House of Commons Hansard #16 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was aboriginal.

Topics

Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Liberal

Ethel Blondin-Andrew Liberal Western Arctic, NT

Mr. Speaker, that was a good question because it goes to the root of democracy in any claim agreement.

The Tlicho agreement has a section on gender equality. Although it is implied in that section that Tlicho citizens, including women, would have a larger voice in governance and would be given more opportunities to influence their communities' political agendas and priorities, women are protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. What more could we want than that? Under the charter women are persons and are protected like everyone else.

The other question the member raised was in regard to matrimonial property rights. The Tlicho society is a sharing society. In all the years I have interacted with the Tlicho as a woman, I do not believe I have ever been discriminated against. Many of my relatives are Tlicho. The Tlicho is a working society and a society that shares its collective aspirations for its people. The Tlicho people share with one another. They may have needs but they are just the needs of human beings. If someone is a woman, an infant or a disabled person they have needs that have to be met. This enabling document would l give them what they need. It would give them the resources and tools they need to give better expression to full democracy.

Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government ActGovernment Orders

October 27th, 2004 / 4:05 p.m.

Bloc

Yvon Lévesque Bloc Nunavik—Eeyou, QC

Mr. Speaker, naturally, I totally agree with our party's position on the recognition of nations. We are very happy in particular for the Tlicho nation.

I hope that this government will give the Cree nation the same recognition. I remind hon. members that the Cree nation has been in negotiations with this government for quite a while, but the government is playing this game of systematically seeking a court opinion on each claim by the Cree. This is delaying discussions enormously.

This is a nation that is asking for nothing more than what has already been given by the Government of Quebec, that is, recognition of the Cree nation in Quebec. And, on that basis, it is asking the same thing from the federal government, so that it can finally evolve, take charge and build its future. There is great potential among the Cree.

In that context, I ask the Minister of State for Northern Development or her colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, if the Cree may expect to get the same treatment as the Tlicho in the weeks to come, or a few months at the most.

Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

Ethel Blondin-Andrew Liberal Western Arctic, NT

Mr. Speaker, many kinds of agreements are struck with different groups across the country. If the member is speaking about the James Bay Cree, they long ago settled their claims and are in the various throes of implementation.

Various tables have been created. I played a role on the human resources development table for the James Bay Cree at one point. I know it takes a lot of work. Anyone can settle a claim, but it is what we do in the implementation of that claim that really gives full expression in life to that document. That has been ongoing for a number of years.

Those negotiations and issues that are being negotiated or those programs, services, jurisdictions and resources are only as effective and as innovative as the people who are engaged to do the negotiations.

We know we have people who are dedicated to do that. I know some of the negotiators from the Cree side and from the Quebec side. These people are well-intentioned, they are experts, they are knowledgeable and they are good. We expect positive results on all the negotiations with which we go forward.

Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to extend my congratulations to the Tlicho. This is a very significant time for them. I know a lot of hard work has been put forth by government and negotiators.

I take a certain exception to what the hon. member had to say about the fact that anyone could settle a land claim. I represent a riding in northern B.C. where a number of claims are outstanding, which is frustrating to both the first nations and the local communities.

For a number of years, while the Nisga'a claim and treaty was going on, there was a lot of fearmongering and scare tactics being put forward by one particular party with respect to what would happen when a claim was settled. Having seen the success of the Nisga'a treaty and knowing that land claims are of great benefit to many parties, does the hon. member feel that the government has proposed any sense of urgency in settling other claims within in B.C. and outside of that? The Tlicho are a wonderful model.

At the same time, I am sensing a great deal of frustration both within and outside of my riding with other parties who cannot seem to get to the table. In particular, I raise the example Tlingit in the far north of B.C., to which the hon. member for Yukon would also be able to attest, who have not been advised by the government and have not given a strong hand in their struggle with the mining project going on there.

Could the hon. member address either of those issues?

Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Ethel Blondin-Andrew Liberal Western Arctic, NT

Mr. Speaker, it is without a doubt that we share a sense of urgency about the challenges in B.C. on the whole question of land, resources and jurisdiction. We have made significant progress, but we realize that there are certain challenges.

One of the biggest challenges in B.C. is the fact that there is such a multiple grouping of individuals. Even the arrangements that are struck between governments are complicated, especially if the way forward is all have to be in agreement or one group has a veto over another. That can somewhat delay, or hold back or stall the process. We work through those. They are complicated arrangements. They are not simple.

My knowledge is that we are moving forward in three areas and we expect progress. However, we have many challenges that are very unique and some of them are not necessarily under a land question as such.

Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Yukon Yukon

Liberal

Larry Bagnell LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources

Mr. Speaker, I was glad to see my colleague come on side with us in trying to get the Atlin and Tlingit to the table because we have been trying for a number of years.

This is creative and different from other land claims. I know the best lawyers, the three parties, in the land in this area have been working on this for 10 years. Once again it has come up with something very creative and unique to the Tlicho situation. Could the hon. member talk about that?

Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Ethel Blondin-Andrew Liberal Western Arctic, NT

Mr. Speaker, there are many things we could speak to about the innovations of the various teams that were engaged. We have unique individuals with very unique skills and talents who have aboriginal background and expertise in government legislation, basically programs, services and resource questions and issues.

What is really unique about this is that in the north it is the first time that we have embedded self-government in a claim. It is the first time that we have been able to allocate one whole block of land, I think it is 39,000 square kilometres. That is very unique. Usually land selection is in blocks separated from one another. This is a whole block of land and this makes it so unique.

The other thing that is really interesting is so many boundaries around this claim area have been resolved by various groups and they have been done with the most excellent negotiation, a lot of hard work and innovation. That was the only way that was resolved. That in and of itself, just on the boundaries, could be contained in a whole book.

Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Jim Prentice Conservative Calgary North Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-14, the Tlicho land claims and self-government act.

I would like at the outset to join my colleague in welcoming the Tlicho dignitaries to the House today. They are indeed a strong community with strong leadership. The questions of which I will speak in my comments relate less to the future direction of the Tlicho and more to the future direction of the government.

As the hon. members opposite are aware, I have a lengthy history in the country as an outspoken advocate in the resolution of both specific and comprehensive claims. In particular, as a private citizen and legal counsel, I served as the negotiator on the tripartite settlement of the Sturgeon Lake treaty land entitlement claim and more recently as a commissioner at the Indian Claims Commission, where I served as co-chair for almost 10 years.

I have been an outspoken advocate on the resolution of claims such as this and I have advocated institutional reform that would see claims resolved through an independent claims tribunal, which has the requisite independence from the federal crown. Through all that time, for nearly 20 years, I have advocated the resolution of claims, but I have also always advocated settlements which are founded on Canada's best long term interests, as well as the best interests of the aboriginal communities concerned.

I regret to say I am unable to support Bill C-14 in its current form. I do not believe that this legislation and the agreement which it brings into law, which is an aboriginal rights agreement pursuant to section 35 of the Canadian Constitution, have been fully negotiated and properly considered from Canada's point of view. The agreement gives rise to a constitutionally protected right. It does not amend the Canadian Constitution, but it does change it in the sense that it gives rise to a section 35 protected right.

I acknowledge that there are many aspects of the Tlicho agreement which are sound and represent a useful step forward in the negotiation of self-government arrangements. Indeed, this arrangement is unique. It is the first of its kind combining a comprehensive land claim with a self-government arrangement.

I would also say that I make no criticism of the lands and resources which have been allocated to the Tlicho under the agreement. I regard the agreement as a generous one. In that respect it will provide the Tlicho with the resources, both financial and otherwise, to build a partnership and a future in our federation.

Unfortunately, these positive aspects of the agreement are lost within a legislative scheme that raises serious national issues. Generally speaking, our concerns arise from the impact which the agreement will have on the governance of the country and the fact that it compromises to some degree Canada's capacity to exercise its international sovereignty.

Our opposition to the agreement is based upon our concerns that the approval of the agreement will impede the future governance of Canada. Furthermore, the passage of the agreement will create a precedent which will significantly erode federal constitutional jurisdiction in the north and also complicate Canada's international authority. In addition, important provisions of the agreement, most notably those pertaining to legislative paramountcy and concurrency and jurisdictional conflict, are internally contradictory and ultimately not decipherable in the agreement itself.

The agreement is the culmination of two separate negotiations. The first is the negotiation of the comprehensive claim which has been carried out pursuant to the federal government's comprehensive claims policy of 1986. In this respect the agreement has some similarities to the Nisga'a agreement. The second is the negotiation of the self-government arrangements which are based upon the 1995 inherent rights policy of the government. In this respect the agreement tracks the Westbank agreement.

The act gives the force of law to the tripartite agreement of August 25, 2003 and it accords that agreement paramountcy over the act itself and over any regulations which are passed pursuant to the act.

It is noteworthy and worth mentioning that the manner in which the agreement and the act have been placed before this Parliament are in effect by way of a notice of ways and means motion. This places Parliament and the House in the difficult position where it is an either all or nothing proposition, either the House effectively approves the legislation adopting the entire 208 page agreement or does not. There is no opportunity for the House to engage in a constructive amendment process.

Although the bill has received little public attention it is almost certainly the most significant such agreement considered by the Canadian government in recent years. The effect of the agreement is to create a third order of aboriginal government with concurrent but paramount authority, jurisdiction over the federal Crown in relation to matters affecting the Tlicho.

Moreover, the resultant Tlicho state is governed by a Tlicho constitution which is arguably paramount to the Canadian charter on the very terms of the constitution itself. The agreement also appears to acknowledge or perhaps confer some degree of international authority upon the Tlicho government. There are a number of provisions in the agreement that I would submit are flawed and debatable from a Canadian public policy perspective.

I will restrict my comments to four reasons why the agreement, as drafted, is damaging to the long term interests of Canada. First, I will refer to the absence of finality; second, to incursions upon Canada's international autonomy; third, jurisdictional confusion; and fourth, confusion surrounding the application of the charter as a primary instrument of Canadian law.

On the absence of finality, the agreement is a generous one in terms of lands, moneys and resources which are provided. It is worth noting that, as my friend said, the Tlicho lands will comprise as I understand it, the largest contiguous block of first nation owned land in Canada.

Unfortunately, as one who has negotiated specific claims, I am having some trouble understanding what concessions Canada has received in return for this.

Chapter 27.6.1 of the agreement provides that the Tlicho will also receive equivalent benefits to those granted in the future to any other aboriginal group in the Northwest Territories, whether by land claims agreement, self-government agreement, tax power exemption or legislation. In other words, the Tlicho agreement is clearly not a final agreement in the same sense that the Nisga'a agreement could be said to be a final agreement.

With respect to incursions upon Canada's international autonomy, the agreement contains several remarkable sections relating to international matters. I would point out for the benefit of the House that what is remarkable about those provisions is that they are a violation of the federal government's own policy relating to the negotiation of comprehensive claims. That policy states that powers relating to Canadian sovereignty are non-negotiable when the government is negotiating comprehensive claims, self-government arrangements.

Chapter 2.9 of the agreement states that it does not limit the authority of the Tlicho to enter into any international, national, interprovincial or interterritorial agreement which suggests by implication that the Tlicho government does have some authority to enter into such agreements. The agreement, moreover, contains the following remarkable provision which is self-explanatory. I refer to chapter 7.13.2:

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 eitherseparately or through a forum.

The agreement carries on in chapter 7.13.4, “to provide for an arbitration mechanism between the Government of Canada and the Tlicho government in respect of international legal obligations and disputes relating thereto”.

Furthermore, the Government of Canada is obligated under chapter 7.13.5 to consult with the Tlicho government before taking positions before an international tribunal in circumstances where the Tlicho government has taken action giving rise to an international legal controversy.

The clear implication of this is that the very jurisdiction that the federal government on its own principles said is non-negotiable has been negotiated and to some degree compromised. So, from the perspective of Canada, this agreement has compromised the international sovereignty of this country.

With respect to jurisdictional confusion, the provisions of the agreement relating to the future governance of this part of the Northwest Territories are, I would submit, poorly drafted and, in several respects, contradictory.

The intent or the effect of the agreement seems to have been to create a new order of aboriginal government with concurrent, although paramount, authority over the federal Crown in relation to matters concerning the Tlicho. The bill is very clear in making the provisions of the agreement paramount over the statute and over any regulations passed under the statute.

Unfortunately, the agreement itself is not internally consistent. It is contradictory, resulting in confusion regarding the concurrent and the 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 different places and prescribes three different distinct concepts of paramountcy. First, in chapters 7.7.2 through to 7.7.4, there is a hierarchy of authority which essentially flows as follows: first, federal legislation of general application; second, territorial legislation implementing Canada's international agreements; third, Tlicho law; fourth, territorial legislation of general application; and fifth, specific federal legislation relating to the Tlicho.

Yet, in chapter 2.8.3, there is a separate concept of paramountcy in that it makes the settlement legislation paramount over the provisions of any other legislation or the Tlicho laws. Yet the definition of settlement legislation in the statute refers to both territorial legislation and federal legislation.

In other words, this provision seems to create quite a differently hierarchy; namely, the following: first, the agreement; second, federal settlement legislation, which is presumably this bill; third, territorial settlement legislation; and fourth, other legislation for Tlicho laws. This is arguably inconsistent with the concepts outlined in chapters 7.7.2 through to 7.7.4.

Third, in chapter 2.10.7, there is yet another legislative hierarchy which applies in the event of an arbitration relating to jurisdiction or power, and it is entirely different. It outlines the following hierarchy: first, federal laws of overriding national importance; second, federal laws implementing international agreement obligations; third, other federal legislation; fourth, territorial legislation implementing Canada's international obligations; fifth, Tlicho laws; and sixth, other territorial legislation.

Certainly, the general scheme of the legislation is that the powers of the Tlicho government to enact laws are concurrent with those of the Government of Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories.

The difficulty, from the provisions I have just outlined, is determining how and when the legislation of the Government of Canada is paramount, and how and when the legislation of the Tlicho government is paramount because there are multiple definitions that apply in the event of conflict. This will not be a good situation in the future as we determine who is responsible for what areas of activity.

Fourth, concerns the application of the charter and, frankly, the adoption of governance structures which may be inconsistent with the charter. The overall scheme created by the bill, the agreement and the Tlicho constitution appears to have implications for the application of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to Tlicho citizens. Although both the agreement and the Tlicho constitution speak of consistency with the charter, they do not say that they are bound by the charter.

It is noteworthy that the Tlicho constitution itself is very clear, in chapter 3.1, that the Tlicho constitution, not the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is the Tlicho nation's highest law. That is clearly expressed in the Tlicho constitution.

Frankly, the entire legislative scheme is quite unclear as to the constitutional relationship between the Constitution Act of Canada, the charter and the Tlicho constitution.

It creates a category of Canadians called Tlicho citizens, and prescribes an electoral system where only Tlicho citizens may be elected as the chief of the Tlicho community government. In addition, at least 50% of the elected councillors must be Tlicho citizens. To be a Tlicho citizen, one must be properly enrolled and registered, as I understand it, as a status Indian of Canada. The agreement clearly creates a segregated, racially based electoral system which does raise charter implications.

The Conservative Party believes that self-government must occur within the context of the Constitution of Canada. To ensure fairness and equality, the principles of the charter must apply to all Canadian citizens. Other claims such as the Nisga'a are very clear in stating that the charter binds the aboriginal self-government which is created. This document lacks that clarity.

Let me ensure that the record is clear as to my position. The future settlement of outstanding comprehensive claims must be pursued on the basis of a clear framework which balances the rights of aboriginal Canadians with those of the Canadian nation as a whole and, in particular, negotiated settlements must balance the economic and social needs of aboriginal Canadians with Canada's need for certainty and finality of terms.

Self-government agreements must reflect Canada's need for both efficacy and practicality in our institutional structure and constitutional harmony so as not to impede the future governance of Canada.

In our view the agreement has not been adequately considered from this perspective of Canada's overriding federal and international workability. In our view the agreement fails to satisfactorily balance the economic and social needs of the Tlicho on the one hand with Canada's need for certainty, finality of terms and constitutional workability on the other.

We would emphasize that this agreement has not been properly considered in that respect and that it is not in the best interests of Canada to approve a document which is contradictory on its very face, and which exacerbates the jurisdictional confusion in the north and potentially erodes Canada's federal authority and international autonomy.

The way in which the government has placed this statute, with the agreement attached, before Parliament precludes this honourable House from addressing in any significant way the issues which I have dealt with in my comments, real issues of legal significance. The House of Commons lacks the capacity in any meaningful way to address those issues because of the way in which the legislation has been brought forward.

Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government ActGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, Correctional Services Canada; the hon. member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl, Natural Resources.

Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government ActGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

London West Ontario

Liberal

Sue Barnes LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in hearing my hon. colleague's comments.

I too am a lawyer and when the Nisga'a treaty was before the House, I happened to be the chair of the aboriginal affairs committee. I remember at the end of that process, after going through over 400 amendments in this House, none of them were passed. All of them had been put forward by the party opposite's predecessor.

I have listened to the credentials of the hon. member and I am very hopeful that this is not a futile exercise. I will give the member and his new party the benefit of the doubt and say that they are asking questions for clarification. I would be very happy to clarify things. If they are not clarified in the few minutes that we have been afforded in this chamber, there certainly would be ample time to answer all of these concerns.

He mentioned some of the concerns with international legal obligations. If valid, these would be very important concerns. Canada developed section 7.13 of the Tlicho agreement concerning international legal obligations with the participation of the federal Department of Justice and the federal Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

Each agreement is unique and reflects the interests of the parties at the table. Therefore, the text of the Tlicho agreement would not necessarily be a precedent for any other land claim or self-government agreement. Currently, international legal obligation provisions can be found in other agreements, notably the Westbank First Nation self-government agreement, as well as the agreement currently before the House.

The hon. member has raised concerns about the impact of the Tlicho agreement on international treaties and potential future international treaties to be negotiated by our country.

The Tlicho agreement allows Canada to maintain its ability to negotiate, implement and respect international legal obligations in the interests of all Canadians, including aboriginal Canadians. The federal government is solely responsible for representing Canada in international affairs. The federal government is solely responsible.

The ILO, the international legal obligation provisions negotiated in this agreement provide assurance that the Tlicho government will exercise its powers in ways compatible with Canada's obligations and duties. The negotiated provisions minimize the risk of the exercise of an inherent right of self-government in ways that would conflict with federal law and Canada's international legal obligations.

The international legal obligation provisions of the Tlicho agreement are mutually beneficial solutions where the Tlicho are assured that they will have a meaningful voice with respect to decisions that affect them and their rights will not be undermined. In return--

Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Order, please. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary could ask her question. We have quite a few people who want to pose questions.

Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Sue Barnes Liberal London West, ON

Mr. Speaker, my position on comments is to clarify the issues raised.

The hon. member at any time can ask for a briefing on these particular matters. We certainly would be happy to provide it. There will be ample opportunities for--

Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The hon. member for Calgary Centre-North.

Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Jim Prentice Conservative Calgary North Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, I respect my colleague's offer for briefings. I have been taking advantage of the opportunity to receive briefings with respect to this.

One of the most surprising things to me which I believe this House needs to be aware of is that the key principles of the federal government in respect of self-government could not be clearer, that powers relating to Canadian sovereignty and external relations are non-negotiable jurisdictions.

It is easy to see why the government has adopted that position over the last generation. If every first nation in Canada as part of our vibrant federation is to have some degree of international autonomy and each of those represents an incursion upon the authority of the federal crown, it is very easy to see what will happen to our nation.

In this particular agreement it could not be clearer that some element of international authority has been conferred upon the Tlicho. In fact, the agreement contemplates arbitration of those disputes. It clearly mandates or requires consultation by the Government of Canada prior to entering into an international obligation that will in any way affect the right of the Tlicho.

This may seem to be a good thing for the Tlicho leadership, the Tlicho community, but is it a good thing for the governance of the country as a whole? That is fundamentally the question.

I stand to be corrected, but I specifically have asked the principals who were involved in the negotiation of this document if there is any other precedent for this in any other self-government agreement or comprehensive claim. I understand that there is not.

Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Bloc

Marc Boulianne Bloc Mégantic—L'Érable, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou on his interesting speech, particularly the parallel he drew with the Cree. The government needs to take this into account, I believe, and the Bloc has already pointed this out.

I have a comment and a question. The Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill, of its principle in particular. The dominant feature in this bill is the principle of self-government. Even the minister has just emphasized that this is the way of the future. Moreover, the entire agreement is built on that principle. The Tlicho are a people, and they have expressed their preference as a majority. They want to live in their community, with their own traditions; they want to direct their own economy.

How can my colleague justify his statement that giving a people self-government, the Tlicho for example, can weaken the sovereignty of the Government of Canada?

Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government ActGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Jim Prentice Conservative Calgary North Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, we are a nation that is governed by the Constitution Act. Under that act all of the rights of Canadian citizens, wherever they live, whether they are aboriginal Canadians or non-aboriginal Canadians, are advanced and protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Our future together as a nation must be built upon the universal application of that framework; otherwise we will have a country in which citizens have disparate rights, different kinds of rights, different rights one from the other, which will not result in a universal protection of those rights which are fundamental to Canadian society and set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

All aboriginal rights are also recognized under section 35 of the Constitution. It is our position that those rights must be conferred within the four square corners of the Constitution Act and the charter and that this will result in full protection of equality rights, such as women's rights, for both aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians.

With respect to the operation of our federal-provincial system of government, the concept upon which this self-government agreement is based is one of concurrency. There is nothing inherently wrong with concurrent legislative authority in the hands of the Government of Canada and the Tlicho First Nation. There is no problem with that.

The difficulty is that any federal state will only operate in an efficient way if there is a manner in which conflicts can be resolved. It is fine to have concurrent jurisdictions, but if one is going to have concurrent jurisdictions, one has to have clear rules of paramountcy. One of the points I am making today about this agreement is that it lacks that. It has several different definitions of paramountcy. It is very difficult to look at this agreement and to understand whose laws are going to be paramount.

In the case of a situation involving women's rights, for example, which law will govern? If there is an inconsistency between a Tlicho law relating to the rights of a woman in a Tlicho community and what the interpretation of the charter says relative to the rights of women, or what a federal statute says relative to the rights of women, what governs?

What in heaven's name is the solution? The solution has to be to have clear authority dealing with how to resolve the paramountcy. That is what is missing, among other things, from this agreement.

Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government ActGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Louis—Saint-Laurent.

Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government ActGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Cleary Bloc Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the previous Conservative speaker that, with regard to the recognition of rights, we see only what we want to see. For instance, I listened to what he had to say about section 35. The fact is there was no reference to aboriginal rights which were defined in a large number of decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada.

So, all of that can be explained. Everything can be reduced to the lowest common denominator, but the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, in a comprehension review that cost the government $52 million, covered all the necessary points. Unfortunately, the commission's report was shelved by the government and I can see that the Conservatives, just like the government, never read it.

What does the hon. member think about the vision we need to have if our aboriginal peoples are to take their rightful place? The research was based on negotiations between equals. We had 10 years of discussions on one agreement, a rather limited focus. All the lawyers worked on this and came to an agreement. I think I know what I am talking about. I have been working on aboriginal issues for 40 years and I have been a negotiator for the first nations for the last 20 years.

All the provisions in this agreement, which were considered by a number of negotiators and lawyers, passed the negotiation test and were approved by people who were not always open to the recognition of native rights.

Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

We have resumed debate and the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent has the floor. but I think that was actually a question for the member for Calgary Centre-North. Is there consent for the member to answer the question?

Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

It will be the last question for the member for Calgary Centre-North.

Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Jim Prentice Conservative Calgary North Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to take up the speaking time of my hon. friend. I am prepared to answer the question, as long as it does not cut into my friend's speaking time.

Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Just so we are clear, the time allotted for the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent will start afresh after the answer from the member for Calgary Centre-North.

Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Jim Prentice Conservative Calgary North Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, I will try to address the hon. member's question.

This agreement is really two things. It is a comprehensive claim settlement and it is a self-government agreement.

I think the member will see that the comments that I have addressed to the House relate in the main to the self-government aspects of the agreement.

I think my friend and I are on common ground that agreements such as these have to be negotiated in a climate of respect and that it takes some time to build that. At the end of the day, first nations must have a future in this country which is based upon access to a resource base and opportunities that they can move forward as active and full members of the Canadian federation.

The point I raise is that if we implement in the self-government aspects of the Tlicho agreement provisions which are not workable for the nation as a whole in terms of the functioning of our federal system, we will not advance the interests of either aboriginal Canadians or non-aboriginal Canadians.

Once again, the way in which this proposed legislation has been brought before the House precludes the House, and the combined wisdom that we have in the House, from making improvements to the self-government structure in a way that would result in a superior product for the ongoing governance of Canada. We are losing the opportunity to do that because it has been presented to us as a notice of ways and means motion. It is all or nothing; either take the entire agreement or leave it. I do not think that is in the interests of Canada nor in the interests of democracy.

Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Cleary Bloc Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-14, an act to give effect to a land claims and self-government agreement among the Tlicho, the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Government of Canada, to make related amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, acts which are affected by the content of this new social contract.

Before I get to the heart of the matter, I would like to say that I had the pleasure of welcoming the grand chief of the Tlicho nation, Joe Rabesca, to my parliamentary office. With him were his chief negotiator and members of his council. The grand chief explained to me that the Tlicho people had been waiting for 14 months—ever since the agreement was signed—to close this chapter of their history.

He explained with conviction that the Tlicho people want to continue making progress toward Tlicho self-government. I could see in the grand chief's eyes that same spark of pride that I have seen so often in the eyes of many of Quebec's aboriginal chiefs, as a negotiator for the first nations, looking at the reality of their new social contract, after 10 years of difficult negotiations involving the Tlicho First Nation, the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Government of Canada.

The Tlicho agreement spells out land claims, recognizes and protects harvesting rights, establishes self-government and provides for the necessary funding. I want to assure grand chief Rabesca that—here in the House or in the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources—the Bloc Québécois will support this agreement with all its energy and will make certain that the federal legislation is fully consistent with the agreement. The Tlicho people deserve such support.

The Bloc Québécois is completely in favour of this bill to implement the final agreement on the Tlicho. There are three main reasons for this position.

First, the Bloc Québécois is firmly committed to the idea of the first nations' right to self-government, and this agreement gives effect to that right. For this reason alone, we would have to support the underlying principle of this treaty.

Second, 84% of eligible voters were in favour of the Tlicho agreement in a referendum. The sovereignists can hardly oppose it.

Third, this agreement is an excellent example of self-government.

More generally speaking, the Bloc Québécois is concerned about aboriginal claims for self-government. It acknowledges the aboriginal peoples as distinct peoples with a right to their own cultures, languages, customs and traditions, as well as the right to direct the development of their own identity.

In a word, what we want for Quebeckers we also want for aboriginal peoples.

Bill C-14 is the last stepping stone in giving effect to the tripartite agreement that has been signed. The Tlicho are a people native to Canada whose ancestral lands are in the Northwest Territories. There are some 3,000 members of the Tlicho first nation, which was previously known as the Dogrib.

The Tlicho live on land located between Great Slave Lake and Great Bear Lake, in the heart of the Northwest Territories.

This is the first combined land claim and self-government agreement of its kind in the Northwest Territories.

The Tlicho agreement will bring certainty with respect to the rights, titles and obligations of the Tlicho, who have agreed not to exercise or assert any rights other than Treaty 11 rights and those set out in this agreement.

The Tlicho government will own a 39,000 square kilometre block of land, adjacent to or surrounding the four Tlicho communities, including sub-surface resources.

The Tlicho government will receive about $152 million over 14 years, as well as an annual share of resource royalties from development in the Mackenzie Valley.

Title to most land within the new community limits will be transferred to the Tlicho community governments. Third party interests with legal tenure will be protected.

The Tlicho government will have prescribed law-making powers on Tlicho lands and over Tlicho citizens off Tlicho lands. There will be a public community government in each Tlicho community established by territorial legislation.

A community government will have the power to enact laws relating to standard municipal matters. Subject to certain limitations, Tlicho citizens will have harvesting rights throughout the entire region at all times of the year.

A renewable resources board will be established to manage wildlife in Wekeezhii. The Tlicho government will be the custodian of heritage resources on Tlicho lands.

In consultation with government, the Tlicho government can name or rename lakes, rivers, mountains, and other geographic features and locations wholly within Tlicho lands, or in Tlicho communities, and that new name will be recognized as the official name.

The agreement gives the Tlicho the tools to achieve financial independence. The agreement also gives them more power to protect their lifestyle, stimulate economic growth and improve the welfare of their community.

Given the nature of the bill to give effect to the Tlicho agreement, it seems that the role of Parliament is to debate, and accept or reject, the bill. We need not amend this bill. It was duly endorsed by the three parties that negotiated it. In our view, amending this bill would be a show of paternalism that we want no part of.

We wish to reiterate that the Bloc Québécois endorses the key recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, which set out an approach to self-government built on the recognition of Aboriginal governments as a level of government with jurisdiction over questions concerning governance and the welfare of their people.

The entire report was based on recognition of the aboriginal peoples as independent nations occupying a unique place within Canada.

Congratulations to the Tlicho and good luck.