Mr. Speaker, I wish to share my time with the hon. member for Prince Albert.
Lost his last election, in 2006, with 33% of the vote.
First Nations Land Management Act March 5th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I wish to share my time with the hon. member for Prince Albert.
First Nations Land Management Act March 5th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for agreeing to this.
The minister spoke about two of the areas of serious concern with Bill C-49. One is the disposition of marital property in the event of a marital breakdown. She has indicated her willingness and her concern in this area.
If the minister is so concerned, why are the provisions not in the legislation to provide that protection for aboriginal women? Many aboriginal women have contacted not only the official opposition but also the minister and government members to express those concerns. Why are those provisions not in the legislation? Why did the government choose not to support Bloc amendments which would have gone a long way toward providing that?
The minister said that the expropriation provisions are not as sweeping and as broad as some have painted them to be. How would the minister respond to a real estate agent's letter to a client in Vancouver where he advised his client to take his property which is currently located on the Musqueam reserve off the market because Bill C-49 is hanging as a sword over the property owner's head? There is absolutely no possibility of marketing the property on leased land which a couple of years ago was valued at $700,000. That does not square with what the minister is saying at all. This is an independent, unbiased real estate agent's expressed opinion.
I direct those two questions to the minister and ask her to respond.
First Nations Land Management Act March 5th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, whatever the House would agree to, but I think 10 minutes would be sufficient.
First Nations Land Management Act March 5th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
We have had the privilege of the minister making comments here today which speak to the very core of the concerns that people have with this bill. As she is here in the House, I would seek the unanimous consent of the House to have a short period of questions and comments for the minister.
First Nations Land Management Act March 1st, 1999
I take your point, Mr. Speaker.
She wrote to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on January 21, 1999. The letter goes on:
In this letter, I asked her a set of questions that I thought were legitimate. Yet, with no response from her, it makes me wonder if she operates her department like our elected council operates our affairs, on our behalf.
Isn't that a scary thought? I am hoping that you, as Senator, do not condone the actions of either of these parties.
We have presented our case of non-communication, non-democracy and total opposition to this proposed legislation and we have nowhere else to turn. We will be saddled with legislation that will once again, make native women fight for their rights with their elected chiefs and councils. I am sure that this is not the intention of the Senate Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. I urge you to please consider stopping this proposed legislation at your level.
I have one more letter to read into the record. This has to do with the expropriation of provisions of this bill. It is written by a real estate agent in Vancouver, Dexter Associates Realty, to a Mr. Less Cosman who is a former resident of the Musqueam reserve:
Dear Les,
Re: 4314 Staulo Crescent, Vancouver, B.C.
Further to our conversation regarding the MLS listing on the above noted property, enclosed please find a copy of the information I have obtained on Bill C-49 and the framework agreement on first nation land management. It is my understanding that Bill C-49 has gone through two readings in the House of Commons; once it has passed a third reading through the Senate, it becomes in full force and effect.
The impact of draft Bill C-49 will have a devastating effect on the value and the marketability of your home. In Section 28.1 of Bill C-49 the Musqueam Band will have the authority to expropriate your home for any band use they may decide upon. In Section 28.5 and 6, which refers to compensation for expropriation, the band would be required to pay fair compensation and of course if you do not feel that it is satisfactory, you may appeal to the band itself, as set out in the framework agreement. Your recourse may have little or no concrete effect. Also the maximum notice for expropriation is 30 days.
Regrettably, I recommend we immediately cease any and all attempts to market your home at this time. In my professional opinion, there will not be any buyer prepared to purchase a property with this type of encumbrance.
There are literally tens of thousands of leaseholders across Canada with leasehold interests on native reserves. Think how they will feel when they wake up and realize that their leasehold interests on reserve lands across Canada have no market value whatsoever; 60,000 in Ontario, 20,000 in British Columbia, tens of thousands across the country and these people here are willing to sell them out. They are not willing to consider the amendments to protect those leaseholders. I say shame on this government.
First Nations Land Management Act March 1st, 1999
Mr. Speaker, before I get into my remarks I would like to rebut a couple of things the parliamentary secretary had to say. I am pleased to see him here but it is unfortunate he has not yet seen fit to apologize to the Musqueam residents about whom he said some erroneous things. I have to be careful about the words I use here. Many of them have written to him and have asked for an apology for statements he made in this House but he has not seen fit yet to do that.
Part of what he said was that band members on reserve who do not like what is going on can go to court. The answer the government comes up with all the time is that they can litigate. What kind of an answer is that? Go out and litigate. If they do choose to litigate, Bill C-49 is the guideline the courts will be compelled to use when adjudicating any actions that are brought. It is obvious that if there is no specific guideline in Bill C-49 with respect to the disposition of marital property, the courts will be at a loss to determine how they will resolve that issue, as they are now.
The parliamentary secretary is wrong. This failure to include these protections is very simple. These amendments go a long way toward putting those kinds of protections into the act.
I will read something into the record. Some of my colleagues spoke earlier about a letter written by Gordon Campbell, the leader of the official opposition in British Columbia. He makes a number of observations about Bill C-49 and he makes some recommendations about how it can be fixed. He says:
First, there appears to be no guarantee that women will have equal protection of property rights as men under the rules governing the breakdown of marriages.
As you know, some aboriginal women have alleged that women living on reserve have not always been treated fairly by band councils when marriages fail. They maintain that men have sometimes been granted preferential treatment with regard to housing issues, because property division laws that protect other Canadians do not apply on reserve.
All aboriginal women are asking for are the same rights that all other Canadian women have from coast to coast in this country. Why is this government refusing to give them that kind of protection in Bill C-49?
I will go on to quote Mr. Campbell, the Liberal leader of the official opposition in British Columbia:
—the act must be amended to ensure that the expropriation powers granted to first nations under section 28 cannot be abused. In view of the recent controversy on the Musqueam reserve, it is understandable that some non-native leaseholders are very worried about how first nations might be able to use their expropriation powers.
Again, a very simple amendment would provide the protection that non-native leaseholders are looking for, and indeed native leaseholders because we know that those circumstances exist as well. Again we have the government turning tail and refusing to listen to ordinary Canadians and grassroots aboriginal people about real concerns.
I am going to read into the record a letter that was written by Wendy Lockhart Lundberg who is a Squamish band member. This letter was written to the hon. minister of Indian affairs on January 31:
Dear Minister,
I am a Canadian citizen and status member of the Squamish Nation. I urge you to stop Bill C-49 from becoming legislation.
I did not know that the band council that I elected to represent me signed an agreement regarding land management. I did not know that the Squamish Nation sat before a Senate committee in Ottawa in December, 1998 and made representations on my behalf. I was informed by band council about treaty negotiations which would allow me to participate in an open and democratic process in determining the future of the Squamish Nation.
I am concerned that legislated council power will supersede the band's own land code.
I am concerned that the minimum participation of eligible members required to vote on the land code and process is only 25% which, for the Squamish Nation, currently represents, approximately, the number of members employed by the band.
I am concerned about the consequences of legislation that will not protect women upon marriage breakdown. I am concerned that if Bill C-49 is passed that native women will not have the protection of property division laws equal to all other Canadian women.
I am concerned about the content of Bill C-49, which legislates council power in their opinion to expropriate land. I am concerned that the claim made by my mother, Nona Lockhart, to her father, Henry Baker's property, will never be realized and could be permanently lost through expropriation.
I am concerned that even though my mother was reinstated, pursuant to Bill C-31, that council will continue to exclude her from her property rights. I do not hold hope that if in 14 years they have not returned her property to her that her plight and situation will improve if Bill C-49 is passed. I do not hold hope that if in 14 years they have not welcomed her to return to live among her family and friends on reserve where she was born and raised, that power legislated to council pursuant to Bill C-49 will end the discrimination she has suffered and endured ever since she married a non-native in 1947.
I also want to read into the record a letter from Marcella Baker, also a Squamish Band member, written to Senator Ray Perrault:
Dear Senator Perrault,
This letter comes to you in a state of dismay and disbelief. I have just received a copy of—press release “Liberals Ready to Invoke Closure to Pass Bill C-49” dated February 23, 1999, regarding the above-mentioned proposed legislation.
As a member of the Squamish Nation, I cannot believe that the Government of Canada is going to literally push this piece of discriminating legislation down our throats, without regard to the opposition we have presented to our members of Parliament and yourself.
She wrote to Jane Stewart, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on January 21, 1999—
Aboriginal Affairs March 1st, 1999
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the solicitor general.
He says this is just a small problem. Are these small anti-tank guns? Are these just small machine guns? We are not suggesting that all aboriginal people are involved in this.
He says that this is unacceptable. Does he mean by saying it is unacceptable that he will take concrete steps and do something about it?
Aboriginal Affairs March 1st, 1999
Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the solicitor general.
Can he confirm if these reports, made internally by the RCMP, are accurate? Can he confirm that aboriginal militants are stockpiling these kinds of weapons? What is he and the government going to do about it?
Aboriginal Affairs March 1st, 1999
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the solicitor general.
According to a secret internal RCMP report, aboriginal militants are stockpiling gasoline bombs, explosives and grenades, possibly even light anti-tank weapons and heavy machine guns.
Will the solicitor general confirm if this report is accurate and, if so, why this highly dangerous situation is allowed to continue?
Taxation February 19th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, a few days ago we obtained an internal document put together by a consortium of 11 environmental organizations which exposes the shocking truth.
Big money from wealthy American corporate and family trusts is driving a campaign to kill jobs and investment in Canada. Hewlett Packard, the Rockefeller Foundation, the W. Alton Jones Foundation and even Ted Turner are putting up big money to support the Sierra Club, Sierra Defence Fund, the David Suzuki Foundation and a host of others to stop a mining project in northern B.C.
Never mind that Redfern Resources Ltd. went through a rigorous three and a half year review. Never mind that people living in Atlin, Dease Lake, Stewart and the Yukon who care deeply about the environment desperately want the Tulsequah Chief Mine to proceed.
These environmental organizations do not care about facts. They do not care about the truth, about balance and above all, they do not care about people.
I call on the revenue minister to stop facilitating this and immediately revoke their tax holiday as charitable organizations.