Debates of Feb. 1st, 1999

First Nations Land Management Act

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as I rise to my feet I ask for you indulgence as I have a question. As I understand it, these amendments are at report stage and specifically the amendments put forth by the hon. member for Skeena, Motions Nos. 1, 6 and 7, are what we are debating at this time.

I have been following the debate closely and noticed that a number of members did not follow that at all and actually got off on some tangential items, including the next series of amendments from the Bloc party which we will be debating after. Am I correct?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The member for South Shore is once again proving just how wide awake he is. While all the others assembled here did not pick up on that, he certainly did and brought it to the attention of the House. He may be sure that the Chair will ensure that from this point forward the debate is strictly on the motions.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will speak to the report stage amendments to Bill C-49, the first nations land management act, and specifically Motions Nos. 1, 6 and 7 put forth by the hon. member for Skeena.

These amendments allow first nations to join the framework agreement in accordance with section 45 but only on the condition that the first nations prepare land codes in consultation with neighbouring jurisdictions. Approval from neighbouring jurisdictions would be required and they would have written confirmation that they meet the laws of the provinces in which they are situated.

These amendments would impose on the first nations provincial or municipal laws without allowing the first nations to develop their own laws in consultation with the people of the first nations.

One of the advantages of the legislation is to allow first nations greater autonomy over management of their resources and to remove the restrictions placed upon them by the Indian Act. To instead require compliance with provincial and municipal laws without allowing the first nations to do so within their own land codes and by their own decision contradicts the objectives of the legislation.

While it may be advantageous for first nations to follow provincial laws—and some of the first nations have drafted land codes that reflect provincial laws—there is no need to change the legislation to make this mandatory. This would not allow first nations to develop rules according to their tradition of consensus.

These amendments ignore the purpose of the legislation, namely to allow first nations to manage their resources through consultation with their members. This places an onerous responsibility on first nations that is not reciprocated by the neighbouring jurisdictions and is therefore not equitable.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I must say the speaker who just spoke obviously has never been to B.C. where we have the potential for 50-plus different sets of governments with different rules if there is not some sort of conformity in the way that municipalities relate to one another.

Also I was astounded to hear a member of the NDP, and woman at that, standing and defending the right of bands to deprive women of their matrimonial property rights on the basis of culture. It is absolutely amazing that position would be taken.

That same speaker also mentioned there was an agreement in place with the B.C. Union of Municipalities for consultation with band members. That is simply not the case. There was an agreement on a draft for a possible proposal which had to be submitted to the chiefs. Since November there has been no confirmation from the chiefs that they have accepted that draft. There is still great uncertainty in terms of consultation.

The main reason I am taking part in the debate by discussing these motions is the pressure from the three municipalities in my riding affected by the bill that have no communication of any meaningful level with the band which will have the power to develop its reserve in my riding. In addition, I have had a tremendous amount of submissions from rank and file Squamish band members.

During the early debates which took place at the beginning of December I was approached by a delegation of 18 Squamish band members who came to my office to urge me to oppose the bill. These are the very people who are supposed to be beneficiaries of the bill. They came to me to complain about it. Why? I will read one of the petitions they sent today. About 150 signatures came in on petitions today alone from Squamish band members in my riding. Let us listen to what they say:

We urge you to vote no to Bill C-49. We are status members of the Squamish Nation. Our band council did not inform us about Bill C-49. We did not know that council signed a framework agreement on February 12, 1996. We did not know that the Squamish Nation made representations on our behalf in Ottawa in December of 1998. We are concerned that the manner in which this information has not been provided to us is completely contrary to the openness protocol for treaty negotiations that the Squamish Nation, Canada and British Columbia entered into on October 27, 1995, which we were informed about. We are concerned that the power that can be legislated to council pursuant to some sections of Bill C-49 will supersede the provisions of the band's own land code. We are concerned that if Bill C-49 is passed our ability to participate in a democratic process will fail to be realized and we will not be able to define the future of the Squamish Nation.

This is an example of input from people who are supposed to benefiting from the bill. There is something wrong if more than 100 people in one day sign a petition on that reserve saying that they do not want the legislation.

I have an obligation to represent their interest in this place. Their most serious complaint is obviously the lack of involvement, the lack of consultation with band members, which is the same complaint the municipalities are raising. Despite what the NDP member said there is no agreement in place. There is no process for communication.

The reserve in my riding probably has the most valuable land in the entire country. It is a strip of land along the foreshore of the harbour of North Vancouver with spectacular views of downtown Vancouver. The concept that is contained in the bill is tremendous: to allow the people who live there to develop those lands without the constant bureaucracy of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

However the way it is being done is upsetting and causing fear for band members who do not know what the chiefs will do with this land. The main objection or concern raised by band members was from those who hold what are called certificates of possession. These are like our equivalent of fee simple titles to houses.

Band members can hand down these certificates of possession to their children and grandchildren. However the provisions of section 28 of the bill state that the band council for no other reason than the council's deciding it is in the interest of the band can expropriate anything on that reserve. People who have lived their entire lives on this land could have their homes expropriated.

The rumour on the Squamish reserve in North Vancouver is that the members will be uprooted and moved to Porteau Cove, which is on Howe Sound where there is another part of the reserve, so so that the entire piece of reserve on the foreshore of North Vancouver can be cleared and developed.

That is where it runs into the problem with the surrounding municipalities. The bill permits the band to develop its land code with no consultation whatsoever with the surrounding municipalities. There is no requirement, not even the basics that are present in the municipal act of B.C. It does not even apply. In an urban setting in the middle of Vancouver we have this little entity that does not even have to consult with its neighbours and that can do anything it likes in its land code.

A delegation of 18 members came to my office to meet with me. They told me they were terrified that even the voting on the land code would not be democratic. It only requires 50% plus one of the band members to vote and only 50% of them have to approve the land code, which is about 25% of the total voting membership. That 25% in the Squamish nation approximates roughly to the members who work for the band council, the actual employees of the band council. The fear being expressed to me as their member of parliament is that this means one family can basically control what is in the land code on this reserve. The lack of consultation being expressed is a serious concern that we need to address.

I have encouraged the chief to be involved in more consultations in the community. It would help things go much more smoothly if there were a feeling of good will. If the band and municipalities knew what was going on we could work together to make this a really successful bill.

As my colleague from Skeena and I have already said, the concept of the bill is good. We want it to proceed but surely we need to put a few checks and balances in there to make sure certain processes take place.

The bill says that the land code must be developed by band members themselves. I have discussed this point at length with the band members who have approached me. Many of them, more than three dozen, have personally phoned me or come in to see me. I have tried to convince them that they must take some responsibility for their own future. They must get together, be proactive and take part in the process. I cannot change that for them. I urge those who are watching the debate to be active in the development of the land code.

The bill will pass. We know it will pass because of the way the House works. I urge members to listen to what I have said tonight. I have not talked about ideologies. I have talked about input from the people the bill is supposed to be helping. They are expressing their concerns to me. We should listen to the words they are passing on.

I urge members to support the amendment that at least requires some consultation in accordance with the provisions of the municipal act in the province in which a reserve is located. It is not unreasonable for an urban riding smack bang in the middle of Vancouver at least to have discussions with surrounding municipalities about how to provide traffic access, how to provide water, electricity, sewage services and all the infrastructure needed to make it work properly. It cannot be done in isolation. It has to be done with co-operation and consultation.

Let us put incentive in the bill to make it happen. Then let us support the measures so the bill can be effective in helping these first nation Indian bands develop their own land holdings.

I guess I have enough material here to speak for about 20 minutes. I know you are calling time, Mr. Speaker, but I will stand on subsequent motions to this bill and add a little more information about the input that I am receiving from rank and file band members of the Squamish Nation.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise again and restate my support for Bill C-49. This act will implement the framework agreement on first nations land management.

As I have said before, this bill is a major step toward first nations self-government. I am proud that the New Democratic Party has been the only party since our first days that has fought for first nations self-government. This is their inherent right as the first people to live in our great country.

I have listened to the words of the Reform members regarding first nations issues. Their arguments have been misleading to say the least. They have been trying to exploit negative stereotypes about aboriginal people. The most absurd claim has been that this bill will allow first nations to break federal search and seizure laws. They have obviously forgotten about section 8 of the charter of rights and freedoms which protects everyone from unreasonable search and seizure.

The most dubious thing about this claim is the Reform Party's unspoken assumption that first nations intend to abuse power. They instantly assume the worst of the first nations. They assume that if first nations have power they will abuse it. The idea that first nations are unable to handle power or properly govern themselves ignores their history. It overlooks the fact that they governed themselves for thousands of years before Europeans immigrated here and seized control.

I have 31 first nations in my riding of Churchill, over half the first nations in Manitoba. I know that the first nations do not want to manage their land so they can abuse power. They simply want to end their dependence on Ottawa. The government has run their lives for over 100 years. The result has been poverty. First nations know that they can run their lives better than government bureaucrats can. This bill will give them the chance to do so.

A few weeks ago the hon. member for North Vancouver copied a letter for me that he had sent to a mayor in his riding. This letter expressed his opposition to this bill. It said that Bill C-49 would let first nations pass laws. As a result, the member said this would result in different first nations having different laws. The interesting thing is that he left it at that as if it were obvious that this would be a bad thing. The letter also said that this bill would allow first nations to have economic development without consulting neighbouring communities.

Even though it should not be necessary, I am going to address the two points I just mentioned. Perhaps the Reform Party is not aware that different first nations have different cultures. Each has a unique history, a unique land and a unique economy. It makes perfect sense that they have different laws in certain areas. What a double standard for the Reform Party which promotes decentralization in federal-provincial relations to oppose it for first nations.

As for consulting with neighbouring communities on economic development, I agree that it is desirable. I am of the impression that there will be a process for consultation. This is as a result of a meeting with the first nations and the union of B.C. municipalities on November 13, 1998.

First nations would be wise to form friendly and open relationships with their neighbours. These kinds of relationships benefit everyone involved. In my riding many communities have a first nation reserve and a non-reserve area side by side. The ones that do best are the ones where the first nation government and the town government work well together.

This bill is a great step forward toward the eventual goal of full self-government for first nations.

I congratulate all the chiefs involved in reaching this agreement. In particular I want to congratulate Chief William Lathlin of the Opaskwayak Cree Nation and Grand Chief Francis Flett of Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak. The Opaskwayak Cree Nation is part of my riding and is signatory to this agreement. Both these leaders were instrumental in its reaching this stage.

Although I am very pleased with this bill I want to conclude my remarks by reminding the Liberal government that there is still much to be done. The United Nations has rightly slammed Canada's treatment of aboriginal people. I quote from last December's report by the United Nation's committee on economic, social and cultural rights:

The committee is greatly concerned at the gross disparity between aboriginal people and the majority of Canadians. There has been little or no progress in the alleviation of social and economic deprivation among aboriginal people. In particular, the committee is deeply concerned at the shortage of adequate housing, the endemic mass unemployment and the high rate of suicide, especially among youth in the aboriginal communities. Another concern is the failure to provide safe and adequate drinking water to aboriginal communities on reserves—almost a quarter of aboriginal household dwellings require major repairs for lack of basic amenities.

I could not have said it any better myself. The words gross disparity sum up the status of aboriginal people in Canada. The Liberal government says it is concerned about this but its lack of action says it is not.

The federal government has a duty to work in partnership with first nations governments to address these problems. The Liberal government has ignored almost all the recommendations of the royal commission on aboriginal peoples. Instead it has only made a few token gestures.

Whenever I criticize the government for its lack of action on aboriginal concerns, the minister of Indian affairs points to the aboriginal healing fund as though it solved everything. Yet I am constantly hearing from my aboriginal constituents about this money not being available for vital projects. It does not go nearly far enough.

I and my colleagues have been calling on this government to implement the recommendations of the royal commission. The few it has implemented are not enough. Not implementing the rest is a betrayal of all aboriginal people.

I repeat my call to the Liberal government to implement the royal commission on aboriginal peoples recommendations. Aboriginal people are tired of this government's stonewalling. They are tired of half steps. The time for real action is now.

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on report stage of Bill C-49, the first nations land management act. This bill is a step forward. It is an initiative that came about in partnership with 14 progressive first nations peoples. I call on all of my colleagues to realize that they cannot support Motions Nos. 1, 6 and 7.

The bill provides for an alternative land management regime whereby participating first nations control their lands and their natural resources by removing them from under the Indian Act provisions respecting land management while the remainder of the Indian Act continues to apply.

This is a positive model, a model not only to be implemented now but for the future transfer of land management to other first nations. There was also a protocol by which other first nations could be added to this bill as a result of an order in council. There are procedures in the bill regarding how this could occur. Provisions have also been included to address the concerns raised by native women. I know an earlier speaker brought up the situation of native women.

Regarding the motion before us, it will in some way change the intent of “Gathering Strength” and the intent of this bill. It is important for our Reform colleague to recognize that consultation cannot be mandated. To suggest at this point in our history that we will legislate consultations between the first nations and municipalities is unacceptable to the first nations and to us as Canadians who are working to arrive at justice, fairness, equity and all those things for our first nations people.

Therefore the motion before us would modify the conditions that were already agreed on by 14 signatory first nations in the framework agreement. The impact will somehow change the intent of the bill, to mandate, to define or to limit. The intent is really to change the bill in some way. I think that we need the support of all members on all sides of the House to resist such a transformation and such changing of a bill which has so far the agreement of so many parties.

There are ongoing processes. We need to respect the jurisdictional issues. We need respect the codes we have before us. At the same time having had aboriginal people come together and agree on the items within Bill C-49 we should go ahead and support this.

So I stand not to make a lengthy speech but really to support Bill C-49, to call on my colleagues on all sides of the House to oppose Reform's intention to dilute, to change and to modify the intent of Bill C-49.

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not appreciate the name calling. I think it is very undeserved. I do not know about the other members of this House but I have done more than just talk about helping aboriginal people and native people in this country. I spent 15 years in northern Alberta trying to bring self-government to non-treaty Indians. I have nothing to apologize for in the work I have done.

I would like to share some of these experiences in the north because I think it is very appropriate for this debate on Bill C-49.

It was an interesting experience because I was helping non-treaty aboriginals in a community immediately adjacent to a reserve. It was a case in point of how when the federal government moves in and hands over things to a community that is ill prepared to deal with them it is for not. In the non-treaty community where we were providing potable water, sewage collection, land ownership, self-government we were producing results that were never seen in the reserve adjacent to the community although the people were related and from the same cultural background.

The reason for that is the non-treaty Indians were accountable for the decisions they made. They were accountable for the dollars they were spending. They were accountable to the people who lived in and shared the community with them.

We saw fire trucks going into the reserve with no support base and they were never used for the purpose for which they were intended.

On the non-reserve side we saw a fire truck, after a great deal of debate and a great deal of work to get it, brought into the community, treated with respect and which provided services not only to the non-reserve community but to the reserve community.

We also saw the non-treaty community supporting the reserve by providing sewage treatment for the school that was built and for the health centre that was built. For whatever reason the federal government under the Indian Act was ill prepared to deal with that kind of development. It took the non-treaty, the non-status Indians in their community to provide that kind of community support and leadership.

I do not have to wonder what will happen with this bill if it is not properly legislated. There are some areas where I have difficulty accepting it as it is presented to the Canadian public.

I do not think people can foresee the future but we can look at what has happened in the past with the experiences we have to give us some indication of what might happen.

I would like to share with the House an instance that happened in 1993 after I was first elected. The very first situation that I had to deal with as a member of parliament was a community in the Semiahmoo Indian Reserve. It was a community that was leasing property. Some of these leases had been in their families for 40 to 50 years. Because of a decision by Indian affairs of removing itself from the responsibility, nine out of the eleven people who came to my office looking for help ended up losing their homes, ended up having to leave.

I would like to share some of the comments with the members of the House. These are excerpts from letters received from a couple of families. They state:

How can you dismiss the fact that your department put us in this hell? They refused to issue one year leases on instructions from the Semiahmoo band in September 1993. They refused to take our lease money. They have not cashed cheques from persons remaining on the land to date. They refused to talk to us after 20 years of tenancy. They refused to quell the situation.

As for the remaining tenants, six have vacated as ordered by the DIA in a letter dated January.... The penalty is double rent for daring to speak out and the others have struck their own deal with the bands knowing that if they do not perform it will go against them.

People have lost their homes.

With our neighbours we formed associations to negotiate a lease. We made an offer to lease. We did everything that we were capable of doing. They wanted us to sign a non-negotiable consent to lease offer before we had even read it. If we did not agree we were out in nine days. We could not sign it. It would be like signing a blank cheque.

That is the kind of situation these people were put in. I would suggest that there has to be clarity in legislation to protect individuals.

We have recommended two amendments to Bill C-49. One amendment would require a clause to be written that this would in no way be considered to be a land claim under section 35 of the Constitution Act. The second amendment would require that proactive consultations be held with adjacent municipalities.

I would like to share another experience that I had in Slave Lake, Alberta with the Sawridge Indian band. I was on the town council when we negotiated a deal with the Sawridge band to provide them with water and sewer facilities which they wanted for a laundromat for the hotel they had built. In an agreement with this band the town obtained the use of a little section of land going through a corner of their band property in exchange for providing them with water and sewer facilities.

Two years ago I received a call from the mayor of the town who said “Val, you are the only one we can track down. We need to know what has happened because Walter Twinn is suing us. The Sawridge band is suing us for this piece of property that the town is using for the road which runs across a corner of the property”.

We had a written agreement with the Sawridge band that this would be an exchange: water and sewer facilities for a little chunk of road. Twenty years down the road that agreement was not being respected and the town of Slave Lake found itself in legal proceedings.

It is very important that whatever we do in this House be better than what we have done before. The Indian Act has proven to be a failure. It has left people dependent on government. People have lost their independence. They have lost their self-respect in many cases. It is a shame that we allowed that to happen.

I do not want to be a part of continuing in that kind of environment. Our aboriginal people have the right to be treated equally, to have equal rights and equal responsibilities, as does every other Canadian in this country.

We should not be going down this trail without clarity, expecting that the same thing will not happen. Somebody gave us the definition of insanity. It was doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result.

That seems to me to be what we continue to do. We continue the same old policies over and over again. We may use different words, but we expect different results. It is insane to expect a different result.

We have to, with clarity, come up with an agreement with the aboriginal people that will remove them from the dependent status they have and will continue to have under the department of Indian affairs. We have to release them. We have to encourage aboriginal people to take on the responsibility which every other Canadian has. Bills such as Bill C-49 is not going to do it.

We have to make sure that our legislation is clear and that it is not open to misrepresentation or misinterpretation. We have to make sure that our legislation today is taking a different path, that it is trying something new and innovative, not doing the same old thing over and over again, expecting a different result.

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise this evening to speak in this debate.

It was interesting to listen to the member for Churchill talking about amendments that we wanted to make to this bill and how we hoped that it would happen anyway. Other members have made comments about the Reform Party and what its role is in this debate.

Sure there are a lot of good things in this bill, but our party asked for two amendments. Our members said that if those amendments were accepted we would let this bill pass through the House. However, the Liberal government refused those amendments.

Let me read into the record a letter which I just received a few minutes ago. The letter is from the Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee. For those members who do not know where the lower mainland is, it encompasses the majority of the population of British Columbia, all of the municipalities in the lower mainland. It is represented by mayors who represent the New Democratic Party, the Liberal Party, the Reform Party and others. This is what they wrote today to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development:

The Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management is an Act that will apply to 14 First Nations across Canada. Under the Framework Agreement, those signatory First Nations will develop their own land codes to apply to their reserve lands. The land code will set out the principles, rules and structures that will apply to the land. Once a land code has been adopted, the Band Council may, in accordance with the land code, make laws concerning the management, development, use, possession and occupancy of the reserve land. The new Act will replace the land management provisions (sections 53-60) of the Indian Act.

The Bill stipulates a number of requirements that a First Nation must meet in establishing a land code. One requirement is a community consultation process (Band members only) concerning the development of general land code rules for the reserve lands. Secondly, before a land code can be enacted, it must be approved by a majority of eligible Band voters. Thirdly, a Minister and the First Nation shall jointly appoint a verifier who will determine if the land code is in accordance with the Framework Agreement (the Act) and will monitor the community approval process of the land code.

The concerns of the Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee are:

Local municipal leaders and the UBCM have raised two specific concerns with Bill C-49:

1. The legislation provides no requirement for consultation with neighbouring municipal governments on land use and other issues of mutual interest, nor with non-aboriginal people living on reserve lands;

2. Given that the Province of British Columbia is already engaged in the British Columbia Treaty Commission treaty process to address issues including land use and self-government, the application of Bill C-49 appears to be creating a second parallel process.

Within the B.C. treaty process, municipal governments are full members of the Provincial negotiating team. As such, their representative sits at the treaty table as part of that team and has the opportunity to provide comment and input to the Provincial negotiator on the treaty. In the Greater Vancouver area, municipal governments co-ordinate themselves under the Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee. By contrast, with respect to Bill C-49, municipal governments have had very limited opportunity to consider and provide comments on its implications.

Regarding Consultation:

The Bill contains no provisions for any form of consultation with neighbouring municipal governing jurisdictions concerning the development of the land code. With respect to third parties who have an interest in the reserve land that is to be subject to the proposed land code, the Bill states only that the Band Council shall, within a reasonable time before the vote, take appropriate measures to inform those third parties of the proposed land code.

The Squamish Band is one of the 14 First Nations across Canada who are signatory to the Framework Agreement. The three North Shore Mayors recently met with Squamish Chief Bill Williams to discuss the Bill. The issue of lack of requirement for consultation with municipal governments was raised at the meeting and the Chief acknowledged that the Bill contains no such provisions. He stated that it was his intent that consultation with adjacent municipal governments will be a part of the Squamish land code.

The member from North Vancouver and I met with the same mayors and the chief and proposed the amendments to try to solve this problem now and not wait for something to come along later that will cause problems.

The letter continues:

While this statement appears reasonable, it actually leaves two major concerns for municipalities:

1. Municipalities would greatly prefer that any such requirement for consultation be included directly and specifically in Bill C-49. This would provide the requirement for meaningful consultation (not a veto) as part of the formal document, and not be left up to whether or not any particular First Nation is willing to do so.

To address the suggestion that this issue is primarily a concern in British Columbia and therefore need not be included in an Act which covers all of Canada and many other First Nations and municipalities, we would suggest the wording in the Act requiring a consultation would apply to:

“Those signatory First Nations in British Columbia to this Bill and in other parts of Canada that do not presently have a formal agreement requiring reciprocal consultation”. This would then enshrine the principle of consultation in the Act, whether or not such agreements already exist in other parts of Canadas.

The Municipal Act in British Columbia requires municipalities to refer a plan to the council of an adjoining municipality if the plan affects an area of that municipality. This does not provide the adjoining municipality with a veto, only with the opportunity to become informed and make comment.

1. Assuming that a First Nation does consult about a proposed land use with its municipal government neighbours, with or without a requirement to do so, what mechanism is there to resolve disagreements? The only reference to dispute resolution in the Bill centres on disputes between a First Nation and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, not with neighbouring municipalities.

The drafters of the Bill may not have contemplated the concerns, raised above, particularly if their focus was on the many rural reserves across Canada. However, not unlike the treaty process, arrangements and approaches that may work in a rural setting may be totally inappropriate in an urban setting. Given the complexity of many different jurisdictions operating in our urban area and the need for co-ordination on issues of land use and transportation planning, it is essential that the Bill not be enacted by Parliament without first providing an opportunity for municipal governments to assess the Bill and provide comment to the federal government.

Regarding Parallel Process Concerns:

There needs to be an opportunity for municipalities currently engaged with the Provincial team in treaty negotiations to feel assured that Bill C-49 provisions will not eliminate the opportunity for negotiations to occur on important issues including land use and self government.

Draft resolution from LMTAC meeting of January 27, 1999:

It was moved and seconded

That the Lower Mainland Municipal Association (LMMA) be advised that the Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee has not had the opportunity to assess the ramifications and impact of proposed Bill C-49 at the local government level and that the LMMA request that the federal government delay further consideration of the Bill pending consultation with local (municipal) governments.

Thank you for your careful consideration of our concerns.

Sincerely yours,

Mayor Don H. Bell

Copies of this letter were sent to the Minister of National Revenue; the Minister for International Cooperation and the Minister responsible for Francophonie; the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who is from British Columbia; the chair of the northern and western Liberal caucus, the member for Vancouver Kingsway; the chairman of the B.C. Liberal caucus, who is the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam; as well as the member for North Vancouver and myself.

The chairman of the B.C. Liberal caucus, the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, also chairs the task force that the Prime Minister has set up to tell him why western Canadians do not vote Liberal. This is a prime example. The opposition has asked very fairly that two amendments be made to this bill which were recommended by all the lower mainland municipalities of British Columbia, and many of the mayors are Liberal.

We are doing our job as the opposition to try to get this bill through the House. As we said, if those two amendments were adopted we would vote tonight to get this bill out of here.

The government will not adopt those two amendments. The majority of the people of British Columbia want those amendments to be made to this bill. Every other municipality in British Columbia has to do what we are asking be put in this bill. If they want to build something in my constituency in West Vancouver, they negotiate with my colleague for North Vancouver and tell him what they are doing and how they are going to do it.

The Squamish band is one of the wealthiest in the nation. It owns the majority of the foreshore in North Vancouver and West Vancouver. It leases that land at very high rates, including one lease that the Liberals signed 20 years ago for land to build an environmental building on. That piece of land is still empty, with the lease at $4 million a year. The lease rate will increase to $7 million this year for an empty piece of land. The band is not doing poorly.

All we want is the right to know when they build on their land. We have negotiated shopping centres and buildings with them. We work very well together. All we want to know is that in the future they will sit down to talk with us when they want to build on their land.

Those two amendments could get the bill through the House very quickly. That is all we are asking of this Liberal government. Listen to the people of British Columbia. Do what they are looking for the government to do. The government should not go blindly into what its lawyers are telling it to do. That is the problem here. Lawyers dealing with the ministry are saying “This is what we want. Do not back down. Do not look like you are giving something away”.

The people of British Columbia want these two amendments. We are going to stand here and fight for this bill as long as it takes to have this government admit that those amendments should be in the bill.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to the first group of amendments to Bill C-41 which includes Motions Nos. 1, 6 and 7.

I will start my presentation by reading a fairly lengthy paper by Wendy Lockhart Lundberg entitled “Native Women Threatened by Federal Bill”. The author is a registered status Indian and a member of the Squamish nation in B.C. If the government is not willing to listen to us on this bill, I hope it will listen to the grassroots aboriginal people who have something to say about this bill. I strongly encourage the government to listen.

This paper makes a case for the amendments we have put forth in this group. It makes the point very clearly that this legislation needs some change, that it is not as widely accepted as some members of the governing party claim it to be. It is time to listen. Maybe the government has not listened to the grassroots aboriginals in particular but I encourage the government to listen to Wendy Lockhart Lundberg now:

While media attention focuses on the formal treaty process, federal actions are attempting a legislative end-run around treaties by offering bands powers over land management. Native women will bear the brunt of these legislative provisions and will be denied the protections they could be afforded through treaties.

A little-publicized government bill, C-49, the first nations land management act, is scheduled for third reading in parliament next week and poised to become law. Bill C-49 would give legal effect to land management agreements which have already been signed by 14 bands. These include my band, the Squamish, as well as Vancouver's Musqueam band and ones across the country, and will be open to other bands in the future.

Bill C-49 grants participating bands almost unlimited powers over the ownership, management, and expropriation of band lands. The implications of C-49 for the rights and position of native women are large, and the B.C. Native Women's Society (supported by three major organizations) has lodged a court case against the federal government to require that issues of native women's rights be properly addressed before enactment.

When the marriages of native women fail, as all too many do on account of poverty and related conditions, they and their children typically lose the family home. Their ex-spouses typically get possession of the family home, based on decisions of the band council. The women often have nowhere to live on the reserve, and may end up in the worst circumstances in urban ghettos. Unlike all other Canadian women, native women on reserves do not have the protection of property division laws.

Bill C-49 contains two provisions which are particularly worrisome for native women. First, it states that rules and procedures regarding the use, occupation, and possession of land upon the breakdown of marriage will be determined by the land codes of each signatory band. Yet, there is little assurance that these future provisions will be any less tilted against the interests of women and their children than the results of the current system.

Second, Bill C-49 offers band councils draconian powers of expropriation, which must concern native women as well as other native people living on reserves and non-natives with leasehold interests. Specifically, “a first nation may ... expropriate any interest in its first nation land that, in the opinion of its council, is necessary for community works or other first nation purposes”. The band need give at most 30 days notice to expropriate, and it is obliged to pay “fair compensation” that can be disputed only under rules set by the band itself.

I encourage the government to listen to this part in particular. It is worth listening to some of the problems that come as a result of the way this is being proposed. The paper goes on to state:

Not only may these powers be used against native women; they may also be used against band members outside the governing elite. For example, the Squamish nation has valuable waterfront property in North Vancouver, rumoured to be the subject of band council plans for commercial redevelopment. These plans could displace many band members living there to a reserve area up the coast, thus making expropriation powers very useful to the band council.

In addition, any party having a leasehold interest on a reserve has reason to fear the strong expropriation powers for bands in Bill C-49. With the sword of quick expropriation hanging over their heads, current leaseholders will find few parties willing to buy their leasehold interests, and their property values will plummet. A band can then expropriate their property by offering “fair compensation” at the depressed market values.

A band council's expropriation powers will be unlike those of a municipal or senior government; it will be able to expropriate for any “other first nation purposes”, not limited to the need to build schools, highways, and the like. Many bands see their lands as a major means for economic development, so that leaseholders can expect their land to be expropriated whenever a band finds a more valuable use (the band will fully control zoning). But with this ever-present threat, how many non-natives will want to make the investments needed for development or leasehold arrangements with bands?

Again, I hope this government is listening to that thought which is coming from a band member. It is well worth listening to because it is an important point. She goes on to say:

My mother lost her native and band status when she married a non-native many years ago. Her status was restored following the 1985 amendments to the Indian Act, but her father's property was never returned to her. The Squamish band allows someone else to occupy the property and uses its diverse powers to block my mother's efforts to regain her familial home. Under Bill C-49 her land could be permanently lost through expropriation.

The Squamish nation has sent a council member to Ottawa to support Bill C-49, while not informing the general band membership of the existence of the bill.

I am going to repeat this because I do not think that message is sinking in. She says that the Squamish nation has sent a council member to Ottawa to support Bill C-49, while not informing the general band membership of the existence of the bill. I think that really shows the lack of knowledge on the part of band members about this bill because they have not been told about it. I digress. I will finish reading the paper:

The Squamish nation has even intervened, on behalf of all the signatory bands, on the side of the federal government and against the B.C. Native Women's Society's Bill C-49 lawsuit.

I believe that my mother's rights, and those of many other native women, will be lost forever if Bill C-49 is passed in its present state. Their chances of obtaining legally binding provisions that restore their human and property rights would be much better served through an openly debated treaty process.

Bill C-49 was introduced into parliament by a female minister of Indian affairs, and its passage would be enacted by Her Majesty in right of Canada. I doubt whether either of these women shares native women's concerns about their lands, homes, and families.

I see that my time is up. I remind the members of the government who are here that the author is someone who understands this issue extremely well. She has written a very thoughtful paper. I think she has presented the case in balance.

Government members should listen to what they have heard tonight. The member for Vancouver North said 100 people from the band signed a petition in such a short time saying that they do not want this to pass. The member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast and the Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee said that they do not want this to pass as it is, as did municipalities in the lower mainland. The list is growing and growing.

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, York North, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have before us tonight a historic piece of legislation. Bill C-49 is a piece of legislation that provides for an alternative land management regime whereby the participating first nations control their lands and natural resources by removing them from under the Indian Act respecting land management.

I am very pleased tonight to stand in the House and wholeheartedly support this legislation. I am honoured to represent, as the member of parliament for York North, the Chippewas of Georgina Island, one of the 14 first nations affected by this legislation.

It is a real pleasure to know that Chief Bill McCue along with other members of the band council and members of the Chippewas of Georgina Island first nations are here tonight watching this debate.

It is with somewhat mixed emotions that I stand here tonight. It is really appalling to hear what the members opposite, the members of the Reform Party have been saying throughout this debate on first nations. It is a continued refrain we hear from that party whenever we enter into debate in this House on first nations. It is rather disturbing to know that I have constituents here who have to listen to this. The Reform members show an absolute lack of sensitivity and a lack of understanding of first nations issues.

While there was a Reform member in this House who said that we cannot foresee the future, it is clear that the members of the Reform Party only see a bleak and negative future for first nations. It is shameful. The Reform Party should be ashamed for holding up this legislation. This legislation is urgently needed by the Chippewas of Georgina Island.

In 1993 after I was first elected as the member of parliament for York Simcoe at the time, one of my first responsibilities was to attend a meeting with Chief Bill McCue, members of his council and members from the regional office at Indian affairs. It was through this meeting and subsequent dealings that I realized the difficult challenges first nations in this country have in controlling their own destiny and in controlling land that is rightfully theirs to control.

Through the process of my dealings with the Chippewas of Georgina Island and after the urgings of Chief Bill McCue, I spoke to the then minister of Indian affairs and asked him to consider this legislation. He met with the chiefs from across this country and decided to go forward with this legislation. I am pleased to say that the signing for the framework agreement was held on Georgina Island in my riding. The chiefs from across the country were at this very historic event which Chief Bill McCue hosted.

It was a wonderful opportunity to see how these communities have come together to work in a very progressive and enlightened fashion, to deal with the special and unique challenges of first nations. They have grassroots support.

We hear a lot about grassroots. I am not entirely sure what grassroots the Reform members are talking about but I can talk about the grassroots support I have in the riding of York North on this legislation. They had 91% of the people of Georgina Island supporting this very important legislation. This work has been going on for eight years. These people cannot wait any longer. They have 500 leases that must be negotiated and are coming up for renewal this spring.

The Reform Party has shown an incredible level of irresponsibility in holding the legislation back. It is appalling and it is shameful. With regard to their concerns about how first nations operate and relate to municipalities, they take isolated situations and in typical Reform fashion blow them up into stereotypes which they continually present over and over again to the Canadian public.

I would like to tell the House about the kind of relationship the Chippewas of Georgina Island have with their municipality. They have a very positive, progressive, well founded relationship. They have signed service agreements in the areas of fire protection, garbage services, police, health and education. They have shown themselves to be very substantial members of not only their community but of the larger community.

I have a letter from the Snake Island Cottagers' Association calling upon the government for speedy passage of the legislation. The letter is dated December 2, 1998 and reads:

Dear Sir,

As president of the Snake Island Cottagers' Association (SICA) I urge you on behalf of our members to expedite the second reading of Bill C-49. This as you know will eventually result in self-government for several Indian bands, especially the Chippewas of Georgina from whom we lease cottage lots on Snake Island. Our current 25 year leases expire as of April 1999. We (SICA) strongly support the Chippewas band's quest for self-government and feel that the passage of Bill C-49 will facilitate a new leasing arrangement between our members and the band. More importantly it will recognize the sovereignty of the band over their lives and lands.

That is what this is all about and that is what members of the House must remember. It is the sovereignty of our first nations and finding a way to correct the abuses of the past. I tell Canadians who are watching tonight that this is what Reform members are missing.

All Canadians of good will and good intent see the necessity for the legislation. I urge the House to speedily pass the legislation. A few minutes ago I had a discussion with Chief Bill McCue. For those who are interested, Chief Bill McCue said “It's about time we determined our own destiny”.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am very privileged to be able to enter this debate. There are a couple of points I wish to make particularly in reference to the member who has just spoken.

There seems to be a feeling that the only reason the Reform Party brought some amendments forward is that somehow we are opposed to the step that is being taken. That is not the issue. The issue is that this is not the final word on how to grant to first nations some sovereignty over the lands and some of the things they want control over. The issue is to determine a relationship with which we can all live with greater comfort and with greater harmony than has existed heretofore.

There seems to exist on the government side of the House almost a feeling of arrogance that once its members have spoken and presented a piece of legislation there cannot be a single iota of improvement to it. How could that ever be the case?

There is not a human being in the House who cannot improve whatever it is the government is doing. That includes my speech this evening. I want to make it abundantly clear that the member who just spoke deliberately misrepresented what the Reform Party stands for.

I want to make abundantly clear that I am not rising in this debate to indicate to members opposite that I am totally and unalterably opposed to the bill before the House tonight. That is not the issue. The issue is that the bill attempts to do something which I think is a step forward, but as usual it is a tiny step forward. It is a timid step forward. It is an inadequate step forward and it is an incomplete step.

We are trying to lift the legislation to a level that they can be proud of, that the members of the House can be—

[David Iftody, Liberal, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order just to interrupt the hon. member for a moment. He used language which I believe all of us would agree is unparliamentary. He said that the member had deliberately misled the House. I would ask him to withdraw those two words.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I would ask the member to kindly withdraw his remarks.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I did not hear the same words the member said. In fact I do not think that is what our member said. I would like you to clarify with the Table exactly what was said prior to asking our member to withdraw.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Very well. I will ask the Table to look at the blues and I will come back later with a decision.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Madam Speaker, if I used the word misled I withdraw that word, but I do not believe that I used that word. I think what I said was misrepresentation, and there is a big difference between those words.

It is another illustration of not listening properly to the grassroots and not even listening properly in the House. The time has come for us to get real and honest about these kinds of things.

We need to recognize what the legislation is attempting to do. It is to draw some very clear boundaries. Some people would call them fences. There is a proverb that says good fences make good neighbours. My good friend who is one of these land surveyor types says good laws build good fences.

What we are trying to do tonight is build a law that is better than the one that is being proposed. A fence is being proposed here but it has holes in it, some pretty big holes in it. It is through those holes that we get some difficulties.

I want to put clearly on the record for members opposite to hear and for my colleagues to support that we recognize among our first nations that we have some of the proudest and most respected citizens of the country. They are hard working people. They are patriotic. They do the kinds of things we want done in the country. The fact that they want some self-determination, that they want to preserve their culture, is a demonstration of how strongly they feel about themselves.

The first nations of the country have a tremendous reason to be proud. In the face of tremendous opposition and difficulty they have maintained their culture. That is why we have this legislation before the House.

I recognize that and commend them for it. I also recognize that they should not have powers that are unique, better or different from those that exist for all other Canadians. We are before the law, before the Constitution, equal Canadian citizens of Canada. That is an issue we do not want to forget.

There are some technical difficulties with the bill as well. I want to deal with them now. First I deal with the question of powers. The bill gives powers to the council to enforce the standards that exist under federal environmental law. It gives it powers to go beyond the provisions in the environmental law with regard to assessment and with regard to the process of projects with environmental implications.

Let me read subclause 21(3). It is a rather interesting clause:

First nation laws respecting environmental assessment must provide for the establishment, in accordance with the Framework Agreement, of an environment assessment process applicable to all projects carried out on first nation land that are approved, regulated, funded or undertaken by the first nation.

There is a separate set of observations. They must be within the standards set up by the legislation, but beneath that there is a process and there are details that can be changed by the first nation. As a consequence it can be delayed. It can be altered. All kinds of things can happen. This is not to suggest that they would do this. The idea is to create a law that creates fairness and equity for all participants who are affected by that law. That is what we are concerned about. That is a very significant issue.

The bill before the House says that the band or the council shall have a land code. That land code shall include, according to subclause 6(1)(f), a community consultation process. However, subclause 10(1) reads:

If the verifier determines that a proposed land code and a proposed community approval process of a first nation are in accordance with the Framework Agreement and this Act, the council of the first nation may submit the proposed land code and the individual agreement to the first nation members for their approval.

That is interesting. In the first instance the council must have a land code. That land code must provide a consultation process. However, in terms of the actual land code there is no approval process for the members who will be directly and indirectly affected by that land code before it is approved. That is very interesting. It puts the power in the hands of the council utterly and completely.

We know that whenever we put absolute power into the hands of a group, whether it is a first nation group or any other kind of a group, it has the potential of abusing that power. I do not want legislation to provide that kind of an opportunity. I want the legislation to provide checks and balances to power so that it will not be abused. I not suggesting they will; I am suggesting we want to make sure that they will not. This is the business of building a fence that does not have holes in it.

Motion No. 6 is a very clear motion. It says that there shall be consultation with the band council that has a land code with surrounding communities. It does not say that there has to be agreement on everything. The best solutions are usually found when there are opposing positions or there are different viewpoints on something. We are asking for consultations so that we can bring about a better resolution than is the case at the present time. That is not provided for in the bill.

We must provide for that kind of consultation and make it mandatory. Members opposite have heard the letters from the bands, from municipal councillors and from the mayors. We are trying to help them. Will they please listen.

[John Duncan, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are all products of our history and our environment. We all view the world from our own vantage point. It has been proven by medical authorities that it is more stressful for a human being to listen than it is to talk. It is for sure that you learn more when you listen than when you talk.

We have seen a diversity of circumstances, a diversity of communities and name calling that does not suit the side over there that has been doing it. How long will this work? We are not here to advocate wishful thinking. We are here as legislators trying to create the best possible piece of legislation. This legislation is amendable. We could support it with amendments.

The member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore said that consultation cannot be mandated in the legislation but I beg to differ. There is a lot of legislation in this country that mandates consultation. That is what we are looking for. We are looking for clarity. The fact that consultation is not viewed as something that would contribute to the bill is one more reason that it is not hard to understand why the Liberals need a western task force when common sense is in such short supply on that side. British Columbians are tired of imposition of a federal native agenda in British Columbia that is not sensitive to local needs.

The member for Churchill said that Reform thinks first nations will abuse power. This has nothing to do with race. Any legislation we design in this place must be designed with checks and balances, native or non-native, it does not matter. We use the same tests. This has nothing to do with race, gender or any other circumstance. We are not doing our job if we do not do this thing properly.

The purpose of this legislation is even getting lost in this debate. This bill will impact on relationships between bands and local governments in a number of areas, including land use planning, environmental regulation and protection of third party interests. The federal government is imposing its will in terms of creating legislation that will disrupt local and provincial relationships. The Liberal government is not saying that is what it is doing and it does not seem to care. The implications are potentially quite far reaching.

I spoke to this bill in November. I talked about lease holders on reserve lands that would fall into being on land subject to this bill because they would be lands leased to 1 of the 14 bands to which this legislation applies. I spoke of my concerns and why the bill needed to be amended. Lo and behold we have had a seven week running story in British Columbia about the Musqueam band and what has happened to lease holders with properties in that jurisdiction.

I cannot possibly support legislation that does not address the issue of relations between communities and that does not deal with consultations on an ongoing basis regarding decisions that affect local and provincial jurisdictions in important areas such as environmental issues, land use, roads, other infrastructure questions and leases.

The minister of Indian affairs has been quoted as saying that her hands are tied on the Musqueam escalation of leases in the neighbourhood of $300 to in the neighbourhood of $30,000. The reason her hands are tied is that the previous minister assigned taxation authority to the Musqueam without any checks and balances. That is the very thing we are talking about here today. Now she is blindly walking into an expansion of similar situations for the Musqueam and others. The lease holders are unilaterally having their leases rearranged so they are no longer with Canada. They are subject to taxation without representation. Why is democracy being negotiated away?

The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development allowed three years of negotiations to occur in secret with the Caldwell Band near Blenheim in southern Ontario and is now suffering a public backlash. Surprise.

The minister now says the Caldwell land claim should have been handled with more public consultation and she gives the example of the Nisga'a comprehensive claim in British Columbia. I can assure the House that is an empty statement. The public was not consulted prior to the signing of the Nisga'a agreement.

The forestry representative and member of the treaty negotiation advisory committee said publicly: “I cannot say we worked on this document because we never saw it until February 15, just hours before it was initialled. Not one page, not one paragraph of this 150 page document was shared with the treaty negotiation advisory committee or any of the local advisory committees or any of the people with legal interests in the crown land that this agreement would give to the Nisga'a”.

The way this government handles its aboriginal affairs is archaic. There is no vision. The expropriation powers in this legislation are sweeping: “A first nation may expropriate any interest in its nation land that in the opinion of its council is necessary for community works or other first nation purposes”.

At this point I wanted to quote from a document from the Squamish Band but my colleague beat me to it. I think it is very important to point out that these expropriation powers are above and beyond anything that a municipality or other form of government has. So why does the minister perpetuate reserves?

We heard about the definition of insanity. We take something that is not working, repeat it over and over and hope that somehow it turns out different.

The Caldwell Band circumstances in southern Ontario were creating a brand new reserve. Have we not a better idea after 130 years of proving to ourselves that the reserve system is not the way to go?

We had a very similar circumstance occur in the western United States, a band with no land base. It was mandated to be given a land base, so what did it do? The legislative authorities decided that they better try to do something different that might work for a change. They came up with a land base and they said that land will belong to the band. That is your industrial base. We are going to ensure that you have homes in the community. We will buy every beneficiary in the band a home in the community. It is yours. You can do what you want with it in the future, but your land base is not zoned for residential use.

To me that is creative and avoids the problems of creating a community that may not work like so many of our reserve communities have not worked because of the fact that they are away from where the workplace really is.

Why do we fail to recognize that checks and balances are needed in aboriginal legislation? Why are we failing to represent the interests of tens of thousands of lease holders whose original leases were with Canada? Do not tell me this is not affecting Ontario because I know it is. There are lots of cottage owners, including a large group up in North Bay, I have been in touch with on this issue.

The federal native agenda is out of control and there are going to be predictable harmed stakeholders. This benefits nobody, native or non-native.

[Peter Goldring, Reform, Edmonton East, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this bill tonight. My colleague from another party said earlier that Reform was approaching this bill with a double standard. I think not. I think we are approaching this with a single standard for enjoyment of property and opportunity for all fairly. That is the reason we object to this.

I have heard a number of opinions on this bill and I think it is important to keep the focus on how we can improve the legislation. Our aboriginal people have been marginalized for far too long and the government has rarely done something to improve that for them. Hopefully we can change that this time.

There were a lot of problems and obstacles encountered by rank and file band members during formulation of this bill. Many have not been involved and they are concerned that their interests are not being met in this lack of grassroots consultation.

The band councils have a responsibility to involve and include all aboriginals in the process. There are a lot of grassroots concerns when it comes to dealing with section 28 and the issues surrounding expropriation. Some band members are even afraid their own people will drive them out of their homes.

Section 28 also leaves many unanswered questions about the process required when non-aboriginals are dealing with bands in land and lease negotiations. The uncertainty is leading to dramatic decreases in the value of the land in the disputed areas.

Bill C-49 may only expedite land expropriations and escalate tensions unnecessarily. It is important to remember that I am referring only to a small number here.

Unless there is grassroots consultation there is a great chance that development will not match the aspirations of the community. This would be permanently divisive.

My family has had experience in the eastern part of the country where they too leased from aboriginal people 15 years ago. When they leased to develop their property, the lease rates were low and attractive enough for them to move there and to develop property. After 15 years the lease rates escalated to such heights that it lost the viability of having the property. They sold it.

The problem was that when they sold it, they could not sell the property for what they paid because the lease rates were too high. There are dangers and risks of that happening.

Many problems already exist for the current government systems on reserves. How could a proud people who receive a decent amount of money each year end up in poverty? It is because so much of the money does not get to the grassroots members. We can understand their fears for granting chiefs additional power.

Some bands have millions of dollars in the bank but their members are relying on outside charity assistance to fill the gap left between the transfers to the councils and the transfers from the councils. Many believe this legislation will only concentrate that power further.

Section 28 is not the only problem area. There are also growing concerns that the treatment of women under Bill C-49 would be a big problem. There are not adequate provisions to govern situations of marital break-up. The division of property, possessions and use thereof are not adequately addressed in this legislation.

Bill C-49 contains two provisions that are particularly worrisome for native women. First, it states that rules and procedures regarding the use, occupation and possession of land upon the breakdown of marriage will be determined by the land codes at each signatory band. There is little assurance that these future provisions will be any less tilted against the interests of women and their children than the results of the current system.

The minister of Indian affairs must get her head above the sand. The very people she is claiming to assist are the ones who are being left in the cold. She must develop a clear communications network between all participants, particularly the grassroots members. This is the only way we are going to develop trust between the parties. An open and honest consultation process is essential. Currently this is not the case. Many of the existing problems can be traced back to these fundamental communication breakdowns.

A communication network is essential outside the bands too. There are a lot of communities that deal with the band councils daily on a business level. They need to be assured that there will not be confrontational styles of relationships.

Bill C-49 will not provide enough assurances to outside communities that land codes will be consistent and in harmony. We could end up by having the new industrial area right next to the newest park. We could have homes placed in the path of pollution. I am sure we could think of many other examples. It is important to co-ordinate these efforts with the surrounding communities. We must remember that people who live together must work together too.

There are also concerns that one level of government with powers restricted from others will cause problems and inhibit the co-operation I have been promoting. There is a concern long before lawyers get hold of C-49. After lawyers get hold of C-49 we could be in for the ride of a lifetime, especially when dealing with clauses 20 to 24.

How can lawmaking powers associated with criminal law be given to band councils? Is this not the role of parliament? Is that not unconstitutional? There are many, many questions that have to be asked about this bill.

I fully recognize the good intentions underlying this bill and I know a great deal of work has been done in developing it. However, we cannot pass legislation that opens a legal can of worms.

I support development on the reserves. It is important that aboriginals be free to contribute to their immediate and surrounding communities as they see fit. If C-49 passes, we will see disputes and mistrust long before we will see co-operation and harmony. We must remember that it has historically been these disputes and mistrusts that have prevented many bands from proceeding with development long before now.

This bill is not right and in my humble opinion it should not pass.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I took the advice of one of the speakers from the Reform Party and I listened for the past couple of hours to the debate on the amendments to this bill.

After listening and talking to some of my colleagues and others and getting some advice on this, I have come to one fairly inescapable conclusion. The Reform Party simply does not support self-government. I do not know how I could arrive at any other conclusion.

It is quite clear to me that what the Reform Party has done is to put forward amendments that are pure nonsense. I guess it has done this in an attempt to hide what it is really saying under the guise of supporting some minority individuals who have spoken out and expressed concern which under normal circumstances would be laudable. The Reform Party simply does not want to see any self-government or any land claim agreements or any kind of a deal made with these first nation communities that would provide them with the dignity they have been negotiating.

How can we arrive at anything else when we look at the fact that the provinces have been consulted and they are on side. The 14 chiefs of the first nation communities have signed and gone through the democratic process on this.

What we are really hearing is that the Reform Party does not trust them to be able to make their own decisions. It does not trust these first nation peoples to be able to run a democratic community, allowing for people to have a say and a vote in establishing the land code. What other conclusion could we come to if we look at the substantiveness or the lack of substantiveness of these amendments?

I looked at one amendment and found it almost laughable. Motion No. 7 is one of the three we are debating today. This motion would delete the names of the 14 first nations from the schedule but would keep the empty schedule. What is that? The Reform Party says “We are out of new ideas, so let us just delete the names of the 14 first nations that signed the agreement”. That is the best the Reform Party can come up with.

Why do Reform members not at least have the courage to stand up and tell the truth which is that they do not support self-government. They do not support this kind of a deal for these first nations. At least we could understand if they had the courage to stand and say that and not hide behind nonsensical, almost silly amendments, deleting the names of the participants to the document. It is astounding.

I hear concerns about expropriation. I have looked at this. I have read through the document. I have read through the information in the bill. It is nothing more than fearmongering to suggest that somehow in the middle of the night they are going to come along and take away their family home with no opportunity for any kind of democratic protection. It is just not true. Members should not say things in this place that are not true. We all know that. We learn that the first day we come here.

[Howard Hilstrom, Reform, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like clarification, Madam Speaker. The other day in question period I was shut down by the Speaker, so to speak. I was denied the right to speak when I used the words “not true”. I wonder if it has changed for this debate or not.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The hon. member has raised a point of debate and not a point of order.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to help out by saying that I was not directing my comments at any individual member, to suggest that a member was actually uttering a falsehood or an untruth. I was saying that it is wrong and it is fearmongering to suggest that some grand powers of expropriation are being placed in the hands of some people who are going to ignore their own community and throw people out of their homes. That is not true. That is what I said and that is what I say again.

On the expropriation matter, it is like with any municipality. If the municipality needs the land for the common good, then there is a process. There is law in Canada. This does not abrogate that law or the responsibility of the band signing this agreement from living up to the terms of that law. They cannot simply expropriate without due value, without due consideration and without due process in law, just like a municipality, just like a provincial government and just like the federal government.

To try to frighten these folks just because a few have concerns and to look for loopholes or ways in which the Reform Party, which happens to be the only party in this place taking this position I might add, I think there is a hidden agenda. The hidden agenda might be Nisga'a. It just might be the fact that the Reform Party has placed a tremendous amount of political capital on the table in the province of British Columbia.

The Reform members feel they have to cave in to some of the more extreme municipal officials perhaps. They are yelling so I am obviously making a point. I guess they are getting their knickers in a twist. It is fine for them do do that but they should stand up and tell people what they really are opposed to.

In reality what we have here is a framework agreement that will be established and which will lay out the rules. It is quite clear that the first thing that happens under that framework agreement is that a first nation must develop a land code. That land code sets out the basic rules and procedures, reading right from the presentation, that will govern interest in land and resources after the land provisions of the Indian Act cease to apply to these communities.

The first nations put in place the land code. People understand the rules. The people in the actual community get to vote. If they are over 18, they will get to vote on the land code. Sounds reasonably democratic to me. I do not see anybody hiding. I do not see anybody other than members of the Reform Party using scare tactics on this. I do not see that happening.

In fact, this is putting in place framework agreements with 14 first nation communities so they can establish land codes through a democratic process, through a duly elected council. One of the members said that this agreement places the power for governance in the hands of the council. My goodness that sounds radical. Imagine that. Giving power to elected officials. And they get elected presumably over a period of time on an ongoing basis. They represent their constituents.

[An hon. member]

Not too long I hope.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

If the member wants to chirp she should sit in her seat. She is eating an apple. I am sorry, she is hungry.

The real truth of all of this debate here today is that the Reform Party is against giving any kind of self governance, any kind of authority to the first nations people. Members of the Reform Party should be ashamed of themselves for standing in the way of this legislation.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to express our opposition to Bill C-49, the first nation land management act.

When there is not an effective argument we have to listen for 10 minutes to political rhetoric and name calling. Let us focus on the argument and look to the lands officials, not the unnecessary political rhetoric from the other side.

I will argue from the point of view of women on this bill. The implications of Bill C-49 for the rights and position of native women are large. The B.C. Native Women's Society, supported by three major native organizations, has lodged a court case against the federal government to require that the issue of native women's rights be properly addressed before the enactment of Bill C-49. Yet this government still pushes ahead with this bill.

When the marriages of native women fail, all too often because of poverty or related conditions, they and their children typically lose the family home. Their ex-spouses typically get possession of the family home based on the decisions of the band council. These women often have nowhere to live on the reserve and many end up in the worst of circumstances. Unlike other Canadian women, native women on reserves do not have the protection of property division laws.

Native women will bear the brunt of these legislative provisions which we are debating today. They will be denied the protection they could be afforded through treaties if we go ahead with this bill.

This is for the information of members who are forced to toe the party line, those who are just following the talking points given to them. For the sake of those members in the House, Bill C-49 contains two provisions that are particularly worrisome for native women.

First, it states that the rules and procedures regarding the use, occupation and possession of land upon the breakdown of marriage will be determined by the land codes of each signatory band. Yet there is little assurance that these future provisions will be any less biased against the interests of women and their children than the results of the current system.

Second, the bill offers band councils draconian powers of expropriation which must concern native women as well as other native people living on reserves and non-natives with leaseholder interests in the land.

Clause 38 of Bill C-49 grants participating bands almost unlimited powers over ownership, management and expropriation of band lands. These powers will be used against native women, non-native leaseholders and band members outside the governing elite, despite the fact that they may have been living there for years and years and may have been paying taxes to the government.

Can any member in the House argue that two wrongs make a right? I do not think so. This legislative proposal would allow 14 bands including the Musqueam in Vancouver to expropriate leasehold and other interests with less than 30 days notice for community works and any other first nation purpose.

For example, because of the refusal by the Musqueam band in Vancouver to talk meaningfully to their leaseholders and because of their hard line band leadership, the property values on Musqueam land have already collapsed. Despite repeated calls on the Indian affairs minister to intervene, she has not. She refused to intervene. What is the definition of fair compensation after the Indian band has destroyed all equity and there is no market value left?

I always enjoy listening to my constituents and representing them. Let me quote a letter that I received from one of my constituents. The letter stated:

I am writing to request your assistance in dealing with several problems we are experiencing with our lease of land on an Indian reserve.

I do not know to what extent the problems are due to the nature of the lease or the nature of Band Administration or to the dispute between the various levels of government and the native bands, but I do know that they are producing substantial amounts of frustration, exasperation and anger, not just in ourselves but in many others in similar circumstances.

And while I sympathize with efforts of the government to at least redress the balance, I am becoming increasingly resentful that my rights, as a citizen, are being abrogated or at least lost in the shuffle of the questionable deals that various levels of government are offering to the Native Bands.

The primary problem is due to the expiration of the lease on 31st of March 2000 and the fact that I am financially unable to continue to pay the yearly tax and lease. It is also due to the fact that I am unable to sell the lease for the value of the substantial improvements, or even a reasonable fraction thereof that we have made on the property. With less than two years left, no one is prepared to gamble that amount of money that the Band will renew the lease. The Band has made no efforts to instil any confidence in the few prospective purchasers we have had that they would extend the lease and have acted in a manner to diminish that confidence. Given that they provided us with a letter of intent that they would extend the lease at the end of the term, it is not understandable why they have actually refused to give the same assurance to a prospective purchaser. This has to be extremely shortsighted if not actually dishonest, given our efforts and dealings with the Band over the last 10 years.

This is a frustrated constituent. This letter was sent to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and in her reply she said:

I can appreciate your concern and frustration in securing a long term lease for your retirement years. As I am sure you can understand, we are both obligated to operate within the parameters of the terms and conditions of the existing lease agreement. Also, in keeping with the interests of “renewing our partnerships” with Canada's Aboriginal peoples, we would not enter into an extension of the lease.

The minister further states that therefore she cannot get involved and her office cannot help. What will this constituent do? He is living in Canada. He is paying taxes to the government and the minister is showing helplessness to the constituent.

In conclusion, Bill C-49 must be rethought and amended. If passed the way it is, without introducing any amendments which we are suggesting, we would be passing legislation without any reference to taxpaying citizens who are directly and drastically affected. We will not be able to support the bill until the amendments are passed.