Debates of March 5th, 1999

First Nations Land Management Act

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

moved that Bill C-49, an act providing for the ratification and the bringing into effect of the framework agreement on first nation land management, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, may I request at the outset that you allow me to share my time with the parliamentary secretary for Indian affairs.

I am pleased to rise in debate at third and final reading of Bill C-49, the first nations land management act.

I have been following this debate very carefully. As a result, there are a couple of things that I would like to talk about today.

First, I would like to ensure that the House appreciates the context in which Bill C-49 finds itself. I want the House to appreciate how significant—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Order, please. I am sorry that I must interrupt the hon. minister, however, on the first 40 minute time slot we have to have consent to split the time.

Is there consent that the time on the first 40 minute slot be split?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I apologize for the interruption.

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate and thank my colleagues for their consent.

As I said, it is important from my point of view to put into context the importance of Bill C-49 and the contribution that it will make to ensuring a commitment which this government has to work with first nations to build self-reliance and to provide first nations the opportunity to have the social and economic control that they need to have to better their lives within the community and the lives of their community members.

Second, if I have the time I would like to explore some of the issues that have been raised in the last few days with respect to Bill C-49. I anticipate that I will be able to do that. If not, I know my parliamentary secretary will speak to some of those issues.

First and foremost, let us consider the context in which Bill C-49 finds itself. In this regard I would like to remind the House about the fact that the primary relationship that I as minister of Indian affairs and the Government of Canada has with first nations is through the Indian Act.

Over the course of the last couple of years, as I have appreciated my role as minister of Indian affairs, I have found the Indian Act to be paternalistic, or maternalistic in the sense that I am the minister currently. The way this legislation overlays first nations is quite extraordinary. I have the responsibility to tell first nations how to develop their lands, what they can do with their reserve lands, these lands which have been set aside for them. I have to approve whether there can be economic development, who can build where, what conservation opportunities can be implemented.

In the Indian Act I am the one who decides and approves the will of individual first nations. I am the one, in providing funds to first nations, who says “Yes, you can have so much money for this particular undertaking. You can have so much money for that. You can have so much money for this”. The minister of Indian affairs has considerable and complete control over the activities that occur on first nations.

To me it is inappropriate. It is antiquated. It is not allowing the communities to use the resources that are truly theirs for the benefit of the people in those communities.

We have to ask: Why do we not change the Indian Act? I remind the House that my predecessor attempted to do that. He attempted to amend the Indian Act in a very substantive way. But first nations resisted. They resisted it as a unilateral action made on the part of the crown to interfere with the existing relationship, despite the fact that they knew the Indian Act was so controlling.

If we explore why that was the reaction, we come to understand that first nations see the Indian Act really as their structural relationship, which goes back to the fundamental issue of aboriginal rights. All in this House appreciate, I know, that in section 35 of our Constitution, the highest law of our land, aboriginal rights are identified and protected. These are rights that are not better than yours or mine as non-aboriginal people, but they are different and fundamentally go back to our belief that the first people of this nation have rights that are theirs by virtue of the fact that they predated us in this great country.

For first nations they see that connection to those rights which, quite frankly, we have resisted, over and over again over the course of our relationship, in clarifying or at least somehow protecting through the Indian Act, this paternalistic piece of legislation.

More and more on this side of the House we are explaining and encouraging our support for aboriginal rights. We are seeing those aboriginal rights reconciled in a modern Canada through such things as the negotiation of the treaty in the Nisga'a lands in northwestern British Columbia and in other undertakings. There is an easing and an increasing interest and demand from first nations to deal with the Indian Act and to find ways and means of allowing first nations the authority they need to have as legitimate entities to make decisions in their communities on behalf of the people of their communities.

Bill C-49 is one tool which allows us to take some small steps in this regard. Bill C-49 is a product of over 10 years of work. It has developed into a partnership among 14 first nations and the Government of Canada to explore, in one particular area of the Indian Act, the aspect of land management, how we could restore jurisdiction to first nations. Working together, those 14 first nations and the Government of Canada have prepared legislation that will allow me to relinquish the authorities that I have under the Indian Act to control the lands of those 14 first nations and to give it to them in a legitimate, organized and controlled fashion. It is called Bill C-49 and it is tremendously important.

In the context of Bill C-49, 14 first nations in the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick will have the authority to make decisions on how their land is developed, how their land is conserved, how their land is protected, how their land is used and how their land is administered at the community level. For those people who say that government should get out of the face of the people, what is wrong with having decisions made locally, within a community, in the context and the milieu in which the community finds itself? I do not think there is anything wrong with that.

Bill C-49 is a step in that direction, a step which allows us, at least for those 14 first nations, to start to break apart this paternalistic relationship, not in a holus-bolus, free wheeling way, but in a controlled way as outlined in the bill, which will take us a certain degree and allow us the opportunity to test this. We have to review the bill after four years to see how progress is being made before we can extend it to other first nations which also want to be considered. It is a legitimate step that will help us make progress. To me this is fundamental in the commitment that I have to work with first nations and to find ways and means of allowing them the opportunity they need to really do what is most important, and that is to change the social reality of their demographics.

It is the Indian Act that has created and sustained that cyclical welfare relationship, that one way relationship that has kept aboriginal people from engaging fully in the wealth, resources and strength that we know to be ours in Canada. I encourage and ask hon. members to consider this bill in the context of that and to see that these are important first steps which will truly make a difference.

I want to speak to some of the specific issues that have been raised over the course of the last few days. Let us look at the issue of matrimonial property. Yes, we are talking about lands. Yes, women have to have an opportunity to have access to those lands after a marital breakdown. I remind the House that Bill C-75 which was presented previously in this parliament was the first nations land management act. That bill did not pass. When I became Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development women came to talk to me about the importance of including matrimonial property. I believed they were right. I would remind the House that there is nothing in the Indian Act which accommodates matrimonial property.

In Bill C-49 we have included the requirement that the land codes must include the opportunity and the reality in the provisions for matrimonial property to implemented. This will happen in consultation within the communities. The code has to be developed in consultation. It has to be ratified and verified before it can be proclaimed. There is a system.

This gives the first opportunity for women at least in those 14 first nations to have access to legislation that will allow for matrimonial property to be considered. Women would like that to be more broadly spread, for us to deal with it in the context of the Indian Act. In addition, what we have said we will do is appoint a fact finder to talk with interested parties, make recommendations to myself, to first nations and to the women of first nations about how we might be able to include in the broader context of the Indian Act ways and means of providing for property in the unfortunate circumstance of marital breakdown.

As a result of this bill, in those 14 first nations women will have provisions for property at the point of a marital breakdown. They also have my commitment to work with them to explore ways to broadly deal with that issue in the context of other first nations and the Indian Act.

Another issue that has been drawn to our attention is this tool that all governments have when managing lands, called expropriation. It is very unfortunate that in the mainstream press people are talking about the sweeping expropriation authorities. They are not sweeping at all. They are not any different than the authorities which exist now in my power as the minister of Indian affairs for action in first nations. In fact there is more control than the expropriation powers that exist for municipalities, provincial governments, hospitals and schools.

Expropriation is a tool that all legitimate governments need to have at their disposal. It cannot be used without great care. In this bill it cannot be used without a significant process being undertaken. This includes the identification of the need for expropriation only for community based interests such as schools, roads and hospitals, and that compensation be paid if indeed expropriation must occur in the context of the federal Expropriation Act which is referenced in the bill. The code of implementation has to be verified externally.

There is nothing here that is sweeping and broad. There is nothing here that is not offered to any other legitimate government. I cannot see how we can exclude this tool from use by first nations. It is just common sense to provide it but to provide it in a very controlled and regulated context, which is what happens in this bill.

The third area is the issue of consultation. We have heard particularly from British Columbia that the municipalities want to ensure that their neighbouring first nations will consult with them as they decide how to manage their lands. The first nations will do that. In fact consultation has already begun with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities to develop a reciprocal agreement, a protocol, on how first nations and municipalities will consult, share information and proceed in the area of land development.

There are those who say that the provisions in the bill must be more specific, that the legislation must require that consultation will occur. I am not sure one can legislate quality consultation. If we legislate it we might get a letter, but if we build the partnership between a first nation and its surrounding municipalities, we build a community, a neighbourhood. We build a partnership where both communities can benefit. That is the focus here.

That is why I have been so impressed by my colleague, the member from Coquitlam who has said, “I am going to go out there and bring the municipalities and the first nations together to make sure that they are communicating, connecting and building that partnership”. As one community thrives, so does another. That is how we build a strong British Columbia and a strong Canada.

It has been my experience that across Canada too many times we find instances where municipalities and first nations who are neighbours and use the same resources, the same water and the same community services, do not know each other. The mayor and council do not know the chief and council. When there are issues, they do not know who to turn to, or who to talk to.

There is a tremendously important role for members of parliament to play in bringing those communities together and ensuring that their constituents, whether they be first nations or not, know each other and work together. That is a challenge we have right across the country.

In my own community that was the circumstance with the largest first nation in Canada, Six Nations. The chief and council did not know the mayor and council. The process engaged in was one that was dysfunctional. If the city decided to do something and the first nations did not like it, there were protests and roadblocks. That is not how this country should work.

Once we brought the communities together and a protocol was written, because of mutual interests, mutual respect and recognition and a commitment to strengthen that part of southwestern Ontario which is broadly populated by both aboriginal and non-aboriginal people alike, we have got a tremendously exciting circumstance happening. Communications are going back and forth. The mayor and council are inviting the chief and council to events in the city and vice-versa. Economic development which is happening in one community or the other is being shared by both.

I believe that is the right approach. It is fair. It is open. It is democratic. It builds on the traditional and real values of Canada which are that we are a diverse country. We celebrate our diversity and we appreciate the strength it gives us as a nation.

The first people of this country have every right to be part of this nation, to have the authorities that the rest of us have to build our communities at the local level without the imposed wisdom or lack of it that I might provide as the current Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

To me, all this is part and parcel of Bill C-49. The issues that have been raised can be responded to. The responses exist within the bill and with the commitment of the chiefs of those 14 first nations, all of them and specifically those who have worked so long and hard on this as members of the First Nations Land Management Board. I congratulate them for their courage, for their energy and for the commitment to their communities.

In my mind it is in the best interests of all members of the House to support them. They show the leadership that we know we need to have in the 21st century if we are going to ensure that as we stand up as proud Canadians and say we live in the best country in the world, that we know it is true for all Canadians, and especially for our first nations.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

We have had the privilege of the minister making comments here today which speak to the very core of the concerns that people have with this bill. As she is here in the House, I would seek the unanimous consent of the House to have a short period of questions and comments for the minister.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

As the House knows, the first two slots are without questions and comments, but it is obvious that we can ask for unanimous consent to have a specified period. Does the hon. member wish to specify a specific timeframe?

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, whatever the House would agree to, but I think 10 minutes would be sufficient.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Skeena has requested that the House give its unanimous consent in this instance for the minister to respond to questions for five minutes. A change has been made to five minutes.

Is there unanimous consent of the House to extend the period for five minutes of questions and comments?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

We will have five minutes of questions and comments to the minister. We will start with the hon. member and if anyone else rises we will try to get to them.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for agreeing to this.

The minister spoke about two of the areas of serious concern with Bill C-49. One is the disposition of marital property in the event of a marital breakdown. She has indicated her willingness and her concern in this area.

If the minister is so concerned, why are the provisions not in the legislation to provide that protection for aboriginal women? Many aboriginal women have contacted not only the official opposition but also the minister and government members to express those concerns. Why are those provisions not in the legislation? Why did the government choose not to support Bloc amendments which would have gone a long way toward providing that?

The minister said that the expropriation provisions are not as sweeping and as broad as some have painted them to be. How would the minister respond to a real estate agent's letter to a client in Vancouver where he advised his client to take his property which is currently located on the Musqueam reserve off the market because Bill C-49 is hanging as a sword over the property owner's head? There is absolutely no possibility of marketing the property on leased land which a couple of years ago was valued at $700,000. That does not square with what the minister is saying at all. This is an independent, unbiased real estate agent's expressed opinion.

I direct those two questions to the minister and ask her to respond.

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond. Let us look first at the issue of matrimonial property. Let me convey again how significant it is that the recognition that the 14 chiefs, which include women I would point out, have agreed that it is highly important for them in their land codes to include provisions for matrimonial property or the disposition of property that effectively recognizes the impact on women, particularly at the point of marital breakdown.

To my mind, as we look across the provincial jurisdictions which have authorities in the area of matrimonial property, we have seen different approaches province by province. It is my expectation that the strength of these provisions will be developed in the context of the community in which they are found.

The challenge we have in providing services to citizens and responding to their needs is best met in the context of recognizing legitimacy in this particular case of the first nations government to work with its community in order to find the provisions that work for them. Those provisions and those land codes have to be developed in consultation with the community. They have to be ratified by the community. They have to be verified by an external verifier who looks at all the aspects and the intentions to ensure that they are legitimate and will provide what the community wants and what is required.

This gives us the first tangible opportunity to say to women who live in first nations communities that they will be part of this undertaking. They will for the first time have the opportunity to have this very important and essential aspect of their lives, the issue of property, managed effectively in the context of legislation and their land codes.

The second question raised by the hon. member was on the issue of expropriation. I would first say that that real estate agent should look carefully at the bill. I am afraid he is giving his client an opinion that is not based on fact. In a very unfortunate way it serves to escalate, heighten and encourage difficult relationships between and among people in that particular part of Canada.

There never has been and never will be the intention that lands can be expropriated willy-nilly. In this context lands can only be expropriated in the way in which lands can be expropriated through any other legitimate government, for the purposes of specific benefits to the community. That is absolutely clear and so this what I view to be a red herring on the issue of expropriation is an inappropriate one.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The time provided by unanimous consent for questions and comments has expired.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are really privileged to have the minister in the House today. I am sure she would like to remain for a little while longer to clear up some of the many questions for all Canadians.

I would like to once again ask for unanimous consent so that maybe we could extend the question and comment period a little more so some of the very important questions could be asked and the minister could have a great opportunity to respond. I am sure she would go along with that.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Does the hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley have a specific period of time in mind?

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Ten minutes, Mr. Speaker.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley has asked that the time for questions and comments be extended a further 10 minutes. Is there unanimous consent?

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would be in agreement, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, to respect custom and proceed in the usual way, that is speaking for ten minutes. We have already used up five, and I think another five could be allowed, perhaps. We would agree with that, but we would not want the Reform member jumping up each time and having everything go until noon.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The suggestion was for 10 minutes. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

No.

[David Iftody, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, we will have opportunities in questions and answers throughout the day to debate parts of the bill.

Bill C-49 was introduced on June 11 in the House. During parliamentary debate and review by standing committee the government has continued to put forward the benefits of the bill. However, the official opposition has repeatedly tried to seek to scuttle the bill, even today. It has continually tried to misrepresent the real intentions of the first nations by way of misinformation and fearmongering, as evidenced today by the comments with respect to real estate agents making very unhelpful comments to the leaseholders.

They have tried to confuse the citizenry of the country by trying to raise the fears of average Canadians with respect to the development of first nations and their legitimate desire to take control over their lands and to manage those that are held in trust.

At this time I would like to set the record straight on these matters. I am sure that when I am finished the real story will be before the House and all Canadians.

The minister has expounded quite well on questions of expropriation, but let me reiterate some of the most important points of this portion of the bill.

Members of the official opposition would like everyone to believe that this power is an extreme power in the hands of first nations and one which they believe would be abused to the detriment of existing interest holders on first nations land. There are supreme court decisions which make this impossible to happen. This is nothing more than fearmongering.

As members of the House know, the power of expropriation is a power available to all levels of government and one which all governments take seriously with care and great caution. It must be first noted that the exercise of this power by any of the first nations is optional. In other words, although the bill would provide the power to expropriate, the community would have to decide whether to exercise that legitimate power. It is a community decision, as I said, one that is not taken lightly. In their codes these first nations must decide whether or not they wish to include the power of expropriation.

As parliament knows, three first nations have already ratified their codes. Of these, two have opted not to exercise this expropriation power. The third, the Muskoday First Nation, has spelled out in detail the extent to which it will exercise those expropriation powers. It was done with care and proper due diligence to its neighbours and indeed to the community itself.

The member for North Vancouver specifically referenced the Muskoday land code in his remarks of the other day as being a model for other first nations to follow. Of the three land codes now in preparation in the communities, one wishes not to exercise expropriation powers and the other two are following the Muskoday model.

In the exercise of this power the first nations must establish the rules and procedures. In addition, these are based on rules and procedures found in the Canadian Expropriation Act.

Indian reserve lands are currently subject to expropriation by British Columbia with the consent of the governor in council. There are at least 19 statutes where expropriation powers might be exercised in the lower mainland of British Columbia today. Any expropriation power that the first nations in B.C. may wish to exercise is not unique.

I would like to respond to specific concerns raised in debates concerning the matter of the 30 day expropriation time limit. This has been raised a number of times in debate as a threat to the security of interest holders on first nations land. It should be noted that this period is similar to the time set out in the 19 statutes to which I just referred. Under these sample statutes, the 19 B.C. statutes, the timeframe can be as little as 10 days or, in limited situations, no notice. The Railway Act statute is an example.

Consultation has again been repeatedly raised. Apparently some members of the House would like us to believe that the 14 signatory first nations to the bill do not talk to their neighbours. In fact, it has been implied that no first nations consult with their non-aboriginal neighbours. This is completely and categorically false and strongly needs to be addressed.

In direct relation to Bill C-49, the five first nations from B.C. have entered into a consultation process with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities to establish a consultation protocol with all the affected municipal governments. In fact, in British Columbia alone there are over 100 service agreements between first nations and their non-aboriginal neighbours.

I would also like to refer to a letter that was tabled by the chair of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities aboriginal affairs committee. The letter supports the discussion paper on a consultative protocol with the five B.C. first nations and touts the benefits of working in a partnership with first nations.

The letter says:

I believe that entering into preliminary dialogue with the (five B.C. first nations) on principles for reciprocal consultation as set out in the attached discussion paper at this time is what the UBCM has been working towards in consultation with first nations over the past two years and may pay back dividends in the future.

Furthermore, at a regular meeting of the district of Squamish held on February 15, 1999, the council passed the following motion:

That council support the amended draft discussion paper on reciprocal consultation between first nations governments and municipalities on land use planning and related issues.

There is another point that I would like to address. Numerous members opposite have continually raised the notion that municipalities must consult with first nations. In their discussions they cite the B.C. municipal act as setting out a mandatory consultation process which first nations would be legislated to follow.

The truth is that the so-called requirement for B.C. municipalities to consult with first nations is not a requirement at all that is imposed on the municipalities. It does not apply when the land and other developments are proposed in those municipalities.

The argument that the B.C. municipal act imposes the requirement to consult with first nations is spurious and categorically inaccurate. It is a myth. It does not exist as a requirement in the B.C. municipal act.

In fact there is no statutory requirement for municipalities in B.C. to consult with first nations with respect to land development. The municipal act provisions for consultations only arises when a regional district board proposes a development strategy. Therefore the cities of west and north Vancouver, which are not the district board, have no obligation to consult with first nations. There are no laws in the other five provinces where nine of the fourteen land management first nations are located that make any provision at all for consultation with first nations in respect of land development or servicing.

The chief of the Squamish nation has written to me and has indicated other examples of how the member for North Vancouver has misinformed the residents of British Columbia. I would like to quote from the chief's letter when he says that he would like to formally go on the record to say that the comments of the member for North Vancouver are outright fabrications and, further, that he should have to resign his position as a Reform Party representative from British Columbia.

In addition, certain members opposite would have us believe that the municipalities would automatically have to provide services to the first nations. The truth is that if the first nations want municipal services provided the two parties must negotiate those agreements.

We strongly believe that the bill and the framework agreement will pave the way for a better understanding of partnerships between the first nations and their municipalities. I think it is worth mentioning that 500 of these service agreements now exist across the country, with 100 existing in British Columbia.

Let me quote excerpts from the Snake Island Cottagers Association located in southern Ontario which represents a few hundred cottage owners, if I am not mistaken, who feel that Bill C-49 is a way for them to protect their relationship with the first nations people:

We strongly support the Chippewas Band's quest for self-government and feel that the swift passage of Bill C-49 will facilitate a new leasing arrangement between our members and the Chippewas band. SICA and the Chippewas Band have over the years developed a friendly working relationship and we look forward to dealing directly with the Band. The time for self-government is now. Please do not delay the passage of Bill C-49 any longer.

The minister spoke extensively and very well and thoroughly to the question of matrimonial property, but I will touch on it very briefly to reinforce and reiterate what she has just said.

This is a very complex issue because the provincial land laws respecting the division of matrimonial property upon marital breakdown do not apply on reserves. That is clear. Why? Reserve lands are unique because they are held by Her Majesty for the use and benefit of the band, not by or for individuals. In other words, it is communal land. Provincial laws cannot be replicated in their entirety to reserve lands.

As the House is aware, the 14 first nations that signed the agreement are anxious to spell out these rules. As the minister said, many of the signatories of those 14 bands are women chiefs, elected ostensibly by the men in their communities as well.

The bill before us and the agreement spell out that the signatories must establish a community process. It is also important to put on record that the equality section of the charter of rights and freedoms will apply, that there will be no discrimination based on sex under sections 28 and 35 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

According to the bill before us the legislation requires that first nations solicit the input of all on and off reserve members of their communities, including aboriginal women. Nothing precludes a community from addressing the issue at the beginning of the land code development process. The important point here is that the community decides.

Federal officials through our minister are now working to establish the fact finding process. Letters of invitation have been sent to the aboriginal partners to participate in a meeting where the terms of reference for the fact finding process will be discussed. The minister will make further announcements on this initiative in the near future. Finally, during the recent debates I have raised a number of comments of which the hon. member for Skeena challenged the accuracy. I would like at this time to respond to this challenge with some important facts.

First, the Musqueam tenants were indeed approach by the Musqueam Nation regarding prepaid leases. I am reading from a copy of a letter dated May 14, 1980, sent to all the tenants:

Your lease is based on fixed rental payments until June 7, 1995 with reviews of rental for the three succeeding twenty year periods and one final nine year period. For a number of reasons, we see merit in considering “conversion” to a prepaid basis for this lease.

We make it absolutely clear that participation in the prepaid rental proposal will be entirely your own choice. Having said this we have to also mentioned that the perhaps obvious fact that, unless at least half of you show positive interest, there will be no point in going ahead. If at least half of you do show positive interest in the proposal, it is our intention to retain a professional appraiser to advise us upon the present value of the right to receive the flow of income provided for in your lease. Once that is finalized, we will face the task of agreement with you a mutually satisfactory prepayment figure.

I would like to give the House the results of this offer of the Musqueam band for the sake of the member for Skeena. A total of 38 of the 76 tenants were required to respond positively for this to proceed. The response was as follows. Ten were in favour, nine were undecided and required more information and eight were opposed to a new lease agreement. The possible 19 in favour was far short of the required 38 or 50% and I would like to inform the House that approximately 40% of the tenants residing at Musqueam today were residents at the time of this letter in 1980.

These are important facts, along with the other fact that was raised as an inaccuracy about arrears. I am told by the band and through its documents that 15% of the leaseholders are still in arrears to the tune of $334,000. I say this to clear up the record because I did receive a letter from the member for Skeena addressed to me with very strong and somewhat personalized language. I feel it is my obligation to respond to that letter and to the House with the facts of the case.

I say this in concluding my comments with all due respect to the leaseholders of the Musqueam leasehold land who have had a very difficult and trying time over the past number of months. I say to them it is the wish of the first nations, it is the wish of the government and I believe the House on vote on concurrence of 171 to 35 just the other evening on this bill that we as Canadians, the House of Commons and our first nations people work together to resolve these issues in a compassionate, fair and equitable way so that our communities can live together.

This is my wish. I know is the expressed wish of the minister in her role as minister responsible for first nations people. She has advocated for that repeatedly and this is one that we support.

I think this is a good bill. It is a great opportunity to move forward in a new relationship where first nations people have the opportunity to seize control of their own lands, to do business with other first nations people or non-aboriginal people if they wish, to proceed beyond the 100 years, beyond the dark past of subjugation where first nations people were unable to leave their small plots of land on reserve in which they find themselves able to participate more broadly in Canadian society. This is what they have asked for. This is what we are trying to accomplish within the framework and broad underlying principles of this bill.

It is not to drive a wedge between Canadian people and first nations people, that we have disruptions and we become the international embarrassment that Canada is viewed in the United Nations and globally as treating unfairly its most vulnerable citizens.

This is an attempt to pull those parties together and I believe we do that in the bill. The first nations believe we do that in the bill and Canadians, as represented by the majority of members of parliament in the House of Commons who have supported it, believe that as well.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to share my time with the hon. member for Prince Albert.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Once again we will need the consent of the House. The hon. member for Skeena has requested that his 40 minute slot be split in two and shared. Is there consent?