AAND Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES AUTOCHTONES ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DU GRAND NORD

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, March 17, 1999

• 1538

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.)): The Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development is meeting pursuant to Standing Order 106(3), consideration of a request by four members of the committee.

All members of the committee have a copy of that request to the clerk, which reads:

Dear Ms. Fisher:

Pursuant to Standing Order 106(3), a meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs shall be convened within ten sitting days for the purpose of examining the concerns raised by the Caldwell controversy in Ontario.

This is signed by four members of the committee: Mike Scott, MP; Derrek Konrad, MP; Myron Thompson, MP; and Claude Bachand, MP.

Mr. Nault.

Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora—Rainy River, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, before we get to the resolution, can we talk about the process?

I don't have any difficulty with the opposition doing this. From a government perspective it obviously delays everything else we're doing, and it's not a new tactic, but I'm a little surprised that the opposition is using it.

If they want to bring issues forward to the committee, there are obviously much more conventional ways of doing it, Mr. Chairman, that is, through your working group within the number of parties and then bringing it back to the full committee of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

• 1540

This is obviously a process of circumventing, of getting together as a subgroup to then plan the work of the committee. I don't quite know what the intent of the opposition is in doing this on a regular basis, but I can assure them that if they continue to do it, we're not going to get a lot done on a regular basis around here—including what we passed last week.

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to get Mr. Scott's advice and maybe some background as to why we're doing it this way. I'm not suggesting that he can't bring up Caldwell—or any other issue, for that matter—before the committee in the conventional sense. No one I'm aware of has ever said he couldn't do it or has tried to stop him

If the intent is to do it in a different way.... Someone obviously has been reading the standing orders and feels that this is a way to do it. This basically ties up the committee because it does suggest that we will have a meeting on the issue. It doesn't mean we'll study it, because I can tell Mr. Scott before he gets started that it is in the interest of the government to defeat this motion and get on with the business of the other very numerous issues already before us.

This shouldn't take too long, but bringing it forward in this fashion has tied up the business of the committee. If he does it continuously, I don't think we'll ever get to the leasing issue that he talked about. If he keeps this up, at this rate we'll maybe get to it next fall or next January.

I'm very curious about getting some information as to how this committee will work, about whether it's the intention of the opposition parties, because of course Mr. Bachand is on this list as well.... I'd like to get a sense of how they want to play this, because if they do want to play it this way I can bring forward a whole pile of 106(3)s myself—it doesn't stop the government from doing that—and we'll have meetings twice a week to talk about 106(3)s. We'll have discussions and then a vote and we'll never get to what we're supposed to be doing.

It's very unusual for committees to get to this stage where there's no discussion behind closed doors amongst ourselves to decide on the business of the committee. So I'd like to ask for some information in regard to whether this is going to be a continual process, in which we can look forward to a number of 106(3)s, which, as I said before, is not a big deal.

I can assure Mr. Scott that when I was in opposition between 1988 and 1993, I never won one motion as an opposition member sitting on that side as a representative of the Liberal Party on aboriginal affairs, so I know how it works. I'm not really concerned about that, but I am concerned about the fact that we're here based on this and that we're in essence wasting a day when we could have been hearing witnesses on other issues that we already have in front of us.

If you could give me some advice, I'd certainly be willing—and I'd be interested in it—to have this procedural debate before we get to the motion, if that's acceptable to everyone.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): That's acceptable, Mr. Nault. You're wise to bring up the point that we had one of these just last week. We dealt with it in, I thought, a fair way. We said that we'd modify the timeline and do something. This subject today is, I think, as important to the people that we serve as this particular motion, but since we have five other meetings this week, we're going to run out of time.

Mr. Scott.

Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, first of all, I can assure Mr. Nault that it's coincidental that these two have come together like they have. It's not the intent of the opposition to frustrate the committee's work. Both the motion under the standing orders last week and this one are brought forward because these are very serious issues that are facing Canadians. In particular, this issue became an obvious concern to literally thousands of people in southwestern Ontario immediately before Christmas.

As to why I brought this to the committee, without bringing it to committee this way, there was no apparent opportunity for the committee to examine the issue.

• 1545

This issue is of concern to many Canadians but to many Liberal members of Parliament too, as I'm aware and as I'm sure Mr. Nault is aware. It's an opportunity for the committee to review the policy of the minister, the policy of the government, and to see how that policy can be applied in such a way that it reduces the existing conflagration and possible conflict in southwestern Ontario.

I do think that there is some potential for thinking outside the box. I do think that the committee has an opportunity to hear from affected people, both Caldwell Band members and non-band members in the region, and I do think that there is the possibility of providing good advice on this issue to the House, the minister and the department.

I'm a little concerned when I hear Mr. Nault say that when he was sitting in opposition he never had a motion passed. I take it to mean, then, that we're all wasting our time here.

Mr. Robert Nault: That's what the Tories were like.

Mr. Mike Scott: Whether the Tories were like that or not, Mr. Nault, you're not a Tory, and you're the one who made the comment, so I would say to you—

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Mr. Scott, would you get on with your remarks regarding this, please? Leave the personalities and leave ancient history. I know Mr. Nault said that about how a committee operates, and that's the way it went. No one is suggesting that's the way this committee is going to go. Deal with the question, please.

Mr. Mike Scott: I was only responding to remarks, Mr. Chairman, as you know.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Yes. I sometimes forego that pleasure.

Mr. Mike Scott: I've answered Mr. Nault about the process. We don't have any more motions right now—that I'm aware of—to bring forward to the committee, nor do I anticipate any. It's not the intent of the official opposition or, I believe, of any of the opposition members to frustrate the work of the committee, but it is the intent to deal with serious matters when they arise. This was an obvious one. That's why we brought it forward at this time.

If that addresses the procedural question the member raised, I'm quite prepared to speak to the motion.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): I think you should do that at this time.

Mr. Mike Scott: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, in late December we became aware of an issue in southwestern Ontario when the Minister of Indian Affairs and the Department of Indian Affairs announced that they intended to create for the Caldwell Band a new reserve near Blenheim in southwestern Ontario. We have been inundated with letters, e-mails and calls for support from Caldwell Band members and from residents in that area who express reservations and concern about the minister's decision.

We bring this motion forward. I think everybody has a copy. We have it in English and in French so that everybody can understand what we think are the main issues that need to be addressed.

First, with respect to the nature of consultation, we think that consultation—and I think many members here, if not all of them, would agree—to date has been lacking and that there certainly needs to be more consultation with local people in the area.

There needs to be a review of the impact of the use of reserve land on the local community, particularly with respect to the farmers in the area, who express real concern over a number of issues, like how this might affect tax rates, how this might affect other economic activities and how this might impact on drainage, along with other issues that arise when you're talking about land use.

Of course there is the issue of anticipated costs to the federal government and ultimately to the taxpayer, and there is the issue of accountability. This last is the issue that's been raised by Caldwell Band members, who want to know how they are going to receive assurance of what accountability there is going to be to them as individual band members that, first of all, the policy is in fact supported by the band and that they as individuals are going to be considered and protected during this transition phase.

• 1550

In summary, we have proposed a motion, which I'll read into the record:

That the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development undertake a review of DIAND's proposal to create a new reserve for the Caldwell Band in the Chatham-Kent region in southwest Ontario. That the Committee requests that the present moratorium be extended until the Committee completes its review and issues a report.

Just to speak to that, Mr. Chairman, the minister did announce a 90-day moratorium a little less than a month ago. We see this as breathing room, as an opportunity for examining this issue quickly. I don't see the need for large numbers of meetings to address this. I see this as a matter of two or three meetings.

At the same time, Mr. Chairman, and in response to Mr. Nault's questions last week, we are quite prepared to be flexible with the committee's time on other matters, including Bill C-56 and including reviews of the main estimates and so on, so that we make time for the committee to do this in a reasonable timeframe rather than, as Mr. Nault has suggested, having this drag on into the fall or into the spring of next year. That will be of little use or benefit to the people involved.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I move this motion. I'm very anxious to hear the debate.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Do we have a seconder for the motion?

Would you like to speak to the motion, Mr. Chrétien?

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I will be speaking on behalf of my colleague, Claude Bachand, who was called back unexpectedly to his riding this afternoon.

He has asked me to convey to you as clearly as possible that it is his wish, for the welfare of the people of Canada, but above all for the greater welfare of the residents of the region in which this native reserve will be established, that the moratorium be extended so that those people directly concerned can be consulted further.

Obviously, when a native reserve is established, it is not the same as passing a bill, as we did this week. In that particular case, in several weeks' time, we could still repeal or amend the legislation as we see fit. In this particular instance, a substantial sum of money will be committed to the establishment of this reserve and it is critical that we do things right.

With the technology available to us, it would be a relatively simple matter to extend the moratorium and Mr. Bachand wanted me to make this clear to you. He is willing to work overtime to help the government party meet its timetable.

I might add that even within your own political party, some Liberals are disgruntled with the plans to establish this reserve.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I know that you won't like what I'm about to say. Nevertheless, I hope that you will let me speak my mind. When I look at the members here, I note that there are fewer on our side than there are seated opposite. I know that our proposal will be defeated. As Mr. Nault so aptly stated, when he was in opposition and the conservatives were in power, he never managed to have a single piece of legislation passed or to have even one of his ideas accepted. We all know the fate that awaited the Conservatives on October 25, 1993.

Therefore, for the good of democracy, the government should refrain from displays of arrogance towards opposition members, and in particular toward the Canadian public.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you, Jean-Guy. You are welcome. You've done a good job of representing Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Nault makes me a little nervous sometimes when he talks about speaking for the government. I'm certainly on the government's side over here as a member, but I like to think that this committee is as non-partisan as we can be, because the issues, of course, are very human issues. There's a place for partisan politics and there's a place where we can set it aside.

• 1555

I have difficulty with this motion. The reason is very simple. I'm very concerned that this committee not get involved in addressing individual conflicts that are occurring across the country in various band and reserve contexts.

I cite, for example, an article sent to me by my colleague, Mr. Konrad, which pertains to a reserve in Saskatchewan where there's quite a conflict going on with respect to band leaders using treaty land entitlement fund money for their own purposes. That's a situation that indeed could call for this committee, in the same context, to address it with a special series of meetings to question the whole process of treaty land entitlement money.

The difficulty with the Caldwell Reserve situation is that it's a new problem. It's not the same problem that we voted upon, which had to do with leases in the Musqueam situation in Vancouver and which is a symptom of a larger problem. It's not just the Musqueam Reserve that we're concerned about; it's across the country.

We on this side and, in fact, the entire committee unanimously supported a motion that we look at the lease problem and presumably begin with Musqueam. I'm very keen to do this because I think it's something that we resolved to look at urgently, or certainly within a reasonable timeframe. I actually thought, when I came here today, that what would be happening would be a motion saying that we should begin that process next week. Instead, I find before me a motion suggesting that we should get involved in a whole new issue, which is an isolated conflict that may have further ramifications.

I suggest to you that we have already taken on something that I consider vitally important in a broad sense. This committee has agreed to address it and I would like to get on with it.

I really think that we walk on very dangerous ground when we turn the committee's attention to injecting our intervention in specific conflicts. The role of the committee, in my view, is to address broad issues and attempt to give people a hearing and then attempt to come up with policy and legislation. It isn't the purpose of this committee, in my view, to be judge and jury on any conflict. That's what happens if you inject us into specific conflicts.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you, Mr. Bryden.

Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a response to Mr. Bryden's statements.

Quite often, John, you have a point of view that is slightly different from that of everyone else in the room—

An hon. member: Oh, oh.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: —with respect. There's some legitimacy to what you're saying and I understand the direction you're heading in.

What Mr. Scott has brought up here comes from a slightly different angle. We have a situation in southern Ontario in which the minister has already intervened, where she has had a stay of proceedings for 90 days and where there are a number of important and burning issues on the table that need to be discussed. It looks as if, certainly from the opposition's point of view, that the situation is on the verge of getting out of control. There are a number of questions that need to be asked, and we don't see any process in which to ask those questions.

This is what I believe the motion is about. This is the opportunity to present it. And with respect to what Mr. Nault said about the 106(3)s, this is not a point about playing a game of cat and mouse with legislative process. This is a point about having some legitimate concerns that have been brought to the committee for debate.

I would, with respect, Mr. Chair, say that we have a chance here to debate them.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you, Mr. Keddy.

Perhaps, if I may—I'm not trying to intervene in the debate—let me say that DIAND's proposal to create a new reserve is very misleading. The Caldwell situation is based upon the policy—which has been in effect for some years—of specific and comprehensive claims and has been negotiated with the Caldwell Band. Whether or not the people in the area knew very much about it is a moot point, but it is not some subversive hidden agenda.

• 1600

The government is actively seeking to negotiate as many agreements with first nations as we can deal with adequately—physically and in all other ways. I just want everyone to know that so we're not talking about something we're not talking about.

Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Quickly on that point, it's a point of interest that in the discussions on Bill C-56, when we talked about first nations in Manitoba and the policy of assessing reserve lands, it's the policy of the federal government and the policy of the Province of Manitoba that any time you're going in within existing municipal boundaries, that municipal unit is recognized as losing tax base, there's compensation for the loss of tax base and they're involved at the beginning of the consultation process.

It looks as if that has not happened here and that's a very good reason why this needs to be brought up and why we should open it up for discussion. We do have procedure, and it's important for the government to follow that procedure in each and every case.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you, Mr. Keddy. Mr. Iftody.

Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I agree with Mr. Bryden, who, I think it's important to repeat, is probably the most rebellious and independent thinker on the committee—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. David Iftody: —in which he takes great pride. I think it's important to listen to his words in this debate.

I would note for the record, of course, that in terms of providing motions under 106(3) of the standing orders, Mr. Scott brought one forward last week, today we're dealing with another one, and it'll be another one and another one.

The committee, against my wishes and judgment, frankly, agreed very gracefully and with a good deal of indulgence to work with Mr. Scott on that particular motion and agreed to have an investigation in terms of the lease question. There was great movement, I think, and gains were made on that. We agreed to that and got back to the business of Bill C-56, which I'm missing Mr. Scott's participation on. I dearly miss him at the committee and I've missed him dearly on Bill C-56. I'd like him to join us again at some of the committee work because we are very busy with some of this work.

I would point out as well that a number of the issues he has raised, like tax rates, drainage, overall concerns of the Canadian taxpayer and accountability for some of the first nations people who apparently are angry or disaffected—I appreciate that you're supporting both the first nations and the non-aboriginal people in the area in your motion—fall outside of our purview.

For example, one of the points you raised is that of jumping into an investigation on drainage, and I think that is far beyond what this committee is intended to do in the House of Commons.

I'd like to say to Mr. Keddy that with respect to the question of provincial notice, we have protocol agreements with Manitoba and Saskatchewan on some of these questions—and certainly the province of Ontario can play a role here as well—but that's their purview in terms of some of these notifications. Legally, the municipalities are creations of provincial legislation and they report to a particular minister within the provincial Crown, so they can properly look after that.

Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully submit that there is a process underway, a 90-day breathing period, which I think would provide a great opportunity for the people in the community to sit down face to face with the first nations people involved.

I think the chief there readily agreed to that 90-day breathing period, and I think that people in good faith, Mr. Scott, could sit down face to face, eye to eye, and talk about these issues and find out how these two communities could live together.

I don't think that at this point, sir, involving this committee in that way is going to resolve conflict at all. In fact, I think it's going to exacerbate that problem. I would ask that this committee give respect to that process and to the people involved and allow these good people to come together in good faith and have an honest discussion about what the issues are.

I have to regretfully inform Mr. Scott, because of the facts that I've just laid out, that I really don't think it's appropriate to proceed with this particular motion at this time.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you, Mr. Iftody.

Mr. Wilfert.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I'm not a very happy individual. I'm suppose to be at HRD. We have a major report coming out today. We've spent five months on that report and as the vice-chairman I wanted to be there.

I was told around two o'clock that there was going to be a vote today. I didn't know what the vote was about. I found out that this was on the table.

• 1605

Last week, in the spirit of co-operation, I thought we were all reasonable people around the table. I must say, with the greatest respect, that I felt we did a good job in making sure that we were addressing an issue that was not an isolated issue but an issue that had ramifications across the country, and I felt it was worthy. I asked about extending that and Mr. Scott agreed. I thought that was great.

Today I come here and we're talking about the Caldwell Reserve. I have a little knowledge about municipal government, given my 10 years with the FCM and being past president. We are asked to examine something which Mr. Scott, with all due respect, suggests will take two or three meetings. From my understanding so far, I don't think this will be a two- or three-meeting issue. In fact, unless the meetings are going to last 24 hours a day, there could be quite a bit of discussion.

There is a process going on. I don't know that this committee at this point should be prejudging a process that is going on. I certainly would have to agree with my colleagues. Last week we were dealing with leases, this week we're dealing with this issue and I don't know what we'll be dealing with next week.

We're already adding meetings, Mr. Chairman, about which you know my feelings.

There's a process. There's a moratorium. There are things going on. I think we are jumping into the fire at this point, which I don't think is wise.

If the opposition has a good idea, Mr. Chairman, I'm the first one to stand up and say so. I thought they had a good idea last week and I thought we had struck something. I don't know when we're going to get to it, though, because we're still working on Bill C-56 and, if it comes to us before June, we will have Nisga'a. I don't know what the legislative agenda is going to be, but I will say, Mr. Chairman, that it's not my intention to be meeting here in July and in August.

Quite frankly, I think this is premature. I'd like the opposition to withdraw it. Let's deal with the issues we have. Also, let's see what happens during this moratorium. We may or may not want to revisit this in the future.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you, Mr. Wilfert.

Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to speak in support of the motion. I'd like to point out, just for the benefit of those who mentioned having co-operated with the opposition on leases, that it really wasn't about co-operating with the opposition. It was a question of discussing a matter of public interest, and I believe that's why all of you supported it—not to be nice guys, I would hope, but because it's an important issue. It was broadened and that was good.

This question before us really concerns economic development. Economic development is a matter of study for this committee at this time. Three of the questions posed in the letter by my colleague are: what will the potential impact be on the municipal tax rate and tax base?; what is the economic impact for the region and for adjacent land values?; and will the land likely be used for agriculture or for gaming purposes? The nature of the land use may have environmental implications.

These are economic development questions and these questions affect any reserve. In particular, possibly given the nature of urban reserves, it affects communities as well. Saskatchewan is right now in the middle of dealing with the treaty land entitlement process, whereby communities are losing tax base. They're having zoning imposed in portions of the rural municipalities. The zoning is changing. The zoning may have been maintained for years as, say, agriculture, and all of a sudden municipalities find themselves under pressure to create a new zoning to accommodate a band. There are questions of services and who pays and how much they pay. Services for ambulance, fire, policing, schools, water, sewer, maintenance of infrastructure and roads come to mind. That's certainly a big issue.

There are no clear guidelines for the creation of urban reserves. Everything seems to be up in the air for every reserve. That's the reason we ought to look at this issue. It possibly needs to be broadened, but certainly it's not something that we should turn our backs on. Urban reserves and their neighbouring communities have already had difficulties. Indians weren't always in the wrong, nor were the municipalities. It's always better to sit down and discuss things and develop guidelines everybody agrees with rather than to allow the thing to get out of hand.

• 1610

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you.

An hon. member: Mr. Chairman, can we call the question?

Mr. John Bryden: Can I just make one comment before the question is called, Mr. Chairman?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Yes.

Mr. John Bryden: And then Mr. Scott, I think—

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Yes.

Mr. John Bryden: It'll be a very quick comment, Mr. Chairman. An issue that we determined was a pressing general issue—allowing that there are other issues—is the Musqueam situation, which leads to a larger situation. I find myself in the odd position of finding that my colleagues opposite seem to want to put the Musqueam situation aside in favour of a new agenda. I would urge this committee.... We made a resolution last week. Let us get on with dealing with the situation out in B.C., which has immediate and large ramifications for the country.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): I'll hear one speaker from the opposition side of the table.

Mr. Mike Scott: Yes, Mr. Chairman—

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Mr. White. I'm sorry, Ted, you put up your hand. It's up to you.

Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): I was on the list, wasn't I?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Yes.

Mr. Mike Scott: Mr. Chairman, I hope that as the mover of the motion I will get a chance to respond to the comments that have been made.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Yes, and in as brief a manner as possible after Mr. White is finished.

Mr. Ted White: Thank you, Mr. Scott.

It must surely be getting obvious that for land agreements and other settlements to be successful they really do require widespread community involvement. There certainly seems to be a defect in the way the government has been approaching the situation so far.

We have the examples of Bill C-49, the Musqueam lease situation, the Nisga'a and the Caldwell Reserve. There are problems erupting all over the place. I stress again that without full and proper involvement of the entire community, native and non-native, we're simply not going to get success. We will have failure—guaranteed. Bills can be pushed through the House, we can have agreements signed behind closed doors and everything the government wants to do can happen, but there will still be failure.

In fact, it's my feeling that considerable time could be saved in the long run if we took the time now to learn from some of these issues that are coming before us and to give recommendations to the government as to how to better handle the ones that are further down the road. Because there will be more. We all know that's going to be the case.

The motion basically is a plea to recognize the need for more community involvement and to represent the serious concerns that are being brought before us. We really have to determine whether we are here to represent the serious concerns of those who pay our salaries or to represent our own internal legislative agenda.

Whilst I speak in support of the motion, I have the terrible feeling that when the vote comes, it will be a case of “Liberal, Tory, same old story”.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you, Ted. Mr. Scott.

Mr. Mike Scott: Mr. Chairman, just to wrap up, I would like to respond to some of the comments.

First of all, Mr. Keddy has it right. The whole intent of the motion is to set up a process, because there is no process right now, which is in contravention of what Mr. Iftody and Mr. Wilfert suggested. There is no process. There is no public consultation process. There has been no process. People can see no way right now of getting into a process, getting involved in a consultation and having their input affect the outcome. The decision apparently has been made. It was made prior to people even being aware that the government was moving in this direction.

I think the government and the minister move at their peril if they intend to push this policy forward without that consultation. This is an opportunity for the committee to put itself in the position of saying that we've established a process and we will give the public the opportunity.

Further to Mr. Bryden's comments, Mr. Bryden, the Government of Canada—and I don't mean to point fingers at any particular party—has, for 130-odd years, followed a policy of establishing reserves. I can tell you, Mr. Bryden—and I'm sure you would agree with me—because I've been on many reserves in this country, that most of them do not represent any kind of success for the people who live there. We have a serious obligation to examine that fact and look at what might be proposed that would provide more hope, more optimism, for the Caldwell people, who are, in the final analysis, the point of this entire policy move.

• 1615

I am really discouraged when I travel through reserves and see people living in what amount to tarpaper shacks and when I consider that in many reserves in my province, the rate of fetal alcohol syndrome is 40% to 50%, the suicide rate is five to six times higher than it is in the broad population and more aboriginal youth go to jail than to university. When I consider that and I look at the entire aspect of reserves, I have to come to the conclusion that there is something seriously flawed. Why the government would want to establish a new reserve in the face of all that empirical evidence is beyond me.

This is a very important issue and this committee should be seized with that, rather dealing with nebulous—

Mr. John Bryden: Not the Musqueam—

Mr. Mike Scott: No, the Musqueam—

Mr. John Bryden: We can't do both.

Mr. Mike Scott: Why can't we do both? The committee certainly can do more than one thing at a time, Mr. Bryden.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Mr. Scott, the committee will have to decide that.

Are there any further comments?

Mr. Nault.

Mr. Robert Nault: I've heard this speech from Mr. Scott and people like him for a number of years. This is very much a white man's view of what they call the Indian problem and of how best to deal with it. I take exception to those kinds of comments.

I'll tell you what I did, Mr. Chairman, in the last election. I took the Reform Party's policies and put them next to mine and sent them to every first nation person I represent—a third of my riding. People were basically laughing about the policy and the direction of the Reform Party.

I'm not suggesting that there aren't problems; there are a lot. But I am also suggesting that there are many ways of going about a problem, of dealing with issues. To suggest that because on one reserve there's a difficulty that means you shouldn't meet your obligation under the law....

Treaties, of course, are legal and binding documents. I understand that they're having trouble in B.C. This is quite foreign to people in B.C. because they don't have very many modern treaties. Those of us who live under treaty areas like I do, under Treaty No. 5 and Treaty No. 3 and Treaty No. 9, are very accustomed to understanding what they mean. We don't really need a lecture on whether it's a good or bad situation. We'll deal with it and we'll deal with the politics of it on the ground as well.

If we're wrong, as Mr. Scott says, then he'll be over here next time. I've been hearing the same thing from people like Mr. Scott for years. They've been saying that what we were doing in trying to resolve this instead of going to the courts was going to cause us all sorts of upheaval in the region—and, Mr. Chairman, it didn't.

We need to continue to negotiate. This is not a new issue. Caldwell has been on the books since the 1970s. That's how long this negotiation has been going on. To make it very clear to the members opposite, we have dealt with this at our caucus. We have talked about it. The minister has met with our rural caucus. The Liberal rural caucus has met with the member whose area it is to be responsible for dealing with the public at large. He's an elected official. He'll deal with his own backyard.

So it's not that nothing is going on, Mr. Chairman, because it is.

I take Mr. Bryden's comments to heart. We're not here to look at every individual issue. If we did that, heavens, we'd never get anywhere.

We can agree to disagree. That's probably the best way to put this in the end. All I'm suggesting, and why I was fairly blunt about my comments—and I think most members will understand this—is that we can be non-partisan and co-operate, meaning we'll have a discussion before we get these things coming forward and wasting our time. I don't mean that in a derogatory way. It means that I couldn't get work done in my office today because this was put on top of the workload I had already tried to schedule.

We could have had this conversation in private. We didn't need to have it in this committee. If the intent is to do this on a continuous basis, we will not have co-operation. We will break down into partisan lines. We'll make it very quick. It'll be boom, boom, let's vote, let's not have a discussion. I think that's a dangerous thing to do, Mr. Chairman. I am just signalling that I'd prefer to have it the way Mr. Bryden is talking about. Let's let subcommittees of yourself, Mr. Chairman, and the PS and the representatives from the parties do it, and let's get on with it.

Having said all that, let's put the motion on the floor and let's vote.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you, Mr. Nault. Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'm not looking to prolong this debate. I think everyone has said what they wanted to say. It's also fallen into partisan lines. We're not talking about the motion that's on the table. The motion on the table is about process in an ongoing event in southern Ontario. That process is believed by many of us in the opposition to be flawed. We have a great deal of difficulty with the lack of involvement by the municipality.

• 1620

There is a stay of proceedings in place. There is an opportunity here to look at this motion and to look further into this issue. We need to get away from the rhetoric of whether we support reserves or not, whether it's Treaty No. 3 or Treaty No. 8 or Treaty No. 6 or whatever. We need to move back to the specifics of the motion, which is about process. I have some difficulty with the process.

I agree with your call for the motion. We should vote.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Mr. Iftody.

Mr. David Iftody: Mr. Chairman, I believe we're losing some members. The Bloc member has abstained and has left the committee room. We should call the question.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): I'm only anxious not to cut off fair debate, Mr. Iftody.

I accept the question. We'll put the question:

That the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development undertake a review of DIAND's proposal to create a new reserve for the Caldwell Band in the Chatham-Kent region in southwest Ontario. That the Committee request that the present moratorium be extended until the Committee completes its review and issues a report.

I take it that was moved by Mr. Scott and seconded by Mr. Konrad.

(Motion negatived)

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Meeting adjourned. Thank you.