Jane Stewart

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, let me clarify for the House that there was a commercial partnership arranged between the first nation and this particular construction company. That partnership has dissolved.

There are outstanding issues. KPMG has been retained to look at the work that has been done and to come up with a fair and equitable settlement. I would encourage both parties to work together in that regard.

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 3rd, 1999]

Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker.

[Supply, June 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of things I would like to say in response.

First and foremost, without question there are legitimate questions that people have about the Nisga'a treaty. Those questions need to be identified and responded to. We will continue to do that I know with the help of all other parties in the House with the exception of the Reform Party.

The other thing I would like to point out is that very often the Reform Party takes the approach in fact in everything it does, of identifying issues and problems. However it seems to be absolutely impossible for it to present alternatives, united or otherwise.

[Supply, June 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on this side we believe we have an obligation to fulfill the statements in our constitution. The constitution protects treaty rights as they have been negotiated for first nations in the past and it protects the treaty rights that will be negotiated with first nations or groups of first nations into the future.

We have been to the courts on a number of occasions. They have said to us “Would you please take the responsibility and negotiate. You can keep coming back to us and we will tell you, yes, there are aboriginal rights in Canada, but it is only you that can sit at the table with first nations and exhaustively set those rights out, put them in a treaty and move on”.

That is exactly what we are doing. There is no constitutional issue here. What there is is an obligation on the part of Canada to fulfill the protection and identification of aboriginal rights as set out in section 35 of the constitution.

[Supply, June 3rd, 1999]

Right, let us get rid of it. How do we do that? We can do it by moving back to an original relationship based on the understanding that there should be community government for first nations people as there is for other Canadians. This is tremendously important to us. It gives us an opportunity to move forward together.

To talk about governance, Canadians understand governance. They want clarity of jurisdictions and authorities. They want to set tables where they can come together to resolve problems. Believe me, no one understands the Indian Act. No one accepts that the minister of Indian affairs should be approving the wills of aboriginal people and should be telling them how to use their lands. That is antiquated. It is wrong and we can do better. The Nisga'a treaty gives us an opportunity to do just that.

Let us turn to the Nisga'a treaty. What is in the treaty? It sets out very particular obligations and responsibilities that we have to the Nisga'a people and in turn that they will provide to us.

We will be providing them with 2,000 square kilometres of land which they will own not as reserves—and members want to change the reserve system—but as fee simple. As such on those lands the exemption from taxation will not apply. The Nisga'a will be paying provincial sales tax, provincial income tax, federal sales tax and federal income tax. Their corporations will be paying corporate tax. We are moving away from the old reserve system and modernizing our relationship in a very positive way.

There are other aspects, obligations and responsibilities that will be returned to the Nisga'a. They will have authority to manage their resources such as timber, fisheries and wildlife. They will be able to make decisions about those resources and use them more effectively than they have ever been able to before. This makes sense. It is set out in the treaty clearly. People can read it and understand the relationship.

When we talk about governance, it is set out in the treaty. It is complex, perhaps too complex for the Reform Party, but it is set out there and it is explained. Fundamentally there are three categories of jurisdiction. Let us understand them.

First and foremost, federal laws will continue to apply, such as the constitution, the charter of rights and freedoms and the Criminal Code. In our enabling legislation be assured that we will confirm that the charter does apply to Nisga'a people. Those will exist.

Second, there is another category of legislation on province-like jurisdictions such as education and health that the Nisga'a will take jurisdiction for. Let me be clear that when that occurs, the Nisga'a must meet or beat provincial legislation, meet or beat. There is nothing to worry about. People will understand it. It will be clear.

Those citizens who are not Nisga'a members who live in the Nisga'a territory and receive services from the Nisga'a for education and health will have the right to stand for election to the education boards and the health boards. There is an appeal process that will allow them to fully participate in those areas. This is tremendously important to understand. The treaty sets that out. It makes it clear and it moves us ahead.

The third area of jurisdiction is associated with aspects fundamental to the Nisga'a themselves, their heritage, culture and language. There are no provincial or federal laws dealing with that and why would there be? We do not know how to protect their language, what the history and culture is, certainly not better than the Nisga'a. These are the areas where the Nisga'a will have jurisdiction to ensure that their history is strong and that it continues to vibrantly develop today and tomorrow.

We have worked very hard to negotiate this agreement. We have talked to the citizens of British Columbia about it. The AIP has been available for a number of years. Public meetings have been held. The communities in the Nass Valley are supportive and view this to be an important step in the modernization of our relationship.

We will have the opportunity to continue the debate here in this House, in parliament, where it should be, to discuss the details. I will continue to talk to British Columbians about their legitimate concerns and issues because they can be answered. The treaty provides those responses.

I want to say in conclusion that as we settle these outstanding obligations we do a number of things. We bring certainty to the lands. We bring an opportunity for communities to work more strongly together, for first nations to have the opportunity to build their own relationship with the private sector, with surrounding municipalities and to fully engage in this great country of ours.

We bring economic development into the province, into the Nass Valley and provide new opportunities for prosperity and development. Finally what we do is say to some first peoples in this country that Canada welcomes them. They want to be part of Canada. This is not about leaving our great country. This is about being part of it.

[Supply, June 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, after having the responsibility over the last two years of being Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, I have spent considerable time talking to British Columbians about the Nisga'a treaty. This is an extraordinarily important undertaking, not just for the Nisga'a, not just for the people of British Columbia, but indeed for all of Canada. It is critical. As the Reform Party points out, it is critical that we talk about the legitimate concerns and issues, the challenges and the support that exists for the Nisga'a treaty.

Typically as we have conversations about the treaty itself, the questions revolve around three particular areas. People ask why treaties. They want to understand the treaty process and why we are engaged in that. They ask why self-government and what particularly is in the Nisga'a treaty. I would like to briefly make comments on those three questions.

Why treaties? Let me say that it was not I as the minister of Indian affairs who came up with the notion of treaty writing. It was not the province of British Columbia, nor was it Joe Gosnell, the president of the Nisga'a council.

Treaties have long been part of the history of Canada. In fact they date back to 1763 when in the royal proclamation King George said that we had to find a fair and practical way of working with indigenous people in the colonies, in the Canadas. Fortunately chiefs and aboriginal people felt the same way. They wanted a fair and practical way of working together in the lands we now know to be Canada. Rather than conquests through war, they chose compromise through negotiation. Treaties have been written in Canada since that time.

History has continued. Indeed the obligations and responsibilities that have been set out in certain treaties across the country now find protection in our constitution. In section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 those treaty obligations and rights are protected. The constitution also protects future treaty rights that would be written, as anticipated, with first nations individually or severally over the course of time.

In writing treaties we are not changing the constitution. We are giving modern life to section 35 of the constitution. We are providing an opportunity for first nations who have not had that opportunity to be welcomed into Canada as citizens in the fullest sense under our laws.

When we talk about laws, that takes us to the second issue. Why self-government? Why are we taking this approach? What is it all about? Very clearly in those early days when Europeans sat at the negotiating table with first nations, with chiefs, they knew they were dealing with legitimate governance. George Vancouver when he entered Nisga'a lands was surprised to see Nisga'a living in two storey dwellings in a very complex society. There was governance and quite effective governance in first nations communities long before we ever arrived.

Over the course of time, I guess as we became the majority, we started to think differently. We started to think that we knew best. We started to take the approach that Ottawa should be making the decisions on behalf of first nations people. We started recognizing that decisions on behalf of aboriginal people should be made by the minister of Indian affairs.

Now we have the Indian Act. Surely to goodness the Reform Party does not agree that the Indian Act is the way we should build and can build a positive future for aboriginal people. It is not and it needs to be changed.

[Supply, June 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to ask the hon. member a question, particularly around his original assertion that we have not listened to or consulted people.

Has the hon. member talked to the Nisga'a who live in his riding of Skeena? How will he respond to their belief that this is a good treaty?

Has the hon. member talked to the mayor and the council of the city of Terrace who, I would note, made a particular week in April Nisga'a appreciation week in honour of the Nisga'a treaty?

Has he talked to the 133 businesses in his riding that support the Nisga'a treaty? In fact they made financial contributions to the latest general assembly of the Nisga'a. Has he listened to those people? If he has, how will he respond to them when they strongly support the Nisga'a treaty?

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 26th, 1999]

The travel expenses information being requested is not in the possession of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The information is in the possession of the Office of the Interim Commissioner of Nunavut.

The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development undertakes to exercise her authority under section 71 of the Nunavut Act to direct the Interim commissioner to supply the hon. member for Skeena with travel expenses information being requested that is in the possession of his office.

Question No. 189—

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 26th, 1999]

The government could not provide such a list given that the financial statements of first nations and their organizations are mandatorily protected by paragraph 20(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act. In addition, a federal court decision of June 27, 1985 judged that information regarding Indian moneys was confidential and not subject to release by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

First Nations are required to make their audited financial statements available to members of their community. Officials of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development cannot release the audited financial statements because of the third party nature of the audit.

Individuals interested in reviewing a first nation`s audit can contact the chief and council to request it. It is up to the chief and council whether they wish to disclose audits to non-band members.

Question No. 123—

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to be in Quebec City a week ago to sign a framework agreement among the Micmac of Gespeg, the province of Quebec and the Government of Canada.

This shows clearly that we can work together to improve the self-reliance of first nations in Quebec and in Canada.

I would like to recognize the hard work and the vision of the Micmac of Gespeg and to say that, as is consistent with Gathering Strength, the Government of Canada will continue to work with them toward an agreement in principle on self-government and then a final agreement.