Mr. Speaker, I will continue my remarks from last Friday when we first began debating the Senate amendments.
It is now useful to remind the House of some of the history of the legislation before us. Back in the fall of last year the government introduced Bill C-49. At the time it was introduced there was a great deal of discussion among the various parties to see if we could get all party consent to speed the bill through the House of Commons. Apparently the bill had been before the House before and had not succeeded. Apparently many people were lobbying various members of parliament trying to get speedy passage of the bill.
After we reviewed it we found that there were some flaws. We started pointing them out to the government. A lot of the credit for identifying these flaws goes to grassroots people living on reserves, particularly in British Columbia, and municipalities in British Columbia that expressed some concern about the lack of a consultation process with regard to the use of land.
Concerns were also expressed about other areas of the bill such as expropriation. We received a great deal of mail, e-mails, faxes and so on, from people in the Musqueam reserve who had an experience relevant to the legislation which certainly made them very fearful and concerned about what could happen if Bill C-49 were passed without amendment.
We began discussions with the government talking about the amendments we were looking for. We had some indication back in November and December that we were to get amendments but we never got them. Consequently, in February and March when Bill C-49 came back into the House, members of the official opposition voiced strong opposition. We made it very clear to the government that we would not support the bill until amendments were made. In fact, we were to mount as stiff an opposition as we possibly could.
Various members opposite in the government benches made public comments about Bill C-49 at that time. I would like to read into the record some of those comments. A news story in the Vancouver Sun of March 4, 1999, indicated:
First nations legislation faces possible changes: Amendment in the Senate is pursued for a bill that gives land management powers to 14 Indian bands.
B.C. Liberal MPs said Wednesday the Senate will study and possibly amend legislation that would give bands such as the Musqueam and the Squamish expropriation powers on reserve land.
The seven member B.C. caucus has been inundated by letters, telephone calls and faxes expressing concern about the bill, which is expected to easily pass third and final reading in the House of Commons early next week before going to the Senate.
The bill, called the First Nations Land Management Act, transfers land management powers from Ottawa to 14 Canadian bands—including five in B.C.
The powers include the right to expropriate any interest in its lands such as leases if the band council deems it necessary for “community works or other first nations purposes”.
The bill has gained notoriety because it has been linked to the $490 million Nisga'a treaty and to the Musqueam band's imposition of 7,000% rent increases on leaseholders living on reserve land.
Some Musqueam leaseholders say the band plans to expropriate their leases in order to build condominiums, but the band says it has no motives other than to enforce the Federal Court of Appeal's ruling sanctioning huge hikes.
Indian Affairs Minister Jane Stewart has said that bands wouldn't be allowed under Bill C-49 to expropriate interests on Musqueam land except for community purposes such as hospitals or sewer projects.
The bill also provoked concern among some mayors near the reserves who don't feel the legislation requires sufficient consultation between bands and municipalities prior to property development.
And native women's groups are upset because the bill doesn't provide adequate protection for women who often lose access to the marital home after divorce.
The controversy over the legislation has prompted government MPs to hold out hope that the Senate could send amendments back to the Commons, forcing the Indian affairs minister to reconsider her legislation.
Referring to a statement by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, the article stated:
The very many communications and comments and criticisms...from native women's groups, both native and non-native leaseholders, and also municipal and similar organizations, can all be studied by the Senate committee and taken into account in offering possible changes to the bill as it now stands.
The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra pointed out that B.C. MPs and senators met with Indian affairs minister and got her support for the Senate committee on aboriginal affairs studying the bill. He continued:
I welcome Parliament's taking note of community opinions in this way, and thank the minister of Indian affairs for her co-operation.
According to the article the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam was asked by the minister to begin meetings with B.C. mayors and with chiefs of the five bands. It referred to the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam and indicated as follows:
The meetings are taking place “so we can hear everybody's side and see what are the weak points, what are the strong points, what needs adjusting and a few other things”.
It continued:
Liberal Senator Ray Perrault said the public feels a sense of powerlessness over issues like Bill C-49, the Musqueam matter, and Nisga'a. The emotion expressed in the letters he has received is as powerful as any he's seen in his long political career in the B.C. legislature and the Senate.
“They believe they don't have sufficient input; they feel the democratic process is subverted”, Perrault said.
Referring to a statement of the minister, the article continued:
—she will naturally have to consider any amendments that may come back from the Senate, but she doesn't believe Bill C-49 has flaws.
“I feel very comfortable with the bill”, she said.
I ask all members of the House, and anyone who happens to be watching, how the minister could be so far on one side of the issue. She is not accepting advice from Liberal senators who have spent their entire careers in politics. She is not accepting advice from members like the member for Vancouver Quadra who is recognized as somewhat of a legal and constitutional expert. She is telling her critics, including the critics from within her own party, that there is nothing wrong with the bill. She does not feel that it needs any changes and is intent on seeing it passed just the way it is. Is that the way the House of Commons should be doing business?
Another article from the Windsor Star of March 11 indicated that a local Liberal member of parliament, the member from Essex Kent, found himself in an unusual position of voting with Tory, independent and 42 Reform members against a controversial government bill that gave 14 Indian bands greater power over land management issues. Because dissent within the Liberal ranks was frowned upon and discouraged by the Prime Minister, the decision of the member from Essex Kent was both unusual and gutsy.
Bill C-49 has already drawn legitimate criticism on two fronts. First, it would pass more control of reserve lands to band councils, allowing them to expropriate interests on their land such as non-native leaseholders if expropriation is deemed to be in the community's interest. The bill does not specifically define those interests, leading to concern that land could be used for commercial development or even casinos.
On one B.C. reserve non-natives already have been saddled with a 7,000% increase in their rent, leading to suspicion that the band is trying to lower real estate prices so it can keep future compensation payments down.
A second concern outlined in the article was that native women were concerned that the bill did not guarantee women equal rights to property when a marriage breaks down. Bands can create their own rules and there is no requirement for any appeal process.
Some might see the member from Essex Kent as attempting to score political points in his riding where the government and the Caldwell first nation have negotiated a tentative agreement that would give the band $23.5 million to establish a 4,500 acre reserve on what is now prime farm land. However, the Caldwell deal raised many legitimate questions about the government's approach to land claims and the continued promotion of the unsuccessful reserve system. I submit that Bill C-49 feeds into that.
In opposing Bill C-49 the member from Essex Kent accused Indian Affairs Minister Jane Stewart and her department of intentionally trying to avoid public consultation on—
