Debates of Dec. 6th, 1999

Nisga'A Final Agreement Act

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it. And more than five members having risen :

[The Speaker]

Call in the members.

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

Division No. 61

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from December 2 consideration of Bill C-9, an act to give effect to the Nisga'a Final Agreement, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place among all party whips and, pursuant to Standing Order 45, I believe you would find consent for the following motion:

That at the conclusion of today's debate on report stage of Bill C-9 all questions necessary to dispose of the said stage of the said bill be deemed put, a recorded division requested and deferred until the end of government orders on Tuesday, December 7, 1999.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the hon. chief government whip have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it has been said that this treaty, this agreement, is a matter introduced overnight. I would simply remind this House that in the three year run-up to the signing of the treaty no less than 500 public meetings and consultations were held, 296 of them in the Nass Valley and 13, no less, in a row, with a group of non-aboriginal residents. If we compare this to city constituencies, it is an astonishing degree of public consultation.

In approaching this agreement we must remember that it becomes law as far as the federal government is concerned, as far as federal constitutional law is concerned, with this enabling law. The enabling law is the product of considerable discussion between members of parliament and the former minister of Indian affairs, the hon. member for Brant, who is now in another portfolio, but it does contain one very important factor which has been addressed by some people from outside and was the subject of representations which I made to the minister. It includes an express legal stipulation that the treaty is subject to the constitution and the charter of rights. That is in the treaty itself, but to make assurance doubly sure I asked the minister to include this in the federal enabling legislation. It is there.

Further, I advised the minister that I and other members would be stating that our vote is cast on that basis. We would have the third assurance, les travaux préparatoires, of which the courts must take notice of the parliamentary intent that the treaty, as enacted by parliament, is subject to the charter and to the constitution. It means that there can be no provincial status, no third order of government unless it goes through the amending procedures, part V, sections 38 to 49 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

I think these corrections were necessary because of doubts that I had in relation to section 35(3) of the charter of rights which was not in the original charter but added in 1983, 12 months after its adoption. It applied to future treaties what was clearly applied in section 35(1), the original draft to existing treaties. Those existing treaties, all of them, were a known quantity, and we had all studied them, and they were clearly within the constitution and the charter that was being adopted.

To remove uncertainty I suggested at that time to the new minister of justice, one of our most distinguished jurists, Mark MacGuigan, the need for clarification. He thought, I think correctly, that it would be an extreme interpretation to say that this was a back door way of changing the constitution, that it could be settled in the future. In my view it has been done adequately and completely with the federal enabling legislation, the federal enacting law.

Let me get back to some other points on which the minister gave assurances to members of parliament that the treaty would not be a template for the remaining 50 treaties. It rests on its own special facts, among which is the fact that the Nisga'a leaders and the federal negotiators were superbly informed, they negotiated in good faith and with restraint. These conditions might or might not be replicated in future treaties because different federal teams take part. Every future treaty will have to be defended and supported on its own special sociological facts. Nisga'a stands alone. It is not a template.

I think when we get to the cities and municipal areas where conflicts of interest might reasonably be expected between different categories of rights, such as fee simple rights and claimed historic rights, that perhaps we need different and more advanced machinery, and I will come to that in a moment.

In recommendations to the Ministry of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as to future treaties, I have made these suggestions. In respect of all future treaties, the same principles and terms should be applied and the federal enabling legislation should cite that it is subject to the supremacy of the constitution and the charter of rights. In fact, this means that the principles of procedural due process of law, judicial review and, among other things, the principle of equality before the law and equal protection of the law are applicable. They are the supreme law of the land and in cases of conflict can be raised before the courts.

In respect of future treaty negotiations we also suggested that it be understood that the parties be required to undertake negotiations in good faith, which is a legal principle in international and constitutional law. They must also apply the principle of good neighbourliness, which is one of the oldest principles of civil law. It is part of the common law. In cases of breakdown there should be resort to the principle of arbitration and third party settlement.

We need improvement of facilities for judicial review. One of the problems we have had with cognate cases, not connected with the Nisga'a but the subject of some representations in the last few days to the parliamentary committee, is with the Federal Court of Canada. As an ambulatory federal court, it is not perhaps as fully seized of local social economic facts as local courts. It may be that there should be consideration given to establishing a mixed claims tribunal with developed expertise in economic issues, or else to investing provincial supreme courts, which after all are permanent courts in the locality, with competence to adjudicate economic evidence on reference. I simply say that these are suggestions for the future treaties still remaining.

One very useful suggestion is to include representatives of municipal and other elected governments in the negotiation processes for future treaties. The Union of British Columbia Municipalities has established a list of five principles. I think it makes sense because the local bodies have special expertise in relation to local water and power supply, as well as property title issues, and their expertise can be brought to bear.

I mention all this simply to say that Bill C-9 has been adequately considered and discussed. There have been three years of public consultation. It was open at all times to the parliamentary committee, if it wished, which is an all party committee. It has a single member majority on the government side. The opposition had only to ask for more detailed hearings. There was a strange silence in some areas of the opposition over those three or four years when jurisdiction could have been exercised in relation to the treaty.

I found this again in relation to a matter to which we gave some attention, Bill C-49, the native lands administration bill. It was reported by the committee with only one minor amendment, which had the unanimous endorsement of the committee. It was only at the last minute that we realized there were problems that should be addressed. With the co-operation of members of the House and the Senate, both Conservative and government members of the Senate, changes were made to Bill C-49, the native lands administration bill, which incorporated the principles of due process and similar guarantees that are certainly part of the federal enabling law in relation to the Nisga'a treaty.

I put out four newsletters to my constituents after the signing of the treaty, perhaps about 6,000 words of detailed legal material, and asked for comments. The comments came back. They were passed on to the minister. The changes the minister of Indian affairs made to the federal enabling law, in the text of the law, were as a result of representations made by constituents.

I think this is participatory democracy in action. I think it is the way to proceed with legislation. It is the best way to ensure that in the run-up to the 50 remaining treaties in British Columbia we can produce agreements without discord. We do not want 19 long summers of discontent in British Columbia. Our economy needs help. There are other matters to attend to. In good will and in good faith I think we can proceed with the further treaties. I recommend adoption of the federal enabling law.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just spoken said that this is not a template of settlements to come. If he would travel across Canada, as I did this past week, travelling across my constituency, he would not adhere to that particular hope or wish because it is already being stated across Canada by leaders of other Indian peoples that it will be a template. It was stated in my province about four days ago that it will be a template. To say that this will not be followed across Canada is sheer nonsense.

During this past week I had the privilege of travelling across my constituency where there are six native reserves. They are all fine people and we get along well, but the point I want to make is that they are waiting. They are waiting because there are some land claims to be settled. By that time, with the government's help, the Nisga'a treaty will become a reality, and they will follow it all the way through. It is what they will use in all future negotiations concerning land settlements.

A tract of land in northern Saskatchewan last week, as big as the entire Prince Albert National Park, was allotted to the Lac La Ronge band. They themselves say “Wait until the Nisga'a treaty comes down and we will see what happens”.

One of the myths that came out of this whole thing was that it was just another type of municipal government. Nothing could be further from the truth. I served in local governments for a total of 21 years. I served in the provincial legislature for a term and now I am here. A municipal government anywhere in Canada is nothing but a creation of the provincial government in the province in which it is located.

This is what happens under a provincial government. The province states that municipalities must have regular elections. The provincial government spells out the electoral process. I do not see that. After the electoral process is spelled out, then what? The municipality must have a bonded administrator. That is a requirement of the provincial government. On top of that it must prepare a budget statement that must be forwarded to the province. At the end of the fiscal year it must then have a bonded chartered accountant to make sure the books are in order. When that takes place, it is printed and distributed among the citizens of the municipality.

The government has created the myth that it is just another municipal government. It is a brand new level of sovereignty created in the province.

Last week in Prince Albert the native workers at the casino decided they would unionize. With the help of the Canadian automobile workers, a union was created. There was going to be an argument but the three or four chiefs stepped back until the next day. They said that the building will soon be sitting on reserve land and when they get sovereignty like there is under the Nisga'a treaty the chiefs said they will not have to adhere to the labour regulation board in Saskatchewan and will not have to listen to the labour regulations of the Government of Canada because they will be a sovereign state. I wonder why they are talking that way already before using Nisga'a as a template. Why are they saying it is nothing but a municipal type of government?

Each province has a right to establish certain laws. The province in which I live has a highway traffic act. The municipalities within the province of Saskatchewan cannot create their own highway traffic act. The province of Saskatchewan also has the right to contain within legislation hunting rules and regulations. A municipality cannot do that. The province of Saskatchewan has the right to have a labour relations board. The municipalities cannot do that.

Why is the federal government trying to tell Canadians that this treaty is just another form of a municipality? That is simply false.

I worked with the Nisga'a people for one full year. I taught there for a year. I have many friends who live there. Let me say, they are afraid of the bill because of the various things I have just mentioned. They want to enjoy the clear-cut accountability the rest of us have. They do not want to be subject to a rollover to the same type of government which gives them more power but less accountability.

The provinces do not have a right to control trade. That is not within their jurisdiction. That is the federal government's. Yet enshrined in this new type of municipality is a right to trade. That is fine but do not come out and tell the people that it is just another municipality.

The danger is that we are creating, and could create very quickly in 10 years, 100 Nisga'a type treaties all across Canada, all a separate legal entity unto themselves. Can we see the map of Canada being drawn up with 100 different principalities, each creating their own labour laws, each creating all of those things that we give to the province and the federal government? What are we doing? We are dividing Canada into principalities and we are not doing anything to improve the overall governance level among our native people. That is wrong.

The Indian Act was wrong. The accountability today is wrong. It needs to be improved but this bill simply does not do it.

I attended five town hall meetings last week dealing with a very serious issue in agriculture. At each meeting the participants voluntarily got into this topic. They are concerned. They are very intelligent people. We cannot tell the people that this is just another form of municipal government because it is not. We are granting sovereign power. In many cases it is sovereign power that the province does not have. In many cases it is equal to and can challenge the federal legislation.

Why not just admit it? Why does the government continue to propagate this myth that it is just another type of government?

I want my grandchildren to have the same right that I have today and that is to go down to my school division—and I sign 21 of those—and ask for an audited financial statement. It must be due at a certain time every year. Why is the government saying that this is another municipal government?

I want the right to vote at a specific, regular time for the people who serve in my town or in my school division. I want to know that all of the moneys are being handled in accordance with the law of the province in which we live.

This is a very serious thing. We are not doing our native people any service or any value unless we instil within the bill the municipal type of accountability on a regular basis. Ask the young people, ask the women and ask in many cases the chiefs. That is what they want and it is not in the bill.

The government is going to proceed with this legislation. It will be to the detriment not just of the natives of the country but it very definitely is going to be to the detriment of all Canadians.

I beg hon. members to stop spreading the myth that it is just another municipal type of government. That indeed is a myth. That myth is not selling in my province one iota.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this very important Nisga'a treaty. It is historic and one that all Canadians will benefit from as a result of the movement of this government and I believe rightfully so.

Because the Nisga'a agreement is an important page in Canada's history, I would like to take this opportunity to set out some of the facts surrounding this very important legislation. Perhaps even in the process I will correct some of the myths perpetuated by the Reform Party, including the member for Souris—Moose Mountain.

First and foremost I must stress that the Nisga'a treaty was negotiated within the constitutional framework of Canada. Everything done in the treaty was done in keeping with the constitution just as it is.

For example, section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 recognizes and affirms the existing aboriginal treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada. However, we do not know precisely the nature, scope or extent of these rights. In many circumstances unresolved claims of aboriginal rights have hindered economic development. Accordingly a number of cases have been brought before the courts in Canada in an effort to define aboriginal rights.

Through these court decisions we have learned a great deal about aboriginal rights but not enough to resolve once and for all the disputes arising from continuing claims of aboriginal people. In the most recent cases for example dealing with the existence and nature of aboriginal rights in British Columbia, the Supreme Court of Canada found that in the absence of treaties, lands in that province may be subject to aboriginal title.

Most important is the fact that the courts have told us that aboriginal rights are group and site specific. That means that wherever the courts consider issues concerning aboriginal rights, the courts do so in the context of the particular facts presented and in consideration of the particular group before them. Accordingly, while some general principles can be drawn from current case law, we cannot yet rely upon court decisions to make conclusions about aboriginal rights that would apply to all locations in Canada or in British Columbia.

Given that some court cases on aboriginal rights might take as many as 10 years to resolve and that they may not resolve issues in all locations, imagine how long it would take and how expensive it would be to resolve all outstanding aboriginal issues in British Columbia in this manner. It is unthinkable quite frankly. We must all keep in mind that in all these instances, these court outcomes might not be palatable to everyone or for that matter, to anyone.

The government agrees with the courts that negotiation rather than litigation is a better way to resolve outstanding aboriginal rights issues. Besides, while litigation is adversarial and may not lead to good relationships, negotiations do lead to mutually agreeable solutions and better relationships. That is the Canadian way. Unfortunately that is something the Reform Party has yet not understood.

In Canada the historic practice of negotiation and resolution of outstanding aboriginal rights issues is called treaty making. As in the case of existing aboriginal rights, the rights contained in treaties are also recognized and affirmed under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Although treaties covering much of Canada were concluded prior to 1927, in British Columbia this process was never completed. The Nisga'a treaty is the first modern treaty to be concluded in British Columbia. It resolves once and for all the Nisga'a outstanding claims of aboriginal rights including land and resources and self-government. This is something we truly can and will celebrate.

In 1995, Hon. Ronald Irwin made public the Government of Canada's approach to the implementation of the inherent right and the negotiation of aboriginal self-government. The approach he presented reflects an evolution in thinking that stretches over a long period of time.

For decades the citizens of Canada have been trying to find ways to reconcile the prior occupation of the country by aboriginal people with the sovereignty of the crown. Long before the arrival of Europeans, aboriginal people lived in this country and looked after their own affairs. First nations in British Columbia and elsewhere enjoyed existing governance and social systems.

Existing aboriginal rights are recognized and affirmed under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The 1995 federal inherent right policy recognizes that those section 35 rights include a right to self-government and that Canada is prepared to negotiate workable and practical self-government agreements and include them in treaties. There are different views about the scope and content of the inherent right, as in the case of other aboriginal rights, but this government has chosen to resolve self-government issues through the negotiation of practical arrangements within the context of our constitutional framework and legal framework.

Allow me to explain briefly how a negotiated resolution of claimed aboriginal rights to self-government works within the current constitutional context.

The Constitution Act, 1867 defines the lawmaking powers of federal and provincial governments. These are set out primarily in sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867. The scope of any aboriginal right in self-government may vary from community to community and accordingly to the circumstances of the various first nations. Consequently the aboriginal right of self-government under section 35 must be considered on a case by case basis.

That is what happened in the case of the Nisga'a. The Nisga'a final agreement does not only set out all the land and resource related rights that the Nisga'a will have under section 35 of the constitution act, it also identifies the self-government rights the Nisga'a will have under the same section of the constitution. The Nisga'a treaty will not alter the federal and provincial heads of power as set out in sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

Some have charged that the Nisga'a final agreement creates a de facto third order of government that requires a constitutional amendment. The meaning of third order of government is not clear. What is clear, however, is that the Nisga'a final agreement works and that it works within the current constitutional framework.

The protection of section 35 rights under our constitution does not mean those rights are set out in constitutional concrete as some critics claim. Although section 35 rights are protected, they are not absolute. A number of Supreme Court of Canada decisions have confirmed that governments still retain an overall authority but must justify any interference with aboriginal or treaty rights.

The Nisga'a government will clearly operate within the Canadian constitutional framework. Anyone who has read the Nisga'a final agreement knows that the charter of rights and freedoms will apply to Nisga'a government. This means the Nisga'a laws will be subject to the charter as will Nisga'a government decisions, for example, in issuing permits or selling land. The Nisga'a government will be subject to the charter just as all other governments are as well.

At the risk of repeating what has been said many times before, federal and provincial laws such as the criminal code will apply on Nisga'a lands once the treaty comes into effect. While in certain limited circumstances Nisga'a laws may prevail, there will be no exclusive Nisga'a law-making powers. This is a current model of law-making and important to note.

Nisga'a laws will only prevail for matters internal to the Nisga'a themselves, for example, laws relating to their culture, their language, the management of their land and their assets. In all other cases either federal and provincial laws prevail or the Nisga'a law must meet or exceed existing federal or provincial standards in order to be valid. It would be clear to anyone who closely examines it that the Nisga'a treaty works within the current framework of the Canadian constitution.

Perhaps those who argue that the Nisga'a final agreement cannot be given full effect without first amending the Constitution of Canada just do not understand the process and do not understand the value of a negotiated reconciliation of aboriginal rights within the Canadian federation. Perhaps they wish they could unilaterally impose their own arbitrary solutions. We on the government side prefer negotiation and reconciliation. After all, this is the Canadian way.

We all know where unilateral decisions would lead us. We have seen solutions imposed by one group on to another throughout history. Where possible lasting arrangements are best achieved when they are negotiated by all those who live by them. The Nisga'a treaty is one of these negotiated settlements.

I would urge all members of the House to leave the spurious, mean-spirited arguments behind, especially those of the Reform Party. I just do not understand why Reform insists on pitting people against people, group against group, region against region. It is not in keeping with the Canadian way. It is not what Canadians want.

I would ask that all members of the House move very expeditiously to pass this very important and historic treaty. I know that good judgment will prevail and that we will ensure the right thing is done. That is after all in keeping with what Canadians want, with what is good for Canada, and we will prevail in this matter.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to have an opportunity one last time to put out points of view regarding what I think is history in the making. I believe the passing of the Nisga'a deal is a monumental, pivotal point in Canadian history as we watch this group of aboriginal people take its first courageous steps toward true self-government. I hope we are seeing the beginning of the end of 130 years of absolute social tragedy: the Indian Act.

Like the member who just spoke, I too am shocked and appalled at some of the tone and the content of the arguments I have heard in the House of Commons as the bill is debated. I have watched as the Reform Party has systematically tried to discredit aboriginal people and tried to make the argument that somehow the Nisga'a are not ready for this move. It keeps threading together isolated incidents of misuse of funds from reserves across the country. It tries to thread that together into some argument that self-government is a bad thing or that aboriginal people are not ready or mature or competent enough.

I have even heard Reformers stoop so low as to compare the Nisga'a deal to apartheid. That is an injustice on many levels because it trivializes the struggle of black South Africans. Frankly, I do not think the people who said that even know what true apartheid is. It is shocking to me that they would make that kind of comparison.

For their benefit I did some research on what the apartheid regime really was. I went to the Library of Parliament and obtained the legislation that actually made up the apartheid system in South Africa.

I would like the House to hear some of what is in the legislation, compare it to what we know about the Nisga'a deal and if we think there is any comparison or relationship whatsoever.

One element of the apartheid regime was the Masters and Servants Act which made it a criminal offence to breach any contract of employment. Insolence, drunkenness, negligence and strikes would be considered criminal offences under the Masters and Servants Act.

Extra-marital intercourse between whites and blacks was outlawed by law. That became a crime.

The Native (Black) Affairs Administrative Act contained the pass laws. A black person had to carry a permit to enter a white neighbourhood. One could be charged with promoting feelings of hostility. In other words, if anything was said to anybody that may have promoted hostility, one could be arrested.

This is what black South African people went through under the apartheid regime. For the Reform Party to even compare the Nisga'a deal to apartheid, someone had to blow the whistle on that kind of ridiculous statement. In trying to stop the Nisga'a deal the Reform Party has also stooped so low during the debate as to spread myths that simply are not true. Reformers have said things about the Nisga'a deal that they know in their heart if they had ever read the deal are simply not true.

One of the things the Reform Party talks about is whether there should be a referendum on the agreement in the province of British Columbia. It knows full well that there is no precedence for a referendum. We did not have a referendum on NAFTA, or on the GST. We do not have referendums on these matters. We have a government that can decide these issues in the House of Commons or in the provincial legislatures. The reason there had to be a referendum vote among the Nisga'a people is that they did not have a structure of government which was binding on all of the people there or they would have been able to do that by a more conventional means, as well.

Should parliament not be able to change the treaty or alter it at this point to be able to make amendments to the deal? This is a three party agreement. Should any one party be able to impose their points of view on the other two?

[An hon. member]

Everybody in B.C. is against this deal.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

One of the members is saying that everybody in B.C.is against this deal. They are obviously wrong. This went to 46 communities in British Columbia. They toured the province. There was broad consultation. It was the longest debate ever in the history of the provincial legislature. It was ratified and passed and approved in its current form.

I heard the Reform Party say that this deal somehow denies women's rights. There is absolutely no basis for this claim. It is a myth. It is trying to do anything to undermine the legitimacy of the Nisga'a deal.

Does this treaty protect property rights? Reformers were trying to say that property rights were at risk. The treaty transfers ownership of the land back to the Nisga'a people collectively. The treaty allows for various ways for people to then privately own the land that they live on.

All these things were brought up during the 100 years of negotiation. They were carefully contemplated. They were debated and the issues are addressed within the text of the actual deal.

I have raised this in the House before. What is really galling is to see the Reformers trying to sell themselves as the champions of aboriginal people. If we scratch the surface just a little, go back a year or so, we can see in Hansard what Reformers were saying about aboriginal issues; things like “Just because we did not kill the Indians and have Indian wars, that does not mean we did not conquer these people. Is that not why they allowed themselves to be herded into little reserves in the most isolated, desolate, worthless parts of the country?” This is a Reform MP's comments on aboriginal people.

There is another which I like even better. I am talking about a man by the name of Herb Grubel who now works for the Fraser Institute. When he was a member of parliament he likened Indians on reserves to people living on a south sea island courtesy of their rich uncle. This is the attitude of a man like Herb Grubel. If he is teaching school or university somewhere, he should be muzzled. He should have a muzzle on with attitudes like this. It is absolutely scandalous.

One of the advisers to the aboriginal task force of the Reform Party is a man named Mel Smith, a self-professed pundit. Mr. Smith wrote a book called Our Home or Native Land , a clever play on words, criticizing any concept of aboriginal self-government. Obviously this is the true attitude of the Reform Party toward aboriginal people. Look at the company it keeps, look at things the party says, look at quotes like I have mentioned which would make any decent person in this day and age shudder.

One of Reform's past advisers, Tom Flanagan, whom I think at the present time is a college professor at the University of Calgary, wrote a paper asking why Indians do not drive taxis? He proceeded to go on a diatribe about every other group of immigrants who come to Canada start at low paying jobs such as driving taxis and eventually work their way up the economic ladder. He was making the point that he felt these lazy people would not take low paying jobs and get into the workforce. This was from Tom Flanagan, another Reform adviser. This is truly horrifying and I could circulate copies of the article to members for their own information.

In the next day or so we will see the last little bit of political mischief on the part of the Reform Party. We will see those members go to the wall to do all they can to stop the Nisga'a deal. They are forcing 450 and some odd votes tomorrow night and will make us stand up for every vote. I liken it to Custer's last stand. These great Indian fighters are going to have one last stand. But let us look at history and what happened at Custer's last stand. The Indian people won and they will win tomorrow even if we have to stand up 500 times. I will stand up 500 times. I do not care.

It has been very hard for me to sit in such close physical proximity to the Reform Party members and hear them and their outrageous comments for these past many months. As a member of parliament from a riding with a huge aboriginal population, I for one am sick of hearing it. The sooner this deal gets ratified, voted on and implemented the better it will be for Canada and the better it will be for all of us.

There is the myth that this particular deal will form the template for all other subsequent land claim settlements. Again, this is absolutely untrue. The Government of Canada has the mandate under the constitution to enter into treaties of this nature. The government is charged with that mandate. It negotiates each individual contract based on the merits of the claim.

The only thing I would criticize about the Nisga'a process is that it took 100 years. There was nothing wrong with the process. It was just spread out over too great a length of time. If we could somehow compress that to a reasonable length of time and keep that model of true negotiation and reaching a settlement in an amicable, that is the most civilized way of doing business. When we compare it to the alternative, which is violent struggle, the most civilized way for resolving issues of this nature is at the table, through collective bargaining and negotiation which is really what occurred in this matter.

It is now up to us. We in the House have the privilege to vote on this deal. I am very glad that I have the opportunity to vote on this deal. This is the most significant thing I have been asked to do since becoming an elected member of parliament. I will be proud to stand up tomorrow and vote in favour of the Nisga'a treaty.

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to be speaking to Bill C-9, the Nisga'a treaty. I would like to give the hon. members a description of who the Nisga'a people are, where they live and how their land claims agreement and the bill giving it effect have arrived here for the consideration of the House.

The Nisga'a live along the Nass River in a relatively remote area of northwestern British Columbia, 100 kilometres north of Terrace and Prince Rupert.

Other than the 2,500 Nisga'a who live in four villages along the river and at its mouth, approximately 125 other permanent residents occupy the 24,000 square kilometres of this valley. The only communities in the Nass Valley are Nisga'a communities.

Like many other similar northern British Columbia rural areas, forestry is by far the most important economic activity, although fishing, ecotourism, pine mushroom harvesting and a few service industries also contribute to employment. There are no mines or mineral claims, nor other major industries on the proposed Nisga'a land.

The Nisga'a who live in the Nass Valley are one cultural group based among the northwest coast aboriginal people. They have a complex culture based on the rich resources of the sea. Historically, like other northwest coast people, the Nisga'a were great artists, builders and crafts people. They still are and their art graces the exteriors and interiors of many of the buildings in their villages.

Salmon and the other resources of the Nass provide both food and the raw material for Nisga'a architectural, artistic and social achievements.

The Nisga'a live in large and beautifully built cedar post and beam houses located in the permanent villages. They have built ocean-going canoes, great totems, masks, horn spoons and many of the implements of everyday life.

Here on the banks of the Ottawa River, Nisga'a artistic and cultural achievements are on view in the Grand Hall of the Museum of Civilization and in the recently mounted “Common Bowl” exhibit. They can also be found in many of the world's museums. Nisga'a artists are also well represented in the world's art galleries.

Today about 2,500 of the 5,500 Nisga'a live in four villages: Kincolith, Greenville, Canyon City and New Aiyansh. Most of the other Nisga'a live in Terrace, Prince Rupert or Vancouver. Many Nisga'a still speak their traditional language, although everyone also speaks English.

Nisga'a villages have modern housing and infrastructure. The schools and community buildings are in constant use to hold Nisga'a social, cultural and ceremonial activities.

Although some of the Nisga'a share the difficulties common to all aboriginal communities, such as high unemployment and family breakdown, the Nisga'a have worked very hard to improve their circumstances. A high value is placed on schooling and post-secondary education. The Nisga'a operate their own provincial school district, school district No. 92. It offers kindergarten to grade 12 for both Nisga'a and other residents of the Nass Valley. One seat on the elected school board is reserved for a non-Nisga'a resident.

The Nisga'a also operate a post-secondary college in conjunction with the University of Northern British Columbia. It offers degree programs, life skills training, culture and language programs.

They also operate their own health board and again provide for non-Nisga'a representation.

Like other aboriginal people in Canada, the Nisga'a have struggled with the effects of the reserve and Indian Act system, residential schools and the lack of opportunities. However, they have taken up every available opportunity to take over education, health care, social and family services and other government programs seeking wherever they could to strengthen their families and communities.

They have also worked co-operatively with their neighbours. They participate in regional district government where a Nisga'a elder, Harry Nyce, who visited the House on the day this legislation was introduced, sits on the board. They also have for a number of years played a role in the Pacific Salmon Commission and its northern panel.

The Nisga'a have pursued a settlement of what they describe as the land question since at least 1887 when, as members of this place have heard, Nisga'a chiefs first travelled to the legislature in British Columbia to seek recognition of the aboriginal title, a treaty settlement and a measure of self-government. Their trip to Victoria was unsuccessful. In 1890 they established their first land committee and in 1913 that committee sent a petition to the privy council in England seeking to resolve the land question. Again, they were unsuccessful.

From the 1920s to the 1950s, the Nisga'a and other first nations' efforts to have their rights recognized and practise their culture were restricted. Legislation outlawed traditional practices such as the potlatch and made it illegal to raise money to advance land claims.

Following repeal of this legislation in 1955, the Nisga'a re-established their land committee. Under the leadership of Mr. Frank Calder, the tribal council took the land question to the courts. This was a bold decision and a mark of the Nisga'a commitment to seek a resolution of their rights. Many other first nations were concerned that this court case might be unsuccessful, but in the face of unfavourable lower court decisions, the Nisga'a pursued their case to the Supreme Court of Canada.

In 1973, the supreme court issued the Calder decision. Although the court split evenly on whether the Nisga'a continued to hold aboriginal title, it recognized the possibility of aboriginal rights and title continuing to exist in Canada. This decision was a major factor in prompting the government of the day to adopt a policy of negotiating land claims where they had not already been settled in Canada.

The Nisga'a were one of earliest groups to take up negotiations as part of this new process. They commenced in 1976. However, without the participation of the Government of British Columbia, progress on issues related to land could not be made. In 1990, the provincial government joined the process, and after that the pace of the negotiations began pick up.

Five years after signing an agreement on how to proceed with negotiations, the two governments and the Nisga'a signed an agreement in principle, which set out the main elements of the agreement which is before us today. Two and a half years later, the parties initialled the final agreement, a great achievement and culmination of over 100 years of perseverance by the Nisga'a.

The members of the House have heard a good deal about the consultations by the governments which accompanied the negotiations, consultations which included resource and other business interests, labour, local government and many interested Canadians. What has not been said is how the Nisga'a consulted with their own people throughout the negotiations. Every year the Nisga'a negotiating team met with a special assembly of all their members. These special assemblies were well attended and included information sessions on every aspect of negotiations. Strategies were reviewed and directions given to the negotiators.

Not only that, the Nisga'a brought many of their people, elders, band councillors and others to observe negotiations and report back to their communities. Prior to ratifying the final agreement, they conducted extensive briefings in every one of their communities and their Terrace, Prince Rupert and Vancouver urban locals, and they have also maintained an excellent website.

In these and many other ways, the Nisga'a negotiators have provided detailed information to every interested Nisga'a person on this proposed treaty.

In the face of this history, it is disturbing to hear from the official opposition members that Nisga'a cannot know for themselves whether this final agreement is good for them or not. I think the history of the negotiations of the Nisga'a land question shows very clearly that the Nisga'a are quite capable of making up their own minds, as they have.

I will end by pointing out to all members of the House that in the process of negotiating the land question, the Nisga'a developed a philosophy they call the “common bowl”. The common bowl is their pledge to work in concert to settle their claim and to share among all their people the benefits of that settlement.

It is time the House moved forward in the ratification of the final agreement. It is time for the Nisga'a to finally benefit from their common bowl.

I am very honoured to be able to speak to the Nisga'a treaty. I certainly urge all members to vote on the agreement because we all know that the Nisga'a have decided that it is good for their people.

Cruelty To Animals

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was born, raised and still live on the family farm and, along with my constituents, feel strongly about cruelty to animals.

Canadians across the country have joined animal welfare organizations in condemning incidents of mistreatment of pets and other animals. People are making it clear that they expect the government to respond to the seriousness of this cruelty. Early intervention is imperative.

Police studies confirm that the motivating factors of animal abuse are related to anger, control and power. This is totally unacceptable.

Therefore, specific changes to the criminal code should ensure that we make it illegal to brutally treat or viciously kill an animal, raise the maximum penalty for intentional cruelty, give judges the authority to order anyone convicted of cruelty to animals to pay restitution for shelter and veterinarian costs, and finally, prohibit anyone convicted of cruelty to animals from owning another animal.

We must and we will protect our animals from such heinous acts. People all across Canada have indicated that they will not tolerate cruelty to animals. Accordingly, the government will act decisively in this matter.

Fisheries

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the auditor general's report on the west coast fishery makes it clear that the fishery is headed for disaster unless DFO makes significant changes to improve the management and conservation of Pacific salmon.

The auditor general raises serious concerns regarding DFO's strategic planning record and calls for salmon management based on sound science. He calls for improved data quality and changes in reporting on the status of stock and habitat, and catch reporting. He also calls for mandatory recovery plans on threatened stocks and an independent allocation board for fish.

The situation is critical. The auditor general says that it may be necessary for the fishery to close for five years to recoup stocks unless immediate change is implemented.

Last week the fisheries minister denied the auditor general's criticism. It is time for the minister to read the report and face the facts. The minister must take control before Pacific salmon disappear, much like the Atlantic cod.

Victims Of Violence

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, although all of us were affected by the tragedy at École Polytechnique de Montréal, the real pain was, and always will be, that felt by the families and friends of the victims.

We must salute the courage of all the men and women who are working to break down the wall of indifference to violence. This includes the courageous Heidi Rathjen, Wendy Cukier and Suzanne Laplante-Edward who, through the Coalition for Gun Control, made a major contribution to the passage of an act in Canada aimed at doing away with violence.

Our appreciation goes out also to the Fondation de Polytechnique, which offers help to those who have lost loved ones and who would otherwise be left to cope alone with their despair.

All of us can make a contribution to making our society a healthier one by supporting activities in our community that are focused on doing away with violence.

Diabetes

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie—Lincoln, ON]

Mr. Speaker, between one million and two million Canadians are affected by diabetes and it exacts a serious toll on them and their families. I know because it has had an impact on my family.

I applaud the Minister of Health's recent announcement that funding to the Canadian diabetes strategy be increased by $60 million to $115 million over five years. These funds will help inform Canadians, help prevent diabetes where possible and help people better manage the disease and its complications.

There are approximately 60,000 new cases of diabetes diagnosed in Canada each and every year. Approximately one-third of persons with diabetes are undiagnosed.

There are two major types diabetes. Approximately 90% of people with diabetes have type II diabetes which usually occurs after age 40. Two major risk factors for type t are obesity and inactivity, which are modifiable. The strategy will link with healthy eating, nutrition and active living programs to deliver messages and education to target audiences on how to eat better and become more active. A sustained national focus on prevention and public education will aim to reduce the costs and harm associated with type II diabetes.

Congratulations to the minister for his foresight and strategy of prevention.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

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

Mr. Speaker, day after day the solicitor general gives us shallow, unbelievable assurances that there is an internal investigation by RCMP top brass into allegations of cover-up and criminal misconduct in the Hong Kong visa scam, allegations levelled by Corporal Read.

I have in hand a letter to Commissioner Murray dated February 11, 1998 from the RCMP Public Complaints Commission that details Read's allegations. So we know that he has it. Unfortunately, however, the only action since then has been an attempt by Read's superiors to discredit him.

The issue is the infiltration of organized crime into Canadian society. The allegations include visas and citizenship for sale, including the compromise of Canada's security system.

Read's allegations do not stand alone. There are binders full of documents that cry out for an aggressive, independent investigation, not just into the original Hong Kong complaint, but the allegations of cover up in both the RCMP and CSIS.

The solicitor general must appoint a special prosecutor to investigate these allegations.

Victims Of Violence

[Diane St-Jacques, Progressive Conservative, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago, a woman-hating killer took the lives of 13 students and one secretary at the École Polytechnique. Since then, the 13 have become the symbols of violence against women.

The President of the December 6 Victims Foundation Against Violence, Claire Roberge, described the deaths of these women as occurring on a battlefield they did not know existed, the battlefield of equal opportunity. At that time, we thought that battle had long been won, but it appears that nothing has been gained.

It is a mistake to believe that the battle to combat violence against women is over. Across this country, women and children are still being killed by men.

In memory of these young victims, including Annie Turcotte, who was from my riding, and of all women victims of violence, we must not forget this tragedy. It must make us think about the ways we can improve male-female relations.