Debates of Feb. 1st, 1999

First Nations Land Management Act

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is definitely not a pleasure to be addressing the bill tonight. Bills such as this one are not about self-government. They are about special rights for special people. They are about different strokes for different folks. They are about rules for one set of people without any consideration for another group of people.

Last September the auditor general in a section of his report to parliament dealt with the ongoing treaty process in the country. He noted that non-native neighbours were ignored. He said:

Settled claims can affect non-parties to the settlement—we found indications that little opportunity had been provided for their input on decisions on the allocation of land and other provisions in settlement agreements.

He also stated in his report that government must represent all Canadians and said:

In pursuing its objective, the government needs to fairly represent all Canadians, who are ultimately bound by the agreements reached.... Comprehensive land claim settlements are modern treaties that are significant not only to Aboriginal communities but to all Canadians.

The auditor general observed that the government must represent all Canadians in the treaty making process. By extension it is fair to say that the same should apply to the bill that is before us. The government must recognize that the bill is not made simply for the people it purports to cover. It will also impact on the neighbours of those people. That is one part which bothers me.

Another aspect bothers me which I want to mention right off the top. It puts the whole issue into perspective. It is a story in the fishing industry which occurred within the past year. Last spring after the herring fishery two constituents of mine were returning home to Delta. They were approached on the ferry by an aboriginal Canadian who said “I heard you talking and I believe you guys are commercial fishermen”. They said yes, that they were. He said he used to be an a licence salmon fisherman. In other words he had a licence that allowed him to fish in the all-Canadian commercial fishery but when the government introduced a separate native commercial fishery they let their licences go and now they were fishing in the Musqueam fishery and were not happy with that.

He sat down to talk with these fellows and explain his unhappiness. He said that he had a licence which he held at the discretion of the chief. The way it worked was as long as he was getting along well with the chief he could fish but if they had a falling out he would be off the list.

When he held the commercial salmon licence given to him by the minister he held it with some certainty. There was comfort in knowing it could only be taken away from him if he broke the law. The way it is now he held his licence at the discretion of the chief. If he were dating the chief's daughter and they had a falling out, he would be off the list and would not fish.

He does not like that situation. There are a number of them on the Musqueam reserve who want to see an end to the separate native commercial fishery. We engaged them in negotiations. We negotiated with members of the Musqueam band and the Tsawwassen band to see if there was a way we could level the playing field and bring it back to what it was prior to 1992. The native people were eager participants in this discussion.

We met on the Tsawwassen reserve in a meeting room with a group of non-aboriginal and aboriginal fishermen to discuss the issue. We devised a way, knowing what government revenues were available, whereby we would have asked the government to put aside $12 million to buy licences for native people so they could re-enter the all-Canadian fishery. They were happy to fish on an equal footing again with the rest of us.

The negotiations went well. Unfortunately when it went back to the Musqueam band, the people we call the double dippers, the native people who still held commercial licences to fish in the all-Canadian fishery and who were participating in the native only commercial fishery, put the kibosh to it and it ended.

That was unfortunate but it showed that although people in that community had received a special right, one for which they did not have to pay and where there was no licence fee involved for them to participate in that native only commercial fishery, they wanted out of it. Somehow a sense of fairness was lost. They felt their rights were not being protected. When we get right down to it, that is what it is all about.

I could go through the details and could talk about the expropriation principles as others have. Maybe I will come back to them. However, another point is worth mentioning tonight in this debate. It has to do with the rights of native people. My friend across the way mentioned the Nisga'a treaty. He said that all the Reform guys wanted to do was talk about it, that they were uptight about the Nisga'a treaty, and that they wanted to create uncertainty or discontent in these kinds of issues because they wanted to push their position on the Nisga'a treaty.

I will talk about that treaty in the sense of fairness and how the rights of people are protected in these circumstances. My colleagues talked about the fact that if the bill were passed native women could lose their property rights. If the bill goes through, their chances of appealing it through the court system would not be very great.

For example, in relation to the Nisga'a treaty both the federal and provincial governments have stated time and again that the charter of rights and freedoms will continue to apply. Our view is that in a legal challenge that may not be the case. It will apply in the case of Bill C-49 in terms of the rights we are talking about here.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms defined in it, subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. There is a limit on our rights under the charter, but it is simply those rights that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. If we look at how the charter deals with the rights section for native people, it comes at it a little differently.

It states:

The guarantee of this charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal people of Canada including—any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.

There is a constraint already built into the rights and freedoms that these people enjoy and that constraint is built into the charter.

How is that interpreted by the provincial government? I want to read one quick paragraph from the factum of the attorney general of British Columbia in the Delgamuukw case:

Most aboriginal rights, including the aboriginal title, are in the nature of a shield that can be invoked by the aboriginal community or its members against unjustified infringement by provincial or federal laws; however what really distinguishes the right of self-government is that it can be invoked as a “sword” by an aboriginal community or one of its members to enforce compliance by the members with an aboriginal custom, practice or tradition relating to their internal affairs.

Therein is the limitation on property rights for women in this bill. I think this bill should be rejected on that basis alone.

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are at the report stage of Bill C-49. Our significant amendment reads as follows:

That Bill C-49, in Clause 45, be amended by replacing line 16 on page 22 with the following:

“so signed, that a land code has been developed and adopted in accordance with this Act and that the governing bodies of neighbouring jurisdictions have confirmed in writing that consultations respecting the land code have been completed in accordance with the laws of the province in which the first nation land, for which the land code has been adopted, is situated”.

That is very important. It has to do with consultation and accountability.

We can say that the bill is well intended but is has holes in it big enough to drive a truck through.

The bill ratifies and brings into effect the framework agreement of first nation land management concluded between first nations and Her Majesty in Right of Canada. It provides for the establishment of an alternative land management regime that gives first nation communities control over the lands and resources within their reserves. It also gives first nations the power to enact laws respecting interest in and licences in relation to first nation land respecting the development, conservation, protection, management, use and possession of that land.

The enactment also provides for a community approval process that enables first nation members to vote on a proposed land code and an individual agreement between the first nation and Her Majesty. The community approval process is monitored by a verifier jointly appointed by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the first nation.

I will not speak to the whole bill, but at first blush when one looks at the bill, it gives any reasonable person great concern. If a band or council decides to be malevolent, I think there are insufficient controls and balances to the powers given. In some of the sections there are limits to the federal government but not parallel limits to the bands. There does not appear to be a balance of power between the federal government in the bill and the bands in the bill.

Significantly, there is a problem with section 12 and I will refer to it. In section 12(1) on page 7 of the bill it states:

A proposed land code and an individual agreement that have been submitted for community approval are approved if

(a) a majority of eligible voters participated in the vote and a majority of those voters voted to approve them;

(b) all those eligible who signified, in a manner determined by the first nation, their intention to vote have been registered and a majority of the registered voters voted to approve them; or

(c) they are approved by the community in any other manner agreed on by the first nation and the minister.

Let us describe a typical situation in many bands. We have 100 eligible voter adults and of course the band has total control to decide who is eligible.

In that case 51 votes are needed for the overall vote to be valid and only 26 votes are needed to pass the code. This could then certainly be reasonably within the realm of all the relatives and kin of one family that happens to hold most of the paid positions in the band administration.

Under the theme of accountability I am talking about, the bill talks about a vote and the supervision of the vote but nowhere are there assurances that the votes will be conducted by secret ballot, nor does it refer to a standard set of rules for how votes can be conducted. There are just general rules in the bill that appear completely open to manipulation.

Then the bill grants statutes or status of freedom from judicial review and grants immunity from prosecution in section 35 for error. There are limits on liability and provisions of immunity and freedom from judicial review.

When regular municipalities in a province are in conflict with each other, the provincial government can intervene. In British Columbia, municipalities are governed under the municipal act. It is a creature of the province. The provincial authority is the fallback power.

Who mediates the powers of the band and other regular municipalities in a province? It is not very clear. There is no obligation in this bill to talk, let alone co-operate for mutual benefit between these jurisdictions.

The general intent of the bill is appropriate. It is trying to go in the right direction but the details are an absolute mess. There are reasons why there is cause to worry, for the best predictor of future trustworthiness of how these bands will use these newfound powers is the past. They likely will be used in the same manner as has been in the past on reserves across the country. The track record of band management so far tells us how it will be managed in the future. That is a worry.

In contrast, clear and fair rules and open accountable processes are the best protector of human rights. What we have been trying to stand up to here are especially the rights of status Canadians under the Indian Act. Those are the ones who have been contacting us and they are the individuals for whom we have been trying to stand up.

In conclusion, this bill appears to completely fail on those very important basics.

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of Nanaimo—Alberni it gives me great pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-49.

My riding is on central Vancouver Island and has a number of native bands scattered throughout the whole riding. The Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council, which is in Alberni, is basically the overseer of 14 bands that go from Bamfield into around Gold River, including the Opitsat, the Ahousat, the Dididat, the Theshat and other bands, including those on other areas on the east coast of Vancouver Island than Nanoose.

I point that out simply to say there are many issues, many different bands in B.C. I was quite surprised to hear the government, particularly when it came to talking about the Nisga'a treaty, saying that we did not understand the issue, that we did not understand what was going on.

I was in the Alberni valley two weeks ago at a town hall. I was very pleased that the native leaders were there to discuss that Nisga'a treaty. It was actually an excellent forum because they were there to debate their point regarding what they felt the Nisga'a treaty was. I was there to debate what I got from the different points of view.

There were many people in the audience who were most interested. The Nisga'a treaty I suggest took up probably 40% of that town hall meeting in the questions and answers. It is not an insignificant issue in B.C. It is before the provincial legislature at the moment and has great concern up and down the coast of British Columbia. People realize this is the first of perhaps 45 or 50 different settlements. If this one is not accurate and correct, then the ones subsequent and down the line also will have the same flaws.

Bill C-49 has some of those flaws. The issues are similar. Bill C-49 lacks accountability or clarification on what accountability means. Who is to be accountable? How are the band councils going to be elected? How are the band councils going to represent the individual people within their constituency?

Like many of my colleagues I have had representation from different native bands, in particular women. They feel frustrated because they do not feel represented. They cannot go to the band. They feel the band does not represent them. They come in frustration in many cases to their member of parliament because that is the only vehicle they feel they can speak freely with that will not be used against them in another forum.

In Bill C-49 one of the issues that has come forward is leases. I was most surprised to hear one of the members opposite say who is going to take their house away? It is all fearmongering on this side of the House. If he had been in B.C. over the last six weeks he would have seen the newspaper reports on the Musqueam Band because that is the issue on the leases being taken away.

That is one of the key issues in this bill that needs to be brought forward to this House and sorted out. Clearly it is a huge issue in B.C. with the Musqueam, the Nisga'a. The issues are very much in the forefront in British Columbia at the moment.

There are other areas in this bill, as my colleagues have mentioned, such as consultation with adjacent municipalities. I have been on the school board. Many members have been aldermen or mayors dealing in municipal areas.

Where do the bands report to? Are they answerable to the municipal act, for example, in B.C.? Are they answerable to the department of Indian affairs? What is the hammer? Where is the next level people can go to? That is not explained in the bill.

I touched on expropriation. In the town halls I heard from many people within the Nisga'a area. The concern was non-natives. They have no recourse. If we are in a municipal arena, and I have been there where I have had land expropriated, there is a vehicle to have that done fairly. If it is not seen to be fair it would go to the next level. That is not covered in this legislation.

All of us recognize if the highest need for an area is a highway to go through one's land, that may be the best way to go but there has to be compensation. That is not spelled out in this legislation.

There have to be checks and balances. This legislation does not have them. We need to know how the power is to be used. Again, that is not spelled out.

The Reform Party has supported native legislation in this House on many occasions. We will support and have shown that we will support good legislation. However, this is not good legislation. We cannot and will not support bad legislation. We will not and cannot support Bill C-49 in its present form.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of my constituents of Okanagan—Coquihalla to speak to the amendments before us today in Group No. 1 of Bill C-49, the first nations land management act.

As I have been listening this evening I can tell that we in this country have a lot of work to do when it comes to these issues. I listened to Liberal members across the way making allegations about the Reform Party which are without substance, without foundation.

I can tell members that in my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla I work diligently with native bands. I have intervened with the minister on several occasions. I have tried to assist when it comes to economic development and when it comes to situations regarding airport land transfers to our municipality. I have worked with our native band in Penticton and I have worked on developing our native university, which will be breaking ground hopefully in the spring.

Therefore I take a great deal of exception to the comments and remarks made by members across the way when in fact all we are trying to do in the official opposition is put forward some amendments that will make a piece of legislation better for all Canadians.

It is important to note that the Reform Party does support native self-government. The Reform Party supports a delegated level of self-government for natives. That is very important because what we see in this bill is self-government that is totally under the control of the bands in question.

A couple of months ago I introduced a bill in this House of Commons which arose from a problem on native land. What I was trying to do was help my constituents by dealing with the issue that the Residential Tenancy Act does not apply to native land.

In this particular situation, which I brought forward to the House in the form of a bill, septic systems had failed and left some 50 residents being evicted from their homes with no protection whatsoever from the Residential Tenancy Act in the province of B.C.

That bill did not pass because many parties in this House again raised the question and said that this was somehow racially motivated, that I was being insensitive to the cultural needs of the economic development of Indian bands. That was not the case at all. My bill was absolutely colour blind. This bill should also be 100% colour blind. But it is not. It is not because it is granting special status to a group of Canadians.

I will give members another example. In the Westbank Indian band there are 514 natives. There are 7,000 non-natives living on that band's land. What happens to those people's rights? Why are those people's rights not considered in this piece of legislation? Why is that not the case?

Last week I met with the residents of Bayview, a strata-type development on Westbank land consisting of some 200 homes. These people thought they were leasing land from the crown. No one ever told them about Bill C-49. No one ever told them that the life savings they put into their $200,000 or $300,000 homes was not what is facing us today with the implications in Bill C-49. That was never explained to those people. Now they have a situation where some of the retaining walls are crumbing. They are falling down because building codes were not followed. That is leaving those residents with a $600,000 liability because building codes were not followed on this piece of land.

This is not the only case in the province of B.C. Several times tonight we have heard the situation in which the Musqueam have found themselves. The property values of those homes, which were $400,000 to $800,000, have plummeted to nothing. This piece of legislation is not going to help those people.

We believe in a delegated type of self-government that would be controlled federally.

It was mentioned here this evening, and I mentioned it as well, that the Condominium Act of British Columbia does not apply to the people at Bayview and Westbank, nor does the Municipal Act and the Residential Tenancy Act. There is no protection for those people whatsoever. Bill C-49 does not do anything to protect those folks. What do we tell them? Do they not deserve to have the protection of their federal government as well?

I think they do. That is why we have brought forward these amendments to this bill. It is not because of the ridiculous argument that we do not believe in self-government. We do.

I want to see treaties in the province of British Columbia. I want to end the uncertainty that is caused by not having treaties. I want each and every person, regardless of whether they are native or non-native, whether they live on reserve land or on non-reserve land, to have access to the laws equally, with every right and every power that they have at their disposal. We cannot grant these leases, especially with situations like Westbank and those that are happening throughout the province of B.C., and not ensure that that will happen.

The official opposition desires a better relationship with the Indian peoples of Canada. We want to see that all people have the same powers and rights and that everyone is respected.

In particular, I cannot stand here and say that I will vote for this bill because this bill is not colour blind. It gives special powers to a designated group of people and that is wrong. Until we learn that, we will never get this type of legislation right. I urge the Liberals to pass our amendments because they are the only things that will improve this bill.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise, despite the late hour, to address report stage of Bill C-49.

At the outset I would say that this is an important piece of legislation on which to have a full and open and debate in the House this evening.

I find it a bit remarkable that so few government members present this evening, at almost 11 p.m., here in beautiful downtown Ottawa, are rising in their places to debate this legislation. It is quite the contrary. What we have constantly heard this evening is heckling from the other side and remarks that we do not know what we are talking about with respect to this legislation. They are the only ones who seem to have a firm grasp on reality, so to speak, or that is what they would lead the people to believe with respect to this particular legislation. But nothing could be further from the truth.

I think the viewing audience at home is rapidly seeing that it is only the people on this side of the House who want to actually debate the legislation. If we could turn up the microphones, I am sure the people at home would hear the rabble over there babbling on rather than rising in their places to actually take part in the debate. I think it is quite appalling for members of parliament to act in such a manner.

I crossed the floor a bit earlier to consult face to face with a few members. I actually encouraged them to take part in the debate, but obviously to no avail.

What is it that the Reform Party, the official opposition, is actually asking for here?

Is it really something so dramatic that we could not actually see Bill C-49 improved with a few amendments? A number of my colleagues have pointed that out. What is it about the Liberal government that it brings forward legislation but does not want to see it changed at all or does not want to see it improved? What is it about these individuals that would have us believe their legislation as brought forward cannot be improved upon? Perhaps the word arrogant would come to mind. I would hesitate to use that word because it might be considered by a few on the other side as inflammatory. However the reality is that anything can be improved.

What would our amendments to Bill C-49 do? They would require the Indian bands to consult with the municipalities. What is so terribly wrong with that? That is the question we must ask. What is so terribly wrong with requiring these 14 Indian bands to consult and negotiate with the municipalities that adjoin the reserve lands or with ensuring that any rules and regulations they would bring down or land codes they would develop would be fair and supported by the neighbouring municipalities and communities with which I am sure they work hard in a fair and open manner?

The concerns being expressed this evening by the official opposition are very real. They are concerns about the expropriation powers contained in Bill C-49. A first nation may expropriate any interest in its nation's land that in the opinion of its council is necessary to community works or for other first nations purposes.

As was pointed out by a number of my colleagues, the opportunity for abuse is there. Far be it for me or any of my colleagues to impugn motive in the sense that any of these 14 bands would do something like that. However some very real concerns are being expressed by people about the sweeping powers contained in Bill C-49. All we are asking for is that there be sufficient checks and balances, perhaps not for the existing band councils but for some band council in the future which may make an inappropriate ruling that dramatically impacts upon tenants or neighbouring communities. The reality is that it could be done in an unfair manner.

We are asking for a simple amendment to ensure consultation takes place and that the neighbouring communities and municipalities are apprised and actively involved in the decisions being made. I do not see what is so terrible about that.

I have some firsthand experience with a very similar ongoing situation in my riding of Prince George—Peace River involving a band on the west side of the Rocky Mountains. The riding of Prince George—Peace River is quite unique in Canada as it is the only riding that is divided by the Rocky Mountain range. On the east side of the divide the native bands are governed under treaty eight. In other words they are treaty Indians. On the west side there are no treaties. The band in my riding is McLeod Lake. It has tried for years and years to adhere to treaty eight. It wants to come under treaty eight. It has been somewhat successful over the last while with its negotiations and it appears they will be finalized.

As part and parcel of that ongoing agreement we find that a new reserve will be established along with reserve lands. I must say at this point that I am quite opposed to establishing additional reserves in Canada. I think that the whole reserve system has been an abysmal failure from the very beginning. Yet we see this government continuing down that road of setting up more reserves. I have to question in all sincerity the wisdom in doing such a thing.

At any rate, what is taking place is that they want to have some reserve land set aside when this Indian band, the McLeod Lake band adheres to treaty 8, in the small logging community of Bear Lake which is on the Hart highway just north of the city of Prince George. The residents of Bear Lake have expressed a lot of concern about this. They have no problem whatsoever with the Indian people being granted certain lands that are adjacent or in their community if it is on a fee simple basis and if they end up being treated identically, equally and equitably as all the other residents of Bear Lake.

On the surface I would not say that is such a remarkable thing to ask for, that everyone be treated equally. They would welcome Indian people to have those lots, to have their residence there with all the other residents of Bear Lake. But they have some very serious concerns when without adequate consultation the federal government and the provincial government with their negotiators negotiate with Indian band and arbitrarily decide that they are going to set up a reserve at Bear Lake and this will be part of the land settlement when the McLeod Lake band adheres to treaty 8.

I know that this is outside the scope of this bill and the amendments we are discussing. I wanted to point out to hon. members on both sides of the House what happens when inadequate consultation takes place. That is what we are discussing. That is the essence of the amendments put forward by the official opposition. We are merely asking the government to see fit to amend Bill C-49 so that consultation is a requirement and that the bands themselves are going to have to consult with the municipalities in the neighbouring communities to ensure that fairness and equity are in place when they develop their land codes.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I know there have been a number of people in the chair during the day, but I have been here on duty since 11 o'clock this morning. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, it is now after 11 o'clock at night. I have been listening very carefully and I have decided that there are a few things I would like to put on the record with respect to this legislation.

I want to begin with a little story from my own riding. It has to do with our armoury. Earlier this winter very serious problems arose with the structure of our armoury. This is a historic building. It is one of the oldest functioning armouries in Canada. There were serious problems with the roof. The foundation was in terrible shape. It cost $1 million simply to patch up the armoury. We are looking at many millions more before the physical structure of the armoury is in good shape.

My concern is if we spend those moneys, after spending millions of dollars on this armoury, how can we ensure that we do not get the same problems again? Although up front the problem had something to do with bricks, mortar, stone, tile and things like that, the real problem was one of absentee management. Our armoury in Peterborough was being managed through DND from headquarters in Trenton. That has been the case for 90 years.

Someone in Peterborough would notice that there was a leak in the roof and they would make a mental note to remember there was a leak in the roof. The following week, because the rain would stop, someone else would notice the leak in the roof and they would make a mental note. Then one day there would be a flood in the basement and someone would phone the general at the head office in Trenton and tell him about the flood in the basement. The general would make a note. Someone would then finally come up and look. They would ask “Where did all this water in the basement come from?” They would trace it through and discover that there was a problem in the roof.

It is my fear with our armouries that even when we fix them with millions of dollars that if we do not change the management system, it will always be like that and one day our armouries will just cave in.

I am amazed with the Reform Party members. They are people who pride themselves in their interest in things local. There are approximately 650 first nations across Canada, 650 very diverse groups of people with different languages, cultures, histories, physical settings, rural settings and urban settings. They are managed by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

It is our policy to get rid of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development at a pace set by the first nations. The reason for that is that we know, and I accept this, that many of the problems with those 600 or so first nations arise from the fact that there has been absentee management, and in fact one would say, as in the case of our armouries, absentee mismanagement.

It is impossible for someone here in Ottawa, someone in this room or just down the road, to say what should be going on in the elementary schools of one of these first nations, or to say whether the sewer needs fixing, or to say whether one of the buildings needs fixing in the way I described it with our armouries. It is absolutely impossible and we know it. Yet, for generations that is the way these first nations have been managed. It is our objective, granted at a pace set by the first nations themselves, to change the management system so that the people of those first nations can manage themselves and improve conditions for themselves.

We are not talking about more than 600 first nations here. We are talking about 14 first nations scattered all across the country. We have heard a lot about those in British Columbia but it includes those in Ontario. They are all very different. We can tell by their names that their languages are different.

I would like to mention one thing about the first nation that happens to be closest to me, the Mississaugas of Scugog Island. I do not know if anybody knows this, but the Mississaugas of Scugog Island are distinctive in one respect. In World War II every single eligible male volunteered and served in the armed forces. Every single one. One hundred per cent of the male population. I am sure many members already knew that fact. That is one of these particular first nations.

Although none of these first nations are in my riding, I was at Georgina Island when the chiefs initialled this agreement, the one we are discussing here today. We and the people watching and listening to this debate should know that this is the result of years, not months, not 12 hours of debate from 11 o'clock this morning until 11 o'clock tonight, even though we are here debating it at this time of night; this is as a result of years of negotiation. The proposal came to our minister from the first nations themselves. Chiefs came forward and suggested this approach.

Going back to the 600 first nations, because there are still 600 first nations out there who are not part of this agreement, the idea is that here is one other experiment we might try of putting some effective power in the hands of these communities so that they can help themselves. By doing so they can help the regions in which they find themselves. That is where we are. This has come to our minister and our minister is responding to the requests of these first nations.

On the question of consultation, we are talking about years of negotiation and discussion. When I was at Georgina Island with the chiefs and other people from all over the country for the signing, there was an air of excitement that they had designed a land management system which they felt would work and which might well become an example for other first nations across the country. If the other first nations do not want to try this route, they need not. These 14 have decided to go this way.

I would like to put a few of the remarks of some of these chiefs on the record. Some of this material has been used before. I think the people who are watching at this time of night should be aware of them.

Chief Austin Bear of the Muskoday first nation said: “The framework agreement in this legislation acknowledges our fundamental right to control our reserve lands and resources. Furthermore they ensure that our lands are protected for future generations by prohibiting surrender or sale or expropriation of those lands”.

There has been some discussion of women on and off reserve. Lorraine McRae, the chief of the Chippewas of Mnjikaning nation said: “This initiative is an opportunity for the full and active participation of the members of our first nations, elders, women and men both off reserve and on reserve to collectively develop land management systems appropriate to our communities based on fairness, equality and accountability”.

These are direct quotations from first nations leaders.

I am glad to be here after 12 hours. I urge all members of the House to support this legislation. Let us end all these delay tactics and get on with it. Let us get on with it.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, tonight we are debating Bill C-49 which is the first nation land management act. For those who have just joined this debate, and I am sure there are many, I would like to reiterate that this bill would allow individual first nations to opt out of the land and property sections of the Indian Act and establish their own land codes to manage reserve lands and resources.

In this narrow area the act would grant powers of self-government to the first nations that choose to opt out of the Indian Act, but only in this narrow area. It is interesting for me to hear government members wax eloquent about the virtues of self-government when here is a government which could bring that into effect but after five long years has touched only one narrow area in which to give aboriginal people and first nations any kind of self-determination.

This bill would give first nations the authority first, to pass laws for the development, conservation, protection, management, use and possession of first nation land and second, to control the issue of leases, licences and other property interests. This is not an inconsiderable step that is being put forward. Some people have mentioned in this debate that it would essentially create a two tier Canada. It would give special rights and privileges to some, and to some Canada's laws and Constitution would not fully apply. They would be subject to different laws.

It does not take a rocket scientist so I have been able to figure out that what this bill will lead to is a patchwork of individual land codes which will inevitably be riddled with legal ambiguities which will create chaos for the individuals affected, the first nations people who are affected and for the larger community.

In light of the very realistic outcome of this bill even though there may be a good purpose served, the official opposition is proposing that there be a consultation process written into the bill so that there would be at least some opportunity for the people being affected not only within the aboriginal communities themselves but within the larger community to have discussions about proposals and intentions that will be carried out under the authority of this bill.

For the life of me I cannot understand why this is such a huge nut for the government to crack. Why is there such a resistance to the simple idea, the simple Canadian value of talking to your neighbours?

Yet in this debate if we listen to speakers opposite I heard not one single speaker make a meaningful discussion of this proposal which is supposed to be the reason we are here this evening, to discuss the proposal that there be consultation.

What I did hear was the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, for whom I have a great deal of personal respect, say, strangely, consultation cannot be legislated. I must say that this is a rather novel statement because we have a whole variety of areas within our Canadian law and jurisdiction where consultations are a part of a legislative process.

In my city of Calgary, for example, if a communications company wants to put up communication towers for purposes of cellular phone networks over a certain height there must be by law public consultation. If there is development to take place within a certain community there must be public consultation before that can go ahead. There are federal-provincial consultations on a wide variety of areas. So this is not a novel concept. It is considered a civilized way of doing business with neighbours in Canada.

The only other comment I heard which was on the point about consultation was by the last speaker who said there were all kinds of consultation about this legislation. The member was clearly missing the point that what the motion proposes is a consultation process written as part of the bill to take place as the bill's powers are being carried out.

It was interesting when the speaker who mentioned the consultation that had led up to the bill being proposed said the first nations themselves, the chiefs themselves, came forward with this proposal as if because somebody brings a proposal it is ipso facto a good thing and should be accepted.

I could put all kinds of proposals forward to the Liberal government which I bet a dime would not be accepted. Yet somehow because the first nations chiefs have put this forward that was consultation.

We have heard story after story that aboriginal people themselves who are to be affected by this legislation and people in the larger community who have lease hold interest which will be covered by this legislation were not consulted.

This whole question of consultation adds up to the fact that there was little or no consultation prior to this legislation and its effect being brought in. Nor is there a consultation process built into the legislation whereby communities, both inside and outside first nations lands, can work together in a co-operative manner to carry out the powers and intentions of this legislation.

Surely it is only sensible to accept the motion being put forward to bring such a consultation process into the package. Yet not only is the government stubbornly and perversely unwilling to accept that sensible proposal, but it does not debate it in a meaningful manner. We have no idea why this proposal for a consultation process has been stonewalled and rejected by this government.

Surely if we are in this House to have meaningful debate that should be coming forward. I have not heard it. I invite members opposite to give some sort of a rational rationale, if I might be so bold, for rejecting this proposal.

I heard one speaker from another party make a rather startling statement. I think we should put that on the debate table. The statement was that the Reform Party is suggesting that because the people carrying out these powers are first nations people they cannot be trusted and their powers must be circumscribed in some way.

Clearly speaker after speaker from the Reform Party has rejected that allegation. Let us look at the flip side of it. The flip side is that the speaker from that party is suggesting that because first nations people are carrying out these powers, no checks and balances are necessary. That is an equally ridiculous proposition.

When human beings of any stripe or colour have power there need to be proper checks and balances on the exercise of that power and authority. That is just the way civilized societies work. To try to bring racial bias into this or to accuse people who are suggesting sensible and moderate checks and balances of racial bias is, I think, very unworthy of debaters in this House.

If we are to carry out our mandate on behalf of Canadians, which includes first nations Canadians, and to make sure that there is fairness in the rule of law properly carried out in the future, we need to quit browbeating people in debate and assigning motives that are clearly unreasonable and simply address the issue.

Should there be a consultation process in this bill or not? I think I have made the case as well as my colleagues that there clearly ought to be and should be. I ask the government to in all reason and fairness put that to the House, pass it and let us get on with carrying out the intent of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I stand with great pleasure to close the debate this evening. There are only a few moments left but I want to make a number of points that I think are particularly important to the debate.

In the intervention made at the outset by the member for Skeena, the critic for the Reform Party, he said he cannot support this bill because he wants to consult.

I want the member sitting next to him from Calgary and the rest of the members of his caucus to know that it was before Christmas that both he and the member from Prince George, the deputy critic having sat at the standing committee, having listened to the witnesses, having gone through that legislation clause by clause in the committee, representing the Reform Party, voted yea to the legislation.

They voted for the legislation with one amendment providing constitutional protections and those were agreed to. I want the Canadian public to know and I want the people of British Columbia who are watching this debate to know that both their members agreed to it. They shook hands with the chiefs and council members who were there that evening.

They had an agreement. We had an agreement of trust and guess what we had here today? We had the member leading off the debate saying that he wants to consult when he was trying to convince the rest of his members to support the legislation.

He has done an absolute turnaround on this legislation to stand in the House now and say he wants to consult. For the comments made by the member from Calgary, there are 9 years of consultation involving 14 bands that have reworked this again and again. They brought the legislation forth in this House once before only to have it defeated and thrown out. They went back to their communities to consult again, to rework it one more time and they come back in the House again. This far from the goal line, after close to 10 years of consultation, and they want to kill it. They want more consultation.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

We did not say that.

[David Iftody, Liberal, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is not true. That is false. That was a breach of a promise. That is not true and the member knows it is not true.

Let us talk about one of their most recent issues in terms of the Musqueam band case. Why are they up in arms? It is because the Federal Court of Canada most recently ruled that the Musqueam people have a legal right and title to fair rent based on market values that we all agree to. It was the Federal Court of Canada that made this rule, not the Musqueam band. It has set out the guidelines.

In terms of consultation, in 1972 the Musqueam band asked the tenants association to renegotiate the contract. They said no. In 1980, as the member points out, they asked to renegotiate the contract. They said no. In 1993 they asked to renegotiate the contract. They said “No, we are going to court”, and have not paid the rent from 1993 up until now, ostensibly using those moneys for the court fees.

The Federal Court of Canada has said that an acre of land in the best property in Canada is worth close to half a million dollars a year, but they are paying $330 a month in rent.

The Indian band in this case is willing to negotiate, to sit down with the people affected for a fair deal. That is essentially what the bill does. It provides opportunity, fair opportunity as equal Canadians.

The Reform Party wants to talk about equal Canadians. Here we have two parties wanting to sit down and negotiate. They want to break the deal. They want to create mischief and trouble and break the deal. That is not right. That is not proper. That is not representing the people of British of Columbia, the people of Alberta. I am asking the member, as he did in the standing committee, to do the right thing and support the bill again.

The people representing those 14 first nations have a right after 10 years of consultation to good and decent representation in the House. It is incumbent upon members of parliament debating the issue—and we have heard today that they have an obligation—to pass the bill and do the right thing for those people. What do they want to do with their bill and their lands? They want to commercialise it so that they can form commercial contract relationships with non-aboriginal people.

They do not want it. The member from the Sunshine Coast actually stood and said “We want them to consult with us before they build something on their land”. I cannot remember a municipality having to do that. They want to impose unfair rules on the first nations, put chains on the first nations and drag them back to the dark ages, but we will not let it happen. We will stand here and represent these issues.

Also speaking of consultation, the B.C. Association of Municipalities has met with the Musqueam band on eight occasions and has recently submitted a letter concluding that the discussion papers attached here are a very good starting point for the negotiation and ultimately the finalization of a reciprocal consultation agreement. They are working out these processes with the affected band and it is working well.

Most recently the chief of the Squamish nation has met with the mayor of North Vancouver, met with the mayor of West Vancouver and the mayor of the North Vancouver District. They have set up a consultation process. They did not mention that today. They do not want that consultation process because they do not want the outcomes.

I suggest to them the reason they flip flop here so unashamedly is that they are scaremongering. They are trying to scare the good people of British Columbia. They are trying to set up a scheme to pose to Nisga'a, but we will not buy it. The Canadian people will not buy it and we will oppose it.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It being 11.30 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 11.30 p.m.)