cree Nation's claims regarding obligations unfulfilled by certain parties to the Manitoba Northern Flood Agreement.

The flood agreement signed in 1977 was designed to remedy the adverse effects of the Lake Winnipeg development and Churchill River diversion projects, which had resulted in approximately 12,000 acres of first nations' reserve land in northern Manitoba being flooded, as well as another 525,000 acres of non-reserve land that was used by the first nations affected.

In other words, the purpose of the agreement was to compensate the first nations affected by Manitoba Hydro work. While nicely described by then Indian affairs minister Warren Allmand as a charter of rights and benefits for those affected, the fact remains that the agreement was a precondition to any work.

Indeed, people's lives cannot be disrupted without at least compensating the communities for the significant changes imposed on them by hydroelectric projects. The extensive damage caused by the Lake Winnipeg development and Churchill River diversion projects completely changed the traditional way of life of the bordering communities.

We must bear in mind that more than 1,200 Cree people who lived alongside or near the affected areas were faced with an entirely new environment overnight. The Norway House Cree had always hunted and fished. They had to learn new ways and adjust to a totally different way of life. In particular, because of excessive water pollution, there were serious problems with fishing and with drinking water.

Members can imagine what an odd “charter of rights and benefits” this is for the Norway House Cree.

As well, although the Manitoba Northern Flood Agreement called for programs and compensation to make up for unfavourable outcomes, the roles and responsibilities of the parties still had to be clearly defined. Because of this, there were delays in the project and in the meeting of common obligations, such as adding land to the reserves, as well as arrangements to promote employment opportunities for the communities and environmental monitoring.

Implementation was not making any progress, and the parties could not reach agreement. In short, the spirit of co-operation was very much absent. More than 20 years passed without any clear definition of the mechanisms. For far too long, all sorts of dispute resolution approaches were resorted to, rather than giving preference to a co-operative and co-ordinated approach.

The four parties, in a desire to enhance the efficiency and reduce the costs of this undertaking, resumed negotiations in order to settle the claims and better define the obligations.

The four parties therefore negotiated a basic proposal to settle the outstanding land claims and the unfulfilled obligations. This proposal served as a starting point for negotiations with each first nation.

With the help of this proposal, negotiations were successful with four of the five first nations. As a result, the minister of Indian affairs signed implementation agreements with the Split Lake Cree First Nation in June 1992, the York Factory First Nation in January 1996, the Nelson House First Nation in March 1996, and the Norway House First Nation in December 1997.

A law is now required to provide for the comprehensive implementation of the provisions of the main Norway House Cree Nation agreement.

The first part of Bill C-56 will permit the lands provided within the framework of this agreement to be exempt from the provisions of the Indian Act. This will also permit the Norway House Cree Nation to use them for economic development purposes without administrative intervention by the minister of Indian affairs.

Under Bill C-56, the money due under the implementation agreement will be administered by a first nation's trust and not by the crown under the meaning of the Indian Act. Bill C-56 provides that all claims may be processed under the 1997 agreement exclusively.

Finally, this legislation provides recourse to Manitoba arbitration legislation in the event of a dispute between the parties to the implementation agreement.

In the first part, we consider these elements satisfactory and necessary to the implementation of the agreement.

We will now discuss the second part of Bill C-56, which concerns the federal government's commitments in the Framework Agreement, Treaty Land Entitlement, Manitoba. This part has broader scope than that of the framework agreement or of the first part of the bill. It will facilitate the implementation of all territorial claim settlements in Manitoba in which the government agrees to expand the size of a first nation reserve with, of course, the agreement of the first nation.

Under Bill C-56, the minister of Indian affairs may set aside lands as a reserve and the first nations will be able to create or accept the interests of third parties earlier in the reserve creation process than is currently possible.

This type of agreement is not new. There are in fact already a number of agreements in existence to settle claims in Manitoba providing for the expansion of first nation reserves.

The first, and most significant, is the one that concerns treaty land entitlement, which the federal government has not fully honoured. In other words, it has not granted enough land.

This is a major issue for the Manitoba first nations that signed or approved Treaties Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 10 between 1871 and 1910. Each of these treaties provided that reserve land would be allotted to first nations by the federal government according to the size of each family.

While the majority of first nations in Manitoba were assigned the land they were entitled to under these treaties, 26 nations were not assigned land.

In most cases, the problem arises from an inaccurate enumeration of members of the first nation or from insufficient land allocation. Efforts made to remedy this problem in the 1970s and 1980s were hampered by disputes on issues such as the availability, size and suitability of unused crown land.

The province's public interest requirements regarding new reserve land and the applicable area assessment method now required to meet the obligations set out in the treaties also hamper the settlement of claims.

Seven of the Manitoba first nations affected, who conducted separate negotiations, reached specific settlements regarding their land entitlements arising from treaties signed with Canada between 1994 and 1996. As a result, the federal government is required to add more than 170,000 acres to existing reserve land. It must also pay in excess of $51 million in financial compensation to the first nations affected.

As for Manitoba, its main obligation is to set aside 100,000 acres of unused public land—out of a total of 170,000 acres—as reserve land, which represents some $9 million.

On May 29, 1997, Canada, Manitoba and the Treaty Land and Entitlement Committee representing 19 other Manitoba first nations from among the 26 first nations that did not obtain lands under treaties, signed the framework agreement on land rights arising out of those treaties. These 19 first nations obtained reserves in excess of 1 million acres in all, but this still represents less than 1% of all of the land base in Manitoba.

For the federal government, the total cost of this settlement and implementation of the framework agreement relating to the 19 first nations is in the order of $98.8 million over 15 years, starting with the date of signature, May 29, 1997.

Other settlements in Manitoba which could come under this bill are the agreements with the Brokenhead and Sapotaweyak first nations, to whom the federal government must pay total compensation of $404,883 and provide lands with a total area of close to 213 acres for expansion of their reserves.

The Bloc Quebecois, via its aboriginal affairs critic, did not oppose the bill on the Split Lake first nation settlement, which was given royal assent on December 15, 1994. Nor did the Bloc Quebecois oppose the agreements with the York Factory and Nelson House first nations, which were both given royal assent in April 1997.

The Bloc Quebecois is, therefore, in favour of the underlying principles behind this bill. So, at first glance, we see no litigious or confusing clauses.

However, the Bloc Quebecois has serious reservations about the process the Norway House Cree Nation will follow in approving this agreement. In the Globe and Mail of January 30, we learned that the federal government had approved a second referendum on this agreement, a referendum we consider undemocratic, to say the least. Let me explain.

After the initial referendum on the matter of the Norway House agreement failed to pass by five votes on July 29, 1997, the Minister of Indian Affairs agreed to another referendum but changed the rules beforehand. First, a problem with the voters' list was cited. This was reviewed, because native people living off the reserve had apparently voted in the first referendum.

Under the new rules, only native people living on the reserve could vote. The voting system had been developed by the federal government and published in a guide book.

For the second vote on the matter, the federal government also offered $1,000 to each voter supporting the agreement. We can understand that the approximately 5,000 native persons living at Norway House, who have a hard time making ends meet, were not going to spit on this money. On the contrary, it was manna from heaven just before the holidays. It seems that the federal government simply bought votes.

I would point out to this House that the second referendum, with the vote buying scandal, was held, believe it or not, at the very moment the federal government was asking the Supreme Court to decide on the legality of Quebec's unilateral separation from Canada. Rather ironic, is it not?

Obviously this sort of practice raises some questions. For example, what is the relationship between the federal government and the native peoples? Is vote buying common practice? Is this how the Minister of Indian Affairs consults the native peoples in this country?

How can we trust the federal government in the future, when we know that the Department of Indian Affairs supported such an unjust operation?

In the light of the role of the federal government in this obviously undemocratic referendum process, how can it then turn around and try to give Quebec lessons on the democratic consultation of its people and the interpretation of the results?

Whatever the case, while the Bloc Quebecois does not oppose this bill in principle, rest assured that our native affairs critic will be questioning the witnesses appearing before the standing committee on this highly irregular event sullying Bill C-56.

[Louise Hardy, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I to rise to support this bill.

Looking at it in the context of the four categories in the minister's statement “Gathering Strength: Canada's Aboriginal Action Plan”, this bill would fit very well in renewing partnerships considering it has been 21 years with very little action or compensation for the first nations that were flooded. It is important to be willing to renew an partnership. It will strengthen aboriginal governance. It will support strong communities, people and economies. But it remains to be seen whether it is a commitment to a meaningful and lasting change for these people.

The minister goes on to say that we have to learn from the past, that we cannot afford to repeat mistakes. First nations people have suffered disproportionately for the last 150 to 200 years. They cannot afford to have government make any more mistakes on their behalf.

The document deals with increased access to lands and resources, that many first nations lands and natural resources offer the most important opportunity for creating jobs and economic development. The government will work with first nations, provinces and territories to strengthen the co-management process and provide increased access to land and resources. This is a very important political document because it reaffirms the commitment to self-government.

My Reform colleague said he did not know what self-government meant and that it should be the same for everyone. But the whole objective of self-government is so that it is not the same. It offers each band within a framework the ability to set its own standards and laws. They develop very differently culturally than Europeans. They have justice systems and access to resources that are very different from ours.

In Yukon land claims are not such a scary idea. Most of the 14 first nations are now implementing self-governing land claims. It has been a real benefit to Yukon. It was a long struggle. Implementation is not easy. Our auditor general has said he does not know if the amount of money settled will be enough to achieve the objective of the claims. But it is still an improvement. It is an improvement in the communities that have self-government. We can see the change. We can see the activity. We can see the determination.

My colleague was also worried about first nations governments not being accountable. By having self-government they are accountable to the people who elect them rather than being accountable to a bureaucracy that doles out money. They have to answer to their people. The first nations leaders I know are very dedicated individuals who have worked tirelessly on behalf of their people.

Bill C-56 is concrete proof of a movement toward living up to the “Gathering Strength” document. It has two parts. Part one of the bill relates to the settlement of matters arising from the flooding of lands as provided for in an agreement concluded with the Norway House Cree Nation which is very specific to it. Part two establishes mechanisms to facilitate the implementation of claims settlement in Manitoba by the creation of reserves or the addition of lands to existing reserves. Some of the first nations were shortchanged when their reserves were developed. This gives them the opportunity to redress it.

Part one pertains to the master implementation agreement signed in 1997 by the Government of Canada, the province of Manitoba, Manitoba Hydro and the Norway House Cree Nation which was affected by the flooding arising from hydroelectric projects.

The first nations affected by the flood were Cross Lake, York Factory, Nelson House, Split Lake Cree First Nations and the Norway House Cree Nation.

Because of the 1997 agreement which was difficult to implement there was very little movement in settling long outstanding problems and compensation. There was a proposed basis for settlement and four out of five first nations have signed the master implementation agreement.

Part two is the reserve establishment. It is related to federal government commitments in Manitoba to treaty land and the entitlement framework agreement of 1997.

On the basis of agreement from the first nations, part two would facilitate the implementation of any Manitoba claim settlement where Canada commits to increase first nations reserve land base.

This document provides a guide to the future. Treaties impose serious obligations and we need to respect those obligations and move forward.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-56, an act respecting an agreement with the Norway House Cree Nation for the settlement of matters arising from the flooding of land and respecting the establishment of certain reserves in the province of Manitoba.

This omnibus legislation deals with two issues, the Norway House Cree Nation's master implementation agreement resulting from the flooded land which we refer to as part one, and reserve establishment particularly in reference to the Manitoba treaty land entitlement framework agreement of 1997, part two. I will be speaking on these two issues separately and in the order I have just outlined.

I express my reservations about the combination of bills this legislation represents. While I certainly realize the issues are related, I feel these issues should be addressed separately to provide each bill with the attention it deserves.

With regard to the Norway House Cree Nation and the master implementation agreement that was signed by the first nation, the province of Manitoba, Manitoba Hydro and the federal government on December 31, 1997, while it was 1997 before the agreement was signed it was more than 20 years earlier that hydroelectric projects changed the way of life for the aboriginal people living in northern Manitoba.

In the early 1970s the Churchill and Nelson Rivers diversification projects and the late Winnipeg regulation project flooded more than 212,000 hectares in northern Manitoba. The flooded area included 4,800 hectares of reserve land and an additional 200,000 hectares of land used by the aboriginal people for traditional purposes such as hunting and trapping. This affected five first nations, the York Factory, Split Lake, Cross Lake, Nelson House and Norway House Cree Nations, comprising approximately 12,000 aboriginal people.

Recognizing the severe impact of the hydroelectric projects on the first nations in the area, Manitoba Hydro, the province of Manitoba, the federal government and the affected first nations signed the northern flood agreement. The flood committee incorporated was formed to act on behalf of the five first nations in the area affected by the flooding. It was this organization that signed the northern flood agreement on behalf of the first nations.

The purpose of the northern flood agreement was to provide a framework for compensating the first five nations affected by the hydroelectric projects.

These projects included the construction of up to 14 power stations, four which were constructed by the mid-1980s and 10 which will not be finished until the year 2050, a full 73 years from the signing of the agreement.

This is a long process and the results of the projects are far-reaching, both in terms of the amount of land flooded and the future impacts these developments will have on the life of the aboriginal people.

Since its signing on December 16, 1977, the northern flood agreement has been fraught with all kinds of problems. This has led to the failure to implement many of the provisions contained in the agreement and the first nations have been forced to seek restitution through a dispute resolution program. This was noted by the auditor general in his 1992 report as a major fault and something the federal government should address since adversarial positions seldom assist those groups most affected, in this case the five first nations.

It is not my intention at this stage of the process to go into any detail about the advantages and disadvantages of this legislation and the agreement it represents. That is best left for the committee stage when we will hopefully have an opportunity to hear from those individuals impacted by the flooding and the subsequent agreement. If it is anything like the tobacco bill, that process will not unfold to the satisfaction of many of us in this House.

Speaking to the terms of the agreement, under the master implementation agreement the Norway House Cree Nation will receive $78.9 million in cash and hydro bonds, and approximately 24,000 hectares of new reserve lands. The settlements of the other first nations range from $47 million and almost 14,000 hectares of new reserve land as well as 1,100 hectares of fee simple for Split Lake to $62.5 million and 22,000 hectares of new land reserve for Nelson House. York Factory received more than $24 million and 7,700 hectares of new land reserve as well as a segment of fee simple land.

The money mentioned in these settlements is being placed in trust for the first nations. In the case of Norway House, Keenanow Trust will be handling the proceeds. This is an important revision of the agreement since the money will not come under the terms of the Indian Act. Instead, first nations will have greater control over how and where this money is spent.

In order for the federal government to negotiate settlements individually with the first nations it was necessary for the parties to negotiate the proposed basis of settlement. Since the first five nations were at various stages of agreement this was the only way for the government to bring to closure the northern flood agreement.

Cross Lake, the only first nation that has not signed an implementation agreement, remains opposed to doing so and has been active in seeking support for treaty recognition of the northern flood agreement.

The Manitoba aboriginal justice inquiry of 1991 stated that the governments of Manitoba and Canada recognize the northern flood agreement as a treaty and that the two governments should honour and properly implement the terms of the northern flood agreement. While the master implementation agreement signed by the four other first nations will ensure that they begin receiving the compensation promised under the northern flood agreement, the question of treaty status for the agreement has never been completed to the satisfaction of all parties involved.

The community of Norway House voted in a referendum to accept the master implementation agreement. While questions have been raised about the validity of the process, the community members voted to accept the agreement in the second referendum. This should reflect the community's acceptance of the terms of the agreement and their satisfaction with it, or at least a desire to move on.

This legislation is not necessary for the implementation of this agreement since it has already been going ahead. Instead, this legislation is another step toward implementing terms of the northern flood agreement and the federal government's obligations under the agreement with regard to the first nations which have signed implementation agreements. This does not apply to Cross Lake as I mentioned earlier.

This issue is one I look forward to studying more closely at committee stage, particularly in terms of the first nations' views of the agreement and the northern flood agreement. One advantage of this legislation should be the opportunity to move away from the dispute resolution process to a more conciliatory form of negotiation and discussion.

I would like to take a look at the second part of this legislation to establish reserves in the province of Manitoba. Part 2 of this legislation is expected to assist in establishing reserves where an obligation exists in a current or future agreement to set aside land for this purpose.

This has particular relevance for the signatories to the Manitoba treaty land entitlement framework agreement. Treaties signed between 1871 and 1910 and, in particular, the claims of 19 first nations affected by these treaties make up the treaty land entitlement framework agreement. These 19 first nations signed the agreement in May 1997.

Under the original treaties of 1, 2 and 5, each family of five was to receive 65 hectares of land. Under treaties 3, 4, 6 and 10, 260 hectares of land was to be provided for each family of five.

Problems arose, however, when the first nations claimed they did not receive their full entitlement. Some of the band member counts were inaccurate because members of the first nations were away hunting when the surveys were taken. It sounds like what happens to us when we attempt to set up a voters' list. The same problems occurred there. In some cases insufficient land was selected by the first nations when given the opportunity to claim their land under those very treaties.

These entitlements have never been settled with some of the first nations. In fact, only seven of a possible twenty-six first nations that did not receive their full allotment under the treaties have since settled their claims.

The land to be allocated to the 19 first nations who signed the agreement last year is 445,400 hectares. That is slightly less than 1% of the land mass of Manitoba and about 8% of the province of Nova Scotia. The province of Manitoba will provide most of this land from crown land that the federal government and Manitoba agreed would be used for this purpose. The remainder will be provided from private landowners on a willing-buyer/willing-seller basis. In other words, private landowners who do not wish to sell their land will be not be forced to do so.

What this legislation is attempting to do is make it easier to establish reserves from both the federal government's and first nations' perspective. One of the ways the legislation will achieve this is by providing the minister with the power to confer reserve status. That is an important point.

This eliminates the need to obtain governor in council approval, thereby reducing the time the process takes in facilitating full implementation.

In addition, changes are made in the legislation to address third party interests. If agreements currently recognize third party interests in the land, these interests would typically fall under provincial jurisdiction. With the creation of a reserve, however, they would fall under federal jurisdiction.

Accommodating this change in jurisdiction is a very time-consuming process. This has been mentioned as one of the major delays in processing land selections for reserves. With the legislation, reserve status will be conferred subject to that third party interest so the easement or right of way of the third party would be able to continue as the jurisdiction changes.

Perhaps of greater importance or significance, especially for the first nations, is that this legislation allows first nations to establish new third party interests, not just those existing at the time of reserve establishment.

This also allows first nations to take advantage of economic development opportunities as they become available instead of being forced to wait for the land to be given reserve status.

I would like to mention again that this legislation, both parts 1 and 2, requires greater research and consideration on the part and on behalf of the Parliament of Canada. This is something we look forward to doing at committee stage.

At the same time, I certainly realize that the agreement is already in place and functioning. The purpose of the legislation before us is to provide the government with the authority to implement some of these provisions.

Part 2 requires further study as well. It appears to be beneficial to first nations by allowing them to take advantage of conditions on a timely basis and speeding up the process of reserve creation. Obviously, this would be beneficial to the first nations, but again it needs to be examined very closely.

I look forward to studying this legislation, along with my colleagues, at committee stage and learning more about these issues. At this time I still have some serious reservations, as does my party, about this legislation.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I noticed in the comments of the member for New Brunswick Southwest that he said that some portions of this bill are not needed because negotiations are ongoing. I did not quite catch what he meant, but it was something to that effect.

If I understand correctly, this is to finalize compensation for land flooded for a hydroelectric project that dates back some 21 years. I am having an extremely difficult time understanding how such a project would go ahead without having the terms of the settlement in place before the project was undertaken.

As is the case with a lot of members of this House, I have some experience in municipal politics. I know that if a municipality built a road and annexed some land from neighbouring landowners, whether crown land, Indian reserves or fee simple land, and then later went back to the people who were affected and said “By the way, we built a road on your place and we would now like to start to negotiate what it is going to cost us for that right of way”, for the land that has been taken off the title or out of production or whatever, that is an absolutely backward way of doing business.

One of the most important considerations in a project that is going to go ahead is what the acquisition of the land is going to cost. That is something that has to be determined up front, not some 21 years later.

I wonder if the member for New Brunswick Southwest would like to clarify the comments he made so that I could better understand where he is coming from.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of clarification and going beyond the member's question, I mentioned the historical impact of this bill. It goes back to the principle of negotiation and how these agreements are established in the first place.

I think the point the member was making was that before we go into this we need long term planning. In other words the government sometimes goes into these negotiations in the wrong way. We have seen it happen so many times and it is something we could accuse the government of doing almost on a day to day basis. We have to put some of those mistakes behind us. We have to proceed with the only process available to us. Recognizing that there have been mistakes in the past, hopefully we will minimize mistakes in the future as we hold the government's feet to the fire. Again I go back to the opportunity we will have at committee stage with regard to this bill.

Taking the member very seriously, he is absolutely right. So little planning has gone into some of these mega projects, developments and settlements that impact on a good many Canadians. Sometimes those projects and the disruption of the lives of families happen close to home.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest to comment on something that has been troubling me for a long time.

This government seems to be entering into a multiplicity of land settlements with native bands or groups of natives on an absolutely ad hoc basis. Nobody gets the same deal. It is not just a question of wanting one size to fit all, we have one size that fits practically nobody. Every time there is a problem or every time somebody has been shortchanged on their land entitlements, the government sets out through the department of Indian affairs and comes up with something absolutely new. This is not a sensible way to do business.

The problem is made even worse by the fact that most of the agreements when made contain what we call a me too clause. If one band gets a better deal on a particular problem than some other band got on its, then the other deal can be reopened and brought up to speed so that everybody gets treated equally. If everybody is going to get treated equally, why could we not have a set of rules, some guidelines, something to follow before we get into these things?

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree with the member more. It is a good question to ask.

I see that we do have the justice minister in the House this evening. She is probably in a better position to answer on behalf of the government than I am. More precisely hopefully the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will be in the House before the evening is over.

Those are legitimate questions that have to be answered by the government itself.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to get involved in the last bit of the debate that is going back and forth.

I have some personal knowledge of the hydro dams in northern Manitoba. I worked on them as a carpenter. It was a good source of work for me but I was also quite sympathetic with what was being done in the outlying areas. I visited some of the communities prior to their being flooded and then again after they were flooded.

To help shed some light on the questions raised by the member for Wetaskiwin, I think that in 1977 when the northern flood agreement was finally negotiated it was actually about seven years after the main damage of flooding was done.

When the first big wave of flooding happened, the Notigi diversion from the Churchill River into the Nelson River, nobody really understood just how devastating that would be. They actually thought raw land could be flooded without clearing any of the trees first. They were flooding whole forests. They did not realize that mercury and other stuff leeching out of the soil after years would kill off the fish stocks. A mumbo-jumbo of trees fell to the point where the lakes were not navigable, even if people did want to fish.

In and around 1970 it was an NDP government that orchestrated a lot of the original flooding. It completely underestimated the damage from what it was doing. The government thought it could simply take people from one community, transplant them and flood the old land and they would still be able to use the lake and land in the same way. It just was not true.

When the northern flood agreement was negotiated, it was clear that far more compensation would be needed and far more impact studies would have to be done before any real package could be arrived at.

Happily we are now at the point where a lot of this stuff is being remedied. A lot of measures are being taken to try to put these people's lives back in order.

Somebody mentioned that $76 million is involved in the Norway House case. It is a lot of money, but the net profit to Manitoba from selling hydroelectricity is $250 million to $300 million per year. It is a huge revenue producer. Manitobans also get the lowest hydroelectricity costs anywhere in the country, two and a half cents per kilowatt which is about one-third of those in many other places.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the comments of the member for Winnipeg Centre speak highly of him and show that he is very sensitive to the issue before the House.

In terms of sensitivity, I will go back to what the member said on the human tragedies that result because of some of these developments. That is something I do not think we have ever, regardless of what colour or stripe the government is, considered in the sense of how it should be considered when it is the environment and human tragedies that play out. Those are things that are left for others to clean up and deal with. It goes back to what some of the other members have mentioned. It goes back to planning, talking to the human beings who are affected by some of these developments.

This is a legacy we do not want to leave. We want to show that we are compassionate, that we have to act in the best interests of all Canadians. Disrupting people and the environment is not the answer.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Davenport, the Environment; the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, Employment Insurance; the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest, Bill S-13.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-56, the Manitoba claim settlements implementation act.

My comments will be on part 2 of the legislation which establishes a means to facilitate the implementation of land claim settlements in Manitoba through the creation of new reserves or the addition of land to existing reserves.

When government is adding new land to reserves or creating new reserves would be an ideal time to look at the problems in terms of accountability on reserves now and to deal with some of the problems. It is unfortunate that did not take place in conjunction with this legislation. There was very little change that will lead to any improvement in accountability.

During my presentation I am going to refer to a task force I put in place. It is a process that three aboriginal people from my constituency of Lakeland and I went through. We wanted to find out how aboriginal people felt on these issues. I will go through all the recommendations later and then talk a bit about how the task force was set up. I will start by summarizing the comments on accountability made by some of the aboriginal people who presented their cases before the task force.

They said that more transparent financial reporting by band and settlement administrators is needed. That is no surprise. We have brought example after example before this House of the complete lack of proper fiscal accountability on reserves. They were clear that governments at all levels, including native leaders, need to consult their members far more often to ensure that those consultations are reflected in policy. They even said that they would like an ombudsman set up to act on complaints laid out by aboriginal Canadians. They also said that more scrutiny needs to be applied to bands during elections. These are only some of the recommendations made by task force members.

When I looked at this piece of legislation, I asked how many of those recommendations have been implemented in this legislation. The response from Liberal members across the floor was why should they implement changes that came from a Reform MP. I would like to respond by saying that these recommendations did not come from a Reform MP. They came from a task force which included three aboriginal people and myself.

We make it very clear that the recommendations do not necessarily reflect Reform policy, which is fine. The fact is that none of the task force members are Reform Party members. I do not even know if any of them are Reform Party supporters yet, although I do believe that because of the work we have done some of them probably are. However, that is not important.

What is important is that the recommendations came from the aboriginal people themselves. And my question is, why are those recommendations not reflected in this piece of legislation? I believe the members across the floor will probably say “Why would we want to act on a document that has been presented by a Reformer”.

I would like to read the response from the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to the task force report we presented to her. She finally agreed after a little public pressure was applied to meet with the task force members. We met in September during the first week that the House sat in this session. She gave us ample time to present our case and I appreciate that.

I was very disappointed however by some of things she said. I will begin by referring to her letter of response to the task force report. My disappointment will become evident as I read through part of this letter:

There is no question that accountability is an important issue. Accountability is key to governance. We cannot build self-sustaining, self-governing First Nation communities without it. It is an issue for us as Parliamentarians with a responsibility to Canadians, and it is an issue for First Nations who must be accountable both to their communities and to Parliament for the resources appropriated to support service delivery. That is clearly the conclusion of the work of the Lakeland task force, just as it was also identified as important in the work of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and in “Gathering Strength: Canada's Aboriginal Action Plan', our response to the work of the royal commission.

What the minister is saying is the Lakeland aboriginal task force presented really fits in perfectly with what has been presented in the past, including by the most recent royal commission and by her response to that commission. So she is acknowledging that what is in the report is what they heard through their commissions as well.

I guess my question is why has the minister not acted on it. Why has she not at least made some movement toward acting on some of these recommendations in this piece of legislation?

I will read more of the minister's response:

Within “Gathering Strength”, we set out four themes to be the foundation of a changed and better relationship with aboriginal people in Canada: renewing the partnership; strengthening aboriginal governance; developing a new fiscal relationship; and investing in communities, people and economies. In each of these themes, there is an opportunity and a commitment to focus on accountability.

She goes on to reinforce that accountability is important and there is a lot of work to be done:

When we look at the tremendous challenge of building sustainable governments, and what a complex and difficult process that is, we need to recognize that there are reasons for this. For decades, we have tried to control virtually every aspect of the lives of the aboriginal people. First nations are making their own decisions—defining how they want to be governed; setting their own priorities; and speaking up to hold their leaders accountable.

I agree with part of that statement. Aboriginal people are speaking up to hold their leaders accountable. But what I do not agree with is the minister's statement that first nations are making their own decisions and defining how they want to be governed. What really is happening is that the leadership of first nations and the national leadership such as Phil Fontaine are saying what they want to see in terms of accountability. They are saying how they want leadership to look. But the aboriginal people have not been listened to at all. The grassroots aboriginal people have not been listened to and that is reflected in this legislation and what is missing from this legislation. I think I will leave my reading of the minister's response at that.

I would like to explain a bit about the Lakeland aboriginal task force and why we started it, how it was set up and then refer to some of the recommendations. I know I am not going to get through the recommendations but I am going to really try this time to get through the first five, because it is the first five that deal with accountability, both fiscal and electoral.

I think those examining this legislation and my colleague and others who have spoken on this legislation already have pointed out some of the things missing in terms of accountability. I am sure as this debate goes on others will point out how the minister has really missed the target in terms of taking the opportunity when she is expanding reserves and establishing new reserves of making sure accountability will be there. She has really missed the boat.

The reason I established the aboriginal task force in the Lakeland constituency was that shortly after the last election my constituency boundaries were changed substantially. Beaver River and Vegreville were put together, two-thirds of each, into a new Lakeland constituency. In Vegreville the constituency which I represented before the election, there were no reserves or Métis settlements. In the Lakeland constituency there are eight reserves and four Métis settlements, an aboriginal population of probably around 30,000 people which is quite substantial out of a total population of about 110,000.

Shortly after the election I started getting phone calls from aboriginal people, some on reserves, some in Métis settlements and some living in communities near reserves. Over the first couple of dozen calls I started to see common themes developing.

These themes were that there is virtually no accountability on reserves. What we have are chiefs and councils taking in the money, not accounting for it and spending the money the way they see fit. They do not necessarily follow the guidelines that are laid out by Indian affairs. What became very clear is that many people living on reserves, the people the money was supposed to find its way to, were being completely missed.

I heard one story after another of extremely crowed living conditions. People had nowhere to stay and did not know where they were going to spend this winter. People were not covered by health care for special expensive medication. They were being completely missed. I heard from a lot of people who are covered under Bill C-31 and who were supposed to have some of the benefits of reserves. They were being pushed aside and felt they belonged nowhere. Chiefs and councils decided they were not going to accept those people, so they did not. I heard from dozens and dozens of people throughout the task force process, some by telephone calls before we set the task force up.

I also got calls from people who pointed out specific examples of how money was being completely misspent. In some cases they pointed to cases of fraud which were borne out later by investigations and audits. Many of these people called for a forensic audit. They wanted audits that determined where the money was coming from, how much was coming in and how it was being spent. They felt that the current audits being done on the reserves were virtually useless. It was chiefs and councils that ordered the audits and determined what kind of audit they wanted. Furthermore, they would only make available a summary and in some cases nothing at all. The accountability was not there.

After I received enough of these calls I decided that I had to do something about it. As a member of parliament it is my job to represent my constituents. I went to some friendship centres in towns near reserves. I got together with a few people and asked them what could be done. They said they had different ideas but said we should get a group of aboriginal people together in one place and decide what could be done. We did that.

A group of about 20 aboriginal people met in Bonnyville and we set up the aboriginal task force of originally four aboriginal members and me. Then we laid out guidelines that would guide us in our process. We first determined that the purpose of the aboriginal task force would be to hear grassroots aboriginal people in the constituency. That was the purpose, to hear them, not to tell them what we thought on issues. That is what we did.

Throughout the process we heard from about 300 aboriginal members. That may not sound like a lot, but several of these people, recorded on tape and TV cameras, said they had never before in their lives had anyone in any position in government really listen to them. I thought that was a pretty sad statement. It did not come from just one. It came from several people.

They did say that from time to time they had a minister of Indian affairs listen to certain chiefs and council members. But it was rare. They said that people listened to Phil Fontaine all the time. The minister listens to Phil Fontaine but nobody has ever listened to them before. It was time and the task force was put together to do that.

We did listen and we did it in three stages. We started in the first stage with private, confidential consultations. We held these consultations at various native friendship centres around the constituency. The reason we did this was that more aboriginal people, particularly from reserves, felt comfortable coming in to native friendship centres. They did not feel that they would be detected easily. Think about that.

They felt more comfortable coming to native friendship centres but they certainly would not go to a hall in a community near a reserve because they were afraid they would be detected and that there would be a price to pay from chief and council. This was very common. Some people who went said they knew they would pay for going but they decided it was time to go anyway. And so they did. We heard from them. Some of them did pay a price.

Mr. Charles Favel was there more than once throughout the process. I heard from him before we started. I have a letter from his chief and council that says Mr. Favel will be banished from the reserve because he went to the media in Edmonton and because he was involved with this member of parliament. He was banished from the reserve. The letter is quite unbelievable. I have copies of it for anyone who would like to see it. It was a bit of a baptism for me as to what can happen and just how serious it can be for aboriginal people from reserves to dare to say things are not as they should be on reserve.

We also put the invitation to chiefs and councils by letter to all chiefs and Métis settlement councils in my constituency. The letter we got back said that I basically had no right to do this. I could not quite understand that so I sent a letter back saying I thought I did. They invited me to a tribal chiefs council meeting. I went to that meeting where some of the chiefs said that I had no right to do what I was doing. I thought that as a member of parliament I had not only a right but a responsibility to represent all constituents. I had not heard that Indian people living on reserves or Métis people living in Métis settlements or aboriginal people living in communities near reserves were not my constituents. Of course they are. I am going to represent them.

I will talk more about this aboriginal report during debate on this bill and on Bill C-49. Then I may get through all the recommendations. I am extremely disappointed that this legislation does not show the Indian affairs minister really means what she said in her letter of response to the task force when she acknowledged there are serious problems of lack of accountability, fiscal, electoral and democratic. She acknowledged that is the case but I would like someone to show me where that is reflected in this legislation, ensuring that as these reserves are expanded and as new reserves are established a proper level of accountability will be put in place so we will know the money that is going to the reserves is getting to the people it is intended to go to. It is not happening now.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, for months we have been listening to the Reform Party thread together isolated incidents of problems on reserves. Reformers have been trying to thread those incidents into an overall package that aboriginal leadership is corrupt, inept or incapable of handling its own self-government. It is no coincidence that this kind of talk is escalating now as we get closer to the historic Nisga'a deal.

Throughout B.C. there has been a very organized campaign to try to stop the Nisga'a self-government deal. We have seen newspaper editors manipulating their stories in the press, those who are convinced they are against us. We have seen a former Reform Party researcher leave his job with the Reform Party, move to British Columbia and set up the B.C. chapter of FIRE, the anti-Indian organization from the United States. This is now the B.C. chapter of FIRE dedicated to holding aboriginal people back.

I have sat here and listened day after day to speaker after speaker trying to convince everyone that aboriginal people are corrupt, mismanage all their funds and some even wear expensive jewellery. I even heard allegations that aboriginal leaders are dressing too well, that they are rich and people on their reserves are poor.

To try to imply that it is some kind of national trend, that all aboriginal communities are corrupt, is absolutely intellectually dishonest. I have listened to it for about as long as I care to. I am sure we will hear more of it as the whole Nisga'a debate continues.

Some comments have been very revealing of the true attitudes. I heard the Reform member for Athabasca say “Just because we didn't kill the Indians and have Indian wars, that doesn't mean we didn't conquer these people. Isn't that why they allowed themselves to be herded into little reserves in the most isolated, desolate, worthless parts of the country?” Other Reform members likened Indians living on reserves to people living on a south sea island, courtesy of a rich uncle. Another member of the Reform Party accused native Indians of practising South African style apartheid because they want to set up their own aboriginal self-government and have control of their own communities, as if that is apartheid.

The first time that I heard of that position was on the front page of the Up Front magazine. Up Front is the publication of Heritage Front. That was the postulation of the president of Heritage Front, Wolfgang Droege, another former Reform Party member, two years ago. I have a copy of it if anyone would like to see it.

There is a disturbing connection between the extreme right winger in the country vehemently opposed to aboriginal self-government and the comments made by the Reform Party. It is being picked up in the mainstream media by other anti-Nisga'a campaigners like Gordon Gibson, the former leader of the Liberal Party in British Columbia, who is also involved with FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Equality.

These people believe that all people must be treated equally, whereas Judge Murray Sinclair, an aboriginal leader in Manitoba, pointed out clearly that to treat all people equally when they are in fact unequal is in itself a problem that compounds the problem.

I hear people laughing. To try to imply that we can allocate the same type of principles to all people equally is not recognizing the unequal situation that aboriginal people find themselves in now. Special circumstances are in order. That is why we as Canadians are willing to give special consideration to aboriginal self-government.

I guess I like the comments of the member of the Reform Party who spoke previously. Do you or do you not agree with the positions of the anti-Indian movement, FIRE, as chaired by a former federal Reform Party researcher, Greg Hollingsworth?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I remind members to direct their comments through the Chair.