Debates of May 12th, 2008

Specific Claims Tribunal Act

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Vancouver Island North for perhaps helping the general public to understand the scope of the bill we are debating here today, Bill C-30.

One of the most important things she pointed out, and what I might ask her to elaborate on it, is the fact that we are not talking about comprehensive land claims, which the general public might think of when people hear the words “land claims”. We are talking about very specific claims that are in fact legal obligations by the federal government.

One example I know of is during the second world war the Government of Canada went to a reserve and said that it needed to use 40 or 50 acres of the land as a training base for soldiers to get ready for the second world war on the condition that as soon as the war was over the land would be returned. The war ended in 1945 and the first nations asked about the promise of getting their land back. It fell on deaf ears for 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, 50 years. They tried everything.

That is the frustration. This is one key example of the type of frustration first nations have faced in trying to have their voices heard on very specific, narrow points of law, “You promised X dollars and we only got Y dollars. Where is the rest”, or, “You promised us you would give that land back. You didn't and we want justice on that issue”.

If Canadians understood that, I think they would be more supportive of trying to expedite this process so more of these legitimate claims could be dealt with in a fashion where it was not justice delayed was justice denied. Decades and decades of deaf ears to a legitimate legal obligation is justice denied no matter how one slices it up. I want my colleague to comment further on that specific difference.

Another thing I want her to comment on is the composition of the tribunal board. If we are dealing with a nation to nation respectful relationship, why does the Government of Canada get to appoint all the members of the tribunal? Would that not be like the United States telling Canada, yes, there is a trade agreement, but that it will name all the tribunal members and control the process for any disagreements that may arise out of the trading relationship? That is something she could expand on as well.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is absolutely right about the tribunal appointment process. We like to think we are dealing on a nation to nation basis. For us to presume that we have the authority or right to appoint the other side is beyond reason. I thank him for raising that issue. It is a very important piece that needs to be addressed, and I hope the government will do so.

I started my discourse talking about building trust. My colleague again raises that very point when he talks about the promises that were made to first nations over the years, but were not kept. That is why so many aboriginal groups and first nations are wary and not as trustful of any government, provincial, municipal or federal. They are very wary and will be watching us with a keen eye to ensure we live up to the promises we make in the House today.

I want to mention that the difference between treaties and specific claims is specific claims deal with past grievances of first nations. These grievances relate to Canada's obligations under historic treaties or the way it has managed first nations funds or other assets, some of those assets being land, resources, fish and other things, even water. These things need to be addressed. They have created economic hardship for aboriginal people across the country. For us to let them languish in courts for all these many years is very shameful.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the member mentioned the first nations in her riding. Of course, I would not want to leave the ones in my riding out because they are unique in Canada: the Tlingit, the Northern Tutchone, Southern Tutchone, the Han, the Gwich'in, the Kaska, the Tagish and even some from Copper River.

Some of them appeared before committee and they had suggestions but we are supporting the bill, as they are supporting the bill. They have specific claims.

My question is on the amount of money. As we know, the maximum amount is $150 million per claim. I think the minister said that there were 900 claims outstanding and that they were trying to get them done up quickly. At $150 million maximum per claim and 900 outstanding, how much money would that be in a year? Only $250 million have been indicated in a year. My position is that the government should be committing, through supplementaries, to increasing that. It may be far larger than that if we are going to make any progress at all on the backlog.

I wonder if the NDP agrees that the government should commit, through the supplementary estimates, to increasing the $250 million a year for what the tribunal needs to resolve these claims.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, from what I understand from the discussions, the $150 million will be adequate in most of the cases but in cases where it is not there is another level. I am not quite sure of the specifics on how that is accessed or the process once the $150 million threshold is reached.

I would remind the hon. member that under the previous Liberal government its cap was much lower. I believe one of my colleagues actually mentioned around $10 million. I would need to check that fact but that is a lot less than $150 million.

I think that is an important point that the member made. As I said back in 1963, when an original bill was introduced where around $17 million was the total for all the specific claims, now we are looking at billions of dollars. I hope, as I am sure he does, that the government has laid enough money aside and that once these claims are finalized, the money will flow quickly and that we will not need to see more claims made to access the money that is owed to first nations.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak today to Bill C-30 at third reading.

I will put the bill into context for the people watching at home because they hear about land claims and about specific land claims and they are not sure what we are debating today.

When Canada was being developed, the King made a royal proclamation stating that there had to be agreement with first nations people and aboriginal people before settlers from Europe and other Canadians could use the land. That led to treaty development and to modern treaties, which are called land claims.

We are not talking about that today, which is where some of the solutions to the problems with aboriginal people lies. We certainly want to see good work in that area so we can advance the many claims that are still outstanding. It is a huge issue and a key.

Today we are talking about specific claims that have had problems. A first nation, aboriginal or Inuit group suggests that there has been a transgression and that someone has done something legally against their claim to which they have a right and they want that wrong corrected. That is very important, which is why I think everyone is supporting the bill in principle. However, it is a whole different issue from the major issue of land claims but certainly needs to be dealt with.

As previous members have said, the bill has been in the works for 60 years, the finalizing of it and getting it in place, so it is not new for anyone here. Everyone is happy because there have been calls for the bill since 1947. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples in 1996 talked about it as well. Today, we have a bill that we all hope will get through.

I want to talk about some of the items that we discussed at committee. When the minister gave his speech on third reading, I noticed that he did not touch on any of the concerns that came up on committee, which is the purpose of having committee hearings. He simply reiterated the purpose of the bill.

First, the minister said that there were 900 specific claims outstanding, which is why we must o deal with them quickly.

From my understanding, after talking to a committee member, the government was not too flexible in dealing with the concerns of the committee and the people who gave input to committee. One of the concerns had to do with the $150 million cap on the land claims.

What happens to claims that are over $150 million? If they go through the process and it is discovered that they are actually over $150 million, how will those claims to be dealt with? Will the government guarantee that those claims will be dealt with in good faith and quickly, like the other specific claims?

The second point, which I made a minute ago in a question, was on the total of amount of money available. Will $250 million be enough? If we have 900 claims and the maximum for one claim is $150 million, it will not take too long to add up to $250 million in a year.

I can understand that the government did not put the money in the budget, but I hope, in good faith, it will commit the money in the supplementary estimates. The tribunals will need to have the ability to approve a lot more than $250 million in a year if we are to make any great progress on the backlog and, therefore, the government should simply put the money aside in the supplementaries when it will be needed to fund those.

The third point relates to the input on the judges. I understand this has been dealt with somewhat in a side agreement. I appreciate that. The concern raised was that when two sides were bargaining in the past, to use the example used by the member a few minutes ago, the United States and Canada debating over something, the person who would decide would be one of those sides, for example, the United States decided.

That was the system in the past and of course that is what this new arrangement is designed to get around, which everyone agrees with. Therefore, a tribunal will be appointed. For those who think a tribunal means three, because tri is the root of a prefix that means three, it is one, so there is one judge. The judge would be appointed under the standard appointing procedures of judges, but in the example I just gave by the United States, by one side, so the concern was raised whether there would be input of aboriginal people into the appointment of those judges to have a fair resolution and have confidence in the process. Of course, as has been said, the Assembly of First Nations has worked on this and is in support of the process.

The next item that was raised very eloquently by the member for Labrador relates to land. We are talking about irritants in a land claim. If there is a problem where someone did not do something about a land claim, this is a way to resolve it. If someone takes our land away from us illegally, there is a way to resolve it, except that this process does not allow them to deal with land, so there is a process to deal with specific claims, much of which could be about land, but they cannot deal with land.

The member raised that question a few minutes ago but no real answers were given as to how those types of problems would be solved. The minister suggested in his speech that they could get finances and with those finances they could buy land, but that was not necessarily acceptable in all cases, from what I remember, to the people who presented at the committee on that.

Another concern that was raised related to the fact that many of the cases of specific claims would require a provincial buy-in. The obvious reason for that is that crown lands in Canada are primarily held by the provinces and the Yukon territory. As the Yukon territory has had devolution, the responsibilities for management and stewardship of land, water and resources in the Yukon territory has been transferred to them through devolution agreements, as it is with the provinces. This situation does not exist yet in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut but negotiations are underway.

Therefore, if, in the majority of Canada, the crown land is held by provinces and territories and there is a problem with a specific land claim, then obviously in many cases the provinces or the Yukon territory will need to be involved because of their role in the stewardship of that land.

However, the problem is for them to agree to that. They will not necessarily buy-in because they will need to agree to be bound by the decision of the judge during the case. There obviously will be a number of cases that will not be solved in this manner and that will not be as rosy a picture in that respect.

One of the points that I wanted to make clear concerns the tribunal. When we first heard that there would be a tribunal, it sounded like there was a panel of judges. I think six judges will be appointed to the tribunal so that various judges can sit on various cases, which we support and it is the way it should occur.

However, there is only one judge. We are talking about claims of up to $150 million which is very important to people and it is being for better or worse decided by one person. These will be eminent people, but they obviously will not always make the right decision.

The problem with the process is that there will not be another person sitting on the tribunal with them so it will be totally one judge's decision. Something could be easily overlooked by accident or for whatever reason a wrong decision could be made. There is no one else sitting there with the judge and it is not appealable.

Everyone in the House has dealt with government in a number of ways over the years, either administratively or politically, and knows that for almost every process in government, in the public administration, there is some sort of appeal process, other than this judicial review which is allowed in this case. We do not want to force people to go to court.

There are only two major instances I can think of in the Canadian system where this occurs. This would be one and the other is on refugee determination. Despite efforts to change that over the years, someone could be forced to leave Canada. Could we imagine if we were forced to leave Canada on an non-appealable decision of one person? That would be a pretty sad state of affairs.

I think it is a hallmark of our fairness. Even in the courts where we have these wise judges, such as would be sitting on this tribunal, we have several levels of appeal right up to the Supreme Court, but we do not have to force a judicial review. It would be much easier if there was some mechanism that would look at the process.

Someone suggested there would be about 20 cases a year that the government is hoping to accomplish. If there is a backlog of 900 that is not going to get us very far. Therefore, we certainly have to put the resources into dealing with these cases. It is a good plan, except for these numbers of concerns that I have mentioned that were brought forward in committee by witnesses and aboriginal people. However, if we have a plan that is better than it was before, we have to put in the resources to deal with it.

Another question was, can the tribunal rule on pre-Confederation cases such as the Caledonia case? I have not heard the response to that question.

At this time I want to compliment Grand Chief Phil Fontaine for the tremendous work that he did to make this agreement possible. He has achieved so much for his people over recent years with the settlement of residential schools that he signed with our government after years and years of trying to come up with a plan. I remember I was in the room when the agreement was arrived at and saw the emotion from the hard work and dedication, and the success that his leadership had contributed to so much. He certainly deserves credit from not only first nations aboriginal people in Canada but all Canadians.

That once again will apply to this case where so many irritants will finally be taken care of and dealt with where in the past they were not moving fast enough. I think it was an average of 13 minutes per case before.

I want to use my last few minutes, however, to repeat my astonishment this afternoon with the minister and the member for Cambridge who are actually trying to suggest that these are rosy times with the accomplishments of the government for aboriginal people in spite of all the tremendous huge cuts to aboriginal funding, and the huge number of programs that have been cut.

As I said, I would stop talking about this because no one really believes the government and believes that. However, when specific examples came up in the last few days, it is hard to take. The member suggested as did the minister in an answer during question period that things were not in the Kelowna accord and that is why things proposed by the government are so successful.

As far as the government's three success stories, the first was the specific land claims. We have already discussed that this has been going on for six years. It had nothing to do with Kelowna. It was in progress and being dealt with by the Department of Indian Affairs and the various governments to come to where we are today.

The second point was the agreement on children and family services. It is true that there was no agreement in place. The member said it had nothing to do with the Kelowna accord. Of course, that shows the total lack of understanding by those members who try to make that case with the Kelowna accord and the fact that it was dealing with the holistic issue of children and adults and their health.

I do not think that anyone would agree that education, child care and housing and the economic development of their parents and health have nothing to do with children. If the government were to deal with children and their families in such a fashion and deal with the root causes, then there would certainly be a lot less people needing an agreement on child and family services.

In the last couple of days the minister twice quoted one chief from the thousands of chiefs and their counsellors in Canada. He is limited to so few comments of the great support for the government's work. Then the minister used the example, which is most embarrassing of all, of signing a land claim after that member and other members in his caucus who were in the Reform caucus spoke so hard against many of the major land claims in Canada. They fought against them. Then the member had the nerve to stand up and say this is great work because one particular land claim had been signed which had not been dealt with for years. To talk about the things that were not in the Kelowna accord means he had no success.

The member's third point was in reference to clean water. The first two of the three were not successes. The third one is no success either. People know and the facts are that when the Liberal government was in place, it did an audit of all the first nations water systems. The previous government funded this audit across the country and found many problems which no government would like to find. Information that was needed to deal with those issues was gathered and the problems were then dealt with.

As the member said, the government dealt with some of them. Instead of dealing with all the items from the audit and the disgraceful situation that the water systems were in, what did the government do? On April 15 or 16 the government announced that it was going to basically do an independent study of where the previous government failed in following up on the recommendations dealing with water.

It is quite simple. There are water problems on first nations. Why does the government not just get on with it, instead of saying it has a success and that it is going to monitor where the previous government failed, when the audit had already been done? For the minister to say that this had nothing to do with the Kelowna accord, once again people will think that the minister should at least understand what was in the Kelowna accord.

In 2006-07 there was $100 million for water. In 2007-08 there was $75 million for water. In 2008-09 there was $85 million for water. In 2009-10 there was $75 million for water. In 2010-11 there was $75 million for water.

The government cancelled the biggest agreement with the first nations of Canada, not with a particular party or government. There was $5 billion for K to 12 education, post-secondary education, children, housing, northern housing, water and infrastructure, health, capacity building and economic development. It is not believed by anyone, except by a few Conservative members, because there is no way in the world anyone can consider that a success.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of questions for the member opposite.

He often likes to speak about his previous tenure on the government side. He harkens back to the moment when the previous government was about to be unceremoniously thrown out from office and rolled out what he likes to call the Kelowna accord, though, of course, that press release came from the first ministers meeting which called for $5 billion to be spent by the federal government. And of course it was not an agreement.

It was simply an announcement of a promise that the former government wanted to implement should it be successful in the next election. We know what Canadians had to say about that former government.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

They had enough of talk.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

As my hon. colleague says, “They had enough of talk”.

It was not until about a month later that in fact the term “accord” was attached to what we all know was not a signed agreement. Thankfully, our government was elected and we have been able to move forward with some real tangible plans, not a dreamy panacea that would cure everything. That is the only approach that the Liberals have. They bring forward very glorious talk, but after 13 years they did nothing for aboriginal people.

If we look at some of the ideas that came out in the previous era, the good ones were set aside. I can comment on former minister Nault. The member of course knows minister Nault quite well. His great ideas were set aside. All the Liberals wanted was talk and that is all they came forward with at the last moment.

The member needs to talk to his caucus. On the subject at hand, Bill C-30, I guess the member has not spoken with his caucus. In fact, the whole caucus voted to completely endorse this bill. In clause by clause, every single element of this bill was endorsed unanimously by his party. Yet, he talks about the bill as if it is something he and his party do not support. That is wrong and I am not sure what cheap political points he is attempting to score here, but his party, like I said, has unanimously endorsed this bill.

On top of the deception related to the Kelowna press release that the member put on the record, I would also like to speak to some of the other misinformation he has put on the record. The $150 million associated with this bill is quite a significant amount. When we look back to Bill C-6, the bill that the former government tried to put before Canadians, it only had about $6 million associated with it for the settlement of claims. This legislation is a considerable improvement on the ability of government to actually settle some of these outstanding claims, in fact, a large number of them.

He thinks that the outstanding backlog will not be addressed. He should know that 50% of the outstanding specific claims are less than $3 million. In fact, the vast majority of them are a great deal below the $150 million mark. The $2.5 billion that we have extended to this important tribunal is going to take care of this massive backlog that is in place.

I want to ask the member a quick question. He was speaking earlier about how the tribunal would not be able to unilaterally remove parcels of land from the provinces and territories, including his own territory. Is he suggesting that this bill should now be modified at third reading so that the tribunal could unilaterally take parcels of land out of Yukon? I am not sure his voters back home would like that.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, while I thank the parliamentary secretary for his question, it is hard to imagine someone trying to defend cancelling the Kelowna accord. This is like shooting fish in a barrel. This is a disaster for the government.

First, the parliamentary secretary said it looked like I was trying to destroy the bill and vote against it. He should have listened to my speech if he was going to ask a question and make a comment. I said twice in my speech that I support this bill and I gave a number of good reasons why in my speech. He should have listened.

Also, I said that the concerns I brought up were concerns that people brought up in committee. They were not my concerns related to the $150 million. In fact, I did not raise so much a concern as a question when I asked the government what it is going to do about those claims over $150 million. If anyone should know that answer, the parliamentary secretary should, but he did not answer that question.

In reply to the question about 900 backlogged claims and the 20 a year, he said it is going to be done. There was no answer to my question about so many claims and so few being done per year.

However, what I really want to respond to is the absolute audacity of the member in trying to defend the Conservatives throwing out the biggest agreement in history between Canada and the aboriginal peoples. We are out $5 billion. There has never been anything anywhere near that level. This was an agreement not just with the Liberal Party of Canada, not just with the Government of Canada, but between Canada, the premiers and the chiefs, the leaders across Canada.

It sounds like the member thinks this agreement was invented overnight, in one session. He really does a disservice to the aboriginal leaders across Canada, who met time and time again.

The reason the agreement was so successful and had so much support in this country was that it did not come from a government. It did not come from the Liberal government. It came from the aboriginal leaders in this country. The member insults the aboriginal leaders of this country in saying that it was just glorious talk that these aboriginal leaders came up with these problems.

Those aboriginal leaders know what the problems are in their communities. That is why they brought up education from K to 12. That is why they brought up post-secondary education. That is why they brought up support for children, for housing and infrastructure, and for northern housing. That is why they brought up support for water and infrastructure. That is why they brought up accountability and capacity building, engagement on land claims, self-government rights, economic opportunities, and health care.

That is why the agreement had the funds for all those items, for those items that the aboriginal people asked for. Canada signed in good conscience, agreed to it and put it in the budget, setting aside the $5 billion. The Conservative government took that away. I would be embarrassed to try to defend that decision if I were in that government.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Yukon for his speech.

I would like to hear the member speak about the shame Canada has brought upon itself on the international stage by refusing to sign the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In our caucus, the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue spoke to us at length about this. The international community was completely shocked to see Canada refusing to sign this treaty.

I think this situation only proves that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development seriously lacks vision and influence. I would like to know what our hon. colleague from Yukon thinks about this.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, of all the embarrassing things done by the government on this file, that is one I did not bring up.

However, time and time again in this House, our critic has talked about this shameful behaviour in the international community in regard to aboriginal rights. We have been told that the government put much effort into actually derailing that agreement at the United Nations. I think there are things the government could be spending its time on at the United Nations. For instance, there is the huge crisis in Burma right now. The government could be getting support from some of the countries that are not giving as much support as we are.

The dismal record of this government as related to human rights and first nations people is seen in the fact that it has put forward a bill, as the member well knows, for human rights for aboriginal people in Canada, a twelve-word bill or something like that. It was done so poorly and with so little consultation that I think it took over a year to get it to the House. I think there were seven items that the people in the committee came up with time and time again. Had they been consulted, they would have fixed that bill. We could have had it done long ago. It could have been easily fixed, but it was just a disaster.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

If the hon. member for Cambridge can ask his question in 30 seconds, he will be recognized.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will do just that. I simply have a comment of clarification. The Kelowna accord was never signed. I am sure the member just mistakenly misled the House.

The member did read off a litany of issues that the aboriginal communities brought forward in the dying days of the Liberal government, and I want to thank the member for pointing out all those Liberal failures.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, if I misspoke about it being signed, that is fine, but it was the agreement made to deal with all those issues. The Conservatives just said they were important issues, so that member is going to have to explain at the polls why his party cancelled all the money for all these major issues, which he has said are just as important. That $5 billion was set aside. The chiefs came up with it and the then Government of Canada had set aside that money to deal with this.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-30.

When the Bloc Québécois talks about aboriginal issues, we do so of course with considerable feelings of solidarity. Indeed, for some time now, we have felt that aboriginal peoples form nations. Our Bloc Québécois Indian affairs critic, the congenial member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, is very committed to defending aboriginal rights. This was definitely the case when he took action to promote the signing of the UN declaration. This government manoeuvred behind the scenes at the UN—that undeniably important multilateral forum—to minimize the protection that could be offered to first nations, to aboriginal nations. What a disgrace.

We cannot overstate just how right people are to be concerned. When this government looks at human rights, it usually does so from a negative point of view. We could be talking about aboriginal matters or the court challenges issue. Our colleague, the Bloc Québécois critic for the status of women, could be talking about women's rights. There is equal cause for concern on all those issues, which only shows that to be a right-wing political party in Canada means to look at things differently when it comes to promoting, defending and encouraging human rights.

I could also point out that the Conservatives have voted against gay and lesbian rights at every opportunity. These MPs, whether they are in opposition or in power, vote against prohibiting discrimination based on social condition. This is a dreadfully conservative government that has no sympathy for human rights.

However, that will not stop me from saying that the Bloc Québécois is supporting Bill C-30. I said this earlier and I will say it again quite proudly: in the history of the sovereignist movement, there has always been a great deal of sympathy for the issue of aboriginal rights. Some may have seen the television series on Radio-Canada that told the story of the career of René Lévesque, the former Premier of Quebec. He led the government from 1976 to 1985. This series has been criticized, I admit. Some facts were considered historically inaccurate. Nonetheless, one extremely well acted scene recreated a meeting between René Lévesque and the chiefs of the first nations of Quebec.

In Quebec, we have always promoted aboriginal languages. We have used public funding to make it possible for these languages to be taught. Whenever possible, these languages have been promoted, but not to the detriment of communicating with the majority. René Lévesque was the first to recognize the rights of the first nations. Today, this is a very robust right. Some 20 years ago, it was an emerging right. It is rather revolutionary, unprecedented and visionary to stand up for ancestral rights. In Quebec, we have been doing that since 1985. In Canada, this is part of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, I think we have to pay tribute to René Lévesque for the vision he demonstrated when it came to recognizing aboriginals.

The purpose of Bill C-30 is to create an independent tribunal that will decide on specific claims of first nations. Decisions will be made on the treatment of specific claims in Canada. This is an important aspect of the conflict resolution process for disputed land claims in some parts of Canada and Quebec as well.

According to the Constitution, the federal government has a fiduciary responsibility toward aboriginals. It must protect them. It is therefore responsible for seeing to it that they live in the best possible conditions.

In 1947, Canada achieved full judicial independence and was no longer answerable to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London. Since then, several joint and senate committees have recommended the creation of an independent specific claims tribunal. If I am not mistaken, the Erasmus-Dussault commission, chaired by a former judge of the Quebec court of appeal, also made that recommendation in its report. As I recall, Jane Stewart was the Liberal government minister responsible for aboriginal affairs at the time.

Of course, the recommendation to create a specific claims tribunal for first nations has a history because chiefs and authorized first nations representatives have been asking for it for 60 years now.

The Bloc Québécois wants to point out that negotiations are still the most common way to resolve claims. The tribunal proposed in Bill C-30 would have the power to render binding decisions. The fact that these binding decisions constitute a legal obligation to implement the terms is invaluable.

A number of things require clarification here. First, the tribunal that is about to be created—and this is a sensitive issue in public opinion—will not make land grants. The purpose of a legal tribunal is not to grant lands or to rule on territorial boundaries. The tribunal that we are about to create—and I repeat, the Bloc Québécois supports this bill—will rule on compensation. In other words, it will recognize that certain historical injustices have been perpetrated, and it will recommend financial compensation.

The tribunal will have a $250 million operating budget over 10 years, and may hear cases with up to $150 million at stake. It may deal with land claims of varying size. Some cases will be smaller, others larger, but the tribunal proposed in this bill will not be able to award more than $150 million in financial compensation.

I repeat that this tribunal will not be able to award lands; it will only be able to rule on financial compensation. Claims that can be sent to this tribunal for a ruling will have to be at least 15 years old. Land claims must deal with past grievances of the first nations. They must relate to Canada's obligations under historic treaties or the way it managed first nation funds or other assets, including reserve land.

I remind members that under the Constitution, Canada is the trustee for first nations' assets and rights. It is their guardian.

Under this bill, there are three situations in which the tribunal can hear and rule on land claims. The first is when a claim has been rejected by Canada, including a scenario in which Canada fails to meet the three-year time limit for assessing claims.

Under the existing arbitration and claims process, Canada, through its various land claims commissions, usually has three years to rule on the dispute or the outcome of a claim. If that does not happen, the dispute will automatically be eligible to be deferred to this new tribunal.

The tribunal will also be able to rule on a claim at any stage in the negotiation process if all parties agree, or if there is a consensus to defer the issue to a claims tribunal. The third case in which the tribunal could be asked to rule is after three years of unsuccessful negotiations.

Therefore, the tribunal will examine questions of fact and law to determine whether Canada has a lawful obligation to a first nation. Six full-time superior court justices will be appointed. We know that the federal government appoints superior court justices. The members of the tribunal will be chosen and appointed in accordance with the current judicial appointment process. Usually, there are selection committees.

Naturally I consider it to be my duty, as the justice critic, to digress briefly and remind this House that this government has been shameful, lacked judgment and acted despicably and inappropriately in wanting to change the composition of the judicial selection committees. We remember when the current President of the Treasury Board was the Minister of Justice. He is one of the most conservative members of the Cabinet. I could use other words, but will refrain in order to respect parliamentary standards. The fact remains that this government has been and remains intent on appointing police officers to judicial selection committees.

We all remember the uproar this caused when the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights was holding meetings. The current chair of the justice committee has pushed the limits of effrontery, nerve, bad manners and a lack of fair play in not convening the committee, which is nevertheless a committee with one of the most important mandates in this House. Why is the chair refusing to convene the committee? The Conservative government does not want this committee to shed light on the Cadman affair and it does not want us to play our parliamentary role as we are entitled to do. The committee is asking whether or not there was an attempt to buy votes during the last years of the Martin government.

Six superior court judges will be appointed on a full-time basis to this new specific claims tribunal. We hope that there will be no interference in the appointment committees for these judges and that they will be appointed in accordance with a process which, up until the Conservative government decided to intervene inappropriately, has honoured our Canadian judiciary.

The judges will hand down decisions that are binding and not subject to appeal. This is one aspect of the bill that has been criticized and is somewhat controversial. Ordinarily, the rule of substantive law allows a right of appeal. Unfortunately, I must remind hon. members that there are precedents in this House. There is still no appeal mechanism for refugee claimants.

Even though the Bloc Québécois worked hard to ensure we could have a refugee claim appeal mechanism, it still is not in place. And I understand that this will also be the case for the tribunal that will be created, despite the representations made to the committee.

However, even though this tribunal will hand down binding decisions that are not subject to appeal, a judicial review will be possible. All federal laws are subject to judicial review. Of course, at the trial level, it is generally conducted by the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal.

What is a judicial review? It is a procedure that takes place when there is reason to believe that a decision was handed down without regard for the principles of natural justice or the jurisdiction of the tribunal. Judicial reviews are rather specialized appeals that generally do not pertain to the reasons for the decision but rather to procedural issues of compliance.

The tribunal will not be exempted from reporting. This is only natural, seeing as millions of dollars are at stake. The tribunal will report to the House annually. Presumably, this annual report will be tabled by a minister of the crown. I do not know whether it will be the Minister of Justice or the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, but we will have to keep a close eye on this. Obviously, the tribunal will have to report on its spending, as it is being funded with taxpayer dollars. And the work of the tribunal will be subject to review. There is a clause that calls for a review after five years. This is nothing out of the ordinary.

I am thinking, for example, of the infamous Anti-terrorism Act. When the Liberals brought in this law, I was in the House with our transport critic, the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel—one of the best organizers in Quebec, as my colleagues know—and the member for Saint-Jean, and we told the minister responsible for the legislation, Anne McLellan, that her Anti-terrorism Act would not stand up to the scrutiny of the Supreme Court.

Once again, the Bloc Québécois was right to make its recommendations and the Supreme Court ruled as we said it would, just as it did on the issue of security certificates, which, as everyone knows, completely contravene a principle of natural justice: the right to access evidence.

I see I am running out of time. The Bloc Québécois supports this bill. We do so in solidarity with first nations peoples, and we are appealing to all members to pass this bill. Of course we have some questions but, on the substance, we are in favour of this bill. I cannot help but ask the government, particularly the parliamentary secretary, to reconsider its position on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and to put an end to this completely shameful dithering—which is a disgrace within the international community. I hope the government will come to its senses and allow Canada to join this international convention, until Quebec can do so autonomously on the international stage.

Do I have one minute left or two? Okay, I see I have one minute left. I thought my colleagues would want me to have two minutes, but we are living in very competitive times and, despite the genuine friendship between the government and the opposition, I know the government is keeping an eye on me, but I would like to assure it of complete reciprocity in that regard.

I will close by saying that, in addition to accountability, the Bloc Québécois hopes that the implementation of this tribunal will settle the 138 outstanding specific claims in Canada.

We obviously hope that we can quickly proceed with the appointment of judges.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Hochelaga will be interested to know that I pay attention to everything he says. He is one of the MPs with the most experience here, 5,314 days in fact. Roughly seven minutes ago, he made reference to a former government, that of the 21st Prime Minister. I am sure he did not intend to name that Prime Minister, but rather the government of the Right Hon. member for LaSalle—Émard. I am sure that is how he will handle it next time.

The hon. member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River has the floor for questions and comments.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, having sat on the aboriginal affairs committee, I am confused. The Bloc will vote unanimously in support of the bill, or did I miscount. I am not sure.

Why are we filibustering? Let us get this thing done for first nations. I am first nations. Let us get it done tonight.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate our colleague on being elected to the House. I do not believe I have had the opportunity to do so. Nonetheless, through you, Mr. Speaker, I hasten to call for calm. Our young colleague should know there is an old German proverb that says speed is the enemy of intelligence. I do not see why we need to act so quickly.

We are parliamentarians and we want to express our views on a bill that has significant ramifications on the lives of aboriginal peoples. As a political party, we would be uncomfortable if we were not making a vigorous and informed contribution to the debate under the skilful leadership of the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, who has worked very hard in committee. Again, I fail to see why the government is pushing us into a situation that would not allow all parliamentarians to speak.

My young colleague—and hopefully my friend in the not too distant future—will discover the virtue of rising in this House, speaking, enlightening us with his knowledge and allowing himself to be receptive to comments always rich with personal experience that the Bloc members might offer him.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I raised a number of concerns relating to the bill. We all support the bill, but does the Bloc have any answers in relation to the concerns.

For the young Conservative member who just asked a question, I will add the point that it would have been a lot faster if the government had more respect for committees. People come forward, they bring up suggestions and the government does not even address them.

I raised concerns at great length in my speech. Usually when it comes to good policy-making, the minister or the parliamentary secretary will deal with each of the concerns and explain how they will be dealt with, yet both the minister and the parliamentary secretary had a chance that this afternoon and their speeches dealt with few of those concerns.

In the absence of the government doing that, does the member have any comment on the concerns raised by aboriginal people in committee?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the member for Yukon is obviously paying close attention to this issue.

It seems to me that our critic, the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, brought forward two types of concerns. First, we want to be sure that the tribunal begins its work as quickly as possible. We also want to be sure that taking some judges away from their present posts in superior courts will not create a void that could have repercussions, such as a delay if judges have to transfer.

Another concern we have is that there is no appeal mechanism. We welcome the fact that decisions are binding, but would it not be desirable to have some appeal mechanisms in place? You will remember how active the Bloc Québécois was in ensuring that there were also appeal tribunals for refugee claims. At that time, our colleague from Vaudreuil-Soulanges, who was elected—unlike others, whom I will not name, but whom we saw on Tout le monde en parle—even tabled a private member's bill to establish an appeal mechanism for refugee status claims.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague from Hochelaga, who has painted a very clear and vivid picture for us.

In particular, he mentioned that in the House we should take the time to really think things through and to do them well. It is important, especially with bills concerning first nations, that we take into account their experience and culture. just as they take the time to think and make wise decisions.

I have a question for my colleague from Hochelaga, and I hope he will take the time to respond because that is why are here. Does Bill C-30 allow for rulings about private property within reserves? We know that there is an ownership problem. Could the tribunal rule on the status of Amerindian property under this bill?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is quite right to ask this question. He was certainly thinking of Jean-Paul Sartre, who said that man is only part of the flow of temporality.

The proposed legislation would not allow judges ruling on specific first nations claims to rule on territorial boundaries. That is understandable. The only decisions made by this tribunal will be proposals, which will become binding decisions, for financial compensation.

Had we listened more closely to aboriginal peoples and insisted more on dialogue, perhaps we would not be at this point. The fact remains that the Bloc Québécois supports this bill, which should lead to the resolution of certain claims.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask a question of the member, who even referenced me in his presentation, which I appreciate.

I know another one of my colleagues asked him a question earlier about why he was filibustering this important bill, which will deliver so many benefits for first nations people. It was agreed to by the Assembly of First Nations, with our government, in an important accord, which was actually signed, a real agreement. However, the member made reference to the fact that we needed to continue to consider the bill, that this was what the process was all about. He also lectured my new colleague on this topic.

The member referenced the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue as his spokesman. Why then, when the bill was in clause by clause, did the Bloc members adopt it unanimously? If they are still interested in going through the details, why did they unanimously adopt it and why are they continuing to filibuster now when we know the bill is ready to be sent to the other place so the benefits of that tribunal can begin to come forward for Canadians?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

It has taken one minute to ask the question. The hon. member for Hochelaga now has one minute to reply.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised and even hurt by the question.

If we work hard in committee and we support a bill, that leads people to believe that we must act quickly. I hope that the last thing the government will do is to interpret as a delay tactic the fact that we are speaking in an enlightened manner and in a climate of frank camaraderie in order to express our opinion on this bill. I do not see why we should be rushing.

I wish to assure the first nations that they will be vigorously supported by the Bloc Québécois, as they were from the beginning of our work by the member for—