Debates of Oct. 27th, 2004

Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Madam Speaker, the scope of my colleague's knowledge of the process puts many of us to shame. It is quite extraordinary.

I am familiar with Rae-Edzo and I promise to learn Behchoko. I am familiar with Snail Lake and I promise to try and learn Wekweti, the new names, which my colleague mentioned, that we all have to learn.

Since my colleague is so well informed, I was wondering about the present status of the language of the Tlicho in the Northwest Territories legislature. It is my understanding that legislature functions quite regularly in seven or eight different languages simultaneously, obviously English and French, but five or six others. Does the member know whether at the moment the Dogrib language is regularly used in the simultaneous translation system of the legislature in Yellowknife? I am sure in the future that will be the case.

[Bernard Cleary, Bloc, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have not had the opportunity to visit the Tlicho legislature, but I am sure that everything is done in the language of the Tlicho. It is still a very traditional nation. The Tlicho want to base their development on the knowledge of their ancestors, over the most modern territory possible.

Keeping in mind the names of the mining companies who supported the negotiations, as a negotiator myself, I believe that a great spirit of partnership will develop in that new aboriginal territory. It will help the Tlicho and the companies on this land to full develop the businesses they will create, but most of all, it will bring jobs to the native people and allow them to earn a living honourably and leave behind the cycle of social assistance which unfortunately has become a way of life on our reserves.

We should be pleased that such an agreement was reached here, in Canada, because it rekindles the pride the native people have always had and which they have often lost through their contact with new arrivals.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent for his interesting presentation on the Tlicho nation. As he clearly explained, the Bloc Québécois supports this bill.

Personally, I am very proud to see that the government is prepared to recognize the self-government of a people that has its own identity, language and culture. However, I am not so proud of this same government, which illegally influenced the results of the 1995 referendum on Quebec's sovereignty. I hope that this initiative will make all Canadians reflect on the assistance that Canada can bring to various cultures and to their recognition.

In my opinion, no nation can thrive while refusing to recognize the identity of others. We cannot all be identical, live in the same mould and speak the same language. That is not the way to build a nation. When identities are clearly recognized, the result is a unity of thought that is far better than the dominance of a majority.

So, it is my hope that this initiative will convince all Canadians to accept the fact that Quebeckers too are different, and that Canada will respect the process and the outcome of a future referendum in Quebec.

[Bernard Cleary, Bloc, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I can only hope for what the hon. member is proposing.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's speech. He spoke with great sensitivity on the issue of aboriginals and negotiations. This is very important.

In the member's experience, what happens over the time when one goes from a starting position as a negotiator? Is it a situation where we hold the line or is there true negotiation in these processes over a long time? When we look at all the various tables that have to occur, whether it is boundary tables or overlapping agreements, how complex are the negotiations and what are the sentiments of the negotiators who are at the table?

I do not think many Canadians have an understanding of the process, which is different from legislation that comes before the House, the tripartite process. The fact that we have a standing order that introduces this process of a treaty because it has a taxation power, that is why we have to deal with ways and means motions by the rules of the House. How has this come about? Could he give the benefit of his own experience in this type of negotiation to help Canadians understand what would happen and the compromises that occur over time?

[Bernard Cleary, Bloc, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, to answer what I have been asked would be about the equivalent of giving a three-hour university course, but I will try to be briefer than that.

Negotiations, whether on comprehensive land claims or self-government, are extremely important for nations. The first step is for people to be informed about these two concepts. They have made to understand the concepts used.

For some aboriginal people, the concepts involved in a negotiating agreement are not particularly easy to grasp, particularly when there are untranslatable terms, as is very often the case. Some terms, such as negotiation, do not exist in native languages. The action has to be described, and the description depends on the person doing the describing.

The other important element is for people to choose what they want. Often there is not an innate trust in their negotiators. They have been had on so many occasions that they are now very cautious. People want to know what is going on and so they insist that the negotiator explain very clearly what he will be asking for at the negotiating table.

I will skip a bit here, as otherwise this will get too long. So, when we get to the negotiations per se, based on a negotiation plan and a communication plan, an effort is made to get each community involved. If there are 10 communities taking part, then there may be 10 representatives who will follow the whole process along with the negotiator. After that, of course, people have to be kept regularly informed.

So, when the negotiating process has taken 10 years, people think that this is terribly long. We know, however, that often this is not an area in which aboriginal people come with a built-in expertise, so there can be a lot of problems and it can take a lot of time.

I remember an occasion on the Lower North Shore where I often said that we were working for the children of our grandchildren. Now, given the aboriginal approach of living for the moment, such a concept are not easily got across.

The negotiator's job is more than mere negotiation. It involves social animation as well.

Finally, gradually, things get accepted, after information meetings are held. Then the last step is a referendum.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise on behalf of the New Democratic Party to speak to Bill C-14. I am especially pleased to represent my party in voicing our views on the bill because it deals with a fundamental issue that is very dear to my heart, and that is the eventual emancipation of the aboriginal people.

The bill would give force and effect to an agreement that was laboriously negotiated among the parties to deal with the self-governance and land claims of the Tlicho people in the Northwest Territories. I am heartened today to hear the views of my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois and the views shared by my colleagues in the Liberal Party as they speak in favour of the bill and in favour of the House of Commons recognizing the legitimate aspirations and goals of freedom and self-governance of these people.

Let there be no doubt that the Tlicho people meet all the tests of being recognized, not only as a nation but as a people. They have a language, a rich culture, heritage and tradition. They had and have land and a land base that pre-dates Confederation and pre-dates European contact on this continent by not only hundreds of years but by millenniums.

I am pleased to voice the views of the New Democratic Party that the bill should have speedy passage through the House of Commons at this stage and be sent to committee where I hope it also gets favourable treatment.

However I was disappointed to hear some of the views and criticisms put forward by the representative of the official opposition, the member for Calgary Centre-North. I feel like I am having déjà vu because one of the proudest moments of my career as a member of Parliament to date was being able to advocate and speak on behalf of the Nisga'a deal, which was the only other contemporary or modern day treaty signed in recent history that dealt with self-governance and a land base.

It was our pleasure to see that bill through. It was one of the proudest moments of my career to stand and vote in favour of that bill but we also had to stand 472 extra times because the Reform Party of the day opposed self-governance for aboriginal people. The Reform Party of the day opposed the right to self-determination for aboriginal people. The Reform Party and later the Alliance Party did everything it could to block the Nisga'a deal, mostly using political mischief by moving 472 amendments to the bill which were clearly designed to block, delay and stall.

I am disappointed to see a repeat of this in that we are getting opposition to what should be a unanimously accepted bill. I am not convinced that we as members of the House of Commons should even have a right, frankly, to interfere with the passage of the bill. The bill was negotiated between the Tlicho people, the Government of the Northwest Territories and federal government representatives, and the agreement has been struck.

The bill we are passing today would simply give force and effect to an agreement that has already been made. Therefore it would be an extension of the paternalism that has plagued aboriginal people for any of us here today to start cracking open this agreement to say that we should not be allowing Indians this much land or this much money. That is not our place. It is not for a bunch of white guys in suits to make those rulings.

This has been a long process of very sensitive and delicate negotiations. Agreements were ratified in a laborious and comprehensive way of all the four communities within the traditional area of the Tlicho people. At this point in time they simply need the recognition and the enabling legislation for that agreement to be manifest in full force and effect in the traditional territory of the Tlicho people

It seems to me that Tom Flanagan is still writing aboriginal policy for the Canadian Alliance Party. Progressive Conservatives must be rolling over in their collective graves, if that party is in fact dead, to hear the opposition being put toward the bill today. It is sad.

The mindset among those who are opposed to the emancipation of aboriginal people is a mindset that is found in the title of the book by Mel Smith, a senior advisor on aboriginal affairs for the Canadian Alliance, called Our Home or Native Land . In the book he challenges the whole idea of any kind of a land claim by stating that it would create a third order of government that would somehow have primacy over federal government laws. That is complete fearmongering and we heard 20 minutes of that fearmongering today.

The Canadian Alliance would have us believe that somehow this modern day treaty would have primacy on international affairs, that this new first nation would actually be out there representing themselves and having primacy over the federal government. All of that is carefully pointed out in the bill, if anyone would take the time to read the actual contents. There is no question which order of government has primacy. There is no question what relatively minor local bylaws and things the Tlicho people will have authority over.

The taxation rights that are within the bill are what is possibly the most meaningful financial component of the bill. Because taxation is a spending matter, the bill has to be preceded by a ways and means motion. That is parliamentary procedure. There is nothing sinister about a ways and means motion introduced by a minister to precede spending matters. That is the way this place works.

I have had to sit here for seven years now and listen to some pretty extreme views from the Reform Party, then the Canadian Alliance Party, and now we are seeing fairly extreme views in opposition to the bill from the new incarnation, the Conservative Party. I remember the terrible view shared by the aboriginal affairs critic when I first arrived here, who said that living on an Indian reserve was like living on a south sea island being supported by a rich uncle. That was the enlightened viewpoint of the Canadian Alliance of that time.

Other people have said that just because we did not have Indian wars in this country does not mean that they are not a vanquished people, otherwise why would they live on those Godforsaken reserves we have put them on. We can look that up in Hansard . Those were the views shared by the Alliance members then and their views do not seem to be much more enlightened today.

I do not think anyone should be standing in the way of a self-government agreement that would actually see a people come out from underneath the tyranny of the Indian Act. We should be celebrating this in the House of Commons today, not finding ways to throw obstacles and barriers in the way.

I do not need to tell anyone that the Indian Act is outdated and paternalistic legislation that is unworthy of any modern democracy. Any time a group of people, such as the Tlicho and the Dogrib Treaty 11 territory, can find their way to come out from under that oppressive document, we should be celebrating that fact.

Those who are not steeped in the issue of aboriginal affairs probably are not aware that the Indian Act essentially strips people's rights away. I heard the hon. member for Calgary Centre-North say that we do not want to put in place a race based set of privileges, as if the Tlicho people will now have extra privileges that other white Canadians do not have. In actual fact, the obnoxious race based issue is the fact that the Indian Act is still dominating and controlling the lives of a million Canadians in the year 2004. That is the real tragedy and that is the race based issue that must be addressed.

We are satisfied that there has been a thorough and comprehensive education and then ratification process of all the parties involved in the land claim and self-government agreement. I know it was an exhaustive tour throughout the territory to reach every last resident within that territory for, first, education, then consultation and finally, ratification of the agreement as we see it today.

Let us not kid ourselves. There was a great deal of give and take in that negotiation process. I do not believe anybody got all that they wanted out of this package, such as is the nature of negotiations. There was a lot of compromise and cooperation.

The only thing we need to know is that all the players, all the people directly affected by this agreement, are comfortable with it. That includes the government of the Northwest Territories, the diamond mines that are resident in that area, owners of the resource properties there, the federal government negotiators and, most important, the representatives the Dogrib Treaty 11 Council.

We find no fault in the bill. We feel it is our duty and our obligation to take that information from the authorities who are directly affected by it and do everything we can to see speedy passage.

We have a window of opportunity here. This could be a very brief minority government. It would be an injustice and terribly unfair if we let this issue slide or if we somehow ground it to a halt to where it could not pass within the timeframe. We might be back in election as early as February or March of next year, God forbid. This is what we are told. That gives us very few sitting days to see Bill C-14 get through this stage in the House of Commons, committee, third reading, Senate, et cetera. We all know that whole process is fraught with pitfalls when there is political mischief afoot.

We are happy that the Nisga'a people saw social justice within their time. That was a century-long negotiating process where the Nisga'a people first took their grievances down to the parliament buildings in Victoria in a dugout canoe and were turned away at the door of the legislature.

It was a very emotional process, for me at least, as we went through the steps in this House. They were welcomed into the House of Commons by most of the political parties here. The whole process was welcomed and the final treaty was in fact ratified.

These modern-day treaties are difficult to put together because they contain two components, as has been rightfully pointed out. It is not just a land claim. It is a self-governance agreement. With that comes the richness of the idea of self-determination and a recognition of a whole people, the language and culture, the right to make laws and to chart their own destiny. That is what is really exciting and really heartening about this whole process.

Without going into a great deal of technical details, I do not think it is necessary to know what the intentions of the NDP caucus will be in association with the bill. We are satisfied that it meets the tests for which we would look. It is a deal that has been driven by the people it affects and there has been natural justice involved in the consultation and the ratification process. The people have spoken and I believe it is up to us to honour the message they send to us. This is an idea whose time has come and we want to see it recognized and implemented in this session of Parliament.

The bill has the support of the NDP caucus.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, I almost do not know quite where to begin. I heard so many things coming from the hon. socialist with which I disagree.

First, the member spoke with such disparaging comments about the speech by the member for Calgary Centre-North. I would challenge anyone else to read the speech by the member of the New Democratic Party and the speech by the member for Calgary Centre-North. There is no comparison in my view, and I think in the view of any fair-minded individual, of the complete and thorough analysis that was undertaken by the member for Calgary Centre-North.

The member said that he did not want to get into specifics. I wonder if he read the 208 page agreement. There is no question, after listening to the member for Calgary Centre-North, that he has read it and has analyzed it. What is interesting though is the hon. socialist questions the right of us to even have a look at this. He said that this was negotiated. Since when has the Canadian Parliament and the House of Commons abdicated its responsibility to make, I would argue, a major constitutional change and then not have this Parliament and this body debate it and have a look at it? We have every right.

He went so far as to say that it would be arrogance for us to open up or have a look at an agreement that has already been negotiated. I do not know who negotiated this on behalf of the Government of Canada. I know for sure that I and none of my colleagues on this side ever gave them a blank cheque to negotiate something of this importance to the country.

I believe he is absolutely wrong. I disagree with and dislike very much his pejorative comments. He asks what right white men in suits have to look at this. I do not like the reference to the fact that we as males have any less right, or somebody who is Caucasian has any less right, to comment on this or any other legislation, treaty or constitutional amendment here. We have every right.

Who else is on his list of people or groups who he does not like and who should not comment on this? He is completely off base. He and his party should have a very careful look at what the member for Calgary Centre-North had to say. He has done a thorough analysis of this and he has raised some very reasonable concerns on this.

I remember the parliamentary secretary saying that we would look at these at second reading, and so we should. Members of the New Democratic Party may decide that they will not be participating in this. If it would be arrogance for them to have a look at any of the details of this agreement, they should absent themselves from the committee. However, on this side we will not do that because of the reasonable and incisive critique by the member for Calgary Centre-North.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I do not quite understand why he keeps calling me the hon. socialist. I could call him a number of names too. I am not sure if that is parliamentary or not, but it does not really bother me that much. The--

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. That member kept referring to us as the Canadian Alliance Party. He knows the name of the party is the Conservative Party.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

That is not a point of order. The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I think those guys killed the Progressive Conservatives. They do not seem to be evident in that party at all.

The Tlicho government will have a very defined range of law-making powers. Those are clearly spelled out in the agreement. The primacy as to who has the authority over what matters has been very carefully laid out and thought out by others in the 10-year-long agonizing process, while this group of people negotiated their way out from under the Indian Act.

Ultimately, we should be all work toward the elimination of the Indian Act. It is unworthy of any western democracy. It is an international embarrassment that we still have the Minister of Indian Affairs in complete control over the lives of first nations people, the aboriginal people of the country, without agreements such as this.

I do not know if the hon. member is aware. People cannot avail themselves of the resources on their traditional territory or on their reserve. The Indian Act spells out what things first nations people can use for economic development, such as sand, gravel, mud, moss and a few things. It does not say anything about gold, oil, gas, ores of any kind, molybdenum. None of those things are cited.

Until an agreement like this is put into force, first nations people have no hope of being able to develop their way out of the third world conditions in which they find themselves, on reserves they were placed on by virtue of the Indian Act.

This is why agreements like this are so heartening and give hope and optimism to generations of aboriginal people. There are other outstanding claims grinding their way through in an agonizingly slow process. We are critical of the federal government for not opening the tables and being more generous at the tables in view of Supreme Court rulings as they pertain to aboriginal title and use of resources, et cetera. In fact the government is not paying any attention to Delgamuukw, Sparrow, Corbiere and any number of recent rulings. The government is bound by policy directives that date from the 1970s when it is at the bargaining table on comprehensive land claims.

When one actually gets to this point, it is almost a miracle if it gets here in spite of all the obstacles thrown in its way, not the least of which is the wholesale opposition to the idea of self-government articulated by the Reform Party, by the Canadian Alliance Party and by some members of the current Conservative Party. They seem to feel that by setting up independent first nations and self-governance, that sets up a third order of government that will somehow compete or have primacy over the legislative authorities of the House of Commons, or provincial legislatures or even municipal by-laws. That is simply not true.

This is tantamount to fearmongering to imply that by passing this bill it will somehow pass something that has primacy over the House of Commons and elected representatives here. We still have all the power, so there is nothing to worry about ultimately. We have afforded this group of aboriginal people to develop their own traditional land and traditional territory and to get out from under the oppression of the Indian Act.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary North Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I might just ask the hon. member, whom my friend has referred to as the hon. socialist, this. If we are to elevate the debate in the House, we have to be somewhat respectful and listen to each other. My friend has raised questions which clearly indicate that he was not listening to what I had to say in the House.

Therefore, let us deal with this document as it relates to international agreements. The point that I made, to which he clearly did not follow or listen, was to take the Kyoto Protocol for example. If the Government of Canada is going to sign the Kyoto Protocol, article 7.13.2 of the agreement obligates the Government of Canada to consult with the Tlicho people before it signs the Kyoto Protocol. Read it. It says, “Prior to consenting to be bound by an international treaty”, it will consult. That is the implication of the agreement. Has my friend considered that?

With respect to other matters such as women's rights, the rights of indigenous women in Canadian society, I challenge my friend to read this agreement, to read the Tlicho constitution and to read the Canadian Constitution and tell the House that the rights of women will be protected, that a Tlicho woman will have the same rights as a woman anywhere else in Canadian society. That is not the way this legislative framework reads. That is the point we are making. This has not been fully considered from the perspective of the best interests of Canada.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, in the work I have done with first nations people, I have become sensitive to customs and traditions, and sometimes it is hard to understand from my Anglo Saxon background.

I met with one group of aboriginal women elders. They said that in their home community women are not even allowed to run for chief and council. A number of us shook our heads and said that was shameful. Then one woman said that men are not allowed to vote. In some way over thousands of years in their community they had managed to work out a balance of power situation that worked for them that may not seem suitable to us.

In this situation, I point out that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms continues to apply. No one is undermining the basic human rights which we afford to all citizens. I can accept the hon. member's right to raise these objections. We will deal with it at committee in more depth when we do a clause by clause, line by line analysis of the bill.

I listened to the hon. member's speech. Both its tone and content would lead one to believe that the Conservative Party is opposed to the Tlicho agreement on the basis that it gives away too much.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Madam Speaker, I am truly honoured to voice my support for Bill C-14, the Tlicho land claims and self-government act.

This legislation will establish a new and respectful relationship between Canada and the Tlicho. I am also confident that the agreement this bill brings into force will foster economic and social development in the Tlicho communities, which are progressive communities.

I visited them in the north over a year ago. I met with leaders and saw some of the development. I also visited some of the diamond mines. On the human resources development aspect, we have an increase of aboriginal skills in the workforce which is good for all people in Canada and the economy of one of our northern territories.

The Tlicho are Dene people who live in four communities to the north and west of Yellowknife. They are an ancient people who have thrived in the north's harsh climate through a mix of adaptation, determination and cooperation.

For more than 10 years the Tlicho have been involved in a comprehensive process of negotiation and consultation. We know that this process is one that is not always easy, but it is a testament to the three parties involved that they have come before this House looking for the final ratification by one of the parties.

The agreement at the core of Bill C-14 is the fruit of a long and important process. I think the level of the debate here is important. We need to help those who are seeking answers, but at the same time I am very confident that we have those answers.

This legislation comes at an auspicious time in Canada's history. Clearly, there is a new will among government leaders to resolve longstanding aboriginal issues. To address these issues effectively, the Prime Minister has restructured the top echelons of government, establishing a Privy Council Office secretariat and a cabinet committee, as well as appointing a parliamentary secretary, all devoted to the aboriginal affairs portfolio. Certainly this Parliament, this House and the other place, continue to be charged with this very important work.

A few months ago Ottawa hosted the historic Canada-Aboriginal Peoples Round Table. During the round table, representatives of dozens of governments, agencies and organizations from across Canada held focused and productive discussions. The success of these discussions inspired the parties to continue to collaborate on a range of aboriginal issues at several sectoral tables.

To track progress made on the issues, the Prime Minister pledged to introduce an annual report card in Parliament. I think this is another measurement. It is not Parliament, but it is another parallel process which has the ability to include many people, many experts from the aboriginal community.

While we recognize that aboriginal issues such as housing, health and economic development are complex and multifaceted, the government's overarching goal is clear. The goal is to ensure that aboriginal peoples are able to participate fully and equally in Canadian society.

Accessing the mainstream economy, for instance, has long been difficult for many aboriginal communities. These communities face significant obstacles, such as underdeveloped infrastructure, limited access to venture capital and a lack of entrepreneurial expertise. Delivering effective social services and providing relevant education have also been challenging.

Some of these communities have met that challenge and will continue and actually do better in the future.

Nevertheless, in recent years, a growing number of aboriginal communities have found innovative ways of overcoming these obstacles. Generally, their solutions involve partnerships with governments, private business and other communities.

For example, the Tlicho have leveraged a series of partnerships to make their communities more prosperous, progressive and sustainable. Today the Tlicho operate numerous joint ventures in a range of economic sectors. They run their own schools and deliver social services through an agreement with the Government of the Northwest Territories.

I remember my colleague asking a question about the Government of the Northwest Territories and whether this language was one that was used. I believe it is used. In fact, it is one of the seven or eight languages that are officially used in the Government of the Northwest Territories.

The Government of the Northwest Territories unanimously ratified this agreement. I remember being there over a year ago and talking to some members of that territorial government. They were encouraged and excited about the prosperity and economic development that this would bring to their region.

Now we are here. They want to strike a new deal with the people of Canada, a deal that will put them once again firmly in control of their own destiny. For centuries the Tlicho were a self-sufficient people in charge of their own affairs. Given the remote location of their communities, there was little contact with southerners. All of that changed though when plans got underway to develop oil and gas reserves in the north.

Recognizing that their traditional lifestyle was threatened, the Tlicho chiefs embarked on an ambitious project to help their people face an uncertain future. Instead of fearing the unknown, the Tlicho have seen an opportunity to better understand both the culture of the north and that of the south. This new philosophy has inspired Chief Jimmy Bruneau to coin a phrase describing the Tlicho people as being as strong as two peoples.

These were not just words. In the early 1970s a Tlicho school was built in the village of Rae to teach a bicultural curriculum. Lessons were based on both aboriginal and non-aboriginal traditions. A few years later the Tlicho took another progressive step by establishing a development company to sponsor private businesses. Rather than focus on profits, these businesses trained and employed Tlicho people. We have to celebrate the innovation, the thoughtfulness and the planning that this type of step brought to a community.

Twenty years later when diamonds were discovered on traditional Tlicho lands, the wisdom of Chief Bruneau's approach quickly became apparent. Seeing the diamond mines as a valuable opportunity for the Tlicho, they drew on the bicultural education of their students and the entrepreneurial expertise they had acquired through band owned companies to make the development of this resource work for them.

So, the Tlicho negotiated with the Diavik and BHP Billiton mining companies impact and benefit agreements providing for access to jobs, contracts, training programs and scholarships.

The Tlicho people have also invested in sustaining their vision of being a modern people who remain rooted in their traditions. Revenues from Diavik and BHP Billiton have been invested in Tlicho communities, in youth groups, in sports programs, in beautification projects and physical infrastructure.

Alongside these progressive ventures, they have continued to support traditional activities such as trails of our ancestors, an annual 10 day canoe trip. The trip, led by the Tlicho elders, involves up to 200 participants each year. People of all ages paddle and camp together on traditional waterways and lands. They fish and hunt together, renewing their age old connection to the land that is now providing for them in new ways.

Bill C-14 honours this connection by granting the Tlicho people ownership and control of their traditional lands. The legislation before us represents a momentous opportunity not only for the Tlicho but also for Canada. It will effectively give the Tlicho people access to the resources they need to sustain their communities. Bill C-14 is also an opportunity for the government to send a clear message to aboriginal people across the country that we are serious about working with them to support their vision of a better future for their families and their communities.

Clearly, finalizing land claims and self-government agreements represent major strides toward these goals. These agreements enable aboriginal communities to contribute to the economy in ways that honour their traditions, languages and cultures. For evidence of the value of these agreements we need look no further than Nunavut or the Nisga'a nation.

I said earlier in the House that I was involved in the Nisga'a nation agreement. It was the first embedded agreement of self-government and land claims. This is the second. It really is an honour and a special moment to be a participant in both of these. There have been other agreements, but I feel that we are creating history in this chamber. These are not words; these are not picking apart the legalities. These agreements are building a country. They are a vision of the future that engages in partnership with respect, cooperation and compromise.

The Tlicho people did not get everything they wanted in this agreement. Perhaps they did not get everything that Canada or the territory originally put on the table. Agreements like this are real negotiations after education and consultation. Compromises are made over time. At the end of the day, this agreement, with all of its vast boundaries, has overlapping agreements that were done in a manner with which all the neighbours are happy. That is not true of every agreement that has been brought before the House. This is a vast boundary and to my knowledge all the neighbours are happy.

Those negotiations were done in good faith. We can talk about that process and implementation in this chamber. Like an international treaty, this is a ratification process. These negotiations with the Tlicho were done in good faith and with clean hands. The Government of Canada has laid these negotiations before this chamber. The Tlicho people voted in their communities with an outstanding outcome. It was better than the outcome of my election and probably better than the election of some other people in this place. It was a true representation and ratified by the people most affected.

The respected financial services firm of Grant Thornton conducted a thorough review of recent developments in British Columbia: agreements in principle, court decisions and government policies. The study concluded that treaties deliver a large net positive financial and economic benefit for all residents of British Columbia.

We could probably extrapolate that. When certainty is given through agreements, economic ability to move forward is also given because of the consequences of not really knowing a boundary, a resource, the process of government, the people we are dealing with, or who has the jurisdiction. These tables have been put into an agreement which has been ratified two ways now. We are the third party here.

We are in a special position. We will debate the bill in this chamber, but then it will move to committee. I, as parliamentary secretary, together with members of our government will help other people who have concerns to understand. Sometimes at the end of the day, maybe that understanding will not be there. However, we will make our best effort to push for that understanding because it is in the best interests of Canadians to move these ratifications forward and to complete our task.

It should come as no surprise that there is only one economy and the more aboriginal people who participate in and contribute to the economy, the better off all Canadians will be.

The Tlicho people have been preparing to implement this agreement for up to 10 years. They have completed related accords with their aboriginal neighbours, secured the support of the territorial legislature in Yellowknife, and drafted and ratified a constitution. They have demonstrated a remarkable ability to negotiate mutually beneficial deals with partners from both the private and public sectors. It is now our turn to recognize these considerable accomplishments by establishing in law this new and respectful relationship with the Tlicho.

I sincerely urge all of my hon. colleagues to support Bill C-14. There will be time for them to make inquiries. There will be a way that we can strive to provide the answers they seek. However, I hope we all do this in the good faith that is needed to take this forward for the benefit of all Canadians.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the parliamentary secretary and I have many questions.

Canadians really do believe in self-government for aboriginals. Our party actually had policy pointing to self-government. We agree that this is a step in the right direction.

However, can the parliamentary secretary give us something with which to compare self-government? Would it be like a municipal or a provincial government? Will we have a government that is equal to our Canadian government, if they have to deal with international agreements? I would like to hear, first of all, an explanation of what level of government.

In our province right now our aboriginal people will be looking at the agreement and thinking that they too should be looking at an agreement like that because they want an MRI on their reserve. However, an MRI is not allowed because it would violate the Canada Health Act. How will our aboriginal people handle situations like that when it comes to things that violate the Canada Health Act or other acts? I would like to hear from the parliamentary secretary.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, over the course of time we will be able to discuss many questions and I am prepared to speak privately with any members who are not satisfied with the answers in the House.

The Tlicho bill has two main features. It gives effect and force of law to the Tlicho agreement and the tax treatment agreement. I should also mention that it makes related and consequential amendments to other federal acts, namely the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, the Access to Information Act, the Northwest Territories Act, the Northwest Territories Waters Act, the Canada Lands Surveys Act, the Canadian Environmental Assessment act, the Lobbyists Registration Act, the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act and the Privacy Act, just to name a few. It covers many different areas.

The hon. member would know that there are four main communities within the territory and these governments would have elections. There is a methodology that the new government of the Tlicho would take over from those community governments that already exist.

I am sure the hon. member knows that currently the residents in this area are covered under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and there are specific provisions in the agreement that say that the charter will apply. When that charter applies, it means that it applies as equally to a member in the community of Tlicho as it does to myself. Therefore, we have equal protection afforded under that piece.

Within the areas of this agreement, in regard to which legislation is concurrent or which legislation has the higher priority, federal laws do. In fact, with respect to international treaties, there are many sections in this bill, and I could go through them and I am sure I will be going through them with my hon. colleague, the critic for the official opposition. I look forward to that exercise because we do have the answers, but I do not denigrate from the questions being asked.

We look forward to this opportunity because the Tlicho community wants to say to all of Canada that it wants to join Canada in the way that celebrates its heritage, celebrates its culture and celebrates its contribution. In self-government, as the hon. member understands, is that ability to meld the two together and go from an economic perspective.

I have heard the phrase from the hon. member's party on the question of the Tlicho agreement that it creates a third order of government. It is important that I spend a moment on that question. There is no Supreme Court of Canada recognition of a third order of government. Agreements are negotiated within Canada's existing constitutional framework and are not negotiated as a third order of government.

The Tlicho agreement addresses the aboriginal rights of the Tlicho and the rights set out in the agreement will be protected under section 35.1 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Section 35.1 of the Constitution Act, 1982 recognizes and affirms existing aboriginal and treaty rights. Court cases like Delgamuukw have clarified the nature of aboriginal rights and the protection that section 35 provides; however, they have not defined the full scope of the rights.

Moreover, the courts have continued to encourage a resolution of the issues through negotiation. That is what we have done here rather than litigation. We could fill our courts for a long time at great expense to everybody or we could come to the table, and negotiate fair and equitable agreements that recognize the inherent rights of the original inhabitants of our land. The Tlicho agreement has been negotiated to achieve a constitutional objective that is enshrined in section 35.1.

I hope that begins to address some of these concerns. I feel very comfortable with this, but I would also be very happy to engage any member in this chamber who does not have that same level of comfort. I know that the process in this chamber provides us that time.

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, St. John's South, NL]

Madam Speaker, I would like to know if the member can assure us that federal powers will prevail in relation to a clause which says that the Tlicho government has the power to enact laws in relation to fish harvest licensing, the use of water for aquaculture and other activities, fish harvest limits, fishery openings and fish gear.

We all saw the fiasco that took place on the Fraser River this year. Fingers were pointed at the different groups involved. Some said that the problems were caused because of agreements or whatever. If in any part of a river one group or another has control and the federal government cannot assert its jurisdiction, that is asking for trouble.

I am more perturbed by another clause which says that the local government will have control or prohibition of transport, sale, possession, manufacture or use of weapons or dangerous goods. Surely to God the government is not going to give up control of the manufacture of weapons in this day and age in any area, regardless of who is in charge of that territory or province. Hopefully the federal laws will prevail, but the big question is whether they will or not in relation to this agreement.

In these two areas, and I am sure there are more, we have very grave concerns.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has asked me quite a large breadth of questions. I certainly will not be able to supply the answers in a couple of minutes.

The Tlicho agreement, I can assure the member, has sections that deal with land and water management. It has sections that deal with the hon. member's questions on gender equality, access, wildlife harvesting and management, trees, plants and forest resources, water rights and water management, subsurface resources, national parks and protected areas, heritage resources, economic measures, taxation, the idea of a Tlicho government and Tlicho community governments. There are financial arrangements, ministerial powers, transitional timelines and regulations.

All of these areas have been negotiated. If the hon. member is serious about understanding parts of this, we could go through it with him. We will have that opportunity.

The law-making powers are important to the member and I am going to try to address that for him right now. He is asking about the relationship between Tlicho laws and federal laws and maybe even the territorial laws. The law-making powers of the Tlicho government will be exercised concurrently with the law-making powers of Canada and the territorial government. Within that there needs to be some further explanation.

This concurrent exercise of law-making authorities helps to avoid legal vacuums if the Tlicho government does not exercise its negotiated law-making authority. The Tlicho agreement provides that if there is a conflict between a federal law of general application and a Tlicho law, the federal law will prevail. That is very clear in this agreement.

[Jeremy Harrison, Conservative, Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-14, the Tlicho treaty. Madam Speaker, as this is my maiden speech in the House of Commons, I hope you will indulge me as I pay tribute to my constituents and my riding of Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River covers more than half the geographic area of Saskatchewan, approximately 58% of the province's land mass. It is an enormous area, slightly larger than the country of Germany and a bit smaller than the country of France. I would like to sincerely thank the constituents of Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River and give them my commitment that I will do the very best job that I can on their behalf in Ottawa.

It is difficult to determine exactly, but I think my riding contains more first nations than any other riding in the country. There are over 30 first nations in my riding. It is also difficult to determine such things, but with over 60% of my riding's population being of aboriginal descent, I represent if not the most, then close to the most number of people of aboriginal descent of any member of Parliament.

I grew up in northern Saskatchewan. My home community is Meadow Lake. Many of my closest friends are aboriginal. As a law student my primary area of study was on the law surrounding first nations legal issues. I believe my background and experiences have given me some insights to allow me to speak to this issue with at least some understanding, based on practical experience and theoretical knowledge as well.

Before delving into the nuts and bolts of the treaty, I think it prudent to first give some background and context to the agreement that is before the House. Bill C-14 ratifies the Tlicho agreement signed August 25, 2003 between the Tlicho and the governments of Canada and the Northwest Territories.

The bill will give the Tlicho people ownership of approximately 39,000 square kilometres between Great Slave Lake and Great Bear Lake in the Northwest Territories. Under the terms of the bill the Tlicho also acquire participatory regulatory authority over a much larger area. The bill is unique in that it is both a comprehensive land claim settlement and a self-government agreement. The agreement is precedent setting in both respects and will guide future claim settlements and self-government provisions across the north.

It should be noted as well that although the act itself is relatively short, it would bring into force the tripartite agreement of August 25, 2003 and would accord this agreement paramountcy over the act itself. In other words, approval of the act would bring into law the very complex provisions set out in the 208 page agreement, as well as the shorter tax treatment agreement.

My hon. colleague from Calgary Centre-North has already pointed out in a very able way the general reasons behind my party's opposition to the bill. Generally speaking, our concerns arise from the impact that the agreement would have on general issues of governance, more specifically on the country's ability to exercise our international sovereignty.

We are also wary that the agreement would erode federal constitutional jurisdiction in the north and unduly complicate federal jurisdiction with regard to international agreements entered into by Canada. In addition, important provisions of the agreement, most notably those pertaining to legislative concurrency, paramountcy and jurisdictional conflict are internally contradictory and in many ways indecipherable.

I also have concerns that the agreement gives the Tlicho constitution a superior position in law to that of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Tlicho constitution is intended to be consistent with the charter, but a close reading shows that the citizens or persons to whom Tlicho laws apply will have rights and freedoms “no less than those set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms”, a position of legal superiority.

Another area of concern I have with this treaty is the absence of finality. One of the points the agreement attempts to stress is that the agreement is indeed a final agreement, but article 27.6.1 shows that this is actually not the case. This article provides that the Tlicho would receive equivalent benefits to those granted in the future to any other aboriginal group in the Northwest Territories, whether by land claims agreements, self-government agreement, tax power exemption or legislation. This agreement is not really a final agreement at all.

I also have concerns about the remarkable provisions in the agreement dealing with international matters. Article 2.9 of the agreement states that it does not limit the authority for the Tlicho to enter into “international, national, interprovincial and interterritorial agreements”. This makes it clear, by implication, that the Tlicho government has the authority to enter into international agreements, an almost unprecedented situation for a non-state actor in any nation on the planet.

Further to this, article 7.13.2 of the agreement states as follows:

Prior to consenting to be bound by an international treaty that may affect a right of the Tlicho Government, the Tlicho First Nation or a Tlicho Citizen, flowing from the Agreement, the Government of Canada shall provide an opportunity for the Tlicho Government to make its views known with respect to the international treaty either separately or through a forum.

This provision in essence creates a duty in law to consult. What is not made clear is what would happen if the Tlicho government made a determination that it is not in support of the relevant international treaty. Will the government be forced to make changes to the international agreement? This is a question to which there is no clear answer in the treaty. No clear answer has been provided by the government as well.

A further area of concern to me is with regard to the issues of jurisdictional confusion engendered by the agreement.

The act is clear in making the provisions of the agreement paramount over the act itself and over many regulations passed under the act. Unfortunately, the agreement itself appears to be internally contradictory, resulting in confusion regarding the concurrent and paramount authority of the Government of Canada, the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Tlicho government.

The agreement addresses these interjurisdictional issues in at least three places and prescribes three distinct paramountcy provisions. Articles 7.7.2 through 7.7.4 prescribe the following hierarchy of authority: one, federal legislation of general application; two, territorial legislation implementing Canadian international agreements; three, Tlicho laws; four, territorial legislation of general application; and five, specific federal legislation.

In other words, Tlicho laws prevail over territorial laws and also over federal laws of specific application passed by this House, thereby rendering legislation passed by Parliament subordinate to laws passed by the Tlicho.

Article 2.8.3 introduces yet another concept of paramountcy in that it makes the settlement legislation paramount over the provisions of any other legislation or Tlicho laws. Yet the definition of settlement legislation refers to both territorial legislation and federal legislation.

In this hierarchy, the agreement is paramount over federal settlement legislation, territorial settlement legislation and Tlicho laws, creating a situation of apparent inconsistency with articles 7.7.2 and 7.7.4.

A third legislative hierarchy is prescribed in article 2.10.7 that applies in the event of arbitration. This provision indicates the following hierarchy: one, federal laws of overriding national importance; two, federal laws implementing international agreement obligations; three, other federal legislation; four, territorial legislation implementing international Canadian obligations; five, Tlicho laws; six, other territorial legislation.

The general scheme of article 7.7.1 is that the Tlicho government has the power to enact laws that are concurrent with those of the Government of Canada and the Government of the Northwest territories.

The problem, which I think is very apparent on a close reading of this agreement, is that there seem to be multiple definitions of how to determine paramountcy in the event of conflict.

For these reasons, I will be voting against the bill.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the member on his speech. I wish him well here in this House of the people. He knows better than most people in this House the profoundly tragic problems that aboriginal people endure in our country.

In my little experience in treating aboriginal people in some of the remotest areas of our country, I saw conditions the likes of which I only saw when I worked in Africa. They are basically third world conditions in Canada. It struck me that, as the member said, the system we have been working on for so long has not worked.

What we have here is a bill which we hope enables aboriginal people to take control of their system, to move away from an archaic Indian Act that impedes the ability of aboriginal people to maintain control over their lives and the lives of their loved ones.

I ask the member, in his experience, what would he recommend that we need in this bill to enable accountability? Or is he satisfied with the accountability in the system that ensures that aboriginal leaders are accountable to the members of their bands?

[Jeremy Harrison, Conservative, Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, I have been to incredibly remote areas in my own riding that are in conditions of absolute poverty. It is unbelievable to see conditions like that in this country.

I am glad the hon. member brought up the issue of accountability and how he sees that as being important to the future of aboriginal peoples. I could not agree more. Accountability is something that is an absolute cornerstone and it has to be given much more emphasis by the government than it has.

When I talk about accountability, I do not mean accountability to bureaucrats in Ottawa, the people in the Department of Indian Affairs. The chiefs and councils must be accountable to the people they represent. The people on the reserve must be able to hold their public officials to account, to open the books and to have transparent financing of money that flows through the chiefs and council, because right now that just is not the case.

Almost every day I get a call to either my riding office or my Ottawa office from somebody on a reserve telling a horror story of a chief or a council member, or whoever it may be, hoarding money, which was intended for the benefit of all people on the reserve, and using it to buy a new truck or something else. The horror stories we hear are truly unbelievable.

It is incumbent upon the government, not just in this agreement but with regard to aboriginal governments right across the country, to bring in real accountability mechanisms, not to bureaucrats in Ottawa but to the people on the reserves. The local governments must be accountable to the people they represent.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the member for Desnethé--Missinippi--Churchill River.

I believe at the very start of his statement I heard him comment that he felt he represented the largest aboriginal population in Canada. I heard him claim that he had the most communities. I would like him to repeat that because I am sure there must be some kind of mistake. Maybe he can clarify it with his research, but I believe there are a lot of other ridings that have larger populations and more communities. Could I have some clarification, please?

[Jeremy Harrison, Conservative, Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, what I said was that I think I represent more first nations. There are more first nations in my riding than any other in the country. My riding has over 30 first nations governments and 108 reserves, which are fairly large numbers. As I said, it is difficult to determine such things but I represent, if not the highest number of people of aboriginal descent, than close to the most. Approximately 60% of my riding are people of aboriginal descent.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River for his tremendous presentation.

I think all of us in the House will agree that his youthfulness will not be a detriment but in fact an asset to him, as will the fact that he has a large population of aboriginal people within his constituency for whom he has a heart and with whom he has lived in close proximity. As he brings this experience plus his legal understanding to bear, we will all learn from what he has to offer.

The record in the House clearly shows that the Conservative Party of Canada has in the past supported, not just the notion of self-government agreements but self-government agreements themselves. I would refer to our not too distant past when we endorsed and encouraged other members in the House to support the West Bank agreement. We are also on record as wanting to proceed with caution in any type of legislation, not just self-government legislation but any type of legislation.

I would like to read the first phrase of Bill C-14. It is sobering force to realize what we are talking about. It is quite simple in how the bill is brought forward. If passed the bill will give effect to a lands claim and self-government agreement. A claim, in and of itself, does not mean that all the attributes of that claim should have full force, whether it is a claim of an individual citizen, a province, the federal government or aboriginal group. If the bill is passed everything they claim will become reality. That is why we need to approach this in a sobering fashion.

I congratulate the people who worked on the self-government agreement. We congratulate the notion of raising one's own revenues and the notion of hydro power development, and that the Tlicho people would one day even see self-sufficiency on their own lands and to actually at some point be able to add into the electrical grid in the Northwest Territories. Those things are all very commendable.

I congratulate the writers of the bill, which is relatively simple. It has 14 sections. It can be managed in terms of trying to get our heads around it and trying to grasp it.

However there are problems that must be addressed, such as the fact that there is no finality to this particular deal. If other self-government agreements were to take place that appeared, in the eyes of the Tlicho people, to be more generous, however they might want to define it or for which this particular bill provides, then the whole thing could open up again. They would automatically assume unto themselves elements that may be more generous in other acts which could follow this one. That could lead to a devastating economic spiral and a precedent that I say we should not countenance in terms of this type of legislation. The aspect that there is no finality to this agreement is extremely problematic.

The question of international jurisdiction is one that cannot be ignored. There cannot be any question about who has international jurisdiction in our country.

Our Constitution is very clear. We have areas of federal, provincial and individual jurisdiction. Our Constitution is quite clear and yet we still have problems.

As we saw yesterday and again today, the disagreement between the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premier of Newfoundland is linked to only one provision of the Constitution, the only dealing with equalization. The problem however is so serious that it put a stop to a first ministers meeting. All of that because of one small provision in our Constitution.

Therefore, we do not need another level of government meddling in foreign affairs.

International relations have become very complex. In fact, we are now in a dispute with another European country, which is claiming one of our islands in northern Canada, and we have yet to resolve this issue.

Can you imagine the problem with a bill like this that is vague about foreign affairs!

It is too big a risk to have a cloud hanging over an area as important as international jurisdiction. In, supposedly, some of the simplest areas of demarcation between federal and provincial jurisdictions, we already see great complexities, discussions that rage on by the hour and by the days and weeks in this House between the provinces and the federal government. To suggest that we should put another level of jurisdiction into this constitutional morass is simply untenable.

I have nothing against the good people who want to see this agreement go ahead. I am pleased that this agreement removes much of the jurisdiction of the Indian Act. We are all agreed that the act no longer serves and it can even be questioned whether it ever did truly served the aboriginal people.

There are positives here but the negatives are too big to ignore. I want to see the Tlicho people move on to prosperity, to independent living and to acquire their aspirations. We all want to see that happen.

Whether we are talking about prosperity or about poverty, those two conditions do not exist by accident. Prosperity happens to an individual or to a group of people when certain principles are applied. Poverty reigns when certain principles are not followed. We want to see the principles that have been applied to Canadians applied to these people because over the years Canadians, relatively speaking, to the rest of the world we have prosperity.

Certainly we are not free of problems but compared to the rest of the world we are a prosperous country. That did not happen just by accident. We do not have to feel guilty about that. Certain principles were in place that allowed individuals to move ahead, to be innovative, to pursue an education, to pursue enterprise, to become innovative and to actually create wealth for themselves.

We want to see the same principles applied here, which is why we have concerns with some of the elements in the bill. We would like to work with the government to see those addressed so that the aspirations of these good people can be achieved.