House of Commons Hansard #152 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was reserves.

Topics

Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Reform

Leon Benoit Reform Lakeland, AB

Mr. Speaker, I do not know anything about this member's reference to a former Reform researcher being involved in some sinister kind of organization. It does not sound like something a Reform researcher would be involved in.

What we have heard from this member today is some of the most despicable kind of mud slinging I have ever heard. I have heard a lot of it before coming from across the floor, but I do not think I have ever heard anything any worse than that.

He virtually used all the ism words that he could imagine without saying them directly. I think the kind of tactic used by this member is what is killing fair and proper debate in the House of Commons and across the country.

He should be thoroughly ashamed of himself. For him to imply that Reform is trying to do anything but help aboriginal people completely ignores the truth. I hope the member would stand and apologize when he gets the next opportunity, because it is a despicable approach to take to debate in the House and he should be ashamed of himself.

I would like to refer to one of the member's comments. He thought I sounded like I was saying that all chiefs and councils across the country were corrupt. I do not believe that is the case, although we did hear from all eight reserves in the Lakeland constituency of very serious claims about money not being allocated properly. Whether that constitutes corruption or not I guess is a matter for debate.

In many cases it is very clear that there was corruption because the audits have been done and it was proven through the audits. In some cases charges were laid and guilt was affirmed through the justice system. To say that it is across the country, I do not believe that is true. I do not believe it is on all reserves, but it is on many reserves and it is certainly a problem in my constituency. We are trying to rectify the problem by calling for proper accountability. That is what the Lakeland aboriginal task force heard from grassroots aboriginal people.

Let us get some real accountability into the system so the money that is being spent and coming into the reserves from taxpayers' through the federal government, the department of Indian affairs, and the money from oil and gas revenue as an example are accounted for. How much is coming in needs to be clearly accounted for and the people themselves need to know where the money is being spent. On all eight reserves in Lakeland constituency the people said very clearly that there was not proper accounting.

In the report we certainly were not attacking chiefs and councils. We were maybe a little kind but that is the tone we wanted in the report. Our recommendation No. 2 was on accountability. To assure sound financial management on reserves and settlements the government must provide better financial management support for aboriginal councillors and administrators. The second recommendation called for some help from the department of Indian affairs to teach chiefs and councils how to account properly.

Does that sound like we are slamming chiefs and councils? We deliberately took a very conciliatory tone. We did not attack chiefs and councils although some of the individuals who made presentations did. That is reality. We cannot change that. We deliberately presented it in a way that would allow chiefs and councils to improve so that they would become truly accountable. That is the tone we took and that is what we presented to the minister.

I close by saying that it is extremely sad and troublesome that after all this time we would still have the kind of attack launched by a member of the New Democratic Party against any member of the House. It would be unfair for any member to be painted in the way that he painted some of us today.

Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Reform

Howard Hilstrom Reform Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to be in the House once again to talk about aboriginal affairs, particularly where they come into play in Manitoba.

Selkirk—Interlake is located in the centre of Manitoba. It borders and includes the very lake we are discussing today, Lake Winnipeg, which flows north into the Nelson and Churchill river system and ultimately ends up in the Hudson Bay.

If I could reiterate a bit, Bill C-56 deals with a settlement of matters arising from the flooding of land on the Norway House Indian Reserve and on other reserves. It is with respect to the establishment of certain reserves, the adding of land to land currently held. The land which was flooded belonged to the Norway House Indian Band and would ultimately have become their land under treaty entitlements.

All Manitobans, myself included, have benefited greatly through the actions of the Government of Manitoba and its crown corporation, Manitoba Hydro. Native people in Manitoba have also benefited greatly in that we now have hydro going into most reserves.

Some members from Manitoba, including the member for Provencher, seem to indicate they are experts on Manitoba natives. I agree that no doubt the member has some knowledge. However, like the member from Winnipeg Centre, they do not have all-encompassing knowledge of what is going on in reserves. They could have had historical references for the last six to ten years when the Reform Party talked about accountability.

I will deal with the bill in two parts. The first part will be with regard to the flooding of land and the second will be with regard to some accountability issues.

The Norway House band land which was flooded was excellent trapping land. It was land they had occupied for thousands of years. They should be compensated for that land. There is absolutely no problem with that on my part. I encourage the provincial and federal governments along with the aboriginal people as they proceed to compensate for the damage.

The parties to my right, my left and opposite seem to want to isolate aboriginal affairs into a stand alone situation. We share this land together. Our national boundaries are well known from coast to coast to coast. We and the aboriginal people share this common land.

For just a minute I would like to show that is the case. Organizations on Lake Winnipeg in my riding have had some spill over effect from the flooding. The organizations of which I speak are the Lake Winnipeg Property Owners' Association and a lady by the name of Lorraine Sigvaldason who is important in that organization, along with Baldur Nelson and Mr. Nelson Gerrard of the Bifrost Lakeshore Homeowners Coalition. Nowadays the lake is at a high level in order to accommodate the generation of hydro. All Manitobans are sharing in the benefits and the losses associated with major hydro electric developments.

Some problems experienced in the south end are with respect to ongoing excessive and rapid erosion of land, physical loss of highly assessed residential property, permanent destruction of prime sandy beaches, rapid deepening of the inshore lake bottom, devaluation of prime real estate, destruction of wildlife habitat, hazards to marine activity in the form of floating and submerged debris, and severe financial losses and burdens for lakeshore residents. They suggest some solutions. This is a concern that has been around my riding and the province of Manitoba for some time.

Aboriginal people live along this lake that is affected by the flooding, including the Norway House band and the organizations I have spoken of, say the problem has to be acknowledged and addressed in an honest fashion. Lake level regulation must take into account actual water levels rather than statistically altered and wind eliminated or monthly average levels.

Their request to various levels of governments has been that those who have suffered losses deserve compensation whether such losses were the direct result of an act of God as in the flood in the Red River Valley or the acts of government and hydro.

Issues dealing with aboriginals have to be thought of in the context of dealing with all Canadians. That is what seems to be missing in some of the debates on the particular bill as it is with many other bills.

With regard to solutions on Lake Winnipeg, Mr. Wilfred L. Arnason suggested that additional causeways near Hecla Island, a narrow opening between the north basin and the south basin of Lake Winnipeg, could be spanned by additional bridges accommodating the inflows of all rivers, creeks and ditches entering the south basin. The idea that there would be an additional flow of water out of the south into the north basin would help to provide a solution with regard to erosion problems.

I am not privy to all the details of how the $78.9 million in cash and hydro bonds with regard to how compensation for the Norway House band was arrived at, but if the Manitoba government, the federal government and the aboriginal people agreed to that it would seem to be fair. I could support that on my part. The moneys owed under the agreement are not payable to the crown as Indian moneys but as moneys to be held by the minister in trust. I will deal with that in a moment.

I certainly agree with the creation of a resource co-management board with Manitoba. Co-management of resources is exactly what I have been talking about. It will be a good aspect of the agreement. As I have noted in past speeches, the ability of an aboriginal first nation to pass laws in conflict with federal laws, in other words the aboriginal law supersedes, is not in the best interests of Canada, of all Canadians or of our living together.

As a result when I see the terms co-management and working hand in hand, the people of Manitoba both aboriginal and non-aboriginal working hand in hand, that is exactly the way it is supposed to be. That is what I am attempting to promote as the member of parliament representing Selkirk—Interlake and, I might add, representing all Manitobans. I have been involved in various accountability issues with the first nations people where people from all parts of the province and most of the aboriginal first nations approached me with their problems, concerns and their solutions.

I mentioned that this money was to go to the first nations people to be administered in trust. This is where the member from Winnipeg Centre said that the Reform Party was—he did not say crying wolf—trying to take a few little incidents and make them into some kind of statement that all chiefs and councils are either crooked or mismanaging funds.

Earlier in my speech I said that members opposite, along with the members to my right, have not kept an eye on what happened in terms of the northern flood agreement which included about six other bands. I would like to refer to what happened when the Nelson House band was paid several million dollars from the federal government. It went into a Winnipeg account and through a lawyer. I will not repeat the exact amount of money that was to go to the band. A non-aboriginal consultant and the ex-chief of the Nelson House band were involved in handling the moneys.

It is well known in the House and back in Manitoba that I was a member of the commercial crime section of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. We received a complaint with regard to how those moneys in trust were handled. We conducted an investigation. I will not take credit for doing the whole investigation because I had some able assistance from other members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. We laid charges of misappropriation of that money which was held in trust, the big guarantee, the guarantee that is referred to in the agreement, the money in trust. Many thousands of dollars were taken contrary to the trust agreement. We ended up in a court case that went on for some time and that chief was convicted of stealing the moneys held in trust.

I hear members talk in the House about the Reform Party making up stories about possible problems. I am telling the House and all members that the problems are real. The white consultant still had some assets which we were able to seize under proceeds of crime legislation and ultimately have forfeited to the crown. He passed away before the case went to court so I will not mention his name.

Just as we have seen in many thousands of cases across the country, when people receive something in trust such as moneys or other goods like lands or whatever it cannot be automatically assumed that with the fiduciary responsibility, the trust responsibility, they will handle the moneys in a manner according to the trust conditions, in this case for the native peoples of that reserve. I have told members how the trust agreement did not protect the moneys of the Nelson House band.

Over the years I went through RCMP investigations, many times with aboriginal reserve complaints from people who felt that moneys were being mismanaged. There was no way, due to a number of different factors, of ever laying charges or having a solution through the criminal courts. We laid charges in this one case, the Nelson House case, with regard to northern flood agreement moneys.

I ended up retiring from the RCMP and in politics which is why I am standing here today. Once again I have a responsibility to the people of Manitoba and my constituency to speak out on behalf of constituents in my riding. Many people on reserves in my riding have come to me and said there was an accountability problem on their reserves. Not only did they have a lot of problems with social conditions and lack of housing. They could not find out where in the heck the money coming into the reserve was going. They saw some people doing very well on the reserve, primarily at the elected level, but they needed answers. They needed to find out what was going on.

When members opposite and the community at large in Canada see reports in the paper of Reform speaking out about these issues, we are speaking out on behalf of people who do not have a voice to speak out on their own. These are the non-elected people. Many of them are women and young people who are not in the aboriginal electoral process. They are not elected officials and are not in non-aboriginal government offices. That is why my colleagues and I speak out so strongly on this matter.

Accountability should be included in these agreements. Actually it should be included for aboriginal governments at the band level because each of the bands is separate. Certain things make for accountability in government. One of the biggest accountability factors is money, and I will start with that one.

The member from Winnipeg Centre certainly tried to indicate that we were trying to scare people and to paint people with a broad brush. I hope what I have said today shows how untrue that is. I would certainly be pleased to answer questions after my speech.

I have been advocating a couple of cornerstone democratic principles since the accountability meetings were held. I will list them before finishing speaking so that they remain in everyone's mind.

On October 31 the aboriginal people of Manitoba, not the Reform Party, organized a big meeting in Winnipeg at the Airliner Inn. Before that meeting took place I stood in the House and told all members about it. It is in Hansard . I told them October 31 was the date of the meeting and that all were invited. It was organized and run by the aboriginal people.

One outside politician came. It was not the member for Provencher. It was not the member for Saint Boniface. It was not the member from Winnipeg Centre. It was the Indian affairs minister David Newman from the province of Manitoba government. He attended the meeting and spoke for at least half an hour about all the serious issues dealing with financial funds and problems with aboriginal leadership and what could be done about it.

From all these meetings I have four basic cornerstones of democracy that would help provide accountability for the chiefs and councils. The first one is absolute, independent, fair election laws to ensure that elections of the chiefs are fair and true.

The second is an independent auditor general. That is the one that would provide for accountability of the financial funds. There is no reason the leadership of the aboriginal people in Canada and the federal government could not already have set up some kind of independent auditor general to take care of moneys that are for the benefit of aboriginals on our reserves.

Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation ActGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

Provencher Manitoba

Liberal

David Iftody LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening very carefully for the past couple of hours to a number of interventions made by members of the Reform Party.

I appreciate the comments made by the member of the New Democratic Party. His interventions speak very clearly to the problem of the misuse of language and the misrepresentation of the issues we are dealing with. I find the debate quite interesting as we debate the northern flood agreement.

We have heard talks about self-government, dealing with the Nisga'a deal, references to RMs, the most recent intervention from this member claiming that he speaks for the people of Manitoba on aboriginal issues and talking about the participation of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development at this rather odd undertaking at the Airliner Inn in Winnipeg. I find the debate is moving off into areas that are not intended in this bill.

This bill is about a bill of compensation that was properly addressed by the New Democratic member from Winnipeg. It is a bill about compensation. The member for Selkirk—Interlake talked about the fact he lives on the inlet. So do I. We were transferred to Norway House when they were building the power lines. My father was a pilot for the government air services for many years in 1950s. We spent a summer there.

I believe the hon. member misses the entire point of the debate about compensation. Some of his colleagues have referred to that. The hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest has spoken to it very clearly. This is a question of hydro flooding these lands in northern Manitoba and doing it improperly without consulting the native people. I wonder, for example, whether the provincial minister who is responsible and is signatory to this agreement talked about that at the Airliner Inn in Winnipeg.

This is an agreement about compensation. It is an agreement about a contract and a breach of contract. There is a settlement between the parties, Manitoba Hydro, the Government of Canada and the first nations people, in this case the people of Norway House who voted on the bill. He referred to the cottage owners in Lake Winnipeg. Is it not proper, is it not right, that when somebody floods somebody's land, that the first nations people would be compensated for the lands that were flooded, that this is the proper thing for the Government of Canada and Manitoba to do? They all signed the agreement.

Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation ActGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Reform

Howard Hilstrom Reform Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Mr. Speaker, the member for Provencher and I end up on the same plane lots of times, so we may even talk about this again.

I think we will refer to Hansard tomorrow and we will see that I spoke quite eloquently, I would say very eloquently, with regard to the fact that the Norway House band had serious loss of lands and that the compensation of $78 million that was agreed to by the various levels of governments, the aboriginal chiefs and the people was very fair and should be paid to them. We have no problem in agreeing on that fact.

The accountability problems deal with much more than this one agreement. As a member of parliament, where the issue at hand has brought the broad ramifications it has for the people of Manitoba, I would be remiss if I did not touch on those issues attached to the bill we are dealing with. One attached issue is accountability for the moneys that will be received by the band in trust. I agree it is normally a very good legal means by which money does not go missing. As I have said, I have seen so many thousands of cases of dollars go missing over the years, millions, from non-aboriginal and aboriginal holders of trust moneys.

We should not make light or cast aspersions on members of the House or others who speak up and say that everybody who is elected in aboriginal reserves to councils and chiefs are not crooks. They are average people who are getting elected to these things. But there are enough problems that have to brought to the attention of legislators and they have to be dealt with. To sit back and pretend that nothing is going wrong and that there is no room for improvement is sheer lunacy, to put it bluntly. I take pride in speaking out in my riding for my constituents. I have had so many comments from both aboriginal and non-aboriginal people that previous members of parliament did not stand up and speak in the very means that I am speaking today on behalf of aboriginal women and children and others who want to see accountability in first nations government.

Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation ActGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, seeing as I was made reference to a number of times in that address, I want to clarify a few things.

What I said in my remarks is that it is intellectually dishonest to try to take a bunch of isolated incidents of problems with funds and try to thread that together into an overall picture that aboriginal people in Canada are not ready for or capable of self-government or the implementation of the recommendations of the royal commission which our party stands for. I am not saying they are allegations. I am saying they probably are well founded incidents.

I made a number of connections with anti-Indian organizations like FIRE. The hon. member can deny any connection to them if he likes. As the ONFIRE begins now, the Ontario version of the anti-Indian organization, the director is a Reform Party member and activist Judy Kilgore. Brian Richardson, the founder of the Ontario FIRE organization, left his job with FIRE so he could run for the Reform Party in the last federal election. He did not want that crossover too public I guess.

Mel Smith, who was the salaried, paid consultant for the Reform Party's Indian task force, is the author of the book Our Home or Native Land . It is a play on words instead of our home and native land. The three major points are that aboriginal self-government must be stopped; that some government treaties with first nations should be either ignored or modestly interpreted; and that all government programs related to native people should be phased out, i.e. first nations people should be made real Canadians. In other words, no special affirmative action measures to try to recognize the historic imbalance.

Does the Reform Party stand behind the implementation of the recommendations of the royal commission on aboriginal people or does it subscribe to Mel Smith's points?

Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation ActGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Reform

Howard Hilstrom Reform Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Mr. Speaker, we talk about listening to each other's speeches and I certainly hope that my speech was also listened to because there is no place that I would ever say that aboriginal self-government should not come about. I do not think that anybody can show me any place in Reform Party policy where it says we are against aboriginal self-government.

I would certainly not like to see condemnation by association or whatever, which the member for Winnipeg Centre is somehow trying to place on my shoulders. I think I have spoken quite clearly about what my beliefs and stand are and what I believe the beliefs and stand of the Reform Party are. My 59 colleagues as far as I know believe exactly along the lines and in the same general principles. The other groups or whatever the member for Winnipeg Centre is talking about, I do not know if they have been authorized by the Reform Party to speak like that. I would very much doubt that. In fact I know it is not true.

People in the House have made some pretty wild promises over the years. I think back to some members who are currently sitting who talked about how they would get rid of the GST and all this. I would simply say that our politicians do need to have accountability imposed on them and I think the aboriginal leaders are no different.

Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation ActGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Liberal

Murray Calder Liberal Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House on Bill C-56, the Manitoba claim settlements implementation act. My colleague, the hon. member for Provencher, has made it clear that the proposed legislation will address outstanding commitments to several Manitoba first nations. I will comment on the elements of the bill that pertain to the establishment of reserves in Manitoba.

The overall objective of this part of the bill is straightforward, to advance the implementation of claims agreements in Manitoba by facilitating and thereby accelerating the transfer of lands to reserve status. In “Gathering Strength: Canada's Aboriginal Action Plan” this government stated its belief that treaties provide a basis for developing a stronger partnership with aboriginal people. But in order to move in partnership into the future we must first honour our past commitments.

One of Canada's longest standing commitments is to deal with treaty land entitlements, claims that involve lands promised under treaties and signed mainly with the first nations of the prairie provinces. This is for a variety of reasons. Not all first nations received the full amount of land promised to them when they signed the treaties. For example, in certain first nations incorrect counts of memberships occurred when reserves were created.

As hon. members can appreciate, this has been a contentious issue with first nations in western Canada for many years. Our government intends to bring closure to this difficult problem by fulfilling Canada's obligations to provide additional reserve lands to first nations with treaty land entitlements. This process has been spearheaded in Saskatchewan where a treaty land entitlement framework agreement signed in 1992 has paved the way for the final agreements with individual first nations. Now we are focusing our attention on righting this historic wrong in Manitoba.

While the majority of Manitoba first nations received their full land allocations when they signed treaties between 1871 and 1910, others did not. Over the past 50 years or so numerous efforts have been made to resolve this problem. Some progress was made between 1994 and 1996 when seven of the affected Manitoba first nations signed individual treaty land entitlement agreements that provided about 170,000 acres of land to be added to reserves.

The major breakthrough came in May 1997 when the governments of Canada and Manitoba signed a framework agreement with the treaty land entitlement committee of Manitoba on behalf of 19 first nations whose claims had been accepted. Under this agreement about 1.1 million acres of additional reserve land will be provided to 19 first nations. About 90% will be crown land provided by the Manitoba government. The remaining 10% will likely be purchased from private landowners by these first nations using cash contributions provided by Canada. The remaining 10% needs to be purchased privately because certain first nations are in the areas of the province where there is not sufficient crown land available.

We have now moved into the next phase of the settlement process in which each of the 19 first nations ratifies its own treaty entitlement agreement based on the broader framework agreement. Six such agreements have been completed and we hope to finalize a number of other agreements this fiscal year.

The process is moving forward but our experience in Saskatchewan has taught us the importance of having better legislative mechanisms to facilitate the transfer of land to reserve status. This is particularly true where these lands carry one or more interests held by third parties. Bill C-56 provides these mechanisms.

I bring the attention of hon. members to three main provisions of the bill that relate to the establishment of reserves under the Manitoba claims settlement. First, 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's first nations under a claims agreement. The Indian Act is silent on the power to create or add to reserves. However, the historic practice has been for the governor in council to issue an order in council granting reserve status. For the purposes of Manitoba claims agreements only, Bill C-56 will eliminate the added step of obtaining the order in council.

The second and third measures both deal with the issue of the third party interests on proposed reserve lands and in particular, with the timing of first nations' consent to the continuation or replacement of existing interests or the creation of new interests.

Under the government's additions to reserve policy, the reserve status can only be conferred on lands if third party interests on these lands have been identified and resolved prior to Canada's acquisition of the lands. Unfortunately it is often very difficult and sometimes impossible to meet this policy goal using the existing laws which can act to impede resolution of these interests. Let me give an example.

A Manitoba first nation has selected a certain parcel of land that it would like to purchase under its treaty land entitlement agreement. A hydro company happens to have an easement across this land which was previously granted to it by the province. Before the first nation can purchase that land, the additions to reserve process requires that the hydro company's interest be resolved. Typically the hydro company would require the first nation's consent to continue the easement.

Here is the catch. The Indian Act gives a first nation the power to consent to the creation of interests on land that is already part of a reserve but not on land that is simply being proposed for reserve status. Thus, the first nation would not have the power to consent to the continuation of the hydro easement. It would be a fairly big problem for anyone who is taking hydro off of that line.

Hon. members can no doubt see the dilemma. Without the first nation's consent that the easement will continue, the hydro company may be, quite understandably, unwilling to cancel its existing provincial easement. Through no one's fault, a potential addition to the reserve becomes stalemated. An opportunity to forge a new working partnership between the first nation and the hydro company is delayed and possibly even lost.

Bill C-56 will resolve this potential catch 22 by allowing a first nation to consent to a third party interest on selected lands before those lands have been granted reserve status. In this manner the third party interest is continued and not put at risk as it would be under the current regime.

The process for the first nations to grant such consent will depend on the nature of the interest. For example, exclusive use interests, such as leases, would require the first nation membership to give consent through a designation vote. Non-exclusive interests, such as rights of way, would require only the consent of the first nation council.

These distinctions are parallel to those applicable to the existing reserves under the Indian Act. That is to say the important feature of these new designation and permit powers is that they would allow the first nation to give consent when it is most needed, indeed at the very time at which it is the most helpful to the reserve creation process. Of course the interest consented to would take effect only if and when the land becomes a reserve.

I want to point out that the pre-reserve powers to designate lands or issue permits would be available to deal with the protection of existing interests and to allow the first nations to put in place new development deals that would take effect upon reserve creation. This ability to take advantage of the new opportunities will ensure that first nations do not have to leave their selected lands undeveloped until reserve status is granted and that first nations can compete on an equal footing even while the reserve creation process proceeds.

The driving force behind this legislative proposal is Canada's commitment to settle treaty land entitlements with 19 Manitoba first nations. The mechanisms in Bill C-56 will also be made available to the seven Manitoba treaty land entitlement agreements negotiated in advance of the framework agreement reached last May. Canada is also prepared with full provincial support to make the bill's mechanisms available to all other Manitoba claim settlement agreements, existing or future, which have addition to reserve components.

For example, two specific claims have been settled with the Manitoba first nations that oblige Canada to create new reserve lands. These first nations will be able to use the reserve establishment provisions of Bill C-56 in this process.

Hon. members will also be aware of the master implementation agreements signed by four Manitoba first nations to implement the northern flood agreement. In fact part 1 of Bill C-56 will affirm to certain elements of the agreement recently completed with the Norway House Cree Nation, an agreement that provides for the conversion of about 55,000 acres to reserve status. The reserves establishment provisions of Bill C-56 speak to this commitment and to reserve creation commitments Canada has made to other northern flood first nations. Given that Norway House is also owed additional reserve lands under its own treaty entitlement agreement, it will benefit from Bill C-56 on two fronts.

Finally as I have said before, any first nation that negotiates future claims that include a commitment to create a reserve land in Manitoba may opt into the new process.

I want to make it clear that the mechanisms to be made available by this legislation will be limited to additions to reserves that are the result of the Manitoba claims settlements where first nations ought to avail themselves of the legislation. The extension of these mechanisms to all types of additions to reserves in Manitoba and elsewhere across the country cannot happen now and would not happen without broad and extensive consultations with all our first nations and provincial partners.

Hon. members should also know that part 2 of Bill C-56 is not needed to give effect to any claims agreement in Manitoba. These legislative proposals are intended only to facilitate the creation of reserves under these agreements, in large part by achieving a key objective: enabling first nations to accommodate and to protect third party interests that are identified in the reserve creation process. This bill will significantly reduce the time required to add lands to reserve which under the current system can approach three years.

Given the technical nature of these provisions, it is fair to ask what the practical day to day effect will be on first nations communities, on children, on families and on businesses. The answer is this. By accelerating the implementation of the claims agreement, the proposed legislation will pave the way for improved socioeconomic conditions in the first nations communities throughout Manitoba.

The sooner that selected lands can become reserve lands, the sooner the affected first nations can develop these lands and benefit from them. In many cases, lands will be selected because of their development potential, or for commercial and institutional ventures which in turn will contribute to real improvements in the lives of the aboriginal people.

Bill C-56 will move Canada forward in meeting our goal set out in Gathering Strength: to build stronger first nations communities and to end the cycle of poverty. The treaty land entitlement first nations of Manitoba have waited patiently for the day when their claims would be resolved. Bill C-56 will facilitate and accelerate this process to the benefit of all parties. It could serve as a legislative template for similar efforts in other provinces. It will send a clear message that parliament not only intends to live up to the commitments made to the aboriginal people but also stands ready to legislate a process that helps make this happen.

Third parties that hold an interest in the lands that a first nation has selected will also benefit from this legislation. Their continued interests will be protected by having the first nation's consent prior to the reserve addition, giving them the commercial certainty in the face of this process that they have long been seeking.

In closing, I want to assure hon. members that the Treaty Land Entitlement Committee of Manitoba has been consulted on this legislation. The bill was also shared with the province of Manitoba and the seven first nations that had previously signed individual treaty land entitlement agreements.

The bill has also been made available to the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and to the Treaty and Aboriginal Rights Research Centre which is operated by the representatives of the Manitoba first nations. The centre recently expressed its support for the legislation in a letter dated September 18 to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In it Chief Jim Prince notes that with the new legislation in place, “the process of conversion of land to reserve status will be considerably enhanced”.

Other parties were extensively consulted and represented by the province of Manitoba during the negotiations which led to the signing of the Manitoba treaty land entitlement framework agreement.

We have consulted. We have listened and we have acted. Manitobans want this legislation.

I urge hon. members to join with me in supporting this bill so that it can be sent to committee for review.

Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation ActGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Reform

Lee Morrison Reform Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the hon. member for Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey for the ease with which he read a speech which he had not seen before. I think it was a wonderful job. I wonder if the hon. member was gambling. Did he lose the coin toss or did he get the short straw? Exactly how was the hon. member for Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey selected to read the departmental speech?

Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation ActGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Liberal

Murray Calder Liberal Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite has probably taken shots at any one of us over here out of his absolute frustration of the success of this government over the last five years. We have taken a deficit of $42.5 billion down to zero in five years. We have taken unemployment from 11.9% down to 8.1% in five years. I can understand the hon. member's frustration in making a statement like that.

Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation ActGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Reform

Lee Morrison Reform Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would reply to my question.

Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation ActGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

On questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary.

Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation ActGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Peterborough Ontario

Liberal

Peter Adams LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the member for Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey on his speech. I certainly enjoyed it.

Many members have been taking part in the debate today, especially those from Manitoba and that is as it should be. However, some of us take a great interest in these matters even though in this particular case we are not from Manitoba. The member and I share this very personal interest. I have in fact seen from the air and the ground the results of the flooding which we are dealing with in this case.

As some members may have noticed today, the Reform members have been dragging the puck for whatever reason. I do not know what the reason is. They do not like this legislation and have been drawing out the debate this afternoon at great length. We are now getting very close to voting time. They keep mentioning the matter of accountability. They raise the spectre of accountability of first nations.

My question will be based on my understanding that the trust fund which is going to be established manages the compensation moneys which was stressed by the parliamentary secretary.

We are talking about compensation for many, many years; decades of hardship resulting from the flooding.

The trust fund that manages the compensation moneys will be subject to provincial trust laws and will be administered according to generally accepted accounting principles. As well, all of the parties to the master implementation agreement will receive an annual report on the trust's business affairs.

I do not know the laws of the province of Manitoba, but I would ask my colleague: Is it not true that in fact the moneys which will be allocated under this legislation will be properly managed and accounted for in the way that I have just described?

Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

Murray Calder Liberal Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Peterborough for his question. Yes, is the simple point and the answer.

We are debating this bill at second reading and it is going to go to committee. The hon. member across the way wants to know why I was chosen. My interests concern all of Canada. I am not only interested in what happens in Ontario, I am also interested in what happens in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and B.C.

Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

An hon. member

We are a national party.

Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

Murray Calder Liberal Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON

That is right. That is the point. Unfortunately, the Reform member opposite belongs to a regional party which represents the west and that is his only interest. My interests concern the nation.

When this bill is in committee, if the member has any problems with this legislation, that is the time and that is the place—

Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

On questions and comments, the hon. member for Wetaskiwin.

Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Reform

Dale Johnston Reform Wetaskiwin, AB

Mr. Speaker, I want to say first of all that a member opposite said we have drawn out the debate at great lengths. I think it would only be appropriate if four, five or six Reform members spoke to this legislation, and I believe that is how many have spoken today.

The other thing I would like to comment on is the fact that my colleague for Winnipeg Centre is completely off the mark when he tries to cast aspersions on the Reform Party by implying that somehow we have condoned, possibly spawned and encouraged this organization, which none of my colleagues in this caucus have even heard of, let alone been made aware of what the aims or goals are. I think that is probably one of the sleaziest things I have seen happen in this parliament up to this point.

Having said that, I would like to ask a question of my colleague from Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey. This agreement is an attempt to bring to a close 21 years of negotiation. The first thing that occurs to me is that when we are in negotiation for 21 years the people that benefit are not the stakeholders, they are the negotiators. This looks to me like a career for somebody to continue negotiations which started in 1978.

I would encourage my colleague across the way to remark on that or to enlighten me as to how he feels about the fact that this has dragged on and on. Who does he think have been the—

Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

The hon. member for Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey.

Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

Murray Calder Liberal Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON

Mr. Speaker, the fact that this has dragged on for 21 years and that it has taken this government to find a solution is the answer to the member's question.

For five years we have brought forward good legislation that has put this country back on track. For five years we have been working on solving problems that previous governments have not. I think we have done a darn good job of it.

Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation ActGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

Reform

Rob Anders Reform Calgary West, AB

Mr. Speaker, this is all about talking to the folks back home who are watching. It is all about Bill C-56. It is all about the government making a commitment it could not keep. That is basically what this is all about.

I will quote from an article written by John Gray of the Globe and Mail . It is entitled “Referendum process leaves a House divided”. It is about a government trying to go ahead by buying votes. That is what it is about.

Maggie Balfour is the former chief of the Norway House reserve. She and other people on the reserve wanted to challenge the legality of a referendum with regard to the implementation of this whole agreement. She and other people had problems with the process and the way these things were done. They were going to put forward their challenge to what had happened.

What happened then? Ms. Balfour described it as bribery in the article. She said that basically everybody who had problems with the process was offered $1,000 just in time for Christmas. If they accepted the $1,000 then these dissidents would thereby kind of fall off this challenge. As a result, with $1,000 the government could buy silence from these people on the reserve.

Not only was the government complicit in these things, but the band council got control of the $1,000 payouts and could decide who would get them and who would not. It was even more selective than just whether or not you took your name off the list. There was complicity between the federal government and the band council.

The article touches on some other issues that we are dealing with in the country, particularly a province that I have in mind. They say here that if a referendum loses, then a second one should be called, and that is exactly what this situation had in mind. They were continuing to call referenda until they got the results they needed. This was all something the federal government was up to because it had made commitments that it just could not keep.

As a result, the federal government and the band were complicit in holding referenda again and again on the implementation on this whole agreement until they could go ahead and pass this legislation.

It says here that money and land was exchanged for a formal end to the obligations of the northern flood agreement.

I will quote directly from the article because it is particularly relevant in this case. It states: “When the votes were counted on the night of July 29, the majority in favour of the implementation agreement was almost two to one. But the referendum was defeated because there was not a majority of eligible voters on the reserve in favour”.

What happened then? On August 1, three days after the defeated referendum at Norway House, Ms. Jackson, the federal negotiator, was laying the groundwork for a second referendum.

What happened here is that they could not get what they wanted in the first one, so by offering $1,000 and by plunging ahead into a second referendum the federal government, along with the band, hoped they were going to be able to get the results they wanted, despite the objections of some of the dissidents who had problems with what was being done.

The federal government asked questions about the accuracy of the voters' list at Norway House. By asking questions about the accuracy of the voters' list it was able to go ahead and force a second referendum. It even admitted that the rules could be changed for the second vote. “If you consider it changing the rules, I suppose that is what it is”. That was a quote taken directly from Ms. Jackson, the federal negotiator in this whole deal.

In the days after the first referendum a group of Norway House residents took the band council to court on the grounds that the entire referendum process was improper. Some 186 band members signed the application to the court.

In the ensuing three months, three-quarters of those who had supported the legal challenge signed affidavits saying in effect that they did not sign or did not mean to sign the court application. This is because they were being bought off, bit by bit, with thousand-dollar increments of federal money.

The unemployment rate on this reserve is 80% to 85% and most people in town live on social assistance of only $205 per month. Not surprisingly, the money figures prominently in this glossy guide book to the implementation of the agreement published by the federal government. Most of these people are not very well off and $1,000 of federal government money to buy their votes seems like a pretty lucrative deal for some of them. If they only make $205 a month, $1,000 would be five months' salary.

On page 3 of the government's guidebook describing the implementation agreement is the promise of a $78 million trust fund. Page 13 has the promise that if the agreement is approved there will be three payments totalling $1,000 for all band members. Even more so, those aged 55 and older will get $1,500. This will pay off the band elders with a little more money.

Ms. Omand was one of the 186 who signed the challenge to the legality of the referendum. She acknowledges that later she signed the affidavit because she wanted the money. She speaks, frankly, for many of the people who were bought off with federal government money.

The first challenge to the referendum was rejected by the federal court. The dissidents discovered in the two referenda that it is difficult to be effective in a town where the band council owns and controls the only newspaper, the only radio station and the only television station. There is complicity among the band, the federal government, the money being spent by the federal government, the newspaper, the radio station and the television station. How are these dissidents, these people who have problems with it, supposed to be able to have their voices heard? Ms. Omand wrapped up her article by asking “How can the government put us in such a devastating mess?”

In light of this, what does the Reform Party propose as a solution? My NDP colleagues criticized us earlier today so I am sure they would ask that question. The Reform Party believes that the chief electoral officer of Canada should have authority over Indian government elections to ensure they are fair and lawful. What we had here was a case of the federal government and the band buying votes. It was a thousand dollars a pop to have dissidents drop a legal challenge. It was easier to buy their votes than it was to have a fair election and get the results they wanted.

Some members have said today in the House that the Reform Party is bringing up these unfair elections and these problems in terms of democracy and what happens on the reserves. I think that is only fair. We are doing that in the spirit of people like Ms. Omand and Ms. Balfour, the former chief of the Norway House reserve. It is only fair that their type of consideration be heard in the House. These are not just allegations because they were willing to press ahead with them in court. These types of consideration should be taken into account.

Let us think about how this plays with the Liberal strategy in other areas. Liberals do not just buy votes on reserves and buy the complicity of bands and councils to get their way, they buy votes in provinces too. It is not only a strategy they keep up with aboriginals in this country. They buy votes in this country by giving out flags and through various programs that they adjust and tinker with for special interest groups—

Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation ActGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

I am sory but I must interrupt you now. The time for debate has concluded. The hon. member for Calgary West will have 10 minutes when next this bill comes before the House.

It being 6.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions.

Call in the members. And the bells having rung :

The House resumed from November 6 consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-37, an act to amend the Judges Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Judges ActGovernment Orders

6:50 p.m.

The Speaker

The first deferred recorded division is on the motion to concur in the Senate amendments to Bill C-37.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 258Government Orders

November 16th, 1998 / 7 p.m.

The Speaker

I declare the motion carried.

(Amendments read the second time and concurred in)

The House resumed from November 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C-208, an act to amend the Access to Information Act, be read the third time and passed.