Bob Nault

[Specific Claims Resolution Act, November 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, this is an optional process for first nations; they have choices to make.

One of the concerns, and the reason we had the joint task force in the first place, was that over the last number of years it was suggested many times by the leadership that both the government, through the Department of Justice and the ministers of Indian affairs, through the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, were too slow in accommodating the needs of first nations in their grievances and their legitimate concerns of the issues that transpired in places like Saskatchewan where we have the most specific claims waiting in the wings.

The objective of this tribunal and commission--and I want to emphasize that the tribunal is supposed to be a place of last resort--is to have the modern mediation tools that all negotiators need to work in partnership on joint research. This will save us money and time, and allow for independence by the commission itself on funding a first nation in its claim and research. All those matters have been longstanding and this particular bill will resolve them.

[Specific Claims Resolution Act, November 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the joint task force made recommendations; however, it did not make recommendations vis-à-vis the Financial Administration Act nor the machinery of government issues which we must look at when we create legislation.

When I look at the recommendations of the joint task force and the bill itself, the vast majority of the principles of that joint task force are intact. Yes, there are some differences and because of that we have built in the three year review. If, in fact, over a period of time, first nations raise concerns regarding the diminishing ability of the commission and tribunal to do their job, then, a review will be undertaken with first nations and the government in partnership, and their recommendations will be reviewed by the standing committees of both Houses.

I am sure that we have put in place the checks and balances to assure ourselves that if we have made errors in this legislation, which is always possible, we will have a way to go back and take a look. I think that is a fair way to proceed with legislation. It shows respect for first nations and it assures the government that it has a functional tribunal and commission.

[Specific Claims Resolution Act, November 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, if the member believes that, then it is a sad day in the House of Commons. I can tell members that since day one, one of the objectives of this minister has been to improve the lives of first nations people, to develop policies and legislation, and modern tools that will make a difference in their lives.

If the member is correct in her statements, this commission and tribunal, after the bill is passed, will be an abject failure over the next year. I can assure members, as I stand here, that I will stand in Parliament somewhere down the line and make that member eat her words because she is so far wrong in what she is saying.

I do not mind the rhetoric in this place, but when the Tories brought in the Indian Claims Commission, we had the same debate. It was said that the commission had no tools, no teeth; however, today it is considered by first nations to be one of the effective tools in working on relationships.

I do not need to be lectured by that member about what first nations think. This is a good piece of legislation and we will prove it as time goes on.

[Specific Claims Resolution Act, November 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot predict anyone's future, mine nor the member's. We will see how he makes out when he is up for nomination in his own riding or when he is up for re-election.

However, the objective of what we are proposing today is to put forward modern institutions of governance and the ability of the Government of Canada, through an independent specific claims commission and tribunal, to work with first nations outside of the courts to fast track and bring forward outstanding grievances of the past.

I do not understand this rhetoric from across the floor that somehow this diminishes the respect of aboriginal people. If they choose not to use the tool, that is their right; however, the fact is that we do not have the mechanism now to improve the abilities to work with first nations on resolving these claims. That is why Bill C-6 is so important to the long term resolution of grievances of the past.

What we set out to do in this mandate was very simple. We wanted Parliament to enter into a debate for the first time about the important modern institutions necessary for first nations to be part of our country, not sitting on the sidelines, living in poverty, and waiting for us to find some political will to work with them.

That is what Bill C-7, Bill C-19 and Bill C-6 are all about. And I dare say, later on this week, we will see another piece of legislation that also signals the same need for first nations people.

[Specific Claims Resolution Act, November 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the member shows his lack of knowledge of the bill.

Let me start by making it clear that the commission has the obligation to facilitate negotiations on claims of any size. Therefore, this straw man that has been put up that somehow we have put parameters and barriers around the abilities of the commission to negotiate claims of any size is factually incorrect.

The whole issue of the tribunal and the fact that there is a $10 million cap is a financial administration issue. There must be some understanding of how much money the commission and tribunal will be able to spend in an annual year based on our obligations as a government.

What the member is basically suggesting is that somehow the commission and tribunal will have a blank cheque that they can spend as much money as they decide in a given year based on a claim without Parliament having any say. The reason for the cap is to ensure that we have control over the financial administration.

As I said before, the reason why we have built in a three year review of the bill is to see whether in fact the member's argument is correct. If the cap does severely hamper the abilities of the tribunal to do its job, we will have this review within three years to see whether we need to change it.

It is a legitimate position of the government to make based on the fact that the Financial Administration Act, as it stands, necessitates the minister of Indian affairs to ensure central agencies, finance and Treasury Board of how much money will be spent in one given year. That is the reason for the cap, not because we do not want to have claims.

In fact, we will be able to validate all claims and negotiate all claims at the commission level.

[Specific Claims Resolution Act, November 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, first, that is factually incorrect and the member knows so. If he does not he should read the bill. The bill does require the minister to report on a regular basis the delays that occur through justice in deciding whether a particular claim will be accepted by the government for negotiation.

The argument that is being put by the member that somehow this will not improve the system is absolutely false. The fact remains that every commission that we have created in the country have independent members. Let me put it this way. We appointed the present national chief to the commission that exists today. The national chief himself was appointed by the government. Now of course the chief will have a role in helping us to appoint commissioners and individuals to the tribunal.

I cannot say, but I assume everyone will want to agree with this point, that was a bad appointment. I think it was a good appointment. I can assure members that the reports by the Indian Claims Commission, even though they were just recommendations, which the government did not have to follow, were done independently by that commission and it was not attached to any particular political persuasion. It was independent. It made the decisions and we have to live with those results. I suspect the same thing will happen here and I think we will see a lot more progress than we have seen in the past.

[Specific Claims Resolution Act, November 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the member knows very well that as the minister I have written to the national chief, both the present one and the past one, making it clear that we have every intention of consulting the first nation leadership on the makeup of the commission and the tribunal.

If he carefully reads the amendments put forward by the Senate, we confirm that it is our intention to participate with first nations to make this commission and tribunal a success. Therefore we are looking to make it independent and successful. Why would we want to have it any other way?

The fact remains that under the present system the first nations, even after the commission and tribunal passes into law, still can accept the other process of going to court if they believe this process does not work. If they do not think they want to go to the commission to use the modern tools of negotiation to bring forward claims much quicker, they still can go a different route.

This is one of many tools. It is not a box that is closed. It is a box that is open to allow opportunities for people to develop the kind of relationships through negotiation in a modern context. That is why I firmly believe it will work.

I want to make one final point. The member continues to suggest that there is a need to build trust. Let me use one example. Not too long ago we passed in the House the First Nations Land Management Act. The same process took place with the opposition as is happening today. In fact, the minister of the day had to move to get agreement with 14 bands because first nations across the country did not trust the government.

Today there are over 100 first nations clamouring to get into the First Nations Land Management Act because it is successful. The only way we will build respect and trust is to put legislation in place that does the job and improves the lives of first nations citizens.

[Specific Claims Resolution Act, November 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, we are not here debating Bill C-7 but I will make a quick comment and that is that Bill C-7 is alive and well and he will have an opportunity to debate that some time soon I am sure.

The reason for that is that no one in their right mind, who knows anything about aboriginal issues, can say that the present Indian Act meets the needs of first nations people. We all know the status quo is not acceptable. We all know first nations people are suffering because Parliament has not acted in modern times to bring forward the kind of institutional changes necessary to improve the opportunities for first nations to be successful.

If the member is having a debate about whether Parliament has the right to move legislation without every first nation leader across the country being in support, then he has a different definition of his role and responsibilities than I do.

I go back to Bill C-6, which is the matter of the debate and on which many members want to ask questions. I will put it to the member again. If the member believes that Bill C-6 is not as good as the present Indian Claims Commission we have before us today he should stand up and say so. My belief is that this legislation is 10 times as good as the process we have now. It will prove to be very effective once it is implemented into law.

[Specific Claims Resolution Act, November 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, as I said a few moments ago, with all due respect, I disagree with the member adamantly. We have had significant debate. The bill has been in committee three times, not twice. It has been before both the House of Commons and the Senate for over one year. We have had significant consultation with people across the country about the good parts and the bad parts of the legislation and what people like and do not like.

We believe that to improve the lives of first nation citizens, it is the duty of the Government of Canada not to sit on its hands but to develop modern tools of governance, modern tools and institutions that will meet the needs of first nation citizens and meet the needs of their leadership.

In my 15 years here we have not accomplished any of that through a legislative process. What we have done is skirted the issue. We have been afraid to be bold and move forward with new initiatives.

I am surprised that the opposition would take the position that we should do nothing, that we should continue to allow first nations to be stuck in the mud and to live in poverty when there are many ways that governments can help.

The legislation would make a difference to first nations people when we can fast track claims and bring them forward for use in the communities on economic development and social opportunity.

[Specific Claims Resolution Act, November 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, what we do know about Bill C-6 is that this is the third attempt since the 1950s to bring forward a tribunal and a commission process, an independent body that will allow first nations to bring their specific grievances, which are legally binding agreements that we as the crown have signed over the last 100 years or so, to a process where there is fairness.

The fact that there has been debate in this place for the last year about whether Bill C-6 is perfect, whether it is completely independent or whether it meets all the needs is a legitimate debate. However the time has come to put a process in place that will be more acceptable than the one we have in place today.

At the present time the backlog is significant. The reason is that we do not have a process in place where we can sit down and use the modern tool of management, of negotiation and discussion to bring this to a conclusion and decide on what the government would owe to a first nation based on a past grievance.

This is a unique process to Canada. There are no commissions or tribunals like it in the world. The Human Rights Commission is the only commission that is close to being like it. We have said on numerous occasions that no one in the House can predict the success of it but we believe we must find ways to work together and negotiate instead of litigate, which is the objective of the exercise.

We have had over a year of debate and that is a significant amount of time. Good amendments have been made by the Senate and we agree with those amendments. We want to move on with the implementation of Bill C-6.