Lost his last election, in 2000, with 36% of the vote.
Aboriginal Affairs March 8th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the member is wrong. We have a tripartite process with the Nisga'a people, the Government of British Columbia and the Canadian government. We have obligations under that tripartite process to put forward a legal document. It is still in the drafting process. We do not yet have a legal document.
First Nations Land Management Act March 5th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I ask consent to give other parties an opportunity to speak by extending the time from 1.15 p.m. to 1.30 p.m.
First Nations Land Management Act March 5th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have had discussions with the House leader of the Bloc Quebecois. I believe that for the purposes of expediency and to make sure with the 30 minutes we have remaining that both the NDP and PC parties have an opportunity to get on the record, that the member currently speaking for the Bloc Quebecois will speak not longer than 20 minutes. We can begin another session with the PC party speaking first and the NDP without questions and comments.
First Nations Land Management Act March 5th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I would agree on the member's splitting his time as he was kind enough to allow the minister and I to split our time. I have no difficulty with this. I was unclear whether you had agreed to the Bloc proposal of 10 minutes of questions and answers and what precisely we were agreeing to.
First Nations Land Management Act March 5th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, we will have opportunities in questions and answers throughout the day to debate parts of the bill.
Bill C-49 was introduced on June 11 in the House. During parliamentary debate and review by standing committee the government has continued to put forward the benefits of the bill. However, the official opposition has repeatedly tried to seek to scuttle the bill, even today. It has continually tried to misrepresent the real intentions of the first nations by way of misinformation and fearmongering, as evidenced today by the comments with respect to real estate agents making very unhelpful comments to the leaseholders.
They have tried to confuse the citizenry of the country by trying to raise the fears of average Canadians with respect to the development of first nations and their legitimate desire to take control over their lands and to manage those that are held in trust.
At this time I would like to set the record straight on these matters. I am sure that when I am finished the real story will be before the House and all Canadians.
The minister has expounded quite well on questions of expropriation, but let me reiterate some of the most important points of this portion of the bill.
Members of the official opposition would like everyone to believe that this power is an extreme power in the hands of first nations and one which they believe would be abused to the detriment of existing interest holders on first nations land. There are supreme court decisions which make this impossible to happen. This is nothing more than fearmongering.
As members of the House know, the power of expropriation is a power available to all levels of government and one which all governments take seriously with care and great caution. It must be first noted that the exercise of this power by any of the first nations is optional. In other words, although the bill would provide the power to expropriate, the community would have to decide whether to exercise that legitimate power. It is a community decision, as I said, one that is not taken lightly. In their codes these first nations must decide whether or not they wish to include the power of expropriation.
As parliament knows, three first nations have already ratified their codes. Of these, two have opted not to exercise this expropriation power. The third, the Muskoday First Nation, has spelled out in detail the extent to which it will exercise those expropriation powers. It was done with care and proper due diligence to its neighbours and indeed to the community itself.
The member for North Vancouver specifically referenced the Muskoday land code in his remarks of the other day as being a model for other first nations to follow. Of the three land codes now in preparation in the communities, one wishes not to exercise expropriation powers and the other two are following the Muskoday model.
In the exercise of this power the first nations must establish the rules and procedures. In addition, these are based on rules and procedures found in the Canadian Expropriation Act.
Indian reserve lands are currently subject to expropriation by British Columbia with the consent of the governor in council. There are at least 19 statutes where expropriation powers might be exercised in the lower mainland of British Columbia today. Any expropriation power that the first nations in B.C. may wish to exercise is not unique.
I would like to respond to specific concerns raised in debates concerning the matter of the 30 day expropriation time limit. This has been raised a number of times in debate as a threat to the security of interest holders on first nations land. It should be noted that this period is similar to the time set out in the 19 statutes to which I just referred. Under these sample statutes, the 19 B.C. statutes, the timeframe can be as little as 10 days or, in limited situations, no notice. The Railway Act statute is an example.
Consultation has again been repeatedly raised. Apparently some members of the House would like us to believe that the 14 signatory first nations to the bill do not talk to their neighbours. In fact, it has been implied that no first nations consult with their non-aboriginal neighbours. This is completely and categorically false and strongly needs to be addressed.
In direct relation to Bill C-49, the five first nations from B.C. have entered into a consultation process with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities to establish a consultation protocol with all the affected municipal governments. In fact, in British Columbia alone there are over 100 service agreements between first nations and their non-aboriginal neighbours.
I would also like to refer to a letter that was tabled by the chair of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities aboriginal affairs committee. The letter supports the discussion paper on a consultative protocol with the five B.C. first nations and touts the benefits of working in a partnership with first nations.
The letter says:
I believe that entering into preliminary dialogue with the (five B.C. first nations) on principles for reciprocal consultation as set out in the attached discussion paper at this time is what the UBCM has been working towards in consultation with first nations over the past two years and may pay back dividends in the future.
Furthermore, at a regular meeting of the district of Squamish held on February 15, 1999, the council passed the following motion:
That council support the amended draft discussion paper on reciprocal consultation between first nations governments and municipalities on land use planning and related issues.
There is another point that I would like to address. Numerous members opposite have continually raised the notion that municipalities must consult with first nations. In their discussions they cite the B.C. municipal act as setting out a mandatory consultation process which first nations would be legislated to follow.
The truth is that the so-called requirement for B.C. municipalities to consult with first nations is not a requirement at all that is imposed on the municipalities. It does not apply when the land and other developments are proposed in those municipalities.
The argument that the B.C. municipal act imposes the requirement to consult with first nations is spurious and categorically inaccurate. It is a myth. It does not exist as a requirement in the B.C. municipal act.
In fact there is no statutory requirement for municipalities in B.C. to consult with first nations with respect to land development. The municipal act provisions for consultations only arises when a regional district board proposes a development strategy. Therefore the cities of west and north Vancouver, which are not the district board, have no obligation to consult with first nations. There are no laws in the other five provinces where nine of the fourteen land management first nations are located that make any provision at all for consultation with first nations in respect of land development or servicing.
The chief of the Squamish nation has written to me and has indicated other examples of how the member for North Vancouver has misinformed the residents of British Columbia. I would like to quote from the chief's letter when he says that he would like to formally go on the record to say that the comments of the member for North Vancouver are outright fabrications and, further, that he should have to resign his position as a Reform Party representative from British Columbia.
In addition, certain members opposite would have us believe that the municipalities would automatically have to provide services to the first nations. The truth is that if the first nations want municipal services provided the two parties must negotiate those agreements.
We strongly believe that the bill and the framework agreement will pave the way for a better understanding of partnerships between the first nations and their municipalities. I think it is worth mentioning that 500 of these service agreements now exist across the country, with 100 existing in British Columbia.
Let me quote excerpts from the Snake Island Cottagers Association located in southern Ontario which represents a few hundred cottage owners, if I am not mistaken, who feel that Bill C-49 is a way for them to protect their relationship with the first nations people:
We strongly support the Chippewas Band's quest for self-government and feel that the swift passage of Bill C-49 will facilitate a new leasing arrangement between our members and the Chippewas band. SICA and the Chippewas Band have over the years developed a friendly working relationship and we look forward to dealing directly with the Band. The time for self-government is now. Please do not delay the passage of Bill C-49 any longer.
The minister spoke extensively and very well and thoroughly to the question of matrimonial property, but I will touch on it very briefly to reinforce and reiterate what she has just said.
This is a very complex issue because the provincial land laws respecting the division of matrimonial property upon marital breakdown do not apply on reserves. That is clear. Why? Reserve lands are unique because they are held by Her Majesty for the use and benefit of the band, not by or for individuals. In other words, it is communal land. Provincial laws cannot be replicated in their entirety to reserve lands.
As the House is aware, the 14 first nations that signed the agreement are anxious to spell out these rules. As the minister said, many of the signatories of those 14 bands are women chiefs, elected ostensibly by the men in their communities as well.
The bill before us and the agreement spell out that the signatories must establish a community process. It is also important to put on record that the equality section of the charter of rights and freedoms will apply, that there will be no discrimination based on sex under sections 28 and 35 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
According to the bill before us the legislation requires that first nations solicit the input of all on and off reserve members of their communities, including aboriginal women. Nothing precludes a community from addressing the issue at the beginning of the land code development process. The important point here is that the community decides.
Federal officials through our minister are now working to establish the fact finding process. Letters of invitation have been sent to the aboriginal partners to participate in a meeting where the terms of reference for the fact finding process will be discussed. The minister will make further announcements on this initiative in the near future. Finally, during the recent debates I have raised a number of comments of which the hon. member for Skeena challenged the accuracy. I would like at this time to respond to this challenge with some important facts.
First, the Musqueam tenants were indeed approach by the Musqueam Nation regarding prepaid leases. I am reading from a copy of a letter dated May 14, 1980, sent to all the tenants:
Your lease is based on fixed rental payments until June 7, 1995 with reviews of rental for the three succeeding twenty year periods and one final nine year period. For a number of reasons, we see merit in considering “conversion” to a prepaid basis for this lease.
We make it absolutely clear that participation in the prepaid rental proposal will be entirely your own choice. Having said this we have to also mentioned that the perhaps obvious fact that, unless at least half of you show positive interest, there will be no point in going ahead. If at least half of you do show positive interest in the proposal, it is our intention to retain a professional appraiser to advise us upon the present value of the right to receive the flow of income provided for in your lease. Once that is finalized, we will face the task of agreement with you a mutually satisfactory prepayment figure.
I would like to give the House the results of this offer of the Musqueam band for the sake of the member for Skeena. A total of 38 of the 76 tenants were required to respond positively for this to proceed. The response was as follows. Ten were in favour, nine were undecided and required more information and eight were opposed to a new lease agreement. The possible 19 in favour was far short of the required 38 or 50% and I would like to inform the House that approximately 40% of the tenants residing at Musqueam today were residents at the time of this letter in 1980.
These are important facts, along with the other fact that was raised as an inaccuracy about arrears. I am told by the band and through its documents that 15% of the leaseholders are still in arrears to the tune of $334,000. I say this to clear up the record because I did receive a letter from the member for Skeena addressed to me with very strong and somewhat personalized language. I feel it is my obligation to respond to that letter and to the House with the facts of the case.
I say this in concluding my comments with all due respect to the leaseholders of the Musqueam leasehold land who have had a very difficult and trying time over the past number of months. I say to them it is the wish of the first nations, it is the wish of the government and I believe the House on vote on concurrence of 171 to 35 just the other evening on this bill that we as Canadians, the House of Commons and our first nations people work together to resolve these issues in a compassionate, fair and equitable way so that our communities can live together.
This is my wish. I know is the expressed wish of the minister in her role as minister responsible for first nations people. She has advocated for that repeatedly and this is one that we support.
I think this is a good bill. It is a great opportunity to move forward in a new relationship where first nations people have the opportunity to seize control of their own lands, to do business with other first nations people or non-aboriginal people if they wish, to proceed beyond the 100 years, beyond the dark past of subjugation where first nations people were unable to leave their small plots of land on reserve in which they find themselves able to participate more broadly in Canadian society. This is what they have asked for. This is what we are trying to accomplish within the framework and broad underlying principles of this bill.
It is not to drive a wedge between Canadian people and first nations people, that we have disruptions and we become the international embarrassment that Canada is viewed in the United Nations and globally as treating unfairly its most vulnerable citizens.
This is an attempt to pull those parties together and I believe we do that in the bill. The first nations believe we do that in the bill and Canadians, as represented by the majority of members of parliament in the House of Commons who have supported it, believe that as well.
Division No. 324 March 1st, 1999
Mr. Speaker, before I begin my formal response to the member's intervention, I listened very carefully to his words and I noticed he mentioned he is very concerned about aboriginal children suffering on reserve and that he is concerned about an apparent 80% rate of unemployment for some reserves which he quoted from the
Globe and Mail
Only a few moments ago he voted against Bill C-49 on land management which would allow first nations even in his own riding to provide access to resources and land and to bring investment into the community. This was in defiance even of the chief who was here today in the House observing these debates. So I question the legitimacy of these interventions in light of his comments on Bill C-49.
I will address in a more particular form some of his concerns with respect to audits. First nations prepare annual financial statements and have them audited by an independent and qualified auditor. Those are independent audits. Over the past 10 years we have made considerable progress in this whole process meeting auditing standards that are acceptable to associations of accountants across Canada. We abide by their accepted standards for auditing and we are addressing those problems on reserve.
I am pleased to report that those who are meeting the standards have risen recently from 57% to 82%. We have marginally around 16% to 18% of bands where there are some difficulties in the auditing practices. It is not, as the Reform Party would have the House and Canadians believe, a generalized problem sweeping the nation of Indian members misusing the money. In those cases where it does occur it is properly investigated.
First Nations Land Management Act March 1st, 1999
Madam Speaker, I would like to speak in support of Bill C-49 and address a number of important questions that have arisen as a result of the question of matrimonial property, an important and legitimate question.
As members are aware, the bill ratifies a framework agreement that will provide 14 first nations with authority to manage their lands at the community level and to pass laws for the development, conservation, protection, management, use and possession of their land.
The bill is a good bill, one which gives first nation communities control over their future, provides new opportunities to work with neighbouring communities, and creates jobs and growth both on and off reserve. It is above all a bill that arises from the desire and the will of the 14 nations participating in this process.
As hon. members know, matters involving changes to the Indian Act and the provisions of new powers and responsibilities for first nations can be very complicated and, as we have seen here today, complex. The complexity has become more apparent in the past couple of years as the framework agreement took shape and began to elicit discussions among first nations. What is inspiring about this process is the capacity for first nations communities to find ways to resolve issues that have arisen.
No one is suggesting that the federal government step in and resolve issues on their behalf. We seek instead to provide a legislative framework in which the communities can get on with the task of running their own lives.
A good example concerns how matrimonial property will be dealt with in the case of matrimonial breakdown. The signatory first nations will be at the forefront of this issue. They have agreed to tackle an issue that today the government is grappling with: how to address the legislative gap respecting matrimonial real property on an Indian reserve. This is a complex legal issue that must be resolved in the interest of fairness and equity. I am glad to see that the first nations agreed to this process.
Let me outline for the House the nature of this issue and the steps that are proposed to be taken to resolve these important questions. In the Derrickson v Derrickson case the Supreme Court of Canada highlighted this issue very succinctly for us. Here was a case where matters respecting matrimonial property were challenged before the courts. This case provided clear direction respecting reserve lands and access to marital real property rights.
The supreme court ruled that provincial laws respecting the division of matrimonial property assets in cases of matrimonial breakdown applied except to interests in reserve land. Reserve land being within federal jurisdiction, provincial laws respecting use, occupation, possession and division of an interest in cases of matrimonial breakdown are not applicable to interests in reserve land.
In March 1997 the British Columbia Native Women's Society and two individual plaintiffs mentioned the framework agreement in a suit launched against the government in the Federal Court of Canada. The plaintiffs claimed that the federal government failed to fulfill its fiduciary obligations to married Indian women with respect to the division of matrimonial real property upon the breakdown of marriage.
As hon. members are aware, division of matrimonial property, and I know that some across the way do not know this because they argued contrary to that only a few moments ago, falls within provincial jurisdiction. The provinces apply the principle of division of matrimonial assets on an equal basis. However, reserve lands are held by Her Majesty in trust of the crown for the use and benefit of the band. Provincial laws therefore cannot be replicated in their entirety on the reserve lands.
At the federal level there is no provision in the Indian Act regarding the division of matrimonial property in the event of a marital breakdown. Non-band members and non-aboriginal people cannot hold an interest in first nations land, nor can they reside there without the permission of the first nation council or the community. That has been in the Indian Act and understood.
Where a lawful interest has been granted to an Indian member of the band, this interest cannot be reassigned unless the individual agrees to the transfer. In addition the transfer cannot be made to the band or another Indian member of the band.
In the case of Derrickson v Derrickson at the supreme court, the courts provided that compensation can be provided for the reserve assets which cannot be divided. The end result is that the assets are still divided equally between spouses. However, there is no access to an order transferring the matrimonial home or interest in reserve land, the same order that would be available outside a reserve to a woman or a man going through a marriage breakdown.
Hon. members will appreciate the problem. The 14 first nations want to get out from under the land management provisions of the Indian Act. Provincial laws respecting property cannot be applied. There must be a solution to resolving how to divide the matrimonial property that both will be equitable and respectful of the capacity of first nations to come up with a system that is in keeping with the values of their own community.
First nations are seeking the authority to develop solutions that fulfill the needs of their communities and the interests of equity. The 14 first nations and Canada have amended the framework agreement and the bill before us to address the issue of matrimonial property on first nations land.
The signatories have agreed to address these issues of property rights in the framework agreement and the bill before us today. Under Bill C-49 and the framework agreement the signatory first nation must, not should, shall or may, but must establish a community process that will develop rules and procedures within 12 months from the date the land code takes effect.
The rules and procedures cannot discriminate on the basis of sex and include a process of arbitration should the first nations not meet those criteria. That would provide sufficient, broad based and complementary protections to those offered in the charter that of course apply in this particular piece of legislation. It has to be done in 12 months. It cannot discriminate. More importantly in that process, even if the women in a particular community vote in a way that makes others unhappy, there is an appeal process that is allowed both in the framework agreement and the bill. That allows those who are grieved to seek redress properly if they so choose within the context of that agreement.
According to the bill before us, extensive consultations must be undertaken during the development of the land code to inform and seek the opinions of the community membership. First nations have given strong assurances that as part of their first nations community process they will solicit the input of all on and off reserve members of their community, including aboriginal women. Nothing precludes a community from addressing the issue at the beginning of the process. The important point is that the community decides when and how it will address these issues.
A dispute resolution mechanism will be available to both Canada and the individual first nation members. I repeat that individual members can also challenge the rules before a court. Yes, before a court.
There is a larger issue at stake here, one that goes beyond the 14 first nations that have ratified the agreement. What can be done to resolve the current vacuum concerning the division of matrimonial property in the Indian Act?
Last June the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development announced that she was prepared to work in partnership with these groups in establishing a fact finding process with respect to the Indian Act. This process will examine the effects upon breakdown of a marriage on first nations members' rights to real property such as land and homes. Federal officials are now working toward the conclusion of this process.
The government is committed with those member bands who have agreed to sign on to this process to work with them fairly and equitably with redress to the courts, the normal appeal processes, the provisions of the charter, all of which will apply to protect the legitimate rights of aboriginal women in Canada today.
Division No. 319 March 1st, 1999
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member is engaging in discussion which should be on the next motion dealing with the matrimonial question and women's rights.
We are still on the first motion and I would suggest respectfully that the member's comments are somewhat out of order.
Division No. 318 February 18th, 1999
Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to respond on behalf of the Minister of National Revenue this evening to this question.
The member for Skeena is requesting that the charitable status of the Sierra Legal Defence Fund Society, the David Suzuki Foundation and the B.C. Spaces for Nature Society be revoked.
The member has stated that a leaked document reveals that a number of Canadian environmental organizations including these three registered charities are accepting contributions from American corporate and family trusts.
He also stated the documents show that these charities are counting on these funds to finance a smear campaign and manipulate share prices of a Canadian company, Redfern Resources Ltd., to scare off investors and kill a mining project, as he has alluded to, in northern British Columbia, resulting in lost jobs and investments in Canada.
These are indeed very serious allegations that could result in severe consequences for these charities, even though it has not yet been conclusively established that these charities have done anything wrong.
The member has provided, as he said, the documents to Revenue Canada. I can confirm that the Sierra Legal Defence Fund Society, the David Suzuki Foundation and the B.C. Spaces for Nature Society are indeed registered charities under the Income Tax Act.
However, under the confidentiality provisions of the same Income Tax Act, I cannot discuss the affairs of these charities or indeed any actions the department may take in dealing with them.
The charitable sector should be an asset for all Canadians, and parliament has recognized this by providing through our tax system important financial support. To be registered as charities they must have charitable purposes and we will ensure that these are carried out properly in the country.
Indian Claims Commission February 18th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I am pleased to table on behalf of the government in both official languages the 1997-98 annual report of the Indian Claims Commission.