Debates of March 11th, 1998

Broadcasting Act

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I would remind the hon. member to keep his remarks within the framework being debated right now.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, as Shakespeare said, she doth protest too much.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order.

Again, the issue was not whether the member was addressing the matter before the House. The issue was the member was commenting on the voting or potential voting of a member of this House. That is contrary to the rules. Would you please remind him that it is contrary to the rules of procedure in this House.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

All reflections on decisions of the House and of its members must be made judiciously. I remind all members to please act accordingly.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-288 introduced by my Liberal colleague for Sarnia—Lambton and entitled an act to amend the Broadcasting Act (broadcasting policy).

The bill is motivated by the member's legitimate concerns about the controversial business practice of negative option billing followed by certain cable companies, primarily in English Canada.

My colleague introduced Bill C-216 in the last Parliament, and the Bloc opposed it because it went well beyond the member's intentions and could have had a negative impact on the broadcasting system, in part by threatening the availability of francophone specialty channels in Quebec and in francophone and Acadian communities outside Quebec.

Furthermore, we cannot support a bill that represents an intrusion into areas of billing and consumer protection, both of which are under provincial jurisdiction.

The bill before us would establish federal regulations on the billing for cable services, when business relations between a consumer and a vendor are a provincial matter. I would invite my federalist colleague to look at section 92(3) of the Constitution in this regard. I also point out that, in 1995, the heritage minister recognized this areas as an exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec.

In fact, in Quebec we have an organization looking after this: the consumer protection bureau. Jurisprudence confirms that the Quebec consumer protection legislation applies to all businesses, even those under federal jurisdiction, such as broadcasting corporations, as far as the consumer, commercial practices and advertising are concerned.

The Quebec consumer protection legislation outlaws negative option billing. Paragraph 230( a ) of this act provides that no merchant can demand any money for goods or services provided to a consumer, when the consumer has not agreed to receive such goods or services.

The 1995 consumer revolt in English Canada was sparked when Rogers Communications took advantage of the introduction of six new specialty channels, English speaking channels, on cable television to take out of its basic service package channels that subscribers liked, asking them to pay extra to get them back.

In Quebec, the situation was different. Vidéotron simply added new specialty channels to its basic service at no extra cost. COGECO and CF Cable, on the other hand, reached with the consumer protection bureau an agreement providing for the maintenance of certain practices, as long as flexible arrangements were in place to avoid penalizing consumers who may not have understood that it was up to them to cancel or opt out.

In addition, one of the reasons the Quebec consumers association opposed this bill was the fact that the CRTC and the consumer protection bureau already had appropriate powers to correct abuse.

The Association gave four reasons it was opposed to this bill. First, it would prevent the broadcasting of new services and would reduce francophones' access to a wider range of programming in their own language. Second, it would reduce the number of francophone listeners with access to these services because the cost would allow only the more affluent to subscribe. Third, in the absence of affordable French language services, francophone consumers would have to fall back on English language specialty services. Fourth, in the absence of reasonably priced viable services in Quebec, it would be impossible to extend these services to francophone and Acadian communities in the country.

The Association des consommateurs du Québec summed up the other major reason for which we are opposing this bill very well: it would very likely hamper the development of new French language services in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada.

The Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada spoke out strongly against the bill, because it would prevent francophones living in a minority situation from having access to specialty services in their own language.

Bill C-288 of the 36th Parliament is identical to Bill C-216 of the 35th Parliament. If this bill were passed, cable companies would have to obtain the agreement of each subscriber before adding a specialized service to the basic service and then raising the price. The odds are that, where francophones were in the minority, the anglophone majority would not agree to a rate hike in return for a French language service, thus preventing broadcasting of this service.

In addition, this bill would make it possible to choose which specialty services would be optional. It would not be surprising if anglophones did not wish to pay for French language specialty services and did not order them. These services would therefore no longer make money for cable companies and would rapidly disappear.

The objections and fears of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne with respect to this bill were entirely justified, and we share its view that it is up to lawmakers to ensure that the statutes of Canada make it possible to preserve a space in which francophone and Acadian communities can identify themselves and flourish. Unfortunately, the Liberal government has a history of appearing not to be very sensitive to the francophone fact.

In conclusion, I wish to say that, from the point of view of consumers, the ideal situation would be to be able to select the specific channels they wished and to pay for those alone. Unfortunately, current technology does not yet allow cable companies to provide that option. Pay per view television allows consumers to pay for one program at a time by decoding the signal, but this system is still costly.

Moreover, in a small market such as Quebec, few specialized French language channels would have enough listeners to survive in a pay per view system. The current system allows people to have specialty services in their own language, and these services reflect what goes on in their community, as well as their preferences and interests.

I can only conclude that the member who introduced this bill, and those who support it, show once again that they care little about the cultural reality of Quebec and of French speaking communities outside our province. By trying to regulate at the national level an area of provincial jurisdiction—this in an attempt to solve a problem that is not very serious in Quebec—they are showing that there are two different realities: the Canadian reality and the Quebec reality.

This bill would probably be useful to the rest of Canada, but it would be harmful to Quebec and to francophones outside Quebec. This bill is yet another example of how our two realities, our two ways of living, the Canadian way and the Quebec way, would thrive a lot more if we had two different countries united in a new partnership.

Members will understand that the Bloc Quebecois absolutely cannot support such a bill.

[Chris Axworthy, NDP, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill C-288, moved by my hon. friend, the member for Sarnia—Lambton.

I want to begin by congratulating him for all the work he has done on this issue on behalf of the millions of Canadian consumers of cable television.

He is of course quite right to point out the source of the desire to essentially outlaw negative billing, which came from the reaction of what I think might be properly called a consumer revolt against cable companies in January 1995 as they responded to negative billing by their cable companies.

The vast majority of us, certainly those of us living in urban areas and even in smaller communities, receive our television service through cable companies. Of course because of the monopoly situation those cable companies are in we are faced with difficult questions when presented with a practice such as negative billing. It is only to be expected that consumers would respond in this way.

Were it the case that this practice and this general approach to customers by cable companies was over, perhaps we would not need to pursue the matter so vigorously. However, there are consumers not only in Quebec but in other provinces who are being faced with this particular practice and the problem continues.

I think, on the whole, Canadian consumers have lined up in favour of the legislation. They are in favour of protecting consumers and putting consumers first.

As well, a number of organizations which are generally supportive of consumers' interests are in favour of the legislation, such as the Consumers Association of Canada, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre and the Canadian Association of Broadcasters.

I would also point out that the vast majority of members of this House are supportive of this measure. Indeed, when the House was last faced with responding to this question, when the member for Sarnia—Lambton moved this piece of legislation in the last Parliament, I think that the vote was 84 to 68 in favour of the legislation. Had there not been an election called last year this legislation would have been passed into law and Canadian consumers would indeed be protected.

We heard the Bloc Quebecois speak today against the interests of Canadian consumers. Rather than leave the matter to consumers in Quebec and outside Quebec to make decisions as to what services might be provided, the Bloc is opposing this legislation which would be in the interests of the vast majority of Canadian consumers of cable television.

We have had what at best could be described as a luke warm response from the Liberal government. We certainly saw the Minister for Canadian Heritage dragged screaming and kicking in support of this legislation and, as has been indicated, not standing up for Canadian consumers on this point.

We have the CRTC, as the member for Sarnia—Lambton indicated, which is also not performing its role on behalf of Canadian consumers. As well, there are a number of cable companies which would like to continue this practice in the face of all the opposition which has been voiced.

It is rather odd, in that context, with the overwhelming support of Canadians for this bill which would essentially outlaw negative billing, that the Sub-committee on Private Members' Business of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs would not recognize that overwhelming support and deem this bill votable.

There are a number of forces lodged against the interests of consumers with regard to banning negative billing.

It is a nefarious practice because, as I mentioned, Canadians have no choice, if they are to receive cable services, but to respond to the terms of payment offered by their cable companies. I think it is only right, in the context of that monopoly situation, that this House respond appropriately to resolve the question in the interests of Canadian consumers.

Whatever difficulties there may be—and I would not want to underestimate them—with the delivery of services in French, we should not respond to this legislation in a way which is contrary to the interests of millions and millions of other Canadians. We must therefore respond to those concerns in a different way and seek other approaches to the problem without undermining the interests of all other Canadian consumers.

I would end on one final point with regard to whether or not this House is going to have the opportunity to vote on this piece of legislation again at some stage. As I mentioned, had there not been an election called last year this would now be in effect and Canadian consumers would be protected. I think that is fairly clear.

If we continue to deny members of this House the opportunity to have this bill voted on, then it challenges the government's commitment to addressing this particular concern. If indeed the members from the Bloc continue to refuse unanimous consent for this bill to be votable, then the matter falls fairly squarely on the Minister of Canadian Heritage and we can then watch as she decides what she will do; whether she will respond on behalf of Canadian consumers or whether she will respond on behalf of the number of cable companies that are supportive of this practice which is contrary to the interests of Canadians.

On that note, I would ask that this House grant unanimous consent for this bill to be deemed votable.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the House give its consent that the bill be made votable as suggested by the hon. member?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

There is not unanimous consent.

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favour of Bill C-288. Much has been said on this very important subject by my other colleagues so I will be brief in my remarks.

The member for Sarnia—Lambton brought forward a similar bill, known then as Bill C-216, in the last Parliament. I want to take this opportunity to thank my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton for having brought back this private member's bill. It is unfortunate, however, that his efforts and those of many in this House and in the other place will not reach fruition again.

This bill provides for the necessary changes to the Broadcasting Act in order to prevent negative option billing for new specialty services. This bill is the only way the House can respond to the consumers who are asking for a decision on this issue. Unfortunately, this bill is not a votable item.

During second reading of Bill C-216 in the last Parliament, my colleagues from the other place defended the French language pay tv and specialty services.

My party shared its concerns with the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, the Canadian Cable Television Association and the Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick among others, and then brought forward amendments to the bill.

The proposed change still aims to protect the consumers, which is the main purpose of the bill. It also answers the main concerns about the delivery of French language services, mainly the availability and cost of specialty services in French. The proposed amendment to the bill is a compromise which would facilitate the delivery of services to the French communities.

We have consulted with the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada and the Canadian Association of Broadcasters and both were in favour of this amendment.

This bill, as amended by the Senate in the last Parliament, would have gone a long way in preventing the CRTC from gouging its consumers. When Bill C-216 died on the Order Paper last April, when the Liberals called an election after only three and half years in office, it looked like the CRTC was about to back off, but it has not.

If we take my own experience in Ottawa, Rogers Cable has been pushing the ME-TV package for months. It offered a free subscription for a couple of months and consumers were told that billing would start for this package after Christmas if they chose to keep the service.

What Rogers was not saying last fall was that if we chose not to take the package at $6.95 a month we had to pay $2 more a month. That does not sound like a very good deal for the consumer. On the one hand you have to pay $6.95 for 15 channels although you may only want one. On the other hand if you do not want any, you get charged $2.00 more per month.

I reiterate my support for this bill. I look forward to working with my colleagues to protect the rights of consumers.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join in the debate on Bill C-288, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act.

With regard to this bill, we must think first and foremost about Canadian consumers. The hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton deserves our praises for bringing their concerns to our attention.

When broadcasting started only radio existed. Even then, the Parliament of Canada saw fit to pass legislation in this area to meet the needs of consumers.

Indeed, for over 60 years, as the network has been expanding, successive parliaments have used their powers to ensure that Canadians have access to quality programming produced by Canadians, as well as to the best programs from abroad.

This is a fundamental characteristic of Canadian broadcasting, which has remained the same in spite of the many technical changes we have witnessed regarding radio, and television where programs were initially in black and white, then in colour; first programs were received using a conventional antenna, then came cable TV and other forms of transmission including direct-to-home satellite broadcasting.

There have been changes not only in transmission techniques, but also in programming formulas and choice of packages offered. Traditional television stations and networks are now competing with a broad range of specialized offerings, as well as the pay TV channels and pay-for-view TV.

These changes and improvements have not been without their problems, as this bill shows.

We have, however, always found a way to solve the problems caused by changes in broadcasting, and to attune the Canadian broadcast network to the needs and interests of Canadians.

This will continue to be our main focus and we owe thanks to the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton for having brought to our attention the problems associated with the launching of specialized television services in Canada.

For the past 30 years, Parliament has entrusted the CRTC, the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, with the mandate under the Broadcasting Act of regulating and monitoring the Canadian broadcast network so as to implement the policy objectives set out in that act.

Generally speaking, this has worked well and I am convinced the CRTC will continue to take Canadian public opinion into consideration, and to strike a fair balance in its search for the means to realize the policy objectives set for it.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton has the floor. His speech will put an end to the debate on this item.

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that this is either the first or second day of the institution of this new rule. If private members are not aware, the sponsor of the bill or motion gets to speak for the last five minutes.

I want to thank my colleagues from the Reform Party, the New Democratic Party and the Progressive Conservative Party for their support in this matter.

I also want to say how surprised I am by the culture critic for the Bloc. The member has laid out a number of the same old stories but has failed to recognize the new paradigm which occurred.

This bill was endorsed by the specialty services association in the province of Quebec at the Senate when it was amended there. It is now amended and is here, yet the member refuses to recognize that. This bill was endorsed by the association of francophones and Acadians outside Quebec when it left the other place and is now here in the same form. She denies that that occurred.

The hon. critic for the Bloc has said that Quebec law prohibits negative option billing. If that is the case, then perhaps the hon. critic can tell us why in the province of Quebec Videotron is doing it and has been doing it since September 1997.

I was called to do several interviews on this topic. Perhaps the Bloc can enlighten us and tell us why consumers were complaining in Quebec and why when they complained to the provincial consumer office they were told that nothing could be done because it was federal legislation. Is this the new realization? Is this the new life of the Bloc?

I would also like to point out that it was said in a speech by another member from this side of the House that the CRTC has been doing a good job for the last 30 years. I have to disagree with that person. I have to suggest that the speech came directly from the Department of Canadian Heritage and was not a speech of that member.

The fact is that Canadians are not protected, whether they be in Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia or Prince Edward Island. Canadians are tired of this arbitrary treatment. Notwithstanding what Bloc members might think, they are simply standing in the way of all Canadians, including their constituents and my constituents, in this matter for very dogmatic reasons which are best known to them and quite frankly not understood by anyone else. This includes the consumers associations in that province.

That being said, as I stated earlier, the time has arrived for members in this place to do something for the people they represent. We represent the people who pay the bills. We do not represent the large corporate interests in cable production which exist across this country.

That being noted, I would like to move another motion in conclusion. I seek unanimous consent to move the following motion:

That the order for second reading be withdrawn and that the subject matter of this bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

I would like to make it clear in moving that motion that I am not referring the bill to the committee. I am not asking that the bill be declared a votable item. I am simply asking that the subject matter of this bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you seek unanimous consent on that point.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to propose this motion to the House?

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

There is no consent.

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. The order is dropped from the order paper.

Is it agreed that we call it 6.30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary will be a little familiar with this question because I have asked it several times and I never get the right answer.

I urge the parliamentary secretary to listen to the question, think, and answer for himself, not a canned written answer by the department. This is not a highway issue. It is not a provincial issue. It is an issue of government responsibility on behalf of the federal government.

In September 1995 the federal government signed an agreement to put $16.2 million into a highway on one condition. That condition was that the province put $16.2 million into that highway as well. That is $16.2 of taxpayers' hard earned money. They each agreed to put $16.2 million into it.

However, as soon as the federal money was in, the province removed its $16.2 million. All of the government money is entirely the federal contribution of $16.2 million. Even though the province agreed to split this 50:50 it does not have one red cent in this section of highway.

We contend that it is the federal minister's responsibility for the $16.2 million. He was entrusted by the taxpayers of Canada to look after that $16.2 million and he cannot look the other way any longer. He must and he should and I hope he will act.

It is worse than that. It is worse than the fact that the province of New Brunswick took its $16.2 million out. The New Brunswick minister of transport recently said it was always the province's intention to recover the provincial share. Here Sheldon Lee was signing a contract saying the province was going to put 50% into this highway but on the side he says it was always the province's intention to not honour its word and take its 50% back.

It is even worse than that. Even though the province of New Brunswick is signing a contract saying it will put in $16.2 million if the federal government puts in $16.2 million, the minister of finance for the province of New Brunswick, Mr. Edmond Blanchard, said “We have always intended that the provincial money we invested in these sections of road would be recovered”. Here they were, signing a contract saying the province was going to put 50% in when it had absolutely no intention of doing so.

The minister said yesterday and at other times in this House that he will never let it happen again anywhere. He even acknowledged yesterday that there is an issue that has to be dealt with in future agreements. However, he is obligated to fix this agreement and not future ones, that they will look after themselves but this agreement must be fixed.

The $16.2 million of federal taxpayers' money must be accounted for. The contract is not completed yet. It does not expire until the end of March. The highway is not finished. The minister must tell the province of New Brunswick to put the money back, just like the province agreed to do in September 1995. It is not complicated. The province agreed to put $16.2 million into this highway. It has not put in one red cent.

Will the parliamentary secretary now tell the minister to tell the province of New Brunswick to put the money back and carry on with enforcing the contract in the same way it always should have?

The other question is why are the people of New Brunswick being subjected to this foolishness when no other Canadians will be subjected to it in the future according to the minister? The minister said he would not allow this to happen anymore, anywhere else. Why is New Brunswick being forced to take this treatment?

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport]

I would like to thank members of the Conservative Party for the applause but maybe they should wait for the answer.

I want to give the hon. member who is asking the question my interpretation of the facts as I see them in an answer that he surely will respect.

New Brunswick has chosen to operate a new Fredericton to Moncton highway as a public-private partnership using tolls. The province announced on January 23, 1998 that Maritime Road Development Corporation was to construct and operate a 195 kilometre four lane controlled access highway from Longs Creek, west of Fredericton to Magnetic Hill, west of Moncton.

The total capital cost of this project was $887 million. The cost includes new construction at $584 million plus the payment to the provinces for work completed or under way on various sections of $123 million, which does not include the $32 million federal contribution, plus land costs and construction interest costs. The overall agreement is for 50 years.

The highway will be open by November 30, 2001, but New Brunswick plans to start collecting tolls on the existing four lane Trans-Canada Highway between Moncton and River Glade starting July 1998.

The current provincial highway financing agreements are silent on tolls as they were never contemplated at the time the programs were established. The federal government has no legal basis to prevent provinces from imposing tolls on provincial highways, including those highways that have received federal contributions.

The federal government entered into these highway agreements because it wished to accelerate the construction of safer and more efficient highways. In this case New Brunswick has advised that the federal contributions are being deducted against the cost base that would be used to establish the tolls and the annual provincial payment for the remaining capital cost.

I hope the hon. member is absorbing all these important facts because he has hit a dead end on this road—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry to advise the parliamentary secretary that his time has expired.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak, in the four minutes I have, on the important issue I raised in this House in December, and that is the natural gas pipeline running from Sable Island to the United States by way of Moncton.

It is important to speak on this, because, as a representative of northern New Brunswick, I know we have already asked to have the pipeline pass through our region.

We would have used it as infrastructure to attract business and create jobs in the region. At the moment, business people back home have had studies made demonstrating the importance of it. I think the government should be interested in what we have to say, which is that the pipeline should pass through northern New Brunswick and right on through, even as far as Bernier, Quebec. That is what you would call a national line, like the national railway, which goes from the west to the east.

This is one way to develop our region and create jobs there. More than just viability should be considered. I think it important to invest in creating jobs in northern New Brunswick. This is the sort of investment we need. Back home, some 19.6% of people are on employment insurance, when what we need is investment to create jobs. People want to work. That is what they want, and we must take the necessary measures to give them jobs.

We already have the port of Belledune, which created jobs in our region. If we had the natural gas pipeline, it would create further opportunities for us. We must see it this way. I am not opposed to the natural gas pipeline going through southern New Brunswick only, I am even happy about that, but any industry coming to New Brunswick will go where the pipeline is. Once again, the northern part of the province will not have the opportunity to grow.

If we want northern New Brunswick to grow, we must give it the necessary tools. And that is one way to invest. We must not only see this in terms of viability, but as a way of investing in the northern part of New Brunswick. The same goes for other areas, like western New Brunswick. We cannot just turn our backs on them, without taking some kind of initiative to stimulate employment in the region. This is important. It is especially important, since fisheries in our part of the country has been all but shut down. The cod fishery has been shut down, and the crab quotas and everything else have disappeared. That is why it is so important to invest in the infrastructure of this region.

That is why I wholeheartedly recommend that the federal government think about setting up this line in northern New Brunswick. The Liberals may make jokes but they too are in favour, for they are watching New Brunswick—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Resources.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is aware and pointed out, last December the Minister of Natural Resources responded to questions about whether the Sable gas projects would be studied by the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. I think that was the tone and tenor of the question.

As the Minister of Natural Resources pointed out at that time, the Sable gas projects had already been studied for 10 months by an independent federal-provincial review panel.

The joint review panel was created in September 1996 to perform a single window review of the offshore and onshore Sable gas projects to satisfy the requirements of the National Energy Board.

Prior to its formal hearings the joint panel held 20 informal sessions in communities throughout the maritimes to provide information on the projects and to seek public input on the scope of the review to be conducted.

Following this the panel held 56 days of formal public hearings in Moncton, Antigonish, Fredericton and Halifax from April to July 1997. Some 125 interveners participated in the discussions.

I wonder if the member opposite participated in the discussions at that time. I do not think so. I think that actually there was a certain absence of the member at that session. I appreciate his raising the comments in the House this evening. However, probably the time to act as a good member of Parliament was at those sessions in his own riding.

It behoves us to point out the fact that the upscale benefits, particularly in terms of northern New Brunswick, are a decision the company will be taking. Of course laterals are being prepared for Cape Breton and other parts of Nova Scotia. I think that is very worth while. Perhaps the member could spend a little more time in his riding when he actually presents—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Halifax West.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, in November I raised a question as to whether the federal government would show leadership concerning aboriginal self-government. The response by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was in part that the government introduced a policy recognizing the inherent right to self-government and is working in partnership with the first nations.

On the surface this response may appear appropriate, but true recognition of aboriginal self-government and a true working partnership of aboriginal peoples must be more than just words. There must be sincere commitment evidenced by concrete positive action.

The federal government must not remain silent on important issues such as land claims and the sharing of natural resources. These two issues are fundamental to the concept of self-government.

Governments should be taking the lead in resolving these issues through negotiation rather than leaving them to costly and confrontational court action. A true partnership is built not upon confrontation but upon consultation and mutual respect.

How much consultation was there prior to the government's statement of reconciliation on January 7, 1998, at which time four out of five aboriginal leaders expressed disappointment with the process leading to that statement and with the statement itself?

Where was the spirit of partnership and mutual respect when Canada's head of state, the Prime Minister, failed to appear at what was intended to be a very significant response to the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples?

The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples argued that the right of self-determination was vested in all aboriginal peoples of Canada and that this right entitled aboriginal peoples to negotiate the terms of their relationship with Canada and to establish government structures that they considered appropriate for their needs.

The commission further proposed section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, recognizing and affirming aboriginal inherent right to self-government. That right became constitutionally entrenched, thereby providing a basis for aboriginal governments to function as one of three distinct orders of government in Canada.

The commission spoke in favour of negotiations as a means of developing self-government arrangements and clarifying the distribution of powers between governments.

Recent court decisions such as the court decision in New Brunswick concerning the right of aboriginal peoples to harvest trees on crown lands points to the need for negotiations around self-government, the distribution of powers and sharing of natural resources.

The importance of negotiations is also emphasized in one of the most significant cases of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Delgamuukw case. This case involved land claims, aboriginal rights, aboriginal title and self-government.

While reaching many important conclusions around the issue of aboriginal rights, aboriginal title and the importance of oral history in determining such issues, the court ordered a new trial regarding the specific land claims under dispute.

It is important to note that although ordering a new trial the court was not encouraging the parties to settle their dispute through the court but rather through negotiations in the spirit of the self-government principle recognized in the Constitution Act.

The court stated that the best approach in these types of cases is a process of negotiation and reconciliation that properly considers the complex and competing interests at stake.

The court concluded that the crown is under a moral if not a legal duty to enter into and conduct these negotiations in good faith. Ultimately, through such negotiation with give and take on all sides, we will achieve “the reconciliation of the pre-existence of aboriginal societies with the sovereignty of the crown”. The chief justice concluded “let us face it, we are all here to stay”.

In the spirit of that statement I call upon the federal government to negotiate in good faith with aboriginal peoples to resolve issues around land claims, the sharing of natural resources and self-government.