Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to address some comments with respect to the issue the parliamentary secretary raised and his comments in the House of Commons a couple of weeks ago in debate which not only elicited a strong response from me, as he pointed out, but I am aware of a very strong response from a lot of residents on the Musqueam reserve, leasehold residents.
The parliamentary secretary made statements that were erroneous and not based on facts. He was challenged to come outside the House and make those same statements. That would have been the democratic test of whether the veracity of what he said was there but the parliamentary secretary chose not to do so. He has chosen not to apologize to the Musqueam residents and has chosen to ignore my letter.
I think it is really unfortunate because when he talks about driving a wedge between people, I can assure him that his comments served nothing more than to drive a wedge between Musqueam residents, the Musqueam band and the Government of Canada. I can assure him that was the effect of his comments. It is really unfortunate that he sees fit not to apologize for those.
I will go on to address some of the issues the minister raised.
She rightly identifies the Indian Act as a major obstacle for aboriginal people in Canada to get ahead. In that regard we agree with her completely. We also agree with the principle and the notion of decentralizing decision making especially with respect to reserve based land. As the minister knows and as members in the House know, reserve land does not even belong to the band. It belongs to the crown in right of the Queen. Obviously this is wrong and it needs to be addressed.
We thought we were in the process of having an arrangement whereby we could support Bill C-49 earlier in the year and late last year. That was based on agreement to have some amendments made to provide for property rights for aboriginal women, to provide for consultation between municipalities and to provide for expropriation provisions that would be seen to be fair to leaseholders on reserve land.
I might add that on the issue of leaseholders we are focused right now on the Musqueam because there is an obvious problem. What is not yet widely known across Canada is that there are some 60,000 leaseholders on reserve land in Ontario. There are some 20,000 leaseholders on reserve land in British Columbia. There are tens of thousands of leasehold interests on other reserves across Canada. We think that this is a sign of progress and that this is a good thing. We do not say it is bad. What we are saying is in the government's attempt to decentralize decision making some principles have to be followed like the principle that we do not take tens of thousands of people who have a leasehold interest on reserve land and let them twist in the wind. There must be provisions to protect those interests built into the legislation.
It is beyond me why the minister is not willing to consider those amendments. For the minister's benefit I point out that the member for Vancouver Quadra, a Liberal, was recently quoted in the Vancouver Sun saying: “The bill in my view needs corrections and I want them made”. This is a very well respected Liberal member of parliament. He is a lawyer and is recognized as a constitutional expert. He goes on to say a number of other things. He says Bill C-49 was poorly drafted. He supports concerns expressed by another Liberal member of parliament and B.C. Liberal leader Gordon Campbell who say that the expropriation rights for Indian bands are excessive.
This is the very point the minister was addressing and she said they were not excessive. Her colleague who is a recognized constitutional and legal expert says they are. He cites the bill's lack of protection for native women who often loose the right to marital property after a divorce and the omission of any mechanism requiring consultation with surrounding municipalities on development matters.