Mike Scott

[Questions Passed As Orders For Returns, March 24th, 1999]

Can the government provide a list of all band elections held from January 1996 to the present, including in each individual case: ( a ) the name of the band; ( b ) the date the election was held; ( c ) the names of all the candidates; ( d ) the final vote distribution; ( e ) the number of eligible voters; and ( f ) the number of eligible voters who voted (i.e. voter turnout)?

Return tabled.

Question No. 143—

[Aboriginal Affairs, March 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Albert Einstein's definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result. A person cannot help but wonder what he would say to the minister of Indian affairs as she sets out to create a new reserve for the Caldwell band in southwestern Ontario.

For over 130 years Canadian aboriginals have been segregated physically through the creation of reserves and legally through the Indian Act.

Legislated segregation has been practised in a number of countries around the world, always with disastrous results.

In Canada, the people who pay the biggest price for the folly of segregationist thinking are the 400,000 aboriginal people living on reserve, where residents often live far below the poverty line, in substandard housing; where teen suicide is five times higher than the national average; where infant mortality is twice as high; and where youth are more likely to go to jail than to university.

Two giants of the 20th century, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Nelson Mandela, devoted their entire lives to the abolition of segregation in their countries. How long will Canadians have to wait before our federal government will abandon its segregationist policies?

[Aboriginal Affairs, March 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Recent press reports indicate that this government intends to introduce legislation for the Nisga'a treaty within the next two or three weeks. Yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister implied that this was not the case.

Will the government commit here and now to withhold Nisga'a legislation in this House until the people of British Columbia have given their democratic consent to the deal, yes or no?

[Aboriginal Affairs, March 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the member talks about a tripartite agreement. What he fails to mention is that the people of British Columbia are not part of that process. This government is bent on insulting the people of British Columbia.

If the government is so sure that the support for the Nisga'a agreement is there, why is it refusing to have a democratic referendum on this deal? What is wrong with giving this controversial deal the democratic seal of approval?

[Aboriginal Affairs, March 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, British Columbians are overwhelmingly opposed to the Nisga'a treaty, so much so that this government will not even let them have a vote on the deal.

This government wants to ram the Nisga'a treaty down the throats of British Columbians by rushing it through this House before the B.C. legislature has even had a chance to deal with it.

Why is the government insulting British Columbians by denying them a vote on the Nisga'a deal? Why is it ramming it through this House and down the throats of British Columbians?

[First Nations Land Management Act, March 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my continuing intervention I must point out, as I tried to do on a point of order immediately after question period, that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development during question period, and at other times, incorrectly stated that members of the Reform Party supported Bill C-49 at second reading.

For the record, I have a copy of the vote that was taken on December 1, 1998 when the bill was being voted upon at second reading. The results of that vote were: yeas, 199; nays, 38, the 38 comprising all of the Reform members who were present in the House for the vote that day.

I note that the minister addressed her remarks specifically to me. I would also point out that I was here for that vote and that I in fact voted against Bill C-49, which is in direct contravention to the minister's statement.

I think this goes to the heart of the problem. The government, the minister and the parliamentary secretary continue to put out misleading and erroneous information on a regular basis on this bill. They have, as a result of that, undermined the confidence of people, particularly in British Columbia but across Canada, as to the intent of Bill C-49. I suggest they have done themselves no favours by doing this. The parliamentary secretary was talking about driving wedges. There is nothing worse in terms of driving wedges between people than putting out information which is incorrect, which is deliberately done and which is done to try to leave people with a false impression of what actually has taken place.

Prior to Christmas, as a result of lobbying by a number of different people, including aboriginal leaders who stand to be affected by Bill C-49, we agreed to sit down to see if there was a way that we could support Bill C-49 with amendments, because we certainly agreed with the principle inculcated in the bill, that decision making should be taken out of Ottawa and put into the hands of people in local areas.

We were led to believe by the government and by some of the people we were dealing with that these amendments would be possible, but it turned out at the end of the day that the government was not prepared to entertain these amendments. For that reason, regrettably—and I say regrettably very sincerely— we could not support Bill C-49. To have done so would have been to really let down the people across Canada who have been asking us to stand up for these amendments and to make sure the bill was fixed prior to being adopted.

I will return to discussing the expropriation powers in the bill, which is where I left off prior to question period.

The parliamentary secretary and the minister deny that the expropriation powers in Bill C-49 are broad and sweeping. The parliamentary secretary said that the federal Expropriation Act would actually confine aboriginal bands to that particular legislation.

I point out for the people watching and for the parliamentary secretary that the bill specifically states that in the event of a conflict between Bill C-49 and the federal Expropriation Act, Bill C-49 would take precedence. Clearly that means that the federal Expropriation Act, in effect, does not have any real influence over how expropriations might take place on reserve land in the future. The expropriation powers are not only a concern to people on leasehold land on reserves across Canada, they are also very much a concern to band members.

One of the reasons we have had great difficulty in supporting Bill C-49 is this. I have personally met with some of the chiefs who have been trying to get this legislation passed and trying to get Reform's support for it. They indicated that their band members were in support of it. In fact, in the case of the Squamish band, regrettably, we found out after the fact that most of the people on that reserve were not consulted about Bill C-49. We have a petition signed by some 230 members of the band saying that they were not consulted, that they are opposed to the bill and that they want it to be changed. They are very concerned about their rights as band members. They say very clearly that up until a very short while ago—the end of January—they were never consulted and they were not even aware that the band council was working with the government to have Bill C-49 brought into effect.

These band members are equally concerned, just as those who have leasehold interests on reserve land are concerned, about being expropriated. They feel that the chief and council will have altogether too much power and too much ability. They do not want to rely on a land code which may come into effect down the road to grant the protection they are looking for. They want it to be enshrined in the legislation.

I cannot for the life of me understand why the government, the minister and the parliamentary secretary are standing in opposition to that. I cannot understand why they want to deny these people having their protection and their rights enshrined in this legislation. It is not a difficult matter for that to be accomplished.

The minister said that the concerns about expropriation are overblown. However, a real estate agent wrote a letter to a client on the Musqueam reserve, advising him to take his house off the market because in his professional opinion as a real estate agent that house currently has no market value. The parliamentary secretary and the minister can argue with Reform, but they certainly cannot argue with the marketplace. I can assure the House that right now—and this is a very clear situation—the marketability of homes on the Musqueam reserve is at zero. They cannot sell their homes. These are homes that were often valued at several hundred thousand dollars each a couple of short years ago. Many of the people who are living in them are at or near retirement and living on fixed incomes.

The fellow who first contacted me about the inability to market his home, and the letter that he had received from the real estate agent advising him of that, does not live on the Musqueam reserve. He in fact lives in Calgary; he has retired to Calgary. He wants to sell his home to get his equity out it. The sale of his home was a big part of what he was counting on to retire.

We can see how people have been dramatically affected by not only Bill C-49 but by other moves the government has been making with respect to the disposition of lands on reserves.

A large part of the problem on the Musqueam reserve arose because federal governments over a long period of time have made changes without disclosing to the people who lived on those reserves that they had made those changes.

In 1980 the Liberal minister of Indian affairs, John Munro, signed a discretionary letter that he was authorized to sign under section 53 of the Indian Act, transferring his authority to the Musqueam Band Council in terms of dealing with the leases. That was done without any notice and without any consultation with the people who live in those houses, the leaseholders. They had absolutely no knowledge that this had taken place.

Furthermore, in 1991 another minister of Indian affairs, Tom Siddon, signed a further agreement which gave the band taxation authority over those leaseholders. This was contrary to what the people had been led to believe when they entered into the leases in 1965 through 1973. The deal at that point was that the city of Vancouver would be providing the services and would be collecting the property taxes.

Incidentally, once that transfer was done the property taxes rose dramatically, two to three times. A large portion of those property taxes have been for school taxes because we know that in Canada property taxes are levied in most municipalities for municipal services and there is a separate component for schools.

The band has collected, according to news reports, about $6 million in school taxes since 1991. Yet not one penny has actually gone toward school or education. Not one penny was transferred to the provincial government in aid of education. There has been absolutely no school services provided by the Musqueam band to the leaseholders that have been paying these taxes.

Those are the kinds of flaws which leave people very uncertain and very concerned about the kinds of sweeping changes Bill C-49 contemplates. For the life of me, I do not understand why the government and the minister are not prepared, if they want to get the bill passed, to look at amendments that would provide protection and give people a level of comfort so that they would be willing to move forward.

We know that by and large Canadians are decent, fair minded people. I have met personally with virtually all the Musqueam residents. I know they are decent, fair minded people. I know they are not opposed to the aspirations of the band. They just want to be treated fairly. At the present time they feel they have been treated extremely unfairly, not only by the band but also by the government because the government has chosen to proceed with major changes without any consultation and without any notice to the leaseholders.

Going further and talking about marital property rights, in the minister's intervention she talked about the fact that she as minister and previous ministers for the past 130-odd years had been making decisions on behalf of bands for the disposition of reserve lands.

I certainly agree with her that it is completely inappropriate that these decisions be made in Ottawa. We certainly agree with the principle of devolving that decision making power. However, where the government is in error and where the minister is in error goes back to the whole notion of collective property rights.

I live in a municipality and the municipality does not own the land I have my house on. Why would people living on a reserve want the band council to own the land that their houses are on? Why is there no provision for private property rights? Why is there no provision for the property rights that all other Canadians enjoy, and in particular that all other Canadian women enjoy on the disposition of a marital home in the event of a marriage breakdown?

It is not rocket science. It is not difficult if we have people who are willing to examine that issue and provide those protections, but we see no inclination in that regard whatsoever. Now what we find is that the government is intending to send the bill to the Senate to have the Senate fix it up because it has finally come to understand and recognize that there are problems with it.

In conclusion, I would like to propose the following amendment:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after “Management” and substituting the following therefor:

“be not now read a third time but referred back to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development for the purpose of reconsidering all the clauses with a view to ensure that the land code is consistent with the federal Expropriation Act and provincial expropriation acts as applicable.

I would ask that the House adopt the amendment.

[Points Of Order, March 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent to table the voting record taken on December 1, 1998 on Bill C-49 for the record.

[Points Of Order, March 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, during question period the minister of Indian affairs indicated to the House and to people watching across Canada that the Reform Party indeed supported Bill C-49 at second reading.

[Aboriginal Affairs, March 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The government is ramming Bill C-49 through the House and counting on the Senate to fix it up or tidy it up later.

Why will the minister not fix the bill in the House where it ought to be done rather than shirk her responsibility and count on an unelected, unaccountable Senate to fix it later?

[First Nations Land Management Act, March 5th, 1999]

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.