Mike Scott

[First Nations Land Management Act, June 10th, 1999]

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. You are absolutely right and I will try to refrain from doing that. It was a slip.

In opposing Bill C-49 the member from Essex Kent accused the minister of Indian affairs and her department of intentionally trying to avoid public consultation on land claims and self-government matters across the country. The evidence suggests he is right.

I have many articles from which I could read. I have another one from the Vancouver Sun of March 3 headlined “Liberal raps bill to boost native power: An Ontario MP says Bill C-49, which is sure to pass its final vote next week, is excessive”.

The article indicated:

Open dissent is appearing within Liberal ranks over the federal government's legislation to give 14 native Indian bands in Canada, including five in B.C., greater powers over their land, including the ability to expropriate.

Southern Ontario Liberal...who plans to vote against Bill C-49 next week, said the bill is excessive and he criticized the government for imposing closure to limit debate in the House of Commons this week.

He also accused the Indian affairs minister...and her department of intentionally trying to avoid public consultation on land claim and self-government matters across Canada.

According to the article the member from Essex Kent said:

Their position is to keep the dummies in the dark.

According to the article the hon. member from Essex Kent:

—was the only Liberal to join Reform MPs in voting against Bill C-49 during report stage Monday, and intends to rise in opposition in the House of Commons next week when the bill returns for third and final vote.

However, concern is growing among some B.C. Liberal MPs and senators who met Tuesday evening with the minister.

The member for Vancouver Quadra, according to the article:

—voted with the government Monday but said he is working behind the scenes to ensure there is a thorough Senate committee study, including public hearings and possible amendments.

The member for Vancouver Quadra said that he did not support the bill. The article continued:

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

“The details were to be worked out in a few days”.

The member for Vancouver Quadra said:

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

The member for Vancouver Quadra said that Bill C-49 was poorly drafted and supported concerns expressed by the member from Essex Kent and B.C. Liberal leader Gordon Campbell who said that the expropriation rights for Indian bands were excessive.

The article continued:

The bill permits bands to expropriate interest in their land, such as leases held by residents or businesses, if council deems it “necessary for community works or other first nation purposes”.

“Some critics say natives and non-natives could be removed from their land in order to build casinos and condominiums”, but the minister “insists expropriation will only take place to build hospitals, sewers and other services”.

According to the article the member for Vancouver Quadra and the member from Essex Kent also cited:

—the bill's lack of protection for native women who often lose their right to marital property after a divorce, and the omission of any mechanism requiring consultation with surrounding municipalities on development matters.

The member for Vancouver Quadra said that the public's concern is correctly focused on the bill. He said that the legislation, which had breezed through its second vote on Monday by a 170 to 35 margin, was sure to pass the third and final Commons vote, which was expected early the next week.

I have been laying the groundwork. I have been trying to apprise members in the House and anybody who might be watching that not only was the Reform Party, the official opposition, saying there were problems with the bill, but the independent member from the Toronto area, at least two Liberal members on the government side and Liberal senators were saying there were serious problems with the bill and they identified those problems.

The member for Vancouver Quadra identified those problems publicly and said that the bill was poorly drafted. He said that the public's concern was correctly focused. He said that the bill needed changing. He said that he would work behind the scenes to see that it was changed. He must have had some opposition from the minister of Indian affairs because she was publicly quoted in the same articles saying that she thought the bill was fine.

Against that backdrop, the bill was sent over to the Senate for consideration, deliberation and debate and apparently there was some kind of a deal cooked up in the backrooms between Liberal backbenchers and senators that this bill was to be amended by the Senate and sent back to the House.

When we found that out we were somewhat encouraged because we believed it meant that we were actually going to have the concerns addressed that were brought to us by mayors and city councillors from the Vancouver area and from aboriginal women living on reserve, particularly the Squamish reserve. We received a number of concerns expressed by these women.

We were starting to believe that those issues would be resolved. I think the House may be aware that there is a young lady from the Squamish reserve who actually had a piece published in the National Post . Her name is Wendy Lockhart Lundberg. I think that she is an absolutely courageous woman who has done a great deal to move this issue into public debate, and that is the issue of native women's rights or the lack of native women's right.

She published an article in the National Post . It is really important that the House understands how she feels and how many of her fellow band members feel, native women such as Maizy Baker. I hope these people are watching because I know this issue is very important to them. They have expressed their concerns over and over again to all members of the House, particularly members of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

I believe that all members of parliament from British Columbia have received mail from these people and they have made their point very well.

Wendy Lockhart Lundberg, a member of the Squamish Band in the Vancouver area, in her article that was published in the National Post earlier this spring, said that native women feel threatened by the federal bill. She said that 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 that could be afforded through treaties.

She continued to say that a little publicized government bill, Bill C-49, the first nations land management act, was scheduled for third reading in parliament the 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 included her band, the Squamish, as well as Vancouver's Musqueam Band and bands across the country and would 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 Bill C-49 for the rights and position of native women are large and 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 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. There ex-spouses typically get possession of the family home based on decisions of the band council. Often the women have nowhere to live on the reserve and many 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 a 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 the rules set by the band itself.

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 which is 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 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. The band will be able to expropriate for any other first nation purpose, 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 the zoning. With this ever present threat, how many non-natives will want to make the investments needed for development or leasehold arrangements with bands?

Wendy Lockhart Lundberg's 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 her mother's efforts to regain her family 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. The Squamish nation has intervened on behalf of all signatory bands on the side of the federal government and against the B.C. Native Women's Society on the Bill C-49 lawsuit.

Ms. Lundberg said that she believed her mother's rights and those of many other native women would be lost forever if Bill C-49 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.

A registered status native and member of the Squamish Band, Wendy Lockhart Lundberg, said that 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. She said that she doubted whether either of those women share native women's concerns about their lands, homes and families.

It is beyond us to understand why the minister and the government have not bothered to listen to the pleas from these women who are very concerned about their lack of property rights which all other Canadian women enjoy in the event of marriage breakdown.

I have another example that I can share with the House and that is the example of Maizy Baker. She tells me that there are many, many more like her.

Maizy Baker is a member of the Squamish Band. She is an elder in the band and she has a property that she would like to be able to pass along to her children. We all do that as Canadians. This is a matter of—

[First Nations Land Management Act, June 10th, 1999]

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—

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, June 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is quite right. The Liberals have been absolutely atrocious in their dealings with the Americans.

Coming from the northwest coast of British Columbia, I know all too well how much the people in my communities who fish are going to suffer as a result of the Pacific salmon deal. The member is quite right. We caved in to the Americans on Pacific salmon. The Liberals caved in. The minister wraps himself in the flag and tries to paint himself as the conservation fisheries minister, but in reality what we have done is sold out to the Americans.

I would like to know sometime in my life what the Canadian government got in return somewhere else in Canada. I am sure there is some backroom bargaining going on.

I would also like to remind the member that I come from British Columbia which has an NDP administration. He was demonstrating postures so I have one for him. With an NDP administration, we in B.C. have the posture of having no money left because the NDP unfortunately cannot run a province.

Does my colleague have any comments to make about that since he was demonstrating the NDP's position with respect to the Liberal negotiating positions?

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the minister promised Wing Construction over a year ago that she would do something to straighten out this mess. Does the minister not understand that members of the Fontaine family working in her department, some of whom are working on this file, have a huge conflict of interest? Can she spell conflict of interest? Would she tell us what is the extent of the relationship between the Fontaine family and her and her department?

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Wing Construction, an old and established Manitoba company, is more than $2 million in debt and on the verge of bankruptcy because of fraudulent actions by former Sagkeeng band chief Jerry Fontaine. This would be the same Jerry Fontaine who ran for the leadership of the Manitoba Liberal Party. This would be the same Jerry Fontaine who has four close family members working directly or indirectly for the minister.

Does the minister not see the conflict of interest that is generated by the close ties between her department and the Fontaine family?

[First Nations Land Management Act, June 4th, 1999]

The member says we cannot instruct the Senate. He knows full well that the Prime Minister is the one who appoints the senators and the senators are beholden to the him. He knows full well that the Senate will do the Prime Minister's bidding virtually every time. That is one of the problems my colleague from Cypress Hills was alluding to a few minutes ago.

The government sent the bill to the senate. A backroom deal was made and the government got the Liberal senators to agree to propose amendments to it.

The Senate decided to hold committee hearings on the bill. We found out about this and made sure that the people who had approached us, the Aboriginal Women's Society of Canada, the Aboriginal Women's Society of British Columbia, Mazie Baker and Wendy Lundberg from Vancouver had the knowledge that this would be in front of the Senate. They came to Ottawa and testified in front of the Senate. I could not sit in on all the Senate committee meetings unfortunately because my parliamentary duties would not allow it, but I sat in on as many as I could. It was an eye opener to hear what those ladies had to say.

Judging by the looks on some of the faces of the senators, they were absolutely astounded and had no idea how to deal with this. It was almost as if everybody was afraid to say that the emperor has no clothes. I can assure everyone that the emperor has no clothes. We cannot pass this kind of legislation on the one hand and on the other hand say that we are concerned about the rights of aboriginal women. The two are incompatible.

These women came from British Columbia and other parts of Canada and made presentations to the committee. They were very compelling in the arguments they advanced and in the stories they told in their own languages and in their own words. They were plain spoken, direct and no nonsense. They did not use six and seven syllable legalese terms. They talked about how it affected them, their families and their children. The senators sat and listened.

I talked to some of the senators. I did have personal contact with some of the senators on this. Many of them felt at a loss as to what they could do. I think the Liberal senators, who are a majority in the other place right now, were instructed by the minister and her department as to what they could or could not do in terms of amendments. Judging by the amendments we see today, I think the minister gave them a very short leash.

There are some changes with respect to expropriation but they are not sufficient by half. There is nothing with respect to marriage breakdown and marital property. There is nothing with respect to inheritance and nothing with respect to any kind of requirement for adjacent municipalities and aboriginal communities to have some kind of consultation when it comes to property development.

I want to talk for a minute about what happens when government passes this kind of legislation without wanting to think about what the ramifications are. Some of its members are very intelligent people. They do not act like it a lot of the time but I know them and they are very capable people. I submit that at times they do not want to look into the future, they do not want to admit what the net effect of these policies are going to be.

Let us look at what happens when government deals in this kind of legislation without that kind of consideration.

Back in 1965 the Government of Canada, the department of Indian affairs, encouraged the Musqueam band to get into the land development business. The Musqueam band owned a piece of property located in Vancouver. There was nothing on it. I am sure this is how it happened. The Department of Indian Affairs told the band that since it did not need this property it should subdivide it and lease it out.

The band, the department and a private enterprise developer in Vancouver entered into a deal. The Department of Indian Affairs signed on behalf of the band. It signed on behalf of the Government of Canada actually because the property is still in the name of the crown. The Musqueam leaseholders came into being. That was in 1965.

When the master lease was signed in 1965, 74 leasehold properties were created. The department of Indian affairs signed the master lease and all of the subleases. The master lease governs the entire 74 properties but each individual property is considered a sublease.

Once the department of Indian affairs had signed the master lease people living in Vancouver started to buy the leases. At the time it cost $18,000 to buy a lease and people had an obligation to pay so many dollars a year. The lease price for this land was negotiated in 1965 at about $350 a year but on top of that property taxes had to be paid. It was a 99 year lease with the initial term being 30 years. It was up for renegotiation in 1995.

The people living in these houses believed they had a 99 year lease with a 30 year term which would be renegotiated in 1995. They believed they were dealing with the department of Indian affairs, the Government of Canada. They thought they could not go wrong. Surely the Government of Canada would never do anything to compromise good taxpaying Canadians, some of whom were veterans of World War II. The Government of Canada would never do anything to compromise their interests.

In 1980 the federal government, the minister of Indian affairs signed a deal without giving any notice, without any consultation or discussion with the leaseholders and transferred the federal government's authority for the leases over to the band. Nobody was aware of this except the band. No disclosure was made at all.

Through the 1980s and into the early 1990s people continued to buy and sell houses which everyone understood were on leased land. Nobody ever bothered to tell the leaseholders that this huge change in administrative authority had taken place. It was done under section 53 of the Indian Act which the minister of Indian affairs at the time was empowered to do, but there was no disclosure.

In 1991 the federal government signed a further deal with the Musqueam band allowing it to enter into direct taxation for property taxes on these leases. Until that time there was a deal between the federal government, the band and the municipality of Vancouver wherein the municipality of Vancouver would provide the services and collect the taxes.

In 1991 the band became the property tax collector. It passed on some of the money to the city of Vancouver because the city of Vancouver had to be paid for the services it was delivering. The residents had no knowledge that this was going to happen. There was no consultation. It was just done. It was done without their knowledge as a fait accompli.

After it was a fait accompli residents became aware of it very quickly. Their property taxes skyrocketed. The band since that time has been collecting property taxes. It will argue that it is not collecting school taxes, but I would argue it is collecting much higher levels of taxes now than what was collected when the city of Vancouver was the property tax assessor and collector.

The band is not providing school services to those residents. It is not turning over any of the tax revenues it is collecting to the Government of British Columbia in aid of providing school services for the children of the leaseholders who live on that reserve. In some cases it has almost as much as tripled the property taxes these people pay.

In the municipality in which I live, and all municipalities are the same, property taxes are not there as some kind of cash cow for the municipality to do whatever it wants. Taxes are tied to the services the municipality delivers. Municipalities by law are not allowed to run either a deficit or a surplus. They collect only as much taxes as are required for them to operate the municipality on an annualized basis. I would submit that because the people who pay the property taxes in municipalities get to elect their municipal councillors, these people are also very accountable for how those tax dollars are spent.

We have a completely different situation in Musqueam. There are 74 people who are paying property taxes to the Musqueam band council but they are not allowed to vote for any of the band councillors. They are not allowed to run for office. In fact, they are not legally entitled to even show up at the council meetings. Now I ask, is that a very wise decision on the part of government?

This is why I am very concerned about this bill. The government makes decisions and it does not consider the long term impact of those decisions. On the Musqueam reserve, because of this taxation policy, there is the absolutely unbearable prospect of taxation without representation. The American break from Great Britain happened over taxation without representation. That is how important it is to people.

Do we in Canada think we are so clever and so intelligent that we can reinvent these failed policies and somehow make them work? I do not understand the thinking behind this. There are far too many people involved in the policy making decisions in this country, particularly in the bureaucracy around here, who are clever, well educated and totally impractical and who totally blind themselves to history.

I would submit that the Musqueam leaseholders story in the chronicles of modern Canadian history is an absolute nightmare. It is absolutely beyond my ability to comprehend. I have gone there and met with the leaseholders. I know what kind of pain and suffering these people have been through and are still going through.

A fellow the other day sent me the lease bill he had just received from the Musqueam band. His lease bill was $74,000 for the property that his house is on. There was a tiny little polite note at the bottom to please pay it within 30 days. Is that not interesting? I wonder how the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development would like it if we sent her a bill like that. I wonder how anybody else in the House would feel if they received a bill like that.

We have to be so politically correct we are not even supposed to discuss these issues in the House of Commons. We are not even supposed to raise these issues.

[First Nations Land Management Act, June 4th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-49 and the amendments that have been passed in the Senate.

The reason the bill went to the Senate for amendments was that the Liberal government did not have the courage, or maybe I should say did not want to admit to the serious flaws in the bill when they were brought to their attention late last fall and again early in the spring.

These flaws were not only brought to the attention of the government by the Reform Party but by many Canadians, particularly aboriginal Canadians across Canada and especially those in my home province of British Columbia.

The Senate amendments are a small step in the right direction. They certainly are an improvement to the bill. We had three major concerns with Bill C-49 which we presented to the government in December 1998 and again in the spring 1999. They had to do with the vast expropriation powers granted under the legislation; the lack of matrimonial property rights, particularly for aboriginal women; and the fact that there was no requirement on the part of aboriginal bands and adjacent municipalities to consult with one another on areas of mutual concern and interest when it came to development issues such as sewer, water and road projects and so on.

The bill came back from the Senate. It addresses in a small way our concern with respect to its expropriation powers. However, it does absolutely nothing to address our concerns with respect to the disposition of matrimonial property in the event of a marriage breakdown. It does nothing to address the concerns of adjacent municipalities that wish to be consulted and are quite willing to provide an obligation to consult them on issues of joint concern when it comes to land development.

I will talk a bit about private property rights issues, a key question aboriginal people living on reserves in Canada face today. Aboriginal people do not enjoy property rights like all other Canadians when they choose to live on reserve. The reserve lands are owned collectively. They are not even owned by the band council, by the band or by the collectivity of the particular tribe or tribal council. The underlying title is vested in the crown, which is to say the federal Government of Canada.

When there are no private property rights there cannot be a proper disposition in the event of marriage breakdown. There is not even the ability to provide an inheritance for children and their children when it comes to the house or property parents have resided in all their lives.

Speaking to that point for a minute, I had an opportunity to meet a wonderful lady several months ago. I hope she is watching today. Her name is Mazie Baker and she comes from the Squamish reserve. She has been fighting for a long time for the right to be able to pass along to her children the house in which she has lived all her life, the house she grew up in, the house she considers her home but to which she has no title. She does have a certificate of possession but she does not have title to the home because there is no such thing as title on reserve. There are no private property rights.

Mazie is very concerned about Bill C-49. She is representative of many aboriginal people living on reserve we have talked to. I spent a couple of hours with her in Vancouver in February this year. She asked me how the fruits of her labour, the house that means everything to her and her family, where they had their Christmas and Thanksgiving dinners together, could be passed on to her children if there were no property rights. Then she looked at Bill C-49 and said that it was not taking her closer to a private property right, that it was taking her further away.

The bill is concentrating the decision making power of who is to possess what land and live in what house on reserve in the hands of chief and council. Band members will be dependent on the good will and the sense of fairness and justice of the band council.

In many cases band councils will be fair about it but in other cases they will not. That is human nature. I would not want to be dependent on the municipality I live in right now to be fair about the inheritance of the property I own by my children. I would not want to be dependent on them. I would want something firm and solid, a property right, but that is not granted on reserve.

I want to talk about what happens in the event of a marriage breakdown. Aboriginal women in Canada do not enjoy the same rights as all other Canadian women. I could provide many examples. I think I may have spoken about the case of an aboriginal lady who splits from her husband but it bears repeating.

In the last election I was campaigning in Prince Rupert, a significant community in my riding. A relatively young aboriginal lady came up to me in tears and asked whether I could help. I asked her what was the problem and said I would see what I could do. She had three young children all below the age of 10. If my memory serves me right, two of them were below the age of 5.

Her husband had left her on her own. She could not get a job because she had to look after her kids. Her husband was not paying any child support. He was making good money. He was a fisherman.

I asked why she did not do what what everybody else does, go to court and get a court order forcing him to pay child support. That is what we do in Canada. That is how we protect not the women but the children. That is what it is all about.

She said that she went to court and obtained a court order, but he moved back on to the reserve where the court order was not enforceable.

How is that fair to this woman and thousands of other women who end up in the same situation? How can Canadians sit back and say this is the best country in the world in which to live when that kind of inequity exists?

If one spends time talking with aboriginal people and visiting them on reserve and off reserve, one will find out that most often when an aboriginal woman marries a man she moves on to his reserve. Most of these communities are small communities with small populations, so he is living in a community where he is either related to or has a very close association with some of the people on the band council.

They live in a house which is not owned by them but by the band. They may get a certificate of possession if they are lucky, but the band decides who will live where. People in the community do not decide that; the band council decides that.

Let us take the situation of a couple that is married for some 5, 10 or 15 years. For whatever reason marriages breakdown, they decide to live apart and their marriage is dissolved. In that situation who will be out on the street?

Most of the time it is the woman because she has no private property rights. She is not protected by any of the other laws that protect Canadian women from coast to coast. The chief and council make the administrative decision about who will retain possession and custody of the house.

Is that what we in Canada want to see? Is that fair to women who are already dependent on government because of the paternalistic system that has been constructed around aboriginal people over the last 130 years?

Is it fair for the Government of Canada to do that? I would argue that it is not. I would argue that we have a very serious moral and possibly even legal obligation. Certainly we have a moral obligation to make sure that aboriginal women who end up in that situation are protected.

Bill C-49 does nothing to address that issue. It puts the decision making power in land management and land use in an even more concentrated form into the hands of the chief and council. How will that advance the cause of aboriginal women?

I know all parliamentarians have received pleas for help from aboriginal women. The Aboriginal Women's Association of British Columbia and the Aboriginal Women's Association of Canada have come to us. We were not the ones who raised the issue. These people came to us when they became aware of Bill C-49. They came to me and to my colleagues on all sides of the House and asked us not to compromise their interests but to do something in the bill to protect them so they have the right not only to protection for themselves but for their children.

When a marriage breaks down, most often it is the woman who ends up with the care and custody of the children. We said this to the government last fall in the debate on Bill C-49. In committee we asked the government to rethink the bill and to include some clauses in the legislation that would provide some guaranteed protection for aboriginal women in the event of marriage breakdown.

Some kind of property right should be included even if it is not the fee simple land ownership the rest of us enjoy, something that moves further in the direction of the private property rights we all enjoy. The government said no, that it would leave that up to the chief. It did not want to interfere in what the chief and council were doing.

We have an obligation. We live in a democracy. The party across the way and some of the other parties in the House have lost sight of this fact. I say very seriously that in a democracy we ought to have a deeper commitment and a deeper obligation to the rights of individuals over the rights of collectivities.

That is the crux of what is wrong with the bill. It speaks to the rights of collectivities. I know our friends in the NDP would be happy with that because they believe very much in collectivities. We believe in individual rights. Democracies are founded on the principle of individual rights. The bill is not founded on the basic principles of democracy. It talks about buttressing and strengthening collective rights.

There are collectivities in all democracies and there is nothing wrong with collectivities. The Reform Party of Canada is a collectivity of some sort. There is no question that collectivities are legitimate and have a place in society, but we must ensure individual rights supersede collective rights.

The government across the way has been in government for most of the past 30 years but not all of it. Our friends close to the door were in government for about 9 of those years. However our friends in the Liberal Party have lost their way.

Back in the latter part of the 19th century liberalism meant something completely different from what it means in modern day terms. A liberal in the latter part of the 19th century was a person who was very much committed to the notion of individual rights, a person who was very much committed to the equality of all people in society. They have lost this and the bill reflects that point very clearly.

I will talk a bit about what happened when the bill went to the Senate. The government and some of its backbenchers, actually the member for Vancouver—Quadra made statements that were printed in the Vancouver newspapers. He talked about the fact that this bill was seriously flawed and needed to be fixed. He said that before the bill went to the Senate. The government did not have the courage and not just that, I submit it did not want to suffer the embarrassment of acknowledging in the House that the bill was flawed. It would put its own political interests ahead of doing what was right.

What the government did is it made some backroom deal. The evidence of that is everywhere now. It has spilled out to the media. Some of the government's own backbenchers said they were not going to deal with the problems in this bill in the House. They said they would send it over there and instruct the Senate to bring in the amendments to fix it. So the government sent the bill to the Senate as it was unwilling to address the serious flaws in the bill.

[Supply, June 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to make it abundantly clear that the hon. member in her intervention indicated to the House that I had a court challenge in British Columbia. I am not part of any court challenge in British Columbia to anything.

[Supply, June 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the member's intervention. We certainly agree that there has been a real failure of aboriginal policy in Canada. That failure falls most heavily on the shoulders of the Liberal Party and the successive Liberal governments that have spent most of the time in government in this country since 1867. When we look at the failure, the people over there should accept their responsibility in being a big part of that failure.

The member talked about the cost of Nisga'a government and said after 15 years the Nisga'a, through internal revenue raising, would be able to pay for approximately 25% of the annual cost, which is about $32 million a year, to govern a population of approximately 2,000 people.

Does the hon. member have any idea what the cost per person for that government will be? Does she think it is in line with the rest of government in Canada?

What does the hon. member have to say to the 40% of the Nisga'a people who do not support this agreement? What does she have to say to the people who are watching from Skeena today, to the Gitanyow, the Gitksan and the Tahltan, who are really upset over the fact that the overlap situation was not addressed prior to the federal government signing this agreement and indicating its willingness to bring ratification legislation through in the fall? What would she say to these aboriginal people who are watching today from Skeena to whom the government also has a fiduciary obligation?

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, when Chief Jerry Fontaine was running for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Manitoba, cabinet ministers across the way had no trouble showing up for his fundraising events. They had no trouble supporting him.

Why is this government not supporting a good, taxpaying citizen who employs dozens of people in Manitoba? Does the government not understand that it has a role and a responsibility here? Or is it just going to throw Wing Construction to the wolves?