AANR Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, March 11, 2004

0920

The Chair (Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.))

Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.)

The Chair

Hon. Larry Bagnell

The Chair

Hon. André Harvey (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Lib.)

Hon. Larry Bagnell

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, CPC)

The Chair

Hon. Larry Bagnell

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

The Chair

0925

Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC)

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

0930

Mr. John Duncan

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, CPC)

The Chair

0935

Mr. John Duncan

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.)

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Raymond Simard

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

0940

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

0945

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, Lib.)

The Chair

Hon. Larry Bagnell

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

Mr. Bruce Littlejohn (Senior Counsel, Justice Canada)

Mr. John Duncan

The Chair

Hon. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

Ms. Susan Baldwin (Procedural Clerk)

Mr. John Duncan

0950

Ms. Susan Baldwin

Mr. John Duncan

Ms. Susan Baldwin

Mr. John Duncan

Ms. Susan Baldwin

Mr. John Duncan

Ms. Susan Baldwin

Mr. John Duncan

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

The Chair

Hon. Robert Thibault (West Nova, Lib.)

0955

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

The Chair

Mr. Bruce Littlejohn

Mr. John Duncan

Mr. Bruce Littlejohn

Mr. John Duncan

Mr. Bruce Littlejohn

Mr. John Duncan

Mr. Bruce Littlejohn

Mr. John Duncan

The Chair

Mr. Bruce Littlejohn

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

The Chair

Mr. Bruce Littlejohn

Mr. John Duncan

Mr. Bruce Littlejohn

1000

Mr. John Duncan

Mr. Bruce Littlejohn

Mr. John Duncan

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

Mr. Bruce Littlejohn

Mr. John Duncan

Mr. Bruce Littlejohn

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Bruce Littlejohn

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

Mr. Bruce Littlejohn

1005

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

The Chair

Mr. Bruce Littlejohn

Mr. John Duncan

Mr. Bruce Littlejohn

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Hon. Larry Bagnell

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

1010

Mr. Bruce Littlejohn

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Bruce Littlejohn

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Bruce Littlejohn

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

1015

The Chair

Mr. Bruce Littlejohn

Mr. John Duncan

Mr. Bruce Littlejohn

Mr. John Duncan

1020

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

The Chair

Ms. Susan Baldwin

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

The Chair

Mr. Bruce Littlejohn

The Chair

Hon. Larry Bagnell

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Bruce Littlejohn

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

1025

Mr. Bruce Littlejohn

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Ms. Susan Baldwin

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Susan Baldwin

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Susan Baldwin

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Ms. Susan Baldwin

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Ms. Susan Baldwin

The Chair

Hon. Robert Thibault

The Chair

Hon. Larry Bagnell

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Hon. Larry Bagnell

Mr. John Duncan

1030

Hon. Larry Bagnell

Mr. John Duncan

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Rick Laliberte

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Rick Laliberte

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Rick Laliberte

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Rick Laliberte

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Rick Laliberte

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

1035

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

The Chair

1040

Hon. Larry Bagnell

Mr. John Duncan

Hon. Larry Bagnell

Mr. John Duncan

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

1045

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

1050

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Hon. Andrew Telegdi

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

NUMBER 004

3rd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, March 11, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0920)

[Translation]

The Chair (Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.)): We have a quorum. Therefore, we will get started.

Pursuant to the order of reference we received from the House of Commons on Thursday, February 12, 2004, today we are studying Bill C-11, an Act to give effect to the Westbank First Nation Self-Government Agreement. I will now call clause 1. Today, we are doing the clause-by-clause study of this bill. Let us begin with clause 2, for which there is an amendment.

Go ahead.

[English]

Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I wonder if I could ask for the unanimous consent of the committee that after we do this we have a discussion. I would like to propose that a week from Monday the committee go to Kelowna for some hearings on Monday morning, which the members of the committee could then use in third reading debate in the House of Commons. I'd like to have that discussion this morning, once we've let people go. I know it wasn't on the agenda, but I think there's good will among the group to have that discussion.

[Translation]

The Chair: Are you talking about the 13th or the 22nd, Mr. Bagnell?

[English]

Hon. Larry Bagnell: A week from Monday.

The Chair: It's March 22.

[Translation]

As you know, Mr. Bagnell, there is a vote on the evening of March 22nd on the estimates.

Hon. André Harvey (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Lib.): We will have this discussion once the bill is passed.

[English]

Hon. Larry Bagnell: There are no supply votes that day?

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, CPC): There's a supply day, but the vote wouldn't be on a Monday.

[Translation]

The Chair: We can discuss this new point. Mr. Martin has not arrived yet, and I would like him to be able to take part in this discussion. I would also like us to deal with the issue of travelling to Westbank after the clause-by-clause study is completed. Is that agreed?

[English]

Hon. Larry Bagnell: No.

[Translation]

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Duncan.

[English]

Mr. John Duncan: The only concern, from my standpoint, if we're going to be discussing the bill, is that it would give me a greater comfort zone if we already had the agreement of this committee that we would be going for sure on March 22. I don't think we need much discussion or debate here. It's been agreed to by the primary affected party. I think it's fairly straightforward, is what I'm saying.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you. I would like to add that we have to think about passing a travel budget. I will now give the floor to Mr. Loubier.

¿ (0925)

Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): I do not agree with this suggestion for a number of reasons, Mr. Chairman. First of all, we have been discussing this bill for years, and we are in the final stages now. An entire community has been waiting for us to pass this bill for years. The more we delay, the greater the risk of this bill dying on the Order Paper, because an election could be called at any time. In addition, in two weeks, the budget will be tabled and there will be a vote on the estimates. These are two key events for members of Parliament.

We had not planned to travel to Kelowna or to the Westbank community. If it had been appropriate to travel or hear from other witnesses, we would have done it long ago. In my opinion, this is a tactic on the part of the conservatives to delay final passage of the bill to cause it to die on the Order Paper. The same thing happened to this bill in December, when Parliament prorogued. Consequently, I do not agree with this idea at all.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Loubier.

To satisfy my own curiosity, I would like to know how many witnesses you think there might be in Westbank? Would there be two or three?

[English]

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC): You would have probably the chamber of commerce, and there would be various real estate agents.

[Translation]

The Chair: We offered the option of a live videoconference for those opposed to the bill. They had an opportunity to do that. Yesterday evening, we had an initial meeting with witnesses from Kelowna. We had a videoconference, and those who opposed the bill could have had a videoconference as well, but they said that they did not want to testify. This is a tactic. In any case, I will listen to you. Mr. Vellacott will be followed by Mr. Bagnell, Mr. Strahl and Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Vellacott.

[English]

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Yes, I think there's a difference. Rather than getting into the video thing...technically that's maybe doable, but there's a difference in optics in terms of appearing on site out there. A lot of us are of the view that this will proceed, with the reasonable comfort of a lot of people. Being out there for one day is a very small concession, in a sense, but a very crucial and important one. If we got that kind of comfort felt--I say this to the parliamentary secretary--right at the beginning, I think it would make a difference, even in terms of this next hour, whatever is before us here now. It can move it ahead.

There are no funny tricks here, just by what the BQ says. It's just basically that we would have hearings out there. It's after the fact of this being reported to the House, but it's kind of half a loaf, if you will, and we're on the way from there.

So I would move that we do have hearings, as the parliamentary secretary suggested, on Monday, March 22. If there's a will, there's a way--then we can get the money. The House leaders have already assented to this and said they're open to it. And we can pay bills after the fact or at a point, so it's doable.

Anyhow, I don't know if it's appropriate to have a motion on the floor so we can just simply vote on it and get on to the other stuff very quickly. We're not going to prolong this and delay work and so on, or filibuster it. Let's get the vote in, and then we can move directly to the clause-by-clause. It will be reported probably on Friday, and we'll move from there.

[Translation]

The Chair: I would just like to add, Mr. Vellacott, that we are talking here about perhaps two or three witnesses. You know how much this trip would cost. We have not yet passed the budget, but you are talking about expenses. You talk about one or two groups of witnesses. Rather than March 22, perhaps we could hold the meeting on March 13, which is Saturday of this week. But we will not do that.

[English]

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I didn't say one or two. I'm saying we have a day of hearings and we shape it up as we go. I have never said one or two. We have some names suggested here and that's it.

[Translation]

The Chair: As the chair, I would have liked to have seen the list of witnesses at least. If you have discussed the possibility of travelling on March 22, I would have liked to have heard from those who want to travel, how many witnesses there are. I would have liked to have seen the list of witnesses before we make a decision about travelling to Kelowna and Westbank on the 22nd. If you have one or two witnesses, that is fewer than five, there was the videoconference option. You often talk about expenses in the House of Commons. This is taxpayers' money. Making just one visit...

[English]

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: The proposal came from the government.

[Translation]

The Chair: Listen to me carefully. Whatever government is in power, I am not acting as the chair for the current government. I am acting in my capacity as chair of the committee. I am not acting on behalf of the government. If you have some confidential discussions among yourselves, that is fine, however our friends...

¿ (0930)

[English]

Mr. John Duncan: Can we hear the discussion?

[Translation]

The Chair: As far as Westbank goes, in the last 14 years, there have been 400 consultation meetings. These people testified yesterday. People of Kelowna who agreed with the bill testified by videoconference. I did find it rather strange yesterday, because we could have heard from the people who were opposed as well.

[English]

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, CPC): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, you're the chairman of the meeting, not the guy who's in charge of all of the debate. Why don't we hear some debate? Why are you taking it all on your shoulders? Why don't we hear a little bit and move on?

[Translation]

The Chair: Just a moment, Mr. Strahl. I do have the right to react to what is going on. I am not giving any orders, I am just making some suggestions and discussing the matter. My heart is much more with the people of Westbank who have been waiting for years. That is the fact of the matter. I think we should move on to the clause-by-clause consideration, and we will discuss this afterwards. I have the impression that this discussion could go on for another half an hour. I am familiar with your strategy. You have the right to have a good strategy, but I would like to move to the items on our agenda immediately, and we will discuss this later.

¿ (0935)

[English]

Mr. John Duncan: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

The Chair: Yes, Mr. Duncan.

[English]

Mr. John Duncan: My point of order is that you are assuming this proposal is coming from the official opposition. That is not the case. If you had listened to the discussion before forming conclusions, you would appreciate it is a different situation from what you are assuming.

So I would ask, please, that you let the people on the list speak to this item.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'd get to a vote. We're wasting time.

[Translation]

The Chair: With respect to the discussion, I have made a ruling, Mr. Duncan. There is a discussion among the parties, but my decisions are not necessarily in keeping with the government's wishes. We will discuss this after the clause-by-clause study. We have an agenda, and what you did this morning was a surprise. Even if the suggestion to travel came from the government, I would be displeased. We have to think about the people, the witnesses from British Columbia, who have been here for a week. There are some officials as well. You are familiar with the bill that will be passed soon. I would like to tell you that this is not about travel. We will discuss that later. Let us move to what we have on our agenda immediately. That is what we were supposed to do. I am not in a bad mood, but we will discuss this after the clause-by-clause consideration. We will pass the bill.

[English]

Mr. Chuck Strahl: There's a motion on the floor, Mr. Chairman, made by Mr. Vellacott that we travel on Monday.

[Translation]

The Chair: The motion is not in the two official languages, Mr. Strahl. Once it is...

[English]

Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Chair, the first motion was from this side saying that it should be discussed after we go through the clause-by-clause. That was the first motion on the floor. Was it ever adopted?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I don't know if it was a motion or a proposal.

Mr. Raymond Simard: Maybe we should just adopt that and move on to the....

[Translation]

The Chair: Even if this came from the government, I would like the motion to be in the two official languages before we discuss it. This is the end of the discussion about the trip. We will now move to the clause-by-clause consideration, as the orders of the day provide. We must show some respect for the witnesses we have here. We must show some respect for the people of Westbank.

Let us proceed with the clause-by-clause study. I repeat, pursuant to the order of reference from the House of Commons of Thursday, February 12, 2004, today we are studying Bill C-11, an Act to give effect to the Westbank First-Nation Self-Government Agreement. I will now call clause 1. Let us proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration. We have an amendment to clause 2.

(Clause 2—Definition of “Agreement”)

The Chair: Would someone like to move amendment G-1? Mr. Bagnell, fine. Let us now discuss amendment G-1. Would someone care to discuss it? It reads as follows: That Bill C-11 be amended by replacing...

[English]

Mr. John Duncan: On a point of order, you asked if anybody wanted to discuss the amendment, and Mr.--

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I had my hand up to discuss it. Could we discuss it?

[Translation]

The Chair: This is just a technical detail. The amendment reads: That Bill C-11, in clause 2, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 23 on page 1 with the following:

“Westbank lands” and “Westbank law” have

You have the floor, Mr. Strahl.

[English]

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Can we have debate?

[Translation]

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Strahl.

[English]

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I don't want to drag this out. I want to make a couple of points, though. This is an interesting amendment. It's probably not the end of the world.

As you pointed out, we've been 14 years discussing this, then the amendments come in at the last minute, and you don't even share the amendments with the opposition. So we're now fishing through the bill and we're going to try to insert the amendments.

I know you want rapid assent and rapid approval. We're probably going to get through this fairly quickly, but I am puzzled as to why that approach was used. I must say, if there are amendments that need to be done, I don't know why they couldn't have been shared, after 14 years, with the official opposition and others to make it go smoothly.

I'll talk for a minute about that while our chief critic goes through and inserts the words to make sure everything looks good, because it must in the end.

I do think--and I'll only speak to this briefly, as well--that with these kinds of agreements that have broad public support and broad party support from all parties around the table, we also do ourselves a favour when this amendment, or this bill in its entirety, is discussed locally with the folks who are most affected by it.

I think what you have in this Westbank deal is the best of all worlds. You have people who are coming onside and approving it. It's kind of precedent-setting. People are out there ready to sing the hallelujah chorus about this. But you take a risk when you don't allow things to go into the community to buttress that and to show the type of support from all parties, from witnesses, from the community, and from other interested groups that come to the table to show collective support for it.

This amendment, again, is a relatively small amendment, but you can see what's going on here, why it's best not to ram anything through, not to get panicky, and why I again argue that it's best to be in the community at the end of this to show where it's going, why you have broad support, what the concerns are that we had, but here's why we're going ahead, and so on. I think it's in the best interests of everyone.

Again, inserting the words “Westbank lands”, which is underlined here, probably doesn't change the intent of the bill. It probably doesn't change anything that's not assumed anyway, but we have to go through it on a clause-by-clause basis.

I don't know why this wasn't given out last night so that people could do their bedtime reading to make sure everything is copacetic.

Again, in general, regardless of what the amendments are, regardless of the bill itself, you're doing the bill, the Westbank Nation, the people of British Columbia, and Canada a favour when you build that consensus in the community.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Loubier.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I am not opposed to delaying techniques when they are necessary, Mr. Chairman, or when there is unanimous agreement that a government bill is bad. We used this technique more often than not with Bill C-7 during the last session. I know what I am talking about: our 55-day filibuster beats some records. In fact, it may have been part of the reason your predecessor lost his job, but that is a different matter.

Here we are talking about a bill that has been around since September of last year, and which has involved 14 years of work on the part of the community. I find it disgusting that delaying tactics of this type would be used in the case of an amendment to correct an error in the English version of the bill. In my opinion, the Conservatives gain nothing by trying to criticize a bill on first nations self-government. For almost a year now, Mr. Chairman, they have been saying constantly—and I witnessed that here—that the process must be speeded up so that the first nations peoples could take charge of their own affairs.

¿ (0940)

The Chair: Let him finish, please.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: In light of the situation in which they are annoying us in this way, I do not know what can be done, Mr. Chairman. I think this bill should be passed quickly, and that there is no room here for delaying tactics.

This is particularly true since we have with us witnesses who have come from far away, and yesterday we gave opponents of the bill an opportunity to speak by way of videoconference. Not one came forward. But now there is an attempt today to delay things until the election. I think that is a shabby attitude, Mr. Chairman. I do not know whether there are any procedures that could be used to prevent such techniques from being used.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Loubier.

On a point of order.

Mr. Vellacott.

[English]

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: On that point of order--and backing Mr. Strahl, I assume--if Mr. Loubier talks about delaying and drawing things out, he's doing exactly that by way of his intervention there: disparaging the official opposition Conservative Party by that, and assuming to know in our hearts what we're doing here.

We want hearings out there. That's what the earlier part was about. We're doing clause-by-clause; let's get on with it. Why does he assume to know the motives of others when in fact we've made it plain that we have substantial agreement with this?

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Laliberte.

[English]

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Excuse me, was this a point of order or was it my debate?

I was in the middle of talking when Mr. Loubier took over. I'm not sure, was that a point of order or was my debate ended? I thought I was still talking. I was still talking. Could I could finish my point?

[Translation]

The Chair: Yes, please.

[English]

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I have talked for five minutes, Mr. Loubier. It's not the end of the world. Our critic has had time to put that amendment into the bill, and so on.

[Translation]

The Chair: You have one minute left, not five.

[English]

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I would just argue that if this bill affected the people of Quebec, there would be hell to raise if we didn't go out to the people and talk to them about how it affected them. In British Columbia, all we're saying is that we finally have a bill that has substantial agreement from the aboriginal people, the House of Commons, and all the parties. To say that we will not discuss this with the people of British Columbia, locally, is crazy.

An hon. member: You had an opportunity to oppose this bill last September.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: But I'm not opposing the bill. What's the matter here? We're not opposing it. We're talking about it.

We, of course, at the end of this clause-by-clause.... And now there's been time to shuffle some of these amendments in, and it's going to go quicker as we go. The point at the end of it is that when the people of Kelowna, the people of Westbank, and the people of British Columbia, who have, for the first time, an agreement where there's broad consensus...and I think it's building.

Perhaps I can give you an example. About three weeks ago I met with the Yale Band up in Hope, British Columbia. Community leaders, the Yale Band, everybody from the chamber of commerce to people in the treaty negotiation process, the provincial government, the federal negotiator, the mayor, the council, people like me--we all met in a session in Hope about an agreement in principle that I think is going to follow the Westbank thing, I hope, in the next year or so.

The sense of consensus that you build in the community, not in the House of Commons and not even in this committee, is going to make that agreement in principle for the Yale Band go through not only the process but also the House of Commons very easily. You have to build the consensus in the community, which I would think the aboriginal people understand more than the rest. They have that sense of community. They understand what they're trying to accomplish. When you have the local communities in agreement, then you start off not only with an agreement but also a consensus that brings goodwill and a positive atmosphere to what is just really a technical document.

Again, at the end of this discussion, Mr. Chairman, I realize that we're going to have a discussion on travel. I'd just urge people to understand that it's not a delaying tactic. I agree, and I hope the people of Kelowna agree and we all will agree, that you have to build that consensus in British Columbia and in the community. You would do the same in Quebec, and you would do the same in the rest of the country, I think. So just because Westbank is a long way from here....

I travel there, back and forth, every weekend, commuting for 18 hours. It won't hurt the committee to do one of those with the rest of us who do it every damn weekend.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Strahl. You talk about consensus, but one thing is certain here. We need to think only of the evidence we heard yesterday evening and about that of the mayor, Mr. Grey. There is a consensus in favour of the bill. More than two-thirds of the people are in favour of it. I would like to tell you that there are people who oppose every bill. There will always be people opposed; we will discuss that later. For the time being, we are looking at the government's amendment to clause 1, amendment G-1. We are changing from the singular to the plural. Since there was an error, an “s” has to be added.

Please go ahead, Mr. Laliberte.

¿ (0945)

[English]

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I'm new to the committee, so perhaps you would clarify something for me. Is G-1 introduced? And if it's a government amendment, shouldn't we allow the parliamentary secretary or the officials to explain that this is just a simple addition of the letter “s”, changing “land” to “lands”, from singular to plural? I mean, don't make it a big issue. The whole relationship of this debate doesn't come to that.

Is someone going to move this before debate? I'm talking about procedure here. Maybe you can help us along. Maybe it should be explained before this whole debate. Maybe there's an explanation. This is just a pluralization. That's all it is. It's a simple explanation. It has nothing to do with flying out there or anything.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Laliberte. You raised a good point.

Mr. Bagnell.

[English]

Hon. Larry Bagnell: I have already moved this, Mr. Chair. As Mr. Laliberte says, we're just adding an “s” to make it Westbank “lands”.

I would appreciate it if we could keep the debate on the amendment, which is what we're debating, so I would move that we move to the question very quickly. It's just adding an “s”. It's a technical amendment.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Duncan.

[English]

Mr. John Duncan: I think it's appropriate just to ask legal counsel for the reason why. I'm sure it's just to be consistent with wording in the agreement.

Is that correct?

Mr. Bruce Littlejohn (Senior Counsel, Justice Canada): Yes, it is.

Mr. John Duncan: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Telegdi.

[English]

Hon. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, you have the power in the chair to make sure that the discussion is related to the motion, and what is relevant and what is not relevant. Mr. Strahl, outside of the fact that I consider him to be a little obstructionist on this, was totally irrelevant in his comments on this particular amendment.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you very much. Do we agree on amendment G-1?

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 2, as amended, agreed to)

The Chair: Shall clause 3 carry?

(Clause 3—Effect of agreement)

The Chair: You have the floor, Mr. Duncan.

[English]

Mr. John Duncan: I want to ask a question that I think is a very significant question, but I'm not sure who to direct it to. I think I will direct it to the legislative counsel or the committee's legal counsel.

Do we have legal counsel here?

Ms. Susan Baldwin (Procedural Clerk): I'm a procedural clerk, a legislative clerk, not a lawyer.

Mr. John Duncan: Okay, I'll have to direct it to you, then.

¿ (0950)

Ms. Susan Baldwin: Okay, I will try.

Mr. John Duncan: It may be a collective effort here.

The question is about this bill being enabling legislation for the Westbank agreement, which has many clauses, as we all know. The most operative clause, which brings the agreement into effect, is obviously clause 3. I'm not saying this lightly, but does that open the Westbank agreement to clause-by-clause?

Ms. Susan Baldwin: No, it does not. Agreements are within the purview of the Governor in Council, and the only amendable thing before the committee is the bill. This is an implementation bill. When it comes to treaties, there are two things the House may do: one is to ratify, which I think clause 3 largely does; and the other is to agree or disagree with the bill that implements the agreement. There are many agreements passed or agreed to by the cabinet that do not require any ratification or any implementing legislation.

Mr. John Duncan: Lots of international treaties, for example.

Ms. Susan Baldwin: Yes.

Mr. John Duncan: So have you been asked this question before or thought about this question before?

Ms. Susan Baldwin: It's actually something we've been discussing a fair bit, but not in relation to this particular agreement. As a matter of fact, while we were waiting for the committees to get started on the bills, we were doing some research into agreements, so it's fresh in my mind.

Mr. John Duncan: Okay.

That is the information I was seeking, Mr. Chair.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

(Clauses 3 to 5 inclusive carried)

The Chair: Shall clause 6 carry?

(Clause 6—Indian Act)

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Duncan.

[English]

Mr. John Duncan: I have approximately three questions here that relate to the legislation in kind of a general way. I'm wondering when to ask those questions. One or more of them is actually not referenced. I can't find a clause that references what I think may.... The question is why not? So I'm wondering if I could be given the opportunity to ask those questions at this time, rather than after we get through all of the clauses. Then I may find out I missed talking about them because a clause actually did talk about them but I didn't know it, or wasn't able to recognize it. I'm asking leave of the committee to do that, simply because I think it would be easier and might take less time.

You can try me out. How's that?

[Translation]

The Chair: In other words, you do not know whether the three questions you want to ask are about clause 6.

[English]

Mr. John Duncan: I'll ask the question here, and you can rule it out of order or address it.

[Translation]

The Chair: Just a moment, Mr. Duncan.

Mr. Thibault.

Hon. Robert Thibault (West Nova, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the member would like to get into a general discussion on the bill. We have had opportunities to do that before now, and there may be further opportunities later. But now we are on the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, and questions or comments should have to do with specific clauses, not the bill generally.

¿ (0955)

The Chair: After discussing the matter, Mr. Duncan, we will hear your three questions immediately, and then we will review this with the advisers from the department. Then we will continue our clause-by-clause consideration. We will start by hearing your three questions, but I will not allow any discussion. I want to hear the three questions. Do you have them with you?

[English]

Mr. John Duncan: I have the questions right now.

[Translation]

The Chair: What happened to the third one?

[English]

Mr. John Duncan: All right--

[Translation]

The Chair: Do you have two or three questions?

[English]

Mr. John Duncan: There are two right now.

The Chair: You have three questions.

Mr. John Duncan: Yes, but I've discovered that one of them is tied to clause 8, so I'll ask it at clause 8.

[Translation]

The Chair: All right, go ahead.

[English]

Mr. John Duncan: First, does the Westbank constitution have legal standing in the enabling legislation? I'm sure it does somehow, but I'd like to know how and where that is the case.

I'd also like to know how and where amendments to the constitution are affected and how--

[Translation]

The Chair: We will deal with your first question first, Mr. Duncan. We will move to the second question afterwards. Question one.

[English]

Mr. John Duncan: Sure.

[Translation]

The Chair: We will ask for the answer from the departmental official at once.

[English]

Mr. Bruce Littlejohn: It's given effect along with the agreement, because all laws passed by Westbank are given effect through the legislation itself. In the agreement, laws are defined to include the Westbank constitution.

Mr. John Duncan: So the reference to Westbank laws early on--

Mr. Bruce Littlejohn: In the agreement itself.

Mr. John Duncan: No, in the Westbank constitution....

Mr. Bruce Littlejohn: Westbank law means a number of things, and the constitution. The constitution is the constitution of Westbank First Nation, established by them.

Mr. John Duncan: In clause 2, then, in the interpretation where it says “and 'Westbank law' have the same meaning as in the Agreement”, is that the key to tie it together?

Mr. Bruce Littlejohn: No. The force of law is given to the agreement as a whole. By virtue of that, it includes laws that will be passed by Westbank, and the constitution is a law.

Mr. John Duncan: Fair enough.

[Translation]

The Chair: Before we move to your second question, I would like to know whether the answer you received is satisfactory to you for all the clauses, because I want to know if you are planning to ask the same question with respect to each clause. Does your answer to your question cover all the clauses left to consider in our study? We cannot have a repetition of the first question with respect to each clause. Do you find the answer you were given satisfactory for all the clauses of the bill before us this morning?

[English]

Mr. Bruce Littlejohn: He's asked a question that is referencing something back to the agreement, as opposed to the bill itself. The bill, obviously, is a bill in the House.

[Translation]

The Chair: Indeed, thank you very much. That is what I wanted to hear. Question two.

[English]

Mr. John Duncan: My question is, are amendments to the constitution, as opposed to the Westbank agreement, effected in a different manner from amendments to the agreement?

I'm not sure I said that right.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Duncan.

[English]

Mr. Bruce Littlejohn: I think I understand. You're asking if there is a different procedure to amend the internal constitution of the first nation, as opposed to the agreement.

Mr. John Duncan: That's correct.

Mr. Bruce Littlejohn: The answer would be yes, because it is a law of Westbank First Nation; they have their own amending formula inside their constitution, however they have determined that to be. They would then carry out—I think it's a referendum—

À (1000)

Mr. John Duncan: A double majority question?

Mr. Bruce Littlejohn: Yes, of their community.

Mr. John Duncan: Okay, thank you.

The Chair: No, no, that's okay.

[Translation]

Thank you very much. We will continue.

(Clauses 6 and 7 carried)

(Clause 8—Statutory Instruments Act)

[English]

Mr. John Duncan: May I have a question on clause 8, please?

This is another question I have with respect to the Statutory Instruments Act. My question would again be directed to Mr. Littlejohn, I believe.

The question is this. There are other exceptions in Canadian law to the Statutory Instruments Act. Some are aboriginal exceptions and some are not. We certainly have, in the Statutory Instruments Act itself, in section 20, a broad general power to exempt various classes of regulations and other items. I'm wondering if you can provide any examples of the kinds of exemptions that exist that would fall into the non-aboriginal category.

I realize this may be beyond the terms of reference, because we are talking about the Westbank bill, but I think it would be useful for people to recognize that this is not a unique circumstance we're talking about in this bill. It has been subject to some controversy. That is the rationale behind my question.

Mr. Bruce Littlejohn: Is the question whether there are other exemptions, outside the aboriginal context, for the application of the Statutory Instruments Act?

Mr. John Duncan: No, for the application of an “exception” to the Statutory Instruments Act. What are those?

Mr. Bruce Littlejohn: I believe there are some. I'm not familiar with what they would be. I could ask one of my colleagues who deals with the Statutory Instruments Act. I recall there was an example that had something to do with Canadian exports.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Can you get that for us? We could just hold this clause. Is it possible to make a quick call and get somebody to—

Mr. Bruce Littlejohn: Yes, I could probably do that.

The idea behind the Statutory Instruments Act—

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you very much. We will stand this clause for the time being. We will continue with the other clause and wait for the answer regarding clause 8. We will then come back to clause 8 later.

(Clause 8 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 9 and 10 carried)

The Chair: We are now discussing clause 11, Mr. Duncan.

(Clause 11—Federal Courts Act)

[English]

Mr. John Duncan: I've read this clause, and all I'm going to do is once again ask for clarification as to what the intent of clause 11 is, just to try to make it understandable. The question, I guess, is whether this is to clarify the fact that.... Actually, the question is can you clarify the intent of clause 11, please?

Mr. Bruce Littlejohn: What it does is ensure that appeals that are taken from Westbank First Nation decisions are taken through to the Supreme Court of British Columbia rather than the Federal Court of Canada. It facilitates a more streamlined process so that people know where to take their cases.

À (1005)

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

(Clauses 11 and 12 carried)

The Chair: We will now move to clause 14. We have an amendment, but—

An Hon. Member: No.

The Chair: We have a new clause, clause 14.1.

[English]

Mr. John Duncan: I have a very simple question on clause 13.

[Translation]

The Chair: Please proceed, Mr. Duncan.

(Clause 13—Regulations and Orders)

[English]

Mr. John Duncan: When I read clause 13, on line 36 of page 3 the wording is “make any regulations”. I'm wondering what the intent of the word “any” is, from the standpoint that I would have expected the sentence to say “make regulations or orders”. Once again, I'm asking for intent here, why that wording would be chosen. Is it normal legal language, or what is its meaning?

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Littlejohn.

[English]

Mr. Bruce Littlejohn: It is suitable language. What it does is acknowledge that there may be a need, but we don't at this point foresee a need for regulation. But should the event come up whereby we need to have regulations to support the intentions of the legislation, they can be made.

Mr. John Duncan: It doesn't open it up beyond need, then? That would be my concern. When you say “any”, it almost sounds like a free-for-all.

Mr. Bruce Littlejohn: No, it is not meant to be a free-for-all. It comes from the fact that in saying it may make “any”, instead of just saying “make regulations”, there is nothing foreseen in the immediate future to necessitate the use of this; however, rather than not have it available, should the need arise in the future it is there.

[Translation]

The Chair: Shall clause 13 carry?

(Clause 13 carried)

The Chair: Thank you. We will now go to clause—

[English]

Mr. John Duncan: We're on clause 14 now.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: We need to discuss that. That's a government amendment.

[Translation]

The Chair: It is not an amendment, it is a new clause, clause 14.1.

[English]

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: On debate.

[Translation]

The Chair: I will read it to you. That is not necessary? We will start with clause 14, and then we will come back to clause 14.1.

(Clause 14 carried)

The Chair: Clause 14 is carried. We will now go to new clause 14.1. You have it here, amendment G-2, which states that this is a new clause.

Mr. Bagnell.

(Clause 14.1—Canada Lands Surveys Act)

[English]

Hon. Larry Bagnell: Thank you.

This is a new clause. Basically, the minister normally has to sign surveys. This is for surveys within the Westbank lands, of course. Because we're transferring the land, it would go along with that, obviously, that they have the ability to approve their surveys. I'll just read it to make sure I get it right on the record.

Currently Westbank First Nation requires the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to confirm surveys and plans that it conducts under section 29 of the Canada Lands Surveys Act.

This proposed amendment would add a new clause 14.1 to Bill C-11 to allow Westbank First Nation, rather than the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, to sign plans and surveys of lands interior to Westbank First Nation conducted under section 29 of the Canada Lands Surveys Act. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development would retain the authority to sign plans and surveys involving boundaries between Westbank lands and other lands.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bagnell.

Mr. Strahl.

[English]

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Just briefly, in order to put people's fears at ease, I think it's pretty clear that this surveying and so on is within the Westbank lands itself. This is not about disputed territory or whether the edge between Westbank land and private land or crown land might be in dispute. This doesn't apply to that, am I right?

À (1010)

Mr. Bruce Littlejohn: That is correct.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: The Westbank lands will change over time. It's possible to have additions to the Westbank lands. For example, they might buy a chunk of land and add it to the Westbank area. Then this same survey rule would apply. They'd buy 20 acres, for example, the 20 acres they might have bought fee simple or the crown, or whatever it might be, and this section would apply only within those boundaries. People don't have to worry that the decision on the 20 acres is going to be subject to Westbank lands, or the Westbank--

Mr. Bruce Littlejohn: Where their 20 acres have been added to reserve under federal policy and become reserve land, yes, that's where this survey provision would apply.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Littlejohn.

Mr. Vellacott.

[English]

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: My question then is how does this in any way differ from the kinds of powers that a city, in terms of development at the edge of the city or whatever...? We've often said our party is of the view that we should get first nations people out from under the Indian Act as much as possible. With this kind of clause we clearly do that.

Is this power really any different from what a city council has, in terms of a survey? My city of Saskatoon doesn't require sign-offs by Minister Nault or the present minister or anybody else.

I guess that's my question. Is this basically the same power that a city would have at that point, without sign-off from somebody else up the line?

Mr. Bruce Littlejohn: It would be similar, I suppose, in one sense, but it is subject to the federal act for surveys, as opposed to a municipality, which is subject to provincial legislation.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Duncan.

[English]

Mr. John Duncan: I'm aware of a dispute in the Okanagan. It's not with the Westbank area. I'm aware of a river that's changed course. Lands that have been considered private lands since somewhere around the turn of the century have changed hands numerous times, and a dispute arose.

The Department of Natural Resources is responsible for the Canada lands survey, correct? It commissioned a survey and the private landowners, one of whom was 100% affected and had just invested in a new, expensive home, was informed five or six years after the survey. In other words, between the time of the survey and when he was informed that the property was in dispute, he had made this investment. The Canada lands survey had determined that it was actually part of the adjacent reserve, and for some reason there was a failure to register this at the provincial land title office.

So this is a great example of what can go wrong.

I'm wondering if this has contemplated the interaction with the provincial land registry and those kinds of disputes. There's no dispute resolution, and yet we have two different authorities at work here. This is an area that's rife with problems, because many of the surveys are land title and often in the case of reserve properties they are very much in dispute in the province because they're old surveys. Landmarks have sometimes moved and the original surveys were not done to the same standard they would be done today, and so on.

Here we are being offered at last an amendment to the bill that we haven't seen before today, and all of this scenario is playing out in my mind. How well thought out is this? The attitude of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on this dispute that I'm aware of, to date, is shown by sending a letter to the property owner saying “too bad, so sad, this is your problem, go and hire a lawyer”. This is a retired individual who can't afford a lawyer and his total investment is in his home and property. And he's on a fixed income.

À (1015)

I point this out as an area that needs a pretty specific thought process attached to it, because it's an area of growing concern, and not an area that's been satisfactorily resolved within the province—and possibly in other jurisdictions as well.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Duncan.

You have the floor, Mr. Littlejohn.

[English]

Mr. Bruce Littlejohn: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I believe that the issue you raised would be with respect to the boundaries of the reserve itself. The amendment does not speak to the ability to affect that at all; it only talks to surveys that occur within the boundaries of the reserve.

Mr. John Duncan: Right, but when the boundaries to the reserve are in dispute.... I mean, this is adding—

Mr. Bruce Littlejohn: But it doesn't alter the jurisdiction nor the legislation with respect to determination of federal lands for the purpose of reserve. Those continue under the Canada Lands Surveys Act.

Between property owners within a province, from time to time you will have disputes that arise. In this instance, you have two different land survey systems, a federal and a provincial system, that will have to work together.

Mr. John Duncan: Well, I guess my follow-up question would be that it looks like there was a very serious oversight in terms of registering this concern. This person would never have bought that property if they had known the property was under dispute. It was obviously under dispute, which is why the land survey was commissioned by the federal authority.

So the whole question of ensuring registration of a concern about a dispute at the provincial land registry seems to me to be an area that needs to be specifically addressed, because right now we have the two governments, the federal and provincial authority, pointing at each other and saying “It's your fault; no, it's your fault”, and the property owner is left having to hire a lawyer to try to sort that out.

Is there a way to address that concern to ensure that the provincial land registry issue is addressed? I think it's very important that be done.

À (1020)

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Duncan.

Before we continue, I would like to say that I know that at the moment, Westbank is a special situation. You have asked the question regarding a general problem, but I would like—

[English]

Mr. John Duncan: There's a response undertaken by—

[Translation]

The Chair: Yes, I know, but before I give the floor to Mr. Littlejohn, I would like to give the floor to Ms. Baldwin to speak about Mr. Duncan's question, if I might.

[English]

Ms. Susan Baldwin: The advice I've just given to the chair is that while this may be a very important problem, it's a very general problem. This is about a very particular or specific set of circumstances, solely the Westbank. So what you are seeking to ameliorate cannot be done within this forum or this bill, but it would have to be done on a different basis.

That's not to say it isn't an important problem; I think it is. But at this point it's much too broad for thorough discussion under the terms of this bill.

The Chair: Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: I did want to give this some prominence because I think it's a serious issue. This is supposed to be a pattern; this will be used by others. This is a pioneering document, so I thought this was an opportunity to do that. We still have room between now and third reading to have the government look at these kinds of questions.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Duncan.

Go ahead, Mr. Littlejohn.

[English]

Mr. Bruce Littlejohn: I would concur with what the legislative clerk has stated. This is dealing solely with situations inside a reserve boundary.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

(Clause 14.1 carried)

(Clauses 15 to 20 inclusive carried)

(Clause 21—Bill C-36)

The Chair: Let us move on to amendment G-3, which states that Bill C-11, in clause 21, be amended by replacing line 18, on page 6 with the following:

Bill C-8

21. If Bill C-8, introduced in the 3rd.

Mr. Bagnell, you have amendment G-3 and you have the floor.

[English]

Hon. Larry Bagnell: This amendment amends clause 21 to reflect the new bill number, C-8, assigned to the proposed Library and Archives of Canada Act in the current session of Parliament.

It's just a technical amendment. As you know, we proposed the Library and Archives of Canada Act in the previous session of Parliament as Bill C-36, and we've just reinstated it as Bill C-8, so we're just making the technical amendment to refer to it as Bill C-8 instead of Bill C-36.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you.

(Amendment carried)

(Clause 21, as amended, carried)

(Clause 22 carried)

The Chair: Is the short title carried?

Some hon. members: Carried.

The Chair: Is the preamble carried?

Some hon. members: Carried.

The Chair: Is the title carried?

Some hon. members: Carried.

[English]

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: We have clause 8 yet to go back to. We suspended 8.

[Translation]

The Chair: You are right, Mr. Vellacott. Let's go back to clause 8. The last clause we were talking about was clause 8. Go ahead Mr. Vellacott.

(Clause 8—Statutory Instruments Act)

[English]

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I think there are some deliberations going on here, but we were going to get a response back, I hope, from the department officials here in terms of what other exceptions there were, and I don't know if they've come up with examples of that yet.

Do you have examples yet?

Mr. Bruce Littlejohn: Unfortunately, I can't get hold of colleagues.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: If we approve this here today, could you undertake to get back to us in writing, in particular to myself and John Duncan, and copied to all the committee members, such that if there was material we needed, be it for a report stage amendment or whatever...? It would be good to get those examples.

À (1025)

Mr. Bruce Littlejohn: Sure.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you. That is an excellent question Mr. Vellacott. We will get that in writing.

(Clause 8 carried)

The Chair: Is the Bill, as amended, carried?

Some hon. members: Carried.

The Chair: Does the committee order the chair, or a person who will replace the chair, to report the bill, as amended, to the House of Commons?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: We are coming to the last question. I would just like to say that it is not necessary, because there are only three amendments and one new clause.

Shall the committee order that the bill, as amended, be reprinted for the use of the House at report stage? No, it should not be reprinted?

I repeat my question. It is not necessary, as there are only three amendments. Shall the committee order that the bill, as amended, be reprinted for the use of the House at report stage, yes or no?

Some hon. members: No.

The Chair: No. Thank you very much.

[English]

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Just a second, I've never heard of this before. When you amend a bill, isn't it reprinted? I thought it was reprinted. Eventually it has to be reprinted--

Ms. Susan Baldwin: Yes, the way we work this is it is of course always a judgment call, but the reprint for report stage would be for the convenience of members in formulating and moving amendments for report stage.

Considering that two of these amendments--one was changing an “s” and the other one was changing the bill number and the session number--would be very easy ones, and considering that the amendment moved on the land survey does not change any of the line numbers in the bill, it is additional to what's already in the bill, I think the members would have little or no difficulty formulating their amendments on this matter without a reprint, so that was my advice to the chair.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: What does it cost for a reprint?

Ms. Susan Baldwin: I don't know precisely. This bill would not be as expensive as some because it's fairly slim, but nevertheless we try to avoid doing it unless it's going to confuse members at report stage.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: No, I understand, and it's in our purview as a committee to decide.

Ms. Susan Baldwin: Yes.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Strahl, you have the floor.

[English]

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Just for clarification then, the amendments that were passed, how would they be available to the rest of the members of Parliament who aren't here this morning? They would just be attached to it?

Ms. Susan Baldwin: They are published as the report of the committee on the web underneath the committee and they're also a sessional paper in the House. So they're available in a couple of ways.

These amendments will appear when the bill is reprinted before we send it over to the Senate.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: We have much to do before that, of course.

Ms. Susan Baldwin: Yes, but any amendments indeed that are made at report stage will appear as well in what we call the “third reading copy”.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you very much. Do you all agree that we do not reprint the bill? Thank you.

We will move on to future business. Earlier, we talked about the March 22^nd trip. We will continue the discussion on Mr. Bagnell's suggestion.

Mr. Thibault.

Hon. Robert Thibault: I presumed that there were going to be some votes in the House on the evening of the 22^nd of March; therefore, it would be very difficult to travel that day.

The Chair: Mr. Bagnell.

[English]

Hon. Larry Bagnell: Yes, it's true, actually. We can't go on March 22 because there are money votes, so it would have to be on Sunday, March 21.

Perhaps I'll just add that the Westbank First Nation is not in favour of this.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: They're not?

Hon. Larry Bagnell: No.

Mr. John Duncan: Everything has changed since an hour ago or whenever, is what you're saying. The British Columbians are all sitting right here and everyone else is saying no and....

À (1030)

Hon. Larry Bagnell: Sorry, I didn't say no. I haven't changed anything. I haven't changed my opinion.

Mr. John Duncan: Let's just vote on it. Let's just get on with it.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay, I want to catch the chair's eye.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Vellacott.

[English]

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'm supportive of that. Let's do it on the Sunday. I think that's a goodwill expression on the part of the parliamentary secretary and we'll get out there on the Sunday. In the meantime, we'll have those different suggestions come in, and have a day of hearings in Kelowna on Sunday, March 21, which is the date that Larry is proposing.

I would be supportive of that. I'll be there.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Laliberte.

[English]

Mr. Rick Laliberte: There's another way of addressing this issue. The main concern yesterday that I heard from the community of Kelowna was about the ATR policy, the additional lands to reserves. Now, the bill and the agreement provide provisions for this, but the main concern, I think, is the policy. It's a national policy. It's not specific only to Kelowna. It's a policy that impacts Saskatchewan, all the way to Nova Scotia, to the far north.

Why can't we send the minister to deal with this policy? This is their policy. What you'd be doing is this. If you want to hear something, you'd be changing an exemption to this policy. If you want to address this issue head on, this is a national problem. If I could--

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: It's one small part of the bill, that's all.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes, but it's a symptom. It's the same thing with the Canada lands survey issue. Those are major issues that impact every corner of this country.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: People there want to talk about more than this point you're talking about.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: That's what I'm saying. In the absence of travelling, there is another way of addressing this for the people of Kelowna. I heard plainly and clearly yesterday that the only concern of the people of Kelowna was--

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: You heard one person.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Well, he's the mayor. He has an elected mandate for the whole community, and the same thing with--

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Westbank is outside that.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'm not debating you, Maurice. This is not a debate. I'm just offering an option. If you don't get your will and way to get this travel, then there is another way to address that issue through the minister.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you Mr. Laliberte.

You have with you a copy of the budget that the clerk has distributed. As well, I asked you earlier how many witnesses from Westbank are opposed to the bill, and which ones are willing to appear as witnesses.

If you have spoken with several people, then you know if there are one, two or three witnesses. In any case, I would still like to know and I will tell you why. How many witnesses do you have?

[English]

Mr. John Duncan: Do we have the witnesses who refused to participate? I don't know what the number is, four or five. We believe they will participate. We have a lot more notice for March 21 than we did to round people up in 24 hours, as we did for yesterday, and we think certainly for the chamber and the people who are doing business between the community of Kelowna and the community of Westbank, that whole interaction is important for those people to be able to express themselves.

So I don't think we have a concern in terms of numbers. We would be able to have at least as many as we had yesterday. My concern is that we've been presented with a number here that, to me, looks totally unrealistic, from the standpoint that we certainly don't need 16 members of Parliament. I know it's always controversial, but there would be no French-language necessity there, unless the Bloc chose to participate, and given--

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. John Duncan: Well, I will not make assumptions, then, in that regard.

À (1035)

[Translation]

The Chair: But Mr. Duncan...

[English]

Mr. John Duncan: That's fine. All I'm saying is that we can voluntarily restrict the number of members of Parliament that would be in attendance, because we don't need the normal quorum, I would say. These are hearings, not--

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Duncan I understand that you have already gone over the budget, but up until now, I have only been given five names. To add other witnesses would not be fair because the people from Westbank could add 20 more, etc. If I understand correctly, these five people have refused to appear by way of videoconference. I would like to make a suggestion. We know that it is going to be during the parliamentary break. You know that members go to their ridings and meet with groups. Some must travel to remote areas, whether it be Ms. Karetak-Lindell, who goes to Nunavut, or Mr. Laliberte. We all have constraints, including yourself and members of the Bloc Québécois. I would like to suggest the following: We know that the budget is going to be tabled on March 23^rd. On the evening of March 22^nd, we all have to participate in very important votes on the estimates. We have asked witnesses in Westbank and in Kelowna if they would like to appear. They said no because they wanted the committee going to them, but we were caught off guard. Therefore, I suggest that we hear them through videoconference on Monday the 22^nd. If we must, we will set aside two hours for these five people. We will all be in Ottawa, no one will have to go anywhere. This is not just an issue of money, but also one of efficiency. I already have commitments on Sunday and many others are busy on the 21^st. I am taking part in three separate activities, and must attend mass in Val d'Or, that is sacred. I suggest that we organize a videoconference on March 22^nd here. If it takes two hours, then it will take two hours.

À (1040)

[English]

Hon. Larry Bagnell: Mr. Chair, this discussion just came up this morning, so it is a bit difficult for the committee. I just wanted to say, though, just to clarify, first of all, in my role as parliamentary secretary I'm trying to be cooperative with all parties to facilitate this as much as I can. But Liberals are free to vote as they want, free to decide the first nation is opposed to this.

But I would be interested to know, just so it might help people in the discussion, if we didn't do this, could the opposition outline legislatively the ways the bill could be slowed down?

Mr. John Duncan: I don't understand your point. One hour ago, we thought we had concurrence on this thing.

Hon. Larry Bagnell: I'm still supporting it. I haven't changed.

Mr. John Duncan: That is the issue. Nothing else will suffice, so we're not going to go there.

The Chair: Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I've been here for ten years, so you kind of roll with the punches in a lot of this stuff. But I wish people would think a little bit about how these things evolve. You reach an understanding. You say, “Well, listen, for one thing I dispute the chair's idea that we should find as many people as we can who oppose the bill when they come to Kelowna”. That's not the intent.

I wish people would understand the intent. It's not to say let's round up as many people as we can who are mad about the bill. I said at the start of this process that this is not about that. I wish people would wrap their heads around this. This is about bringing the community, which is largely onside, a province that is pleased to see things moving ahead...Indian nations, not just Westbank, but Yale Band, for example....

I bet you I have 21 bands in my riding and probably 45 bands in my new riding, if I get elected there. This is a huge issue. They like to see success, folks. This is going to go through, right? I intend to vote for this bill. But what we need to do is.... The intent is not to bring people here so we can kick the slats out of this bill. This is part of a process.

I know the first nations want something to happen today--I understand that. But overall there's a bigger issue at stake here. We're building consensus on something that has been very difficult to build consensus on. I think the community wants to get involved. As I mentioned before, when there's success, it breeds more success. People are enthusiastic. They see people shaking hands and saying this is going to be great for the community, and so on. The object is not to come to Kelowna to destroy the bill; the object is to come to Kelowna to build consensus.

The opportunity is great here. What will happen, I don't know. There is no intent to destroy. If we had a hearing, say, on Sunday or Monday, that would be before we debate it in the House anyway. It's not going to change...it's no delaying tactic. We can be back here, and I think in the House there might be two or three speakers. I think a morning's work or a couple three hours' work in the House is going to get it through. There's no intention to slow it down.

But what's going to happen--and I don't think I'm speaking out of turn about what happened in our own caucus--is if you don't show that consensus-building, then people are going to want to talk about it in the House. The member from Kelowna is going to say “Okay, I couldn't talk about it in Kelowna, so I'm going to have to tell you about this bill and why I think it's building consensus in my community”.

It's ironic that it will slow it down by not talking to the people affected.

The best thing to do, folks, is to do it that way. It is not delaying anything. It will showcase a bill that is largely supported, broadly supported, and it will do it in a province....

Some of you come from areas where there are lots of disputes too, but I'll tell you there are not more disputes than there are in British Columbia. As I mentioned, I have 21 bands. All of them have claims. All of them are looking for an agreement, something like this or something else. They're looking for something to move ahead with their lives.

We need to show them success stories. We need to show them that just because it's in British Columbia and it's a long way away, it doesn't affect how we do business here, because British Columbia is just as important as any other province or territory.

A voice: It has one-third of the bands.

À (1045)

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Yes, one-third of the entire aboriginal nations people live in my province. If we cannot bother to come out to my province to talk to the people, even when there's a success, what message are we sending?

I would argue that if it were in other provinces, some other provinces, people would say it's only an hour's drive down the road to Kanesatake, or it's only a little ways away, so we'd better meet with these folks. And everyone would go. We wouldn't dispute it. Everyone would go.

Just because it's a long way away doesn't change the fact that we should be there. It will be a good thing for the Westbank Indian Nation. It will be a good thing for the people of Kelowna. And it will be a very good thing for my province, which is looking for some good things on this issue.

We have had almost complete and utter stalemate on the whole aboriginal treaty negotiation process. We've had entire boards quit from that process. We've had volunteers bail out. We've had the federal and provincial governments not be able to agree. We finally have one that we agree on, so let's go and showcase it. It takes only a day. And I don't even care about the money. This is such a pittance of money compared to the billions of dollars this agreement may be the forerunner of. We'll be showing people in British Columbia--who need to see this, folks--that this is a good thing.

It's not a delaying tactic. It is the right thing to do.

My final point, and I'm not going to belabour this, because I think we should get to a vote, is that you can't also make the argument--I don't agree with the argument--that there may be an election and therefore we'll change the whole way we do business. You say we'll do the right thing, it's going to go through anyway, it's going to go very quickly through the House. But you can't say let's change the way we do business because there's an election coming on. That may or may not happen.

We should do the right thing for the right reasons. The election will happen or not. We're not going to delay it. We'll get it through the House quickly. It will all come to pass as it should. It won't make any difference, because we're not going to debate this thing until after that potential hearing on that Monday or Tuesday anyway. It will make no difference in how it passes, folks, but it will make a big difference in my province. That's a fact.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Strahl.

I have a comment. I am referring to what Mr. Duncan said about the videoconference. He said that Sunday few members would be able to come, but that it was important to hear them anyway even though there may be no translation.

If the committee were to go to Westbank and Kelowna on Sunday, the witnesses opposed to the bill would ask where the officials are who are supposed to give them the answers. We would be stuck. In good faith, I suggested a videoconference. On 22 March, during that videoconference, the officials would be with us and many more members would be present. It is not an electoral issue. Of course, it is a matter of budget, but there is also a matter of constraints with having our translators travel and transporting all the gear. We ourselves have constraints as parliamentarians: votes on the estimates and so forth. A lot of members are not available on Sundays. If we were to send only three members to Westbank, the witnesses appearing there would complain that there are only three members and no officials. I myself I am not available.

Mr. Loubier, go ahead.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I am amazed that we are still discussing that possibility. You made a quite reasonable suggestion, in my opinion. The people opposed to that agreement refused to appear through videoconferencing. We can make another attempt to have them appear through videoconferencing, but I quite disagree with the idea of going to Westbank and to B.C. to meet people with only a few days advance notice.

Besides, this is an agreement that came about after 14 years of work. We have been consulting people since 1989. We have consulted the stakeholders. The agreement was negotiated by the different levels of government. The same thing happened with the a draft agreement with the Innus in Quebec. Of course, it is not unanimous. Of course people are opposed to it. But we have a duty, as a society, to settle the Aboriginal question.

Since the Erasmus-Dussault Commission report was made public in 1997, we have undertaken a huge building project. In principle, during the next 20 years, we are supposed to speed-up the government autonomy process for all First Nations communities. Now we are faced with an agreement that was duly negotiated and about which consultations were held. We now have a document to implement that agreement, that was worked on for 14 years, and here we are, once again today, learnedly debating the sex of angels.

If the conservatives want to go to Kelowna, then they can go. Between what they have proposed, which is to go all three without translation to meet people over there and the ensuing cost for the committee and delaying the passage of the bill, there is a difference. If they want to go, they can do so. They are already in Kelowna, they can consult their people if they have not done that already. But this process has been ongoing for 14 years.

Mr. Strahl was telling me before if this affected Quebec, our reaction would be the same as theirs. No, absolutely not, because as far as the agreement with the Innus is concerned as I was mentioning earlier, we absolutely want the agreement in principle to be signed by the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs if he ever manages to make up his mind. There is no unanimous agreement, but we do have a duty to make amends to the First nations and we also have the duty to implement their inherent right to self-government. We have it before us at this time.

I will be recommending to my leader that he should refuse to make available any funds for travelling to British Columbia. At this point, we have reached the end of the process. It is in the government's government power to decree, with a governor-in-council decision, that the agreement which flows from the bill on which we are working right now be ratified by the federal government.

It is not up to us to reinvent the wheel and we do not have to repeat the negotiations and the discussions. If there are some who are opposed to the agreement or are questioning it, high technology is there to serve us. I will not go over there and I do not think there are many members who actually feel like it either. If the conservatives want to go there, then they can undertake their own consultations. We from the Bloc Québecois undertook proper consultations for the agreement with the Innus. We were five members who toured the North Shore all the way to the lower North Shore to consult the people. We came back with a report that we tabled with the negotiators. The process went on and resulted in an agreement in principle.

To my mind, it is nonsensical to discuss this here this morning. People are wasting our time.

À (1050)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Loubier.

Before going to Mr. Vellacott and Mr. Duncan and then to our last speaker, Mr. Telegdi, I would like to tell you that we have five minutes left because at 11 the Standing Committee on Health is sitting here and has a lot of witnesses to hear. We have five minutes left to take a position on this.

Mr. Vellacott, go ahead.

[English]

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I simply submit, Mr. Chair, with due respect to what you just said, that there is a big difference. Your helpful proposals for videotaping are not the same, and we have to understand that there's a difference between sitting watching video screens here and being in Kelowna.

The reality is that back during the first nations governance bill, which was a big bill, most times we had a maximum of eight members of Parliament here, not the 16 who are here now. We will have French translation and so on, unless of course the BQ boycott the process—but that's for them to decide.

I guess the other thing is that if the Bloc member happens to miss being here in the debate, this does not slow it down at all. It's reported to the House on Friday. We would probably have it up at report stage or third reading the Thursday after that, so I fail to conceive how this even slows it up. So the point is missed there, actually.

I move that we simply go to the question. The parliamentary secretary has said in good faith that we could do it on a Sunday.

I would also submit, Mr. Chair, that we have a couple of other vice-chairs, so if you have other commitments, such as church on Sunday—some of us may go to church, and whatever, while we're out in Kelowna—we have two other vice-chairs here who could moderate, in the persons of the very capable Nancy Karetak-Lindell and me, who move that we go right to the question.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Duncan, you have the floor.

[English]

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: A recorded vote.

The Chair: Okay, a recorded vote.

[Translation]

(Motion negatived)

The Chair: So we will not be travelling to Westbank.

Mr. Telegdi.

[English]

Hon. Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Chair, the member opposite, Mr. Strahl, was making the comment that we don't want to travel. Well, I travel to B.C. all the time, and I spend time on a reserve every time I go there.

If the Conservative Party wants to hold a rally for the bill to let the people of British Columbia know that they support these agreements, I suggest to you that you can do it unilingually, and you would get much more newsworthiness if the Conservative Party were there rallying for the first nations.

Thank you.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: That's why you can't elect anybody in British Columbia, you dolt. You can't figure it out.

[Translation]

The Chair: The meeting is over. Our next meeting will be held on 23 March at 9 a.m. and we will send you a notice to that effect.

Thank you to all of our team, to the interpreters, to the officials and to the people from Westbank.

The meeting is adjourned.