Bernard Cleary

[First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, November 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the content of Bill C-20, vital to the establishment of a new financial relationship between the first nations and the Government of Canada, has fuelled indepth discussions for about 20 years now.

Already in 1983, the report of the Special Committee on Indian Self-Government, the Penner report, had recommended that the financial relationship between the Government of Canada and the first nations be redefined. It concluded that based on a series of failures by the trustee for Canada's Indians in the new to them area of economic development, major changes needed to be made in first nations financial management.

Later, in 1996, the final report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples recommended a full review of the financial relationship between the federal government and aboriginals. The proposed initiative focused on redefining this relationship within a broader context based on first nations self-government.

Bill C-20 that we are talking about today follows on Bill C-115, commonly referred to as the Kamloops amendments, that was passed in 1988. This first legislative measure extended the taxing powers of first nations under the Indian Act to their interests in conditionally surrendered and designated lands. It stated that this land could continue to be part of the reserves and allowed first nations to adopt by-laws to levy property tax on that land.

The conditional land surrender process was abandoned and replaced by a land use designation process to accommodate leasing arrangements. Thus the former surrendered lands which by definition were excluded from reserve status have become designated lands. Consequently, when land is surrendered conditionally or designated, none of the band's interests are surrendered and the land keeps its reserve status.

Bill C-115 has opened the door to establishing a new financial relationship between the first nations and the Government of Canada. By making the above-mentioned changes, Bill C-115 made legislative changes that have twofold results: they have helped clarify the power to levy tax on reserve land by first nations governments by increasing their tax power.

I would like to emphasize that the financial institutions in the bill before us, Bill C-20, are a national initiative of the Indian Taxation Advisory Board and the First Nations Tax Commission. The first nations financial management board and the first nations statistical institute have been added so as to make up the institutional framework required to support bond issues by the First Nations Tax Commission and attract investment in the lands of first nations.

The first nations financial institutions project has been developed to this stage thanks to the national table on fiscal relations , which was set up in 1999 by a memorandum of understanding between the Indian affairs and northern development department and the Assembly of First Nations. First nations representatives throughout Canada, and officials of the finance department of Canada, Statistics Canada, Health Canada and the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency were part of these discussions.

At this time, these institutions are being set up under the guidance of two first nation councils and two first nation advisory committees.

After the Kamloops amendments, in 1988, a number of events strengthened the support for the restructuring of financial relations between the first nations and the federal government, including the finance ministers conference on Indian government taxation, in 1991, the Charlottetown accord, in 1992, and the final report of the royal commission, in 1996.

In 1991, the Department of Finance undertook a review of its policy on Indian taxation and, in 1993, made public the Working Paper on Indian Government Taxation.

In 1995, the First Nations Financial Institute was created by the Westbank First Nation. It was then federally incorporated. The objective was to provide investment opportunities to first nations in order to ensure long term financing of their public debt.

In 1995, a round table of representatives from the Department of Finance and the Assembly of First Nations led to the adoption of a resolution on taxation.

The Chiefs' Committee on Fiscal Relations was created two years later to review fiscal relations between first nation governments and the federal government. It recommended the establishment of first nation financial institutions.

In 1999, the Assembly of First Nations expressed its support for this initiative when participants in its annual general meeting supported the creation of the First Nation Financial Administration, and the creation of the Indian Taxation Advisory Board to establish the First Nations Tax Commission.

In December of the same year, the agreement proposed the creation of a national round table on financial relationships, with the objective of establishing solid bases for these relationships through an exchange of information, capacity building and the establishment of benchmarks.

In 2000, the Assembly of First Nations maintained its support for the creation of the First Nations Statistical Institute and the First Nations Financial Management Board. The general assembly then passed a resolution supporting the recommendation by the chiefs' committee regarding the establishment of the four new first nations financial institutions by federal legislation. The legal validity of this resolution was questioned, since some people thought that it had not received the support of 60% of those present.

Moreover, the bill now requires that each first nation wishing to avail itself of this legislation be added to the schedule. This requirement is intended to clarify which First Nations are governed by the legislation.

Even after all these amendments, which correspond largely to their demands, the chiefs of the assembly of first nations of Quebec and Labrador refused, last week in a special assembly, to endorse the bill until there is a debate in the Assembly of First Nations.

The Bloc Québécois has decided to maintain its support for Bill C-20 because we sincerely believe that the legislation will be of benefit to a number of first nations in Quebec. To be strong, Quebec must have strong first nations with flourishing community economies.

[Department of Canadian Heritage Act, November 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, to a certain extent, I will speak to Bill C-7 as my party's official aboriginal affairs critic.

As some hon. members will know, I have had a number of opportunities to be involved in the negotiations. The Parks Canada aspect has always been extremely important for the associations I have worked with. The explanation is simple: the territories on which parks have been established in Quebec and elsewhere have often been considered to be included in aboriginal land claims. We thus had a past life and a future life to settle with Parks Canada.

I confess I was deeply disappointed as I read Bill C-7. I would have expected the Liberal government to use it to try to provide a number of remedial measures and ensure that aboriginals who have been pressing claims for the past 20 years would find a number of elements promoting their inclusion in these parks.

Hence, I believe that the Liberal government has missed an opportunity to implement the ideas of the famous panel on ecological integrity of Canada's national parks. It gave the government a number of guidelines to ensure that the aboriginals' place in our national parks would henceforth be a lot more prominent.

As we know, tradition in parks is to expel aboriginals rather than to include them within parks as participants. It so happens that this panel on integrity has a totally different view when it talks about aboriginals. Obviously, it has put forward a number of conclusions, that I will share with you by quoting passages from a book I wrote on the aboriginal issue. This is from page 185:

The panel on the ecological integrity of parks recommends:

that reconciliation between Parks Canada and aboriginal peoples be brought about as soon as possible;

that there be recognition in the history of national parks and its interpretation of the occupation of the territory, as well as the past and present use by aboriginal peoples;

that Parks Canada invite aboriginal peoples to take part in its activities;

that Parks Canada sponsor a series of meetings in order to launch the reconciliation process to move from confrontation to collaboration;

that Parks Canada adopt a clear policy encouraging the creation and maintenance of sincere partnerships with aboriginal peoples;

that Parks Canada design, with the collaboration of aboriginal communities, education projects which will lead to a better mutual understanding and to a joint measure with a view to protecting the ecological integrity in national parks;

finally, that Parks Canada ensure the protection of cultural sites, sacred places and artifacts.

Those are recommendations from a panel that studied this file and which we would have liked to see in the bill. It was a unique opportunity, considering the time for reflection on these recommendations available throughout Canada.

One could have found a number of elements favourable to aboriginal groups who could have helped in establishing the national parks desired by the groups who want to work.

I was telling you that I had worked and negotiated for the Mingan park, which everyone knows, as well as for Forillon and Saguenay parks. All the aboriginals who live in these regions asked the Government of Canada include them in the development of the parks and to make them natural elements of these parks.

You know, we are not butterflies. The aboriginals live in these parks. The aboriginal way of life is part of Canada's history, of these parks' history. We keep asking that this be taken into consideration. Of course, it has never been in the culture of parks to keep a place for the aboriginals.

The integrity panel did a job. Will we see the results one day? Will we feel one day that the Government of Canada is responding to the will of the aboriginal people to be a part of these parks?

When we travel in the United States, we always see that, in the parks, no matter which ones—quite often, they are much less pleasant and interesting than our national parks— the aboriginals have an important place. Of course, we criticize the folklore surrounding this, but the fact remains that, in Canada, it would be beneficial if we were present in all the parks. We could pursue our way of life and show the public that aboriginal groups in Canada are alive and part of our development. We should use this resource, which will make our parks that much more enjoyable and interesting.

I did not want to make a long speech on this, but I did want to take this opportunity to point out that it is urgent we work in the direction that many people across Canada are asking. Perhaps it will not be with this bill, because it is at second reading stage, but we should act urgently.

[Aboriginals, November 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the peace of the braves between the Cree and Quebec put an end to judicial proceedings against Quebec. Proceedings against Ottawa, however, are ongoing because, five months from the deadline, none of the issues have been resolved.

Could the Minister of Indian Affairs confirm that, come April 2005, this very important matter for Quebec and the Cree will not turn into another James Bay battle between Canada and—

[Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act, November 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a number of questions about a statement made within the past 20 or 25 minutes.

Reference was made to certainty—

[Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act, October 27th, 2004]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act, October 27th, 2004]

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

[Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act, October 27th, 2004]

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

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

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

[Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act, October 27th, 2004]

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.

[Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act, October 27th, 2004]

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.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 20th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, if this agreement is implemented, the Cree will reap huge economic spinoffs. These days, we hear a lot about the peace of the braves agreement. In Quebec, this agreement promotes the development of the Cree. They have fully benefited from the spinoffs of this accord, and they should continue to do so for a long time to come.

The fact is that Quebec—and this is perhaps the best thing that has resulted from the negotiations in recent years—has recognized that the Cree should be involved in the development of their ancestral lands. Personally, I feel this is the only way to succeed in making aboriginal people productive and proud to earn a living. Instead of relying on government assistance, as they have in the past, Cree people should be able to work in businesses that they have created. They should be able to develop and make a contribution to Canada, instead of having to rely on government assistance.

The most interesting point in the report of the royal commission is the statement to the effect that we must cure aboriginals from the ailments that have been plaguing them and give them the pride that they need to develop their potential.