Debates of June 3rd, 1999

Supply

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

Did you not get 6% in Windsor—St. Clair?

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect these fellows across the way do not like me. Do you know what? The feeling is mutual.

[David Iftody, Liberal, Provencher, MB]

We love you, Randy.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

I want folks who are watching on television to listen to this. Out of 156 members of the Liberal government, there are five sitting in the House.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The House leader for the official opposition knows the rules and he knows that he is not to refer to the absence of members from the House. He is well aware of that. I have had to rebuke him for this before and I know he would not want me to do it again.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I know that once in a while I get carried away, but I like people to know how many people are in the House of Commons when we are talking about an important issue like the Nisga'a agreement.

I want to point out that the only cost analyses for this Nisga'a agreement that have been available to the people of British Columbia have been the official estimates of the federal and provincial governments. My colleague from Delta—South Richmond said that we had better get something a little more objective on this, so he commissioned R. M. Richardson and Associates to prepare an analysis on the cost of the Nisga'a treaty to B.C. taxpayers.

That analysis has been made public and I want to express to the House some of the findings of the analysis with regard to the Nisga'a agreement. If there is some doubt on the financial aspect, surely it would be prudent for any government and all politicians, regardless of what party they are in, to check it out, particularly if the numbers are at serious variance.

Here is what Richardson found on the analysis. The total cost of the Nisga'a treaty, as measured, is up to $1.5 billion, in fact $1,515,800,000, compared with the official government estimate of $485.8 million.

Somebody might say that R. M. Richardson and Associates are wrong. How far wrong are they? Are they wrong by $1 billion? If they are wrong by $10 million taxpayer dollars should it not be the responsibility of the government to stop and check it out?

We all know the record of the NDP in British Columbia. It does not matter to those folks. They would blow tax dollars like there is no tomorrow, and for the NDP there is no tomorrow. It does not matter to them. However, there is going to be a good dog fight in the next federal election. I would suggest to the Liberal government that it check out this $1 billion discrepancy on that item alone.

The British Columbia government has underestimated crown land values, construction costs of the Nisga'a highway, forest renewal, B.C. spending and third party compensation costs. We had better think about this. Perhaps there is something wrong and we should check it out.

Non-reserve Nisga'a settlement lands, which constitute approximately 1,930 square kilometres, are valued at $406.4 million, compared with the $106.7 million estimate of the Government of British Columbia. This is not $10,000 or $10 million. We are talking about $300 million.

This should not be about making everybody feel good and making sure this goes, being the champions of this group or that group. It should be for all taxpayers across the country because there are a lot of dollars involved. We should reassess the situation. It should not be reassessed by government or government employees. Let somebody else do the job. That is what we did. It was a fair assessment. There was no political ploy.

I call on the government to listen to what we are saying. This valuation includes forest resources at $268.2 million, mineral resources at $13.8 million, water resources at $17.5 million and fisheries resources at $106.9 million.

What about the Nisga'a highway? The Nisga'a highway will cost at least $87 million, compared with the estimate of the Government of British Columbia of $41 million. This Liberal government, just like that, is willing to sign on behalf of young people and on behalf of seniors on fixed incomes who are going to pay the bill.

There are very few members on the other side who are listening to this very important debate. The whole darn government should be in this House listening.

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

Mr. Speaker, to the few members of the Reform Party who are here listening as well, I would like to make a comment on the remarks made by the hon. member.

I thank the hon. member for his comments and his premise in terms of fiscal issues being outside the motion. The member for Skeena wanted to talk about self-government and the debate has gone in that direction for the past two hours.

I am familiar with the report of Mr. Richardson and I have looked at.

After checking the record, I find the testimony of the Auditor General of Canada to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to be entirely inconsistent to the question I posed about land evaluations that far north in areas of Canada with that kind of space. I asked him what kind of acceptable accounting standards and practices would be used to make those kinds of categorizations and whether the Government of Canada was within its boundaries and properly understood those limits or boundaries with respect to those evaluations. I was told by the gentleman at that committee that we were indeed within those boundaries and it was acceptable according to the officials from the auditor general's department.

Who would the member believe, Mr. Richardson, who I do not know nor do I think anyone in the House knows, or the Auditor General of Canada? If he is an accountant, could he answer that?

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let me clarify a couple of things.

A parliamentary secretary in the House does what he is told on the government side. This particular individual is here trying to defend on behalf of the government the whole Nisga'a agreement. It is quite irrelevant to me if there is a motion on the table as to a certain aspect of the Nisga'a agreement. I am trying to address something very specific.

It is not just a question of whether it is the auditor general involved in this. That is what I said originally. My colleague from Delta—South Richmond commissioned a private firm to do it. I would suggest to the government that it commission, and ought to have commissioned, several private firms to undertake a cost effective analysis on this thing.

It is not a matter of just going to the auditor general and saying it has a variance of 5%. Does the member know what a variance of 5% on one billion dollars is? It is a lot of money to the Canadian taxpayer.

The premise I am trying to get across to the hon. member and those few Liberals who are here listening is that there is much money involved in this. They should not just assess what some bureaucrats are telling them that this is what it is going to cost because they want this to be put into place. They should not just assess and take the word of the auditor general.

The government should commission a number of organizations. It has time. We have managed to get this thing deferred until the fall. Over the summer, why does it not commission two separate firms to make a cost effective analysis of this? If there is such a large discrepancy, which I am charging today there is, then it should halt the process, re-evaluate it and look at it not just from the social aspect of it, not just from any other aspect of it, but look at it as well from the fiscal cost of it.

This is going to cost British Columbians and all Canadians a great deal of money. The effects of it down the road will cost British Columbians and all other Canadians, by virtue of other land claims, a great deal more money. There is a lot at stake here. It is not just a one day debate that we happened to have called for in the House of Commons. The government has time. Why not do it?

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford has asked for a direct question on the points he has raised, I will ask him a direct question on the points he has raised and that is the value of the land in question.

Maybe the member for Langley—Abbotsford can correct me on this, but it is my understanding that the land in question has all been logged. The majority of it, up to 80% or 90% of it, has been logged. The region is second growth and much of it is much too young to cut. That was part of the reason the companies involved in this transaction gave it their blessing. Can the member for Langley—Abbotsford comment on that?

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not live in the area, but one of our members who does assures me that it has not all been logged, and I am sure that is true.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

There is no access.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, regardless of whether or not there is access to the land, we do not say it has no value when it comes to any of our other forest renewal areas in British Columbia that have no access.

We have to look at the value of the land when there is access. As most Liberal members are from Ontario or Quebec, I do not know if they understand what we log in British Columbia via helicopter from remote regions of our province. Just because it is remote, it does not mean there is less value to it. It probably means that there is greater potential value to it.

[Derrek Konrad, Reform, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to see that no Liberals have left. There are so few, we would hardly even notice.

In speaking to the supply day motion, I will begin by pointing out that in a court of law both sides have their experts and so to say that one opinion or two opinions represents what is right or not right in a particular case really needs adjudication. That is the whole entire point.

I attended a conference just last week on the Delgamuukw decision. The only certainty that arose out of that conference was that certainty is the one thing that is not available from the Delgamuukw decision.

Experts, while not a dime a dozen are in fact very expensive. However, they are certainly not in short supply.

The supply day motion wants the Liberal government to ask the question, prior to ratification, whether the supremacy of the Government of Canada will still be in force after the treaty is ratified. We are asking if it constitutes an amendment to the Constitution? We want to know what it does does to individual rights? We are simply asking for judicial clarification and that we hold the agreement in abeyance until that time. That is not so terribly much. It is about the bare minimum that should be available to people.

The Liberals have maintained a rather cozy relationship with aboriginal leadership and that relationship has not always been to the benefit of individual Indians.

One of the things I found out, and I have not been here all that long, is that in the 1950s Indians could not sell the fruit of their labour and retain the proceeds. Grain, for instance, had to be sold and the money was returned to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It was spent, of course, by the leadership. Therefore, evolution is not always a negative process. They now have that right but prior to that, with the agreement of chiefs and the department of Indian affairs, that was denied to them.

Just recently, section 77(1) of the Indian Act was struck down. That is the section of the Indian Act that forbade band members who did not ordinarily reside on a reserve the right to vote in band elections.

Guess who fought alongside the chiefs and councils to deny them that right? It was the department of Indian affairs. It had intervened to deny non-resident band members the right to participate in the election of the government of their reserves. It was a denial of democracy.

On the Nisga'a land there are many members who do not live on the reserve. We wonder, would those people have voted for this had they been there, or were their rights denied that way?

Bill C-31 Indians who have, until now, been denied a voice in shaping the policies that govern reserves, of which they are a part, have finally got a voice in the government, in the way moneys are handled, in the facilities, program administration and all of these types of things. They finally have a voice but they were denied that voice because they were not a part of the group that resided on the reserve. We are saying that we need these types of questions answered in the Nisga'a case.

Mobility rights were denied by that section. It had the effect of impinging on the mobility rights of Indians by requiring them to maintain residency on a particular reserve in order to exercise their rights as band members.

I point out as well that the auditor general is critical of Indian affairs' mismanagement of taxpayer funds directed to band administered programs. He cites lack of legislative authority, lack of reporting mechanisms and characterizes it as dump and run as only a couple of instances. We might ask who is responsible for this. The Liberal government is responsible.

Liberals may feel their motives are above question. They may ask themselves if their motives were good, and they may feel their motives were excellent. They may feel that their integrity in the process was above question. They may ask themselves if they did this with full integrity and will believe they have, although I find that we question it. However, it is their ability to negotiate and implement a modern treaty that is definitely questionable and the Nisga'a treaty is just one example of that.

I would like to point members to the auditor general's recent comments. Chapter 14 of the auditor general's report on Indian and northern affairs, comprehensive land claims in section 14.16 states:

Although the Parliament of Canada has jurisdiction in matters relating to Indians and land reserve for Indians, co-operation in settling claims is needed from the territorial and provincial governments with respect to certain lands that fall under their jurisdiction.

While it is admitted that the federal government has the agreement of the current B.C. government, it is clear that there is no such agreement with the next Government of British Columbia. Should the government not have negotiated a treaty that had all party support, one where when the next government is elected it is not seeking to overturn it by court action, which it is already trying to do, one that enjoys broad popular support and there are no regrets. It seems to me that would be an important issue to have been addressed prior to the signing of the Nisga'a treaty.

The Nisga'a final agreement fails to create or address private property rights for Nisga'a people. I think that is very important. For about 130 years, Canada's governments have denied individual Indians the right to own private property on reserve lands. They have been subjected to a collectivist approach to land holding that has termed traditional. However, I would like to take issue with that statement.

Prior to settlement by the colonial powers, the Indian people had a variety of societies within the boundaries of what is now Canada. There were nomadic tribes on the prairies for whom the idea of ownership of land would have no meaning. These were people for whom land as such would have no value. They moved about with the seasons following the game which they depended on for their livelihood.

Consequently, ownership of articles that could be relocated were really the only kind that had value to them. I would like to list a few. their dwellings were mobile. Their horses were absolutely essential because the buffalo moved about. If we look at their drawings and paintings from that period we see that is what they related to. We do not see landscapes in their paintings. I think that demonstrates a point. No one would even steal land, let alone buy it because no one owned any land as it had no intrinsic value to a nomadic people. It was useful only insofar as it could sustain them when it was necessary. Neither communal nor fee simple ownership is traditional to such a people. The important thing was use.

In other areas of Canada, Indians remained in one place due to the relatively hospitable weather, the ongoing abundance of game and the fact that some crops could be raised. It was a different type of society. These conditions allowed for the creation of societies in which people built permanent houses and communities.

It would be safe to say that these people were not interested in communal ownership of their homes. That is important. Simply because they did not have a Torrens land title system in place and issue paper titles to their property does not mean to say they had no concept of ownership of property.

The whole principle behind a title or a deed system is that it simply documents ownership and may indicate extent, or to put it in other terms, size, shape and location of property. To say that a collectivist approach works there speaks against the reality of the day.

As I stated earlier, the reserve system of allotting land to Indians is based on the principle of communal ownership which I believe is not based on actual historical facts. It was created for the purpose of creating sanctuaries from encroachment by settlers to ensure a land base for Indians and their dependants. That was certainly an important and necessary action the Canadian government took.

Traditional activities such as hunting, fishing and gathering country food were seen as major activities which would occur on reserves with a view to preserving traditional lifestyles in what was at the time a primarily agricultural and resource based economy. That a different vision now exists in the context of a modern society based not on traditional but on modern commercial activities calls for a different approach to land holding.

Holding land in common concentrates not only economic power in the hands of a few or of an elite, but political power as well. Many rank and file Indians are beginning to speak out on the issue of the abuse of power and conflict of interest, cronyism and lack of accountability on reserves where land is held in common.

There is no denying that ownership of land has been an effective tool in the creation and distribution of wealth in Canada but only for those to whom it is available. For the Liberal government to perpetuate the collective communal approach while refusing to admit any other approach that might recognize an individual band member's right or desire to hold a portion of the land in fee simple is a major weakness not only in the Nisga'a treaty but in the ongoing policy of the government.

For the Nisga'a final agreement to be held up as a model for future B.C. treaties while ignoring this fundamental flaw is to perpetuate an ongoing injustice visited upon all Indians who desire something more out of life. To be lumped into a communal system with no means of breaking out and experiencing the same freedom and opportunities afforded other citizens of Canada is a miscarriage of justice in my view.

The House should refuse to deal with this treaty. It should send it back for revision on a number of issues which my colleagues and myself are highlighting today.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, throughout the day we have been hearing Reform's reasons why the Nisga'a deal should be put to bed and that it should not happen.

What we are really hearing is that any move toward true aboriginal self-government or toward the emancipation of aboriginal people should be squashed, because for some reason they are not ready for it, or they are too rife with corruption, or there is a mismanagement of funds. For two years we have heard Reform members cite isolated incidences of the misuse of funds. They have tried to thread that together into some overall picture that aboriginal people do not deserve control over their own destiny.

We just heard another speaker on this subject try to point out that there is mismanagement and abuse and that they are speaking out for the grassroots aboriginal people. It is really galling for most of us in the House to listen to the Reform Party try to paint itself as the champion of aboriginal people.

Recently we heard members of the Reform Party, such as the member for Athabasca, say that just because we did not kill the Indians and have Indian wars that does not mean we did not conquer these people and is that not why they allowed themselves to be herded into little reserves in the most isolated, desolate and worthless parts of the country. Thankfully not all members of the Reform Party agree with this.

We also heard Herb Grubel a former MP counter this. He likened Indians living on aboriginal reserves to people living on south sea islands and being taken care of by their rich uncles. One of them thinks they live on desolate little worthless pieces of property, driven there as vanquished people by the conquerors. Another one says that living on a reserve is like living off the fat of the government, like some guy on a south sea island being taken care of by his rich uncle.

Fortunately, the most recent speaker tried to be a little more sensitive in pointing out some of the true hardships that exist on aboriginal reserves. That is what I would like to comment on. He itemized some of the genuine social problems that exist in aboriginal communities and which desperately need some measure of change.

The situation in aboriginal communities is a predictable consequence of colonialism. It is like others in recent history who were driven off their land, vanquished and then suffered alcoholism, broken families and all those things. The most recent one we could relate to is the British during the industrial revolution. People were driven off their land and found themselves in ghettoized situations. Would the member like to comment on that analogy with his own history perhaps?

[Derrek Konrad, Reform, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his intervention.

There is no disagreement on facts. I have been on many reserves as a land surveyor and as a member of parliament. Anybody who has been on a reserve would not disagree with the facts. Anybody with eyes can see that things are terrible on reserves. They have been terrible for many years and if the present situation continues it will be terrible for many more years.

One of the things that happened in Britain was a change in social policies. It enabled individuals to take some control over their own lives while the government provided support along the way. It is not so much on the facts that we disagree but it is on process.

There is another situation in B.C. that was resolved with the Sechelt Band. Nobody has any question about that. It is a completely different type of land claim which does not have constitutional implications for its government but it does involve the land itself.

In the final analysis it is fair to say that there are really only two visions in this country. The Liberals, the Tories, the NDP and the Bloc represent one type of thinking on Indian affairs. The Reform Party has put forward a completely different vision, that there is a possibility for individualism to make a difference in the lives of Indian people and that they could own their own land.

In closing I point out to the hon. member that I have relatives who are Indians as well. They have done very well but they are not living on reserves. They are actually landowners and private citizens within the Canadian federation and they are very successful.

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific)]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the Nisga'a treaty is the right thing to do for Canadians and for the Canadian government in recognition of the problems that have not been settled since the early settlements of Europeans in Canada. I quote from the Nisga'a chiefs who travelled to Victoria in 1887 and asked to settle this issue:

We are not opposed to the coming of the white people into our territory, provided that this be carried out justly and in accordance with the British principles embodied in the royal proclamation. If therefore as we expect the aboriginal rights which we claim should be established by the decision of His Majesty's Privy Council, we should be prepared to take a moderate and reasonable position.

What happened is the Nisga'a accepted the white European immigrants settling in Canada and British Columbia. They were asking for a treaty to set down their rights and different issues but they were denied.

It is right that we recognize what the constitution has set out and what we owe to the aboriginal people. This is a treaty not based on race but based on rights.

We always hear the Reform Party talk about this being a treaty based on race. It so happens that the rights we owe are to the aboriginals who are a race, yet the rights we are giving back to them are aboriginal rights. These rights are based on the fact that they were here first. They lived on this land and the Europeans came in and intruded on their land. They accepted them, yet their original rights were not recognized by the government at the time.

To me, it is the right thing to do. We might not be happy that we did not get everything we wanted in this treaty, but it is a negotiated treaty. It is a balanced treaty. That is the merit of negotiation. The natives, the aboriginals, the Nisga'a would like to have a lot more than is specified in this treaty, and we, representing Canadians, would like to have a lot more and have given much less. The merit of negotiation through so many years is that we have to come to a compromise. We have to come to a balance.

I support this treaty. I think it is right for the nation and for British Columbians to move forward so that we have certainty in the land. We can remove uncertainty so that investments can come back to British Columbians again. The aboriginals, the Nisga'a people can have the confidence to move onward and to be integrated into Canadian society.

The second thing I want to address is the legality of the agreement. The Reform Party always complains and challenges the constitutionality of this treaty. It has tried to challenge this. It has joined the B.C. Liberal Party to challenge this issue.

Mr. Speaker, before I continue, I would like to mention that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Pierrefonds—Dollard.

The Reform Party has challenged the constitutionality of this treaty yet it has already joined the B.C. Liberal Party to challenge it in the B.C. court. The judiciary has indicated that it would be more appropriate for the courts to consider questions relating to the constitutionality of the treaty where the full legislative record is available to the courts for consideration. It does not make sense for the Reform Party at this stage to ask us to refer this matter to the supreme court.

Members of the Reform Party always talk about the rule of law. They believe in the rule of law. They believe in the constitution. They believe in law and order. Yet they choose the decision of the supreme court as support. They believe in the rule of law, they believe in the supreme court. This is why they want to refer this issue to the supreme court. Very often they pick and choose what the supreme court decides. They pick and choose what the constitution specifies.

Let us talk about aboriginal rights. They are specified in the constitution. Reform Party members say we should treat everybody the same. Then what about these aboriginal rights that are different for aboriginals? They say to treat everybody the same, that on the Nisga'a issue the solution is to abolish the Indian Act and treat everybody the same, allow them to be Canadians and then everything will be fine.

With that position members of the Reform Party are denying the aboriginal rights of the Nisga'a. How can they say both at the same time? First they deny the Nisga'a rights by treating everybody the same. They are not the same. Aboriginal people have aboriginal rights. They have different rights than we have and which are guaranteed by the constitution. If they have different rights, then they cannot be treated the same. That is what the constitution says. If they support the supreme court decision, then they have to agree that we have to give the Nisga'a different rights.

The supreme court said not to go there for a ruling. It is going to be expensive; it has been proven to be expensive. It said that Government of Canada and the people of Canada should negotiate with the aboriginals to settle what the aboriginal rights are all about.

If Reform members believe in the supreme court, if they want to uphold the rule of law, then they should support this agreement. This is a negotiated treaty between the Government of Canada, the Government of British Columbia and the Nisga'a people.

A Reform member previously said that the NDP, because it is so low in the polls, does not represent the people of British Columbia. The NDP government is still the Government of British Columbia. The notion of saying that Canada or the province of B.C. is governed by polls is a tremendous insult to democracy in Canada.

If we were governed by polls, according to a recent poll the Reform Party only has about 30% support in B.C. and the Liberal Party of Canada has about 50%. Does that mean that the Reform members in this House do not represent the voice of B.C., but that seven members of the Liberal Party represent all British Columbians? There is some misrepresentation in that argument. There are approximately 30 members of the Reform Party who represent their ridings in B.C. and there are seven members of the Liberal Party who represent their ridings in B.C.

This is the right thing to do. We have to move forward. After 100 years of negotiation, after 100 years of troubles with the Nisga'a people, it is time for us to move on.

Reform complains that this treaty has some problems in that the charter does not apply, but the charter of rights does apply to the Nisga'a treaty.

Again Reformers are wrong when they say that this treaty does not give protection to women. The B.C. family relations act applies. They also said that trade unions would not be able to organize under this treaty. Once again they are wrong. The labour law of the province and of Canada would apply.

I urge all members of this House to support the Nisga'a treaty.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remark on one comment made by the hon. member which has not yet been raised today. One new idea has come up today that we have not heard rehashed over and over again, and that is that treating people equally is not the same as treating everyone in the exact same way. Equality is not the same as treating everybody in the exact same way because it does not recognize the historic imbalances which may exist. We should be shooting for equal opportunity or access to equal opportunity, and that may make it necessary to treat some people unequally in order to raise them up to the same, level platform.

I would like to quote from Judge Murray Sinclair of Manitoba in the Manitoba aboriginal justice inquiry. He put it very well and in very short terms. He stated:

Discrimination involves the concept that the application of uniform standards, common rules and treatment of people who are not the same constitutes a form of discrimination. It means that in treating unlike people alike, adverse consequences, hardships or injustice may result.

I want to thank the member for raising that very key point because it helps to defuse some of the misinformation that we have heard from members today.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to the speech of the member for Richmond in which he dealt with the issue of aboriginal rights.

What happens if an amendment is made to the treaty given that there is constitutional protection for aboriginal and treaty rights? Will it require a more rigorous and more lengthy process to amend the treaty?

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member's question, we have extensive, comprehensive legal advice from the Department of Justice that the treaty which we negotiated does not violate the constitution. We do not need an amendment to the constitution to adapt this treaty. The issue of constitutionality does not exist.

To the best of my knowledge, this treaty is constitutional and we should be able to move ahead without amending the constitution.

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the hon. member answered the question. The question was: Can this agreement be amended without a more complicated constitutional amendment formula? I would like to add to that question: Is it not true that it takes the agreement of all parties to amend this agreement? Is it not true that this treaty will become part of the constitution under section 35, and protected under that section, and therefore any changes to it would have to go through constitutional amendment processes?

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, to the best of our knowledge, from input from judicial experts, this is protected by the constitution. This treaty defines the aboriginal rights which are protected by the constitution. That does not mean that we have to amend the constitution to engage it.

The constitution specifies the rights of different peoples. We do not need to amend it. The courts continually define the constitution, to the best of the knowledge of those involved in the judicial system, but we never have to amend the constitution on those issues.

I believe that the treaty is constitutional and we do not need to worry about a constitutional impact.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, with this agreement, which involves the Nisga'a nation, Canada and the Government of British Columbia, can the member explain why the Nisga'a people were allowed to vote in a referendum, which is one part of the agreement, when the Canadian people, namely British Columbians, were not allowed to vote in a referendum on the same issue?

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that was how the treaty was negotiated. It was agreed by all parties. The people of B.C. are represented by the legislators which they elected, so it is not true that the people of B.C. were not represented in these negotiations. The people of B.C. are also represented by members of parliament in this House and we speak on their behalf. That is how Canada is governed. Canada is not governed by referenda.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the motion of the hon. member for Skeena on the Nisga'a treaty.

The signing of treaties is an opportunity for a fresh start. Treaties signal our will, as a society, to accept responsibility for past mistakes and to correct them.

Treaties also represent a way to bring about positive changes and to promote the harmonization of our historical and cultural differences, so that we can all march together toward the future.

To gather our strengths: This is what the government pledged to do in Canada's aboriginal action plan entitled “Gathering Strength”. We developed an action plan as the first page of a new chapter on relations between the Government of Canada and aboriginal people. This chapter will be marked by the will to build the foundations of a future that is more prosperous and more than ever based on co-operation.

Strengthening aboriginal governance: The royal commission took the view that the right of self-government is vested in aboriginal nations. The commission also noted that the exercise of extensive jurisdictions by local communities may not always lead to effective or sustainable governments in the long term. The federal government supports the concept of self-government being exercised by aboriginal nations or other larger groupings of aboriginal people.

It recognizes the need to work closely with aboriginal people, institutions and organizations on initiatives that move in this direction and to ensure that the perspectives of aboriginal women are considered in these discussions.

Aboriginal people recognize the need for strong, accountable and sustainable governments and institutions. This means ensuring that aboriginal governments and institutions have the authority, accountability mechanisms and legitimacy to retain the confidence and support of their constituents and of other governments and institutions, to govern effectively.

The Government of Canada will work closely with aboriginal people, and provincial and territorial governments, where appropriate, to turn this political ideal into a practical reality.

Recognizing the inherent right of self-government: The Government of Canada recognizes that aboriginal people maintained self-sufficient governments with sustainable economies, distinctive languages, powerful spirituality, and rich, diverse cultures on this continent for thousands of years.

Consistent with recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, the federal government has recognized the inherent right of self-government for aboriginal people as an existing aboriginal right within section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Today, approximately 80 tables to negotiate self-government arrangements have been established bringing first nations and Inuit communities together with the federal government, provinces and territories.

Federal departments continue to devolve program responsibility and resources to aboriginal organizations. More than 80% of the programs funded by the Department of the Indian Affairs and Northern Development are now being delivered by first nations' organizations or governments.

In April 1996, the administration and funding of cultural education centres was transferred to first nations' control, and management of the aboriginal friendship centres program was devolved to the National Association of Friendship Centres. Responsibility for administering training supports has been devolved through regional bilateral agreements.

In the north, the federal and territorial governments and aboriginal organizations are involved in a number of forums throughout the western Northwest Territories to discuss the ways of addressing aboriginal self-government aspirations at the territorial, regional and community levels.

Progress continues to be made on the establishment of the new territory of Nunavut, in which the self-government aspirations of Inuit of that region can be implemented through a new territorial government. In the Yukon, six self-government agreements have been signed and eight are being negotiated with Yukon first nations, while discussions are underway with the Yukon territorial government and Yukon first nations about the devolution of remaining provincial-type powers to the territory.

Self-government processes for Metis and off-reserve aboriginal groups exist in most provinces. In these processes, the federal government is prepared to consider of the variety of approaches to self-government, including self-government institutions, devolution of programs and services, and public government.

All of these initiatives provide opportunities for significant aboriginal input into program design and delivery, and should ultimately lead to direct control of programming by aboriginal governments and institutions.

New approaches to negotiations in the recent past have led to agreements on processes being reached with the land-based Métis Settlements General Council in Alberta and with the urban-based Aboriginal Council of Winnipeg.

Building governance capacity: As the royal commission noted, many aboriginal groups and nations require support in order to assume the full range of responsibilities associated with governance, including legislative, executive, judicial and administrative functions.

The federal government acknowledges that the existing federal policy and negotiation process, particularly in the area of capacity building, can be improved. To address this, the Government of Canada intends to include a focus on capacity-building in the negotiating and implementing of self-government.

The government is also prepared to work with aboriginal people to explore the possible establishment of governance resource centres. These centres could help aboriginal people develop models of governance, provide guidance on community consensus building and approaches to resolving disputes, and serve as a resource on best practices.

They could assist aboriginal people to identify the skills required. They could also play a role in supporting capacity development in the areas of administrative, financial and fiscal management.

Aboriginal women and self-government: Capacity development also means ensuring that aboriginal women are involved in the consultations and decision-making surrounding self-government initiatives.

The federal government recognizes that aboriginal women have traditionally played a significant role in the history of aboriginal people and will strengthen their participation in self-government processes. This is particularly relevant for women at the community level. Consistent with the approach recommended by the royal commission, the federal government will consider additional funding for this purpose.

Aboriginal justice: The Government of Canada will continue to discuss future directions in the justice area with aboriginal people. We will work in partnership with aboriginal people to increase their capacity to design, implement and manage community-based justice programs that conform to the basic standards of justice and are culturally relevant.

We will also work with aboriginal people to develop alternative approaches to the mainstream justice system, as well as dispute resolution bodies. Programs will require the inclusion of aboriginal women at all stages.

Professional development in land, environment and resource management: The Government of Canada, in partnership with first nations, intends to develop and implement professional development strategies in the following key areas:

Law-making: a primary vehicle for legislative and executive capacity building to equip first nations with trained personnel.

Lands and environmental stewardship: initiatives will be supported to provide accredited professional development programs.

Land and resource management: initiatives will support accelerated transfer to first nations of land management, land registry and survey functions.

Community support: specific capacity development initiatives will be directed at promoting the informed consent of constituents in aboriginal communities in order to help harmonize progress in governance with how community members understand the changes taking place.

These initiatives will strengthen first nations capacity in key areas of governance and economic development.

Beginning in 1701, the British crown entered into solemn treaties which were designed to foster the peaceful coexistence of aboriginal and non-aboriginal people. Over several centuries and in different parts of the country, treaties were signed to accommodate different needs and conditions.

The treaties between aboriginal people and the crown were key vehicles for arranging the basis of the relationship between them. The importance of the treaties is confirmed by the recognition of treaty rights, both historical and modern, and aboriginal title in the Constitution Act, 1982.

The Nisga'a treaty contains all the key principles of the federal government's action plan, and that is why I urge the House to vote against the member for Skeena's motion.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know that members on the government side have been actively involved and I would like to take the opportunity to ask for some clarification on certain points in the Nisga'a treaty.

Is it true that with the new Nisga'a treaty the Nisga'a people would now be subject to all provincial and federal taxes? Is it also true that they would become responsible for an increasing portion of the cost of public services to develop their own sources of revenue?

Is it also true that they would get a lesser contribution for public services from federal and provincial governments? In other words, will the changes being brought about actually lead to less spending by the federal government and more sources of taxation revenue for the federal government with the new Nisga'a self-governance?