Derrek Konrad

[Supply, April 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment or two followed by a short question. It seems like the member for Mississauga West often engages in demagogic attacks at important times when we should be discussing matters of national interest. We are not under any imminent threat of a strike by Serbians or anyone else, so there is lots of time to debate the issue.

The House has not been given the full opportunity to debate it. No opportunity for a vote was given. His own prime minister, his own leader, when the war was going on in Kuwait accused the previous prime minister of being an American stooge for not bringing the issue before the House for a vote when he supported the Americans in that.

What does he think of the situation now that his party is in the position of being the governing party of the country? Do they want to be thought of the same way, or will they allow a vote finally to take place on the issue because there is time and a real need?

[Aboriginal Affairs, April 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I received a letter from Environment Canada stating that the Muskoday Indian reserve near Prince Albert got a grant for almost $100,000 to plant trees on the reserve.

The letter states that funds are only granted to non-profit and non-government organizations. Why did the environment minister approve this grant to the reserve government in clear violation of departmental guidelines?

[Nipawin Employment Insurance Office, April 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, a valued frontline federal office in my riding is to be shut down soon.

The Nipawin employment insurance office is closing and those least able to afford it will be forced to make a two hour round trip to the next office and no one can say why.

I have spoken to many upset users, received about 200 letters of support, attended a town hall meeting on the subject and had representations from both the town council and the chamber of commerce who are all opposed to the decision to close the office.

The Reform Party is in favour of prudent fiscal management and would not support the existence of an office for show, but this office is the busiest of its kind in Saskatchewan.

As the residents of Nipawin and district fill out their income tax forms this spring, they will see first hand that they are paying a lot more and getting a lot less from this Liberal government.

The message from my riding is this: Reduced services combined with high taxes are not acceptable.

[Division No. 359, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Chairman, the President of the Treasury Board earlier said it was a glitch that allowed prison guards to strike. My understanding was an administrative error by this department.

Since PSAC does not seem to have been doing too good a job representing correctional service workers according to newspapers, they have been organized under a more militant union.

It appears to me that the government is using grain transportation and tax returns as a cynical cover to play one group against another and it is really the correctional service that is the point of this legislation.

If that is really the minister's intention would he have introduced this legislation if it were only about shipping prairie grain?

[Questions Passed As Orders For Returns, March 22nd, 1999]

Could the government provide a list of the complaints/challenges the Department has received on band elections held between 1996 and the present, including: (a) the name of the band involved; (b) details of the complaint; (c) the date of the initial election; (d) the date the complaint/challenge was made; and (e) the status of the complaint within the Department (i.e. what action the department has taken)?

Return tabled.

Question No. 183—

[First Nations Land Management Act, March 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-49, the First Nation Land Management Act.

Originally the kings of Britain owned and taxed everything. The nobles got fed up with that and forced the king to back off on what he had previously owned. He had been able to tax and to decide who could use land, when and how. The nobles forced some changes. After the nobles finally had their say for a number of years, the commoners stepped in and had their say.

We do not yet have full ownership of land. We have something called an estate in land and the estate most Canadians have is an estate in fee simple. Fee common is not as common as one might think. It has finally come to the stage where Canada's Indians will perhaps get a stab at having an interest in land which the government does not control.

The evolution of ownership has been accompanied by armies of lawyers and consultants who have taken fees for their opinions. If we follow it all the way through, we get to Bill C-49 which purports to allow first nations to manage their lands.

Anybody watching the debate is aware that the official opposition has some very grave concerns about Bill C-49. It is not only our concerns. These concerns have been raised by a number of people.

Petitions have been filed. People have called talk shows and written letters to editors. Personal representations have been made to members of parliament, particularly from the west coast. Now they are coming in from the east coast where people are concerned about what Bill C-49 will do, what powers band councils will have and what will be the limits of their powers.

While the B.C. Liberal member for Vancouver Quadra has not spoken in the House in opposition to the bill, he has expressed opposition as reported in the Vancouver Sun on March 3. The article indicated that he “voted with the government Monday but said he is working behind the scenes to ensure there is a thorough Senate committee study, including public hearings and possible amendments”. It went on to indicate:

“No, I don't” support the bill, the MP for Vancouver Quadra said on Tuesday.

“Some concerns that had been felt by B.C. MPs on the fast track procedure are being resolved by what's emerging as an understanding that the Senate will study and hold public hearings and will possibly consider amendments and changes for the House.

“The details will be worked out in the next few days”.

It further indicated that the member said:

—the bill, along with media coverage of a 7,000% rent increase imposed on non-natives living in Musqueam Park in Vancouver, is fuelling more public concern over broader and more crucial native issues such as the $490 million Nisga'a treaty.

That treaty is also under attack because it is perceived to be granting far more power and lack of accountability.

The member for Vancouver Quadra has stated that Bill C-49 was poorly drafted. He supported concerns expressed by others who said that expropriation rights for Indian bands were excessive. There is a lack of protection for native women who often use their right to marital property after divorce and the omission of any mechanism requiring consultation with surrounding municipalities on development matters. He said “The public's concern is correctly focused on it”.

Another government member plans to vote against Bill C-49. He said the bill was excessive and criticized the government for imposing closure to limit debate in the House of Commons. He accused the minister of intentionally trying to avoid public consultation on land claims and self-government matters across Canada. He stated that their position was to keep the dummies in the dark.

When government members raise those kinds of concerns, the government should be listening. It is not just us.

Today I asked a question about the government shutting down debate on Bill C-49. I am going to quote what a respected academic elder at the Saskatchewan Indian Federated College said, “The problem with entrusting band councils to help develop divorce laws is that traditional customs are vague”.

The government has refused to deal with an issue that is going to create a mosaic of rights across Canada as bands write their own laws in respect to divorce. Does it seem fair when a woman from one reserve marries a man from another reserve and finds out that she has a different set of rights than she was born with? This is Canada, one country. Surely this country will respect equality at least between men and women. This is not too much to expect at all.

I would like to speak for a moment on the expropriation provisions in this bill. Clause 28 of the bill, a very short section, talks about expropriation which allows a band to write its own expropriate act. Subclause 5 states:

A first nation shall pay fair compensation to the holder of an expropriated interest and, in determining that compensation, the first nation shall take into account the rules set out in the Expropriation Act.

Taking into account is not the same as being bound by. I am not a lawyer and do not claim to understand all the legalese, but I am sure that we are going to see judges beginning the process, after this bill is passed, if it is passed unamended here or by the Senate, of determining what it would mean to take into account the provisions of the Expropriation Act which is a federal act. The federal act lays out in very clear stages what the mechanisms and timelines are for recourse with respect to dispute resolution at arbitration in the event there is a conflict over expropriation.

As I said earlier on in the debate, getting control over land is a process that has taken centuries. It has gone from the kings to the nobles to the commoners and it is finally getting down to the Indian bands. However, let us not leave out the people who are affected by it. It is not always the leaders. It is the people who are governed by the leaders. We want to ensure that they are not unfairly left out.

The expropriation does not necessarily have to be natives over non-natives. It can be natives over natives. Whoever owns an interest can have that interest ended by expropriation.

A municipal expropriation act will talk about the compensation proposed. It might talk about the description of the land, what is the extent of the land required, the reasons for doing it and those types of things. If people do not agree, they have recourse. Provincial legislation sets up all of the conciliation and arbitration boards to determine how compensation is paid. It is always in the interest of a municipality to have a mechanism to obtain land for public purposes but the owner of the interest has to be protected. We certainly do not want the courts to be involved early on in every dispute.

I am sure that introducing a simple motion calling for the clauses in the federal Expropriation Act to be binding is not too much. We want to see development on Indian land, but if people are concerned that they may not have their interests safely held, we will not find people investing. One thing investors look for is certainty of profit and certainty of a continuing profit and that it will not end. If people own a home they want to ensure that they hold it now and in the future. They do not want it taken away without proper compensation.

The bill is deficient in that way. It is in the interest of the signatory bands to put those amendments in place. It is not in our interest. It does not matter to me. I do not live on band land. I have a home that is held in fee simple in the town of Nipawin. Consequently, I have nothing to gain in this but the bands have something to gain and those who hold interest in the land have something to gain.

Perhaps I do have something to gain. When the Reform Party forms the next government, I do not want to be back here having to deal with Bill C-49. I want to be able to move on to new legislation the government will have on its agenda at that time.

Those are all good reasons that we should not rush ahead on this bill. It is the government's role to write legislation and to get it right the first time. If the government does not do this, it has to be willing to make the necessary amendments.

It is not our role to write the legislation but to ensure it goes through the House in correct form. It is our role to make it perfectly clear to the public that a bill is deficient and that the government will have to do something about it. That is what we are doing. I hate to think we are going to send a bill that originated here to the Senate of all places asking that it make the amendments we refused to make. That is a ridiculous thing to expect.

What can we say about the matrimonial home? The children live in the home, the mother lives in the home, the father should be staying in the home. We want to see the family as a unit but realistically, families break down. The B.C. Native Women's Society has raised a concern as have native women across Canada and the national native women's organizations. Why has that not rung a bell with the government? Why is the minister simply saying that they are consulting? Why not get the consultation done first and then come to the House with a bill that is complete in its current form?

I read earlier about Mr. Cuthand, a respected elder who was a priest in the Anglican church. Why are the concerns of men like him not listened to? The government has rushed ahead and allowed this to go on the back burner for who knows how long. There will surely be court cases, payouts and domestic tragedies because the government has refused to accept that it has a responsibility not only to chiefs and councils but to the people they govern as well.

Let us talk about the issue of ratepayers on reserves which I do not believe has been raised today. They have no vote. Prior to the American revolution some protesters dressed up as Indians and threw a load of tea overboard from a ship docked in Boston harbour. Why? Because they did not want to be taxed without representation. What we have here is taxation without representation. Many cottage owners have raised the concern that they are going to be taxed but they are not going to be represented. Does the government consider this fair?

Indians have been kept down in the past but overwaiting is not any better. It still creates conflict and hardship. It is a major concern to everyone.

The lack of public knowledge about this bill is coming to light. There is a newspaper article that talks about women from the Saint Mary's reserve near Fredericton. A woman in the article is demanding equality, an honest and responsible government, and she is against the mismanagement of funds. She is concerned about Bill C-49. She says that it will give up control over management of reserve land.

I do not think that every reserve has a government that is irresponsible and unresponsive, but they are there. Certainly we want people to have the power to hold the members of the council to account. We do not see that with Bill C-49 going through in its current form.

I am asking the government to vote in favour of the amendment my colleague from Skeena put forward today. Send the bill back to committee to address these valid concerns and then bring the bill back to the House, not so that anybody's rights are diminished, not that what they intend is diminished, but that the bill be made sufficient and not be passed in this deficient form.

We heard convincing arguments earlier that there existed a high level of support for the bill by members of the reserves and all the communities surrounding them, but in January events overtook that testimony. Concerns were expressed, as I said before, in letters to the editor, talk shows and letters to MPs, all of these things. Municipal councils raised concerns. Constituents raised their concerns. They all stated that they had concerns with Bill C-49 in its current form. Consequently we are required as members of parliament to bring these concerns to parliament.

Aboriginal women and children living on reserves do not enjoy the protection of property division laws that are available to every other Canadian woman. There is no protection whatsoever regarding the use, occupation and possession of land when a marriage breaks down with each band devising its own land code.

A band of 200 people here, a band of 200 members over there, a band of 1,000 people over here, what kind of legislation will result from individual bands as different pressure groups push to have their interests represented? Why not do it here in our national parliament where all sides of the debate from all reserves can be heard. We can come up with a fair and equitable law allowing for the division of the matrimonial home and other property. It just is not right to do it the way it is being done.

We know that the band councils probably wish the best, but do they know what is best? Do they know the laws? Do they have access to the expertise to write these codes? Do they have the expertise to write property division acts? Do they have the expertise on expropriation?

We are not talking about Bill C-49, which has been developed by the Government of Canada. We are going back to the individual reserves, many of which are already under stress where their finances are concerned. They are being asked to put more money into developing parts of a land code that could be adopted right here in the House of Commons. They could simply apply it. Judges could take it and understand it. Then one judgment where there was possible alternative application would be binding rather than having every band's land code subject to judicial interpretation. It just does not make any sense.

I will end with a clear call to the government to reconsider forcing this legislation through. It is denying the legitimate expressed concerns of band members, municipalities and other interested persons. Not only have they said it to the official opposition, but we know they have expressed these concerns to the government as well. They want us to get the bill right in the House the first time so that we do not see all kinds of amendments going through at the Senate study of the bill. We know it is going to come back for amendment.

[Aboriginal Affairs, March 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today the government shuts down debate on Bill C-49. The government has refused to address the issue of the disposition of family homes in divorce, choosing to instead to leave it up to individual bands to create laws.

Mr. Stanley Cuthand, an academic elder at the Saskatchewan Indian Federated College, has stated that the problem with entrusting band councils to develop divorce laws is that traditional customs are vague.

Does the minister think that this statement by a respected elder has merit? If so, why is she ramming the legislation through so quickly?

[Division No. 324, March 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to see if I can get some answers to a couple of questions I asked on October 26.

I called on the government to initiate a forensic audit into the finances of the Hobbema reserve in Alberta which has been requested by rank and file members. The conditions those people live in were reported in the

Globe and Mail

. About 80% of the people on that reserve are living on welfare. Children are sleeping on mattresses in the basement of burned out houses. How does their leadership live?

I will quote a couple of instances. In the Saulteaux band in Saskatchewan the chief's salary and benefits for 1997 were some $200,000 tax free. He had a brother who was a band councillor and pulled out a salary of $149,000. We would think that this would be the head of a very large city.

The mayor of Prince Albert probably makes a quarter of that amount of money to manage 35,000 people. There are 1,050 people living on that reserve and they have an accumulated deficit of $1.8 million. I could go on to talk about the Stoney band and the Samson Cree band and others. That is the financial picture of the leaders of those bands and the Hobbema band is no different.

Living conditions on reserves have been historically unacceptable. We agree with that. If nothing changes, living conditions will continue to be unacceptable. In addition to the living conditions that are terrible, the so-called democracy is terrible. It does not exist.

Last year I travelled to four or five different meetings where I listened to rank and file members of different reserves talking about the democratic and living conditions on reserves. What has our government's approach been? It has transferred power to the local band councils without ensuring that local accountability measures are in place to safeguard the interest of grassroots band members. Historically Ottawa has intervened to protect its own interests but who has intervened to protect the rank and file band members?

Band members exercise their authority with little input, direction or support from Ottawa, so what did we ask for? We asked on behalf of band members that the government would conduct a forensic audit, not simply that it would do some different accounting but that it would find out if money was being well spent or poorly spent. That is one of the purposes of a forensic audit. You can find out if all the cheques add up but so what? That does not tell you how the money was spent and that is what we want to know. When we look at the kinds of salaries paid out to the leadership we think there could be a lot of money left over for houses if it were not so much.

These people are making serious charges. I think the money is there. The children are suffering. The need is urgent. My question concerns why the minister will not initiate the forensic audits that the people she is responsible for are calling for.

[First Nations Land Management Act, March 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it seems like the Liberals do not want to hear it out in the field and they do not want to hear it in the House so we have closure everywhere on Bill C-49.

The member for Saint-Jean, our colleague, has shown more concern and more initiative in looking after the needs and concerns of native women than all members opposite. It puts the government to shame.

Members opposite have said that the current climate easily divides the assets of a family breaking up on a reserve. That is just great, except that the assets do not include the family home. I ask which is more important: a car, a few pieces of furniture, or a home where people can live and where children can be raised. That is entirely important.

We took a long second look at the legislation and saw that we would have a patchwork of rights. There will be no legal standard applied from reserve to reserve. That might be okay if there were no movement from reserve to reserve. I have talked to native women who have grown up on one reserve, married someone from another reserve and found out that they did not have the rights they thought they would have as married women. We do not think that is right.

We see the results of family breakdown in cities across the country. My own offices are in the downtown cores of two of the major towns in my constituency, right across from a bar in one case, and I see what homelessness does to people. The need is really extreme. People need to have a home. This legislation could be improved. Nobody would lose by adopting an amendment like this one. The Reform Party will be supporting the amendments. They will do the work for the bands that needs to be done.

The parliamentary secretary has indicated that the minister is willing to work on this problem. That is good, but for a year or two or three nothing will be done. If the legislation was 10 years in the works, how long will it be before we get legislation from the minister? In the meantime we have this patchwork legislation. Provincial laws cannot be adopted by the bands, but if they were made into federal laws that could be done.

They talk about the values of a community as if the values of a community were paramount, over and above the need of children to have hope. What are the values of a community that does not involve children? We cannot talk about one without the other.

They talk about discrimination on the basis of sex, that it does not happen. They should not talk to me about that. How many native women have I had in my office who have talked about losing their rights because they married outside the band? That has been partially given back, not fully. Land is given to the bands in their name and they are not even living on the reserve. Or, if they want the benefits, they have to move to some remote reserve. Is that equality? Give us all a break.

I want to raise another issue. We can talk about giving them freedom, which is good, but let me point out that government members interfere all the time in the affairs of the provinces as has been recently brought out. They defer to individual bands of 200 or 300 people or 1,000 people because they cannot be a threat to the authority of the Liberal government, but when it comes to the provinces there can be interference with all kinds of different rulings. They have to make sure the authority of the Liberal government is paramount when it comes to the provinces.

I would like to read something said by the Prime Minister when he was minister of aboriginal affairs in 1969. He indicated that Indian relations with other Canadian peoples began as special treatment by government and society and special treatment had been the rule since Europeans first settled in Canada. He said that special treatment had made of the Indians a community disadvantaged and apart and that obviously the course of history must be changed.

Further he stated that the Government of Canada believed its policies must lead to full, free and non-discriminatory participation of Indian people in Canadian society. Such a goal, he indicated, required a break with the past and that the Indian people's role as dependants be replaced by a role of equal status, opportunity and responsibility, a role they could share with all other Canadians.

With these few amendments we are looking for some equality and responsibility, the responsibility to consult and equality in the breakup of a marriage. These are good things. These are not bad or difficult things. They should be accepted by people of good will.

I would also quote an elder from the Saskatchewan Indian Federated College talking about the problem of entrusting band councils to develop divorce laws. He said that the problem with entrusting band councils to develop divorce laws was that traditional customs were vague.

If the customs are vague and it is acknowledged by one of their leaders in the federated college, why in the world is it not seen as problematic by the federal Liberal Party? It should allow the new amendments to go through which will protect and enhance not only the bill but people which the bill purports to benefit.

[Division No. 319, March 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking to the report stage of Bill C-49. The vote just taken shows that the opposition is united in opposing this frequent abuse of democracy in invoking time allocation. I think this is the 48th time this has been done since the Liberals came to power. This bill is certainly far too important to succumb to that type of action.

For many years big power has been wielded by Ottawa with respect to first nations, with a little power being wielded by the band leadership and no power at all devolving to the rank and file natives.

With the passage of this bill we see Ottawa's power being devolved somewhat, the bands have increased some power and it turns out that rank and file natives still do not have any power. This parliament also seems powerless to do anything about this.

Bill C-49 purports to devolve municipal type powers to bands and it does allow some local decision making. It removes judicial protection from bands. People pursuing legal revenues will at least have to fight the band and not Ottawa. These are some positive things that we have seen in this legislation.

However, when we were in committee we heard concerns from lessees and women's groups who were concerned about their rights under this legislation. We did hear that the minister had launched a fact finding process into property disposition on reserve when marriages break down, and we welcome that initiative. We urge the minister to make this a priority, make the results public and to act on any recommendations that may arise from this initiative. We want to see involvement by national and provincial native women's groups in the consulting process.

The Bloc Quebecois has independently introduced an amendment which will be the next amendment discussed under this fast track process that has just been initiated.

We have had a major concern addressed during committee stage hearings. The proposed legislation may fall under section 35 of the Constitution and we are grateful that the act now contains a proviso that it will not qualify as a land claim.

We noted this deficiency. We proposed the amendment and it is now included in the bill. Support for the amendment was sought and obtained and it is now included. This required the support of the chiefs, their advisers and all party support in committee. We appreciate the fact that there was no opposition to it. It was hard for those people to support the amendment and credit is due to those who worked to bring it about.

I had a discussion with the chief of the Muskoday reserve which is in my riding near the city of Prince Albert. I would like to point out that 101 women on the reserve signed a letter which would not qualify as a petition in this House but I indicated I would speak about it while I am speaking to Bill C-49.

The letter's main features are that the women want this House to know that B.C. native women do not speak for them regardless of the merit of their case. They are not in favour of the attempted injunction by that group. They are in support of Bill C-49 and feel that matrimonial lands and property questions were addressed in their land code. I would say this has more to do with the good relations that exist on that reserve than any benefits contained in the land code itself. The women of the reserve and the council seem to have a good accord with one another.

Unfortunately this is not always the case on every reserve and the Bloc amendment is set to address that concern. The Reform Party will continue to be the voice of those who have no voice in Ottawa.

Since those goods times of committee, events have overtaken the bill. The Muskoday reserve situation in B.C. has raised serious concern over the lack of consultation on reserves and communities and with those who reside in them. The municipalities in the Vancouver area are concerned there is no formal consultation clause in the bill. That means development can take place without adequate consultation.

Prior to becoming a member of parliament, I was a Saskatchewan land surveyor and as a land surveyor I know the importance of well defined property lines in never mind ameliorating a dispute but avoiding disputes. This bill does not define the limits between municipalities surrounding a reserve and the reserves themselves. What will happen, and we are quite positive of this, is this will lead to no end of difficulties between reserves and the surrounding municipalities.

When one looks at the Musqueam situation it would never have arisen had it been a requirement to consult on a regular basis instead of everybody encamping and holding firm to the fortress of their position without ever hearing what the other side's concerns were. I believe that had that been put in place at the time the agreements and leases were signed, we would not see the difficulties we see today.

We look at what the government is up against in having forced this legislation through. Two hundred and thirty people signed a petition from the Squamish band alone. They are opposed to the legislation. Why did the government impose time allocation knowing about the 230 people from just one reserve that requires really only 12.5% of the members of the reserve to approve a land code? A federal court case has been filed by the B.C. native women's society demanding amendments.

While I appreciate that the minister will be looking into it, what will happen when the court case proceeds and if the government is found wanting? There have been warnings from B.C. mayors that the bill could create planning chaos. Anyone who knows anything about the planning process knows that one tries to get wide consultation and agreement on plans prior to their implementation. There are sewers, water, roads, telephones, power lines, gas lines and all kinds of infrastructure that will not be prepared or that will be ill placed as a result of development that does not proceed hand in hand with wide open consultation.

To say that the goodwill of people is all that is required is somewhat naive. Everywhere we go there is legislation to govern relations between people. This bill has not provided that. We can see that in the type of opposition that is coming from it, real estate agents from Vancouver and area, non-native residents on reserve. The legislation makes homes owned by non-natives on Indian lands unmarketable. They cannot get rid of them. Why? There was no agreement which allowed prices to rise with the market and all of a sudden they have a huge adjustment and no one can move on it.

The government says there is no interest on the part of Reform in any constructive change to the legislation at this point. I beg to disagree. The amendment we are proposing calls on the government to consult and the bands to consult even prior to developing with an ongoing consultation which has to occur so that we can know what the limits of development are. It is a very important amendment. It is not one that was lightly put forward by the opposition. We take it very seriously and we will continue to bring these points forth as the bill proceeds.