Debates of Dec. 6th, 2004

Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act

[An hon. member]

Nonsense.

[John Cummins, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Madam Speaker, listen to them over there. It is unbelievable.

That is what the agreement does. Members opposite do not understand the effects of their own legislation and that is what bothers me the most.

When we go back to the Constitution, the notion of aboriginal rights were thrown in without definition. Nobody knew what it meant. Nobody took the time to define it. It was thrown in and we have been debating it ever since. It has been expensive. We have had court case after court case and then we get nonsense like the bill that is before us today, which is opening the doors to nothing but lawsuits and ongoing negotiations that will never end.

When will the members in this place wake up? To suggest that this place changes with every election and somehow there is no continuity is beyond the pale. The issue is that these notions should have been carefully defined by the House so that parliaments that follow would have an idea of what was meant by terms like “inherent right”. That is the issue. That is our job and we are not doing it.

Our job is to ensure that there is clear definition. Our job is to ensure that the definitions are clear so that if there is a problem and the matter ends up in the Supreme Court of Canada, the Supreme Court knows what Parliament's intention was.

The debate we have had on the bill, this non-debate, this debate that gets thrown out at the last minute so that it is impossible for members to adequately prepare is the problem. Members opposite do not want to discuss the issue. They do not want clear definition. They do not want the people of Canada to be heard on these matters. They are simply not concerned with the effects of their actions.

We could look at the estimates over time and the money that was spent time after time in negotiating these agreements. How does it improve the life of native people in this country? We should think back to Davis Inlet. There was $152 million spent to move the poor people of Davis Inlet from one location to another. The government said that would fix the problems of drug and alcohol abuse, of sexual abuse and all the ills of the community. The government said it would fix it by moving those folks from community A to community B.

Has it fixed anything? Not a thing. The problems go on, and why? Because every morning when those kids wake up in Davis Inlet, nothing has changed. Whether they wake up in the old community or whether they wake up in the new one, it does not matter. The kids look out their windows at the street and they see the broken down snowmobile, the pick-up truck that is not running, or the stray dog. The vista does not change from day to day. It is all the same.

Nothing ever changes. They cannot better themselves because there are no economic opportunities there. There is nothing to make their lives better. Then the young people turn on the TV and they get pictures coming in from Los Angeles, from Toronto, from London, and they ask, “How can those people live like that? Why not us?”

The government spent $152 million to move them from one community to another to improve nothing, to provide no economic opportunities and to provide no hope for those individuals to improve their lives. The money was spent and the government members feel good. They spent money but they got nowhere. They fixed nothing. That is going to happen here. Nothing is going to be fixed.

[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 want to put this bill into context. My riding of London West is in southwestern Ontario. It is an urban riding. I do not have many first nations, Métis or Inuit in my riding but I am the parliamentary secretary of one of the most exciting portfolios that one could get in this government.

I am very proud to work with all the people who support the evolution of Canada because that is what we are seeing here. We are actually making history. The headlines are full of many things and yet this bill is making history. It is making history for the people in the Northwest Territories. Their territorial government has recognized what a magnificent piece of legislation this is, what it will do not only for the citizens who reside in the Northwest Territories but for the Tlicho people who have patiently and poignantly and with pride worked for over a decade on this agreement and before that on the other treaty agreement that gave rise to this agreement.

I point out to my constituents and all people of this country that it takes patience, knowledge, give and take, humanity, to put together an agreement of this magnitude, to make a modern treaty. The Tlicho are Canadians and they are also Tlicho citizens. They are very proud of their heritage and their culture. This agreement allows them to continue that in the manner that they see best.

This is a progressive grouping of first nations people in the north who have taken back, not their total territory from history, but 39,000 square kilometres which is originally 19% of the traditional territory of the Tlicho. There have been many boundaries around this 39,000 square kilometres which have had other first nations people in the north working together to come to an agreement so that we have certainty on boundaries. Each of the negotiations on the overlap boundary agreements has a history and is a story in itself.

What we have here is a people in Canada having a self-government agreement and a land claims agreement, not the first in Canada but certainly the first in the Northwest Territories. The first in Canada that I worked on with my colleague from Nunavut was the Nisga'a agreement. I chaired the committee at that time. My colleague who is the chair of this self-government agreement and has done a marvellous job in committee also worked on the Nisga'a agreement.

I have listened to the arguments in this chamber. It would be easy to spend my time at the end of this debate concentrating on the 12 points that have been raised time and again and which have been debunked time and again, not with my opinion but with the opinion of the lawyers. Those opinions have been from the Tlicho lawyers, from the justice department lawyers, from the territorial lawyers, from the ministers who have to say to the government when they bring the legislation to cabinet that it is charter proof. In fact every lawyer that testified said that this is compliant. The charter does apply. This is the law of our land that is accepted.

The negotiation has gone on for a long time but it is time to end it. It is time to end this step in the House today so we can stand and vote tomorrow. As we rise we can be very proud that we are not only acknowledging our small part in the history that is happening in this chamber, but to acknowledge the patience, the fortitude and the wisdom of the Tlicho people in the four communities and their ancestors. They have worked to make this an agreement that they are very prepared to live with in the context of a modern Canada.

I am sure that this agreement did not encapsulate everything that the negotiation started with. It is a give and take. People came with honour to make an agreement. This is a unique agreement because not only did the three signatories, the Government of Canada, the territorial government and the Tlicho people sign and initial it, but they actually went back and did a further six months of consultations.

They drew in all the other stakeholders, all those other people who may have concerns, all those other boards. We live in a complex world. There are water boards. There are environmental boards. There are neighbouring land claims. There are municipal governments. There is industry. There are businesses. They gave them a second chance. They said, “Let us go out there and consult one more time. Let us make sure”.

By having that extra patience, by doing that extra consultation--and there were over hundreds of consultations on this agreement--they came back before our committee of the House and were able to have their neighbours, their colleagues and other levels of government stand before us as witnesses and say, “We support this agreement”.

I am here to celebrate, Madam Speaker, because this is worth celebrating. It was a celebration when they signed in the Northwest Territories. Our former prime minister was there with them. A month later, I sort of sneaked into the community, very low key, and had someone local drive me. I met with some of the people and took a look around in the communities with some of the old names like Rae Edzo and some of the other areas.

Later on in that visit over a year and a quarter ago now, I also flew to Diavik diamond mine. What did I discover there? I found that the Tlicho people had a sophisticated human resource relationship with the progressive industry of the north and that they had learned how to facilitate, educate and set in motion new scholarship funds and programs so that their community could benefit from the resources of the future. Their community and their people would take the self-government to self-education and self-empowerment.

All people in this country pay taxes and they pay taxes. They will continue to pay taxes. In the House I have heard arguments that lead me to believe that some of the hon. members have not even read the agreement, but here we are today. We are very close. I must acknowledge the patience of people who have to listen to some of these arguments because it must be difficult.

I do not pretend to know everything about this agreement. I have read it. I have studied it. But I do know that three levels of government and three people of honour representing three different parties have come together after this amount of time with negotiators who have worked many years. In fact, some of the elders and some of the original people involved have already passed on and it is out of respect for them that these people come with patience and they come with a trust that we are going to do the right thing in the House.

I would like to commend the critics from the NDP and the Bloc for working with us on the bill. In a minority government, I think that has been something we can also celebrate, because on this legislation everybody has worked hard.

I will even acknowledge that for the most part the Conservative Party has not tried to unduly delay this piece of legislation. I will give them that. I hope that it will be tomorrow that we finally stand to get the bill voted on.

I have no objection if members find in their hearts that they cannot vote for the legislation, but I ask them to at least do it with factual legal issues that have been explained--

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

--maybe not to your satisfaction but certainly to my satisfaction and to that of the three parties around the House, one territorial government and the Tlicho people of the north, who will be most directly affected by this.

I want to say that I am proud of my colleagues in the House who have taken the time to do their homework and support the bill. Tomorrow I am going to be prouder still to stand and give it my support because I understand that this is the way we move into the future.

We move into future together because we want economic, social and health benefits, all those good benefits that come with certainty. I know that when the premier gave testimony he said he thought it would be devastating if the bill did not get through. In the north, where they do not even have parties in their parliament and legislative house, 19 individual members of the legislative assembly made their own decision and unanimously ratified this agreement.

Those of us here have a chance to show that we can do something that will greatly affect the lives of generations for the positive. I am not concerned that some of the members opposite do not want to see that happen. I am disappointed, but I believe that for the majority of Canadians, if they understood the history, if they understood the story, if they understood our Constitution as I know some of them do, going forward they would be very proud of this work, as I am.

There are very difficult days in Parliament, but every once in a while we get to work on something that we are proud of. I am proud of this piece of work and I am proud of the people who have helped.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have had the honour over the last four years of working for the Algonquin Nation in Quebec, a proud community that never signed any treaties with Canada and is still continuing their fight to get land deals worked out. In fact, one community I worked with started out with a 70,000 acre reserve. That reserve arbitrarily was moved down to 38,000 acres and then moved down to 9,000 acres.

That community is down to 4,000 acres today on the worst section of ground in a most beautiful agricultural region. That land will never come back to them. The damage this has done to that community has impacts on generation after generation.

I had the great pleasure of working with that community in trying to redress some of those historic grievances, so I am very pleased to hear the hon. member's words about the bill and the attempt to move forward with our first nation neighbours. Does the hon. member think that Bill C-14 might be a model for other first nation communities that have been left out and still need land deals settled? On top of that, how can we start to move these forward in a timely and just manner?

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, that question is a very good question to have discussed in the House. In fact, the question is one that will be put. As many hon. members know, last April a round table was held with the Prime Minister and many of Canada's aboriginal leaders. There were to be six breakout sessions held. One of them, to be held in Calgary in mid-January, I believe, will be on the treaty process and some of the issues relating to that. That session will be with aboriginal, first nations, Métis and Inuit people. Discussions will be at a hands on level, not a political level, about how we have to move this process so that it is faster, because it is very difficult to wait a decade to get agreements done, or in the case of Nisga'a, nearly a century.

I believe that understanding has seeped in to most members in this chamber. I believe that, through television, by hearing the stories, by the creation of Nunavut, and through the different land claims agreements that have gone through the House, Canadians understand that with certainty economies go ahead, that with certainty on land claims the economics and the social are linked and people move forward and forge their destiny. I am pleased that the member and his party are also on side with this type of philosophy.

Although we come from different parties, I think that sometimes the best work can be done when we do try to work together in the House. This has been evidenced with this bill. This has been evidenced by the work done in committee. People understood what they were doing. The witnesses came before us and we heard their stories. There was no dissent with the witnesses who appeared before us. They all wanted us to move and to move quickly. I hope we will continue to do that.

[Jeremy Harrison, Conservative, Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, I have to take issue with the parliamentary secretary's characterization of my party's opposition to Bill C-14 as being in bad faith in some way. We put forward very constructive questions. We made our submissions in good faith. We have very real and very serious concerns with this and, to be quite frank, we have not received any answers to our questions.

I have stood in the House four times today asking about the reason for the inclusion, at the insistence of the federal government, of article 7.13.2. I still do not have an answer. I asked this question numerous times in committee as well. For the parliamentary secretary to stand up in her place and act like these submissions and these questions we are asking are in bad faith is completely beyond the pale.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thought I was talking about the good faith of the parties going along with this. I certainly did not--and I apologize if I made that error--and would not talk directly about bad faith by the party opposite, because I do not believe the members are in bad faith. In fact, I thought I had made the point that they had been trying to move this, not unduly delay it. I certainly had no intention of saying that it was bad faith.

I would say that I disagree with the member's ideas. I think the member has been answered with respect to the one point on the international stuff. If the point is with respect to foreign affairs, as a project of law goes through a cabinet all cabinet ministers at the table have ample opportunity to input into that. The justice department is the final drafter, but any department, whether it is foreign affairs, agriculture or finance, all of them, would have input.

If anything, the point with respect to the trade issue is to clarify to make sure that there is no conflict. In fact, the sections are very clear. I read the sections into the record in committee when the member who was asked the question was present and that would be in the Hansard of the committee.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, I have been in the House since the year 2000 and there have been things that the federal government has done in the area of foreign affairs when there has been absolutely no consultation with anybody in the opposition or with this Parliament. They are done in the Prime Minister's Office or in cabinet and so on and that is the end of it.

There are over 600 first nations communities across the country. There are 10 provinces. There are large communities across the country, communities of 3,500 people and larger.

Is the parliamentary secretary suggesting that the precedent being created here in consulting a community of 3,500 people on matters of foreign affairs will become a kind of template for dealing with 10 provinces, the opposition parties and the 600-plus other first nations communities across the country?

What kind of massive bureaucracy is the Liberal government going to create if we follow that path in conducting foreign affairs? I really question the wisdom of this. It could be a bureaucratic nightmare if we follow this path.

I asked this question earlier today, but I did not get anywhere close to getting an answer to the question. I would give the parliamentary secretary an opportunity to outline how we are going to create a framework in this country to deal with all these communities across Canada and consult with them every time this country wants to conduct foreign policy.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, the word consult is defined in the agreement. There is not a consultation in this. Consult is a legal term. If my hon. friend would like to understand this properly, he should go to the Hansard of--

[An hon. member]

Are you a lawyer?

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

I am a lawyer and I will try to explain it so maybe you will take the time--

[An hon. member]

He's a lawyer too.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

If you don't want to listen to the answer, I will gladly sit down.

[An hon. member]

We don't like the answer.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, shall I continue?

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you, Madam Speaker, the answer is spelled out because we did it two or three times in the committee. If the hon. member would care to read the committee Hansard he would see that all of these sections were read into the record. They were confirmed by the justice lawyers and they were confirmed by members of the Tlicho community. That is very clear.

But there is a desire, I believe, to make it less than clear when the members opposite stand up. These have been answered. They have been answered over and over again and the agreement is explicit.

[An hon. member]

Well, answer it for me then.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Yes, I will answer it for you.

The Tlicho community cannot enter into international trade agreements. It is simple. There is a section in the agreement that says on the Tlicho law, and in fact, I could probably find that section; it might take a minute but I have quoted into the committee Hansard, where I read out the section that that if there is anything inadvertently done, then there is an authority under the agreement to have to have it reversed. There is a whole process to go through.

It has been answered. I just do not think they really want to hear these answers.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I first want to say that I am on the aboriginal affairs and northern development committee and I have heard the answers to the questions that have been asked by the official opposition. The same questions have been asked repeatedly and the answers have been given. If they do not want to listen, they cannot be made to hear.

We know there was a lot of support for the Tlicho agreement. We know the voting percentages were very high. Since we have started this debate in the House, which has taken a number of weeks, has there been any word on the level of support in the communities? Are the communities back home interested in this topic? What are people saying about it? What is the response of the representatives who we heard at committee and who have been working on this?

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank all hon. members who worked at the committee on this bill.

If I had the voting turnout and the voter percentage that the Tlicho people had I would never have to worry about my seat. It was over 84.6%, 92% ratification and anyone who was absent was counted as a no vote. I do not think we could get better than that in a democracy.

Every witness who came before the committee was supportive, whether it was the territorial government or non-Tlicho citizens living in Tlicho territory of which there are only a couple of hundred people.

In fact, the public government that would be put into effect through this agreement would allow for non-Tlicho citizens to be represented on the councils of the board.

I salute these people and I give them the honour they deserve.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon Jean Augustine)]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?