Jim Hart

[Finance, February 2nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated the speech of the Liberal member opposite. I am again very pleased to hear that there is another member in the House who believes very strongly that there should be comprehensive tax reform and that there should be more of an effort put toward health care in this country to revive our health care system. Debt reduction was another area that the member mentioned, as well as the social union. All of these are very important issues facing the government in this budget.

I am not trying to throw the member off his train of thought, but I would like to ask his opinion and get his comments on the Canadian Armed Forces. Over the past six years we have seen a decline in the Canadian Armed Forces. We have also seen an increase in commitments. Right now the forces are faced with a number of issues.

The defence minister has said that he has been trying in cabinet to get $700 million to meet the quality of life issues that are facing members of the Canadian Armed Forces. As I see it, the problem is that the $700 million, if he is successful in getting it, does not even meet the requirement of the $750 million shortfall which the Department of National Defence already has in its budget. Really the $700 million, if he gets it, is a moot point.

I have an idea. That is what debates are about, sharing ideas. I would like to get the hon. member's opinion on this idea. To meet the quality of life issues facing the Canadian Armed Forces there should be a Canadian Armed Forces service exemption. This exemption would be a graduated exemption, but it would give members of the Canadian Armed Forces an additional $5,000 deduction from their income tax. They would pay tax on $5,000 less per year, depending on their rank. The most benefit would go to the junior ranks of the Canadian Armed Forces, the privates, the corporals, the lieutenants and the captains.

If this was accomplished we would protect the integrity of the defence budget so we could continue with the much needed purchases of helicopters, armoured personnel vehicles, helmets, boots, clothing items and other equipment. We would also be able to deal with giving the Canadian Armed Forces personnel more expendable income through this creative and innovative way of dealing with the problem.

I was wondering if the member could comment on that. I know it is just a brief thumbnail sketch, but could the member consider supporting something like that?

[Finance, February 2nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the member opposite and was very interested in his comments, particularly that he also has relayed the desire of his constituents to see comprehensive tax reforms through income tax reductions, something we support on this side of the House, and also a reinvestment for health care. Making health care a priority is on the minds of all Canadians.

I ask the member to comment on one other important part of the budget we face this time. I will address this issue later, but I would like the member to give his thoughts on the Canadian forces. The Canadian forces have severe quality of life problems with very low pay. We have been putting them under extra demands by sending them on a number of missions over the last six years. These missions have been on an increase while the resources have been on a steady decline.

Could the member comment on what the government can do to improve the quality of life to give the Canadian forces the equipment they require to carry out their missions and to increase their quality of life?

[National Defence, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, there is a chronic problem developing in the minister's department.

We have a shortage of pilots in the Canadian armed forces. Obsolete equipment has now forced the grounding of instructors and pilots. This is reducing the Canadian armed forces operational capability.

What is it going to take for the Minister of National Defence to give the men and women of the Canadian armed forces the resources they need to train and do their job properly?

[National Defence, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today we have another example of obsolete equipment endangering the lives of Canadian armed forces personnel.

Canada's T-33 and Tutor jets have faulty ejection seats. These seats are so old and rickety that they are putting our pilots at risk.

Can the minister tell Canadians what is more valuable: replacing the ejection seats, or the lives of our pilots? Why not just buy new seats?

[First Nations Land Management Act, February 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of my constituents of Okanagan—Coquihalla to speak to the amendments before us today in Group No. 1 of Bill C-49, the first nations land management act.

As I have been listening this evening I can tell that we in this country have a lot of work to do when it comes to these issues. I listened to Liberal members across the way making allegations about the Reform Party which are without substance, without foundation.

I can tell members that in my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla I work diligently with native bands. I have intervened with the minister on several occasions. I have tried to assist when it comes to economic development and when it comes to situations regarding airport land transfers to our municipality. I have worked with our native band in Penticton and I have worked on developing our native university, which will be breaking ground hopefully in the spring.

Therefore I take a great deal of exception to the comments and remarks made by members across the way when in fact all we are trying to do in the official opposition is put forward some amendments that will make a piece of legislation better for all Canadians.

It is important to note that the Reform Party does support native self-government. The Reform Party supports a delegated level of self-government for natives. That is very important because what we see in this bill is self-government that is totally under the control of the bands in question.

A couple of months ago I introduced a bill in this House of Commons which arose from a problem on native land. What I was trying to do was help my constituents by dealing with the issue that the Residential Tenancy Act does not apply to native land.

In this particular situation, which I brought forward to the House in the form of a bill, septic systems had failed and left some 50 residents being evicted from their homes with no protection whatsoever from the Residential Tenancy Act in the province of B.C.

That bill did not pass because many parties in this House again raised the question and said that this was somehow racially motivated, that I was being insensitive to the cultural needs of the economic development of Indian bands. That was not the case at all. My bill was absolutely colour blind. This bill should also be 100% colour blind. But it is not. It is not because it is granting special status to a group of Canadians.

I will give members another example. In the Westbank Indian band there are 514 natives. There are 7,000 non-natives living on that band's land. What happens to those people's rights? Why are those people's rights not considered in this piece of legislation? Why is that not the case?

Last week I met with the residents of Bayview, a strata-type development on Westbank land consisting of some 200 homes. These people thought they were leasing land from the crown. No one ever told them about Bill C-49. No one ever told them that the life savings they put into their $200,000 or $300,000 homes was not what is facing us today with the implications in Bill C-49. That was never explained to those people. Now they have a situation where some of the retaining walls are crumbing. They are falling down because building codes were not followed. That is leaving those residents with a $600,000 liability because building codes were not followed on this piece of land.

This is not the only case in the province of B.C. Several times tonight we have heard the situation in which the Musqueam have found themselves. The property values of those homes, which were $400,000 to $800,000, have plummeted to nothing. This piece of legislation is not going to help those people.

We believe in a delegated type of self-government that would be controlled federally.

It was mentioned here this evening, and I mentioned it as well, that the Condominium Act of British Columbia does not apply to the people at Bayview and Westbank, nor does the Municipal Act and the Residential Tenancy Act. There is no protection for those people whatsoever. Bill C-49 does not do anything to protect those folks. What do we tell them? Do they not deserve to have the protection of their federal government as well?

I think they do. That is why we have brought forward these amendments to this bill. It is not because of the ridiculous argument that we do not believe in self-government. We do.

I want to see treaties in the province of British Columbia. I want to end the uncertainty that is caused by not having treaties. I want each and every person, regardless of whether they are native or non-native, whether they live on reserve land or on non-reserve land, to have access to the laws equally, with every right and every power that they have at their disposal. We cannot grant these leases, especially with situations like Westbank and those that are happening throughout the province of B.C., and not ensure that that will happen.

The official opposition desires a better relationship with the Indian peoples of Canada. We want to see that all people have the same powers and rights and that everyone is respected.

In particular, I cannot stand here and say that I will vote for this bill because this bill is not colour blind. It gives special powers to a designated group of people and that is wrong. Until we learn that, we will never get this type of legislation right. I urge the Liberals to pass our amendments because they are the only things that will improve this bill.

[Indian Act, November 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members who participated in the debate today on Bill C-402.

I would like to respond to some of the comments. Bill C-49, the land management act, deals only with 14 bands and that there are just about 700 native bands from coast to coast to coast. It certainly does not affect the Penticton Indian Band whatsoever. Therefore Bill C-49 does not respond to the needs of the people from my riding.

I appreciate very much the parliamentary secretary's passing along his regret regarding the outcome of this tragic incident. I will convey that to my constituents. I will also convey to my constituents today that the Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party support in principle the eviction of 51 families from the Driftwood mobile home park in Penticton. I find it quite regrettable today that they could not see there was a great deal of support for Bill C-402 which directly deals with the problem faced by these families.

I would have to argue with those members opposed to Bill C-402 that striking another committee to look at the issue does not help at this point. As I mentioned, the establishment of some of these mobile home parks in my riding goes back 20 years. Members pointing out that the Indian Act is flawed are absolutely correct.

However, Bill C-402 deals specifically with an emergency situation and it also brings equality to renters regardless of whether they are native or non-native. It does not matter. Bill C-402 brings equality to all people who find themselves in the position of renting land.

In the House of Commons there are many of us who rent apartments or homes in Ottawa. If we found ourselves in the situation the people of Driftwood mobile home park found themselves in we would have the Ontario provincial tenancy act there to protect our rights as renters. That is what Bill C-402 does. That is what we are attempting to do with this legislation.

I think it is wrong and meanspirited for members of other parties to say they will not come to the aid of the people of the driftwood mobile home park. I also point out that on the horizon there are four more mobile home parks in my riding that will face a similar situation. We will not be talking about 51 families, we will be talking about 200 families.

What will the federal government do at that point? I hope its response will not be to strike a committee and seek consultation across the country. We need action and we need it now. That is what Bill C-402 would have done.

[Indian Act, November 27th, 1998]

moved that Bill C-402, an act to amend the Indian Act (obligations of landlords and tenants on reserve land), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Okanagan—Coquihalla to debate Bill C-402, an act to amend the Indian Act (obligations of landlords and tenants on reserve land). The bill is a direct result of a serious incident that occurred in my constituency last fall, and it has implications for all Canadians in every province and territory in Canada.

In November 1997, 51 families from the Driftwood Mobile Home Park just outside Penticton, British Columbia, were evicted from their homes through no fault of their own. Health Canada deemed the sewage treatment facilities there to be totally inadequate. No one at the federal or provincial level had been inspecting the sewage treatment plant to ensure it met provincial or national health and safety guidelines.

To make matters worse, my constituents were not protected by British Columbia's residential tenancy act. The act declares that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the building and property of rental facilities to provincial and safety standards and must oversee repairs of serious problems. One might ask why my constituents were not protected. It was because they were renting property on Indian land. The residents, many of whom had lived in Driftwood Mobile Home Park for years, fell into this grey area of the law.

Let us put a face to these people, these 51 families who were evicted from their homes in November. Who were these people? Many of them were senior citizens. Many of them were low income families, single income families. They had scrimped and saved to realize the dream which most Canadians hold of owning their own home.

Nobody at the provincial level had been inspecting the septic system of the mobile home park because provincial legislation, in this case the B.C. residential tenancy act, does not apply to residential tenancies on Indian reserves.

With regard to the victims of the mobile home park, the hon. Michael Farnworth, B.C. minister of municipal affairs and housing, wrote to me stating unequivocally:

It is with profound regret that I see tenants facing eviction under these conditions, however the entire tenancy responsibility on federally owned land lies with the federal government. It is apparent that there is a serious federal legislative and policy vacuum in this area, resulting in crippling impacts on individuals and families who are tenants of federal lands in this province.

This is not the first time this has happened. Other incidents involving tenants renting on federal Indian land have ended up in the Supreme Court of Canada. In almost every case the supreme court has ruled that provincial legislation does not apply to residential tenancies on reserve land.

These rulings reinforced that parliament, this House, has exclusive power to legislate with respect to such tenancies. Despite that there is still a legislative vacuum which needs to be filled. That is what I am attempting to do with Bill C-402.

Although the federal government is responsible for tenants on federal land, Health Canada's health services branch, which is responsible for approving septic field installations and repairs on Indian reservations, claimed that it was never informed of the Driftwood septic installation some 10 years ago or those of other mobile home parks in my constituency. Therefore no action by the federal government was taken to prevent what turned into a disaster for those 51 families in my riding.

Every Canadian believes that no matter what happens he or she can turn to the courts for redress of grievance. This was not the case for my constituents. There was no federal law to protect them. They fell through the cracks.

What was the effect of that happening to these people? Due to years of neglect, raw sewage started to seep up through the ground of these people's homes. Many were forced to literally walk away from their lifetime investment.

On October 9, 1997, in an effort to protect my constituents' homes, I tried to pull together the interested parties by organizing a meeting with the federal minister of Indian affairs; the mayor of Penticton, Beth Campbell; the local MLA, Rick Thorpe; and the chief of the Penticton Indian Band, Chief Stewart Phillip.

I congratulate all those people and in particular the minister of Indian affairs because she was willing to meet with these people. In spite of the best efforts of all parties involved a comprehensive solution was not reached. In November 1997 after only 30 days notice my constituents walked away from their homes after they were evicted.

They could not move their homes. Some of the mobile homes were quite old. Some of them can be seen sitting right there today. They have been destroyed, mainly through vandalism. Some people in the area even offered them 10 cents on the dollar for their investment.

Many of these people literally walked away. They had nowhere to go. They could not move their homes. There were no vacancies in any other mobile home parks for them to move them to if they could come up with the money required to do that. One family literally walked away from their home after Health Canada advised them to keep their dog in the house and to boil their shoes. Imagine being told to boil their shoes after walking in their own yard. That is what happened to these people.

This incident brought to my attention the danger thousands of Canadians face who rent land on federal Indian reserve lands. While my constituents faced the tragedy of being evicted from their homes, luckily no lives were lost. However, the tragedy could have been much bigger if the inadequate sewage facilities had led to an outbreak of disease. This is not just a one time local problem. There are many other mobile home parks in my riding that could end up with the same fate. I would venture a guess that there are probably many right across the country.

Other Canadians on reserve lands could also lose their home faced with this situation. What is needed is effective federal legislation to ensure that the federal legislative vacuum is filled so that no other Canadians are crippled by this or any other similar incident. This is the point of Bill C-402.

Bill C-402 is designed to prevent future Driftwood mobile home parks from happening again by making existing provincial tenancy legislation apply to leases granted by the crown. Both the crown and the sublessor or the locatee will be subject to provincial authorities that enforce the obligations of landlords and tenants.

For example, as already mentioned, the B.C. residential tenancy act ensures that a landlord must maintain land or residential premises in compliance with health, safety and housing standards set out by law. The crown and the sublessor will be responsible for meeting provincial standards set out by the various provincial residential tenancy acts.

These people had paid their rent to put their mobile home on a pad in a park. They were paying rent in good faith for years and the locatee or the sublessor was not spending that money or a percentage of that money on the upgrading and care of the property. The crown definitely has a responsibility because the crown was one of the signators of the lease.

Bill C-402 is a simple non-partisan amendment to the Indian Act that would prevent future generations of Canadians from facing the tragedy faced by my constituents in November 1997. This is extremely important. With more economic development happening right now on reserve lands across the country, we need a solution. It is required now more than ever before.

In the case of Driftwood it took 10 years for the problem to surface. Bill C-402 is the answer for future developments on Indian lands. It would protect residential tenants on reserve land by making provincial tenancy legislation apply in any province. It would mean that in new developments on reserve land involving tenants, provincial health and safety standards would have to be followed. Tenants would be protected from arbitrary evictions.

Normally in the course of a speech I would be asking at this time for support of my legislation in the House. Unfortunately any support I receive today from the House would be an empty endorsement. This is no fault of the vast majority of the members of the House but rather an indictment on our parliamentary system. Our parliamentary system is set up to ensure that no private member in the House, no matter from which party, is able to pass legislation. Standing Order 92(1) states that no more than five private members' bills and five private members' motions may be designated votable.

I find this rule ridiculous as do my peers from both sides of the House. Every member of parliament has a sound knowledge of the important issues in their constituencies, issues that require federal legislation to be resolved. These are issues that the Liberals consider small or insignificant in the big picture or the scheme of things. The Liberals should always keep in mind that all politics is local and this issue is very important for not only constituents in my riding but constituents right across the country in every riding. Ministers and departments only see the big picture and ignore the unresolved smaller issues. They have the power to bring in sweeping legislation that is always votable. Yet for members of parliament bringing in a private member's bill is the only way we can change federal legislation for the better.

Despite the fact that Bill C-402 is only a paragraph or two in length, it took hours of consultation. Speaking with constituents, speaking with experts in the field of Indian affairs and the Indian Act and legal counsel in the House of Commons, it took literally hours to come up with the solution we have brought forward in Bill C-402. And that was the easy part.

After the bill is finally drawn up the member of parliament is forced to wait until his or her bill is drawn in a lottery system. The merit of this piece of legislation is of no importance whatsoever. If you are one of the lucky ones to make it through the House lottery then you must convince the Liberal dominated committee that your private member's bill is worthy of being voted on.

Unfortunately for Canadians who rent on Indian reserve land, the subcommittee determined that Bill C-402 would not be votable. In fact, about 20 of my colleagues in the House made presentations to the subcommittee at the same time I did. All were refused the status of being votable except for one private member's bill introduced by an unelected, unaccountable senator.

The way private members' bills and business have been treated in the House is absolutely scandalous, and this occurs every single day. This deplorable state of affairs must end.

In my riding there is a great deal of economic development on reserve land and therefore Bill C-402 is very pertinent.

All we are asking in Bill C-402 is that the same protection be afforded to renters right across the country regardless of living on Indian reserve land or non-reserve land.

Bill C-402 is an important piece of legislation drafted to protect Canadians. If passed, it would ensure that those who rent on Indian land are protected by provincial landlord and tenant legislation.

Robert E. Lee, an American military commander, once said: “Duty then is the sublimest word in our language. Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more. You should never do less”. I have done my duty today by raising this issue in the House of Commons and now I ask the federal Liberal government to do its duty.

[National Defence, November 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence is the only Canadian who has confidence in the Labrador helicopter, a helicopter that is 35 years old and now apparently has developed a spontaneous combustion problem.

Two incidents have taken place since the October 2 tragic incident that saw six of our air crew killed. When will the minister do the right thing and lease new helicopters? Are human lives worth less to this government than leasing new helicopters?

[First Nations Land Management Act, November 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Okanagan—Coquihalla to speak on Bill C-49, the first nations land management act.

The bill has special significance for the people of Okanagan—Coquihalla, as my riding is home to the West Bank Indian Band, one of the 14 first nations that will be affected if the legislation passes.

The legislation will have a major impact on both native and non-native residents living on West Bank lands. Currently the federal, provincial and West Bank First Nations have come to an agreement in principle that is even beyond the scope of this bill.

Having reviewed both the first nations land management act and the West Bank First Nations agreement in principle, I have two very serious concerns that I would like to share with my colleagues today and with the government.

First, the West Bank First Nation treaty process in principle was negotiated by federal, provincial and aboriginal parties without consulting the public.

In fact there was a veil of secrecy that surrounded the negotiations.

Second, preferential rights for certain Canadians to lands and resources are entrenched throughout the draft of this agreement based solely on race.

These two concerns are disturbing in a country such as Canada. Secrecy and preferential treatment based on ethnicity do not mesh with the spirit of democracy and equality before the law.

I would like to look at these two issues more closely. I believe the majority of the Canadian public and backbench Liberal MPs will agree these concerns warrant a rethinking of the way the government deals with land management issues.

The first paragraph in the agreement in principle states:

Until otherwise agreed to by the parties, this agreement and supporting documentation shall be treated as confidential by the Government of Canada and the Westbank First Nation, subject only to release to Westbank First Nation citizens for their consideration.

Now there is Liberal democracy in action. While consent by the Westbank First Nation through a referendum is required, the remaining population of Westbank will not be consulted.

According to Indian affairs statistics the Westbank First Nation is comprised of 517 members. Yet there are 7,000 non-natives on Westbank land. They are voiceless on this bill and this issue.

To make matters worse, the final Westbank agreement will be declared valid once approved by cabinet and the enactment of the legislation. Once the needed legislation is passed by parliament, the federal cabinet can simply move an amendment to the agreement leaving no room for democratic review.

By not consulting non-aboriginal residents, the resource industry and other interested parties, the Liberal government is demonstrating its Meech Lakian tendency to reject bringing democracy into the process of dealing with far reaching aboriginal land claim issues.

My second concern is that this agreement compounded by Bill C-49 creates inequality by granting special rights and privileges based solely on race. The Westbank First Nation made up of 517 individuals will be authorized to formulate its own constitution with sweeping powers. The 7,000 non-aboriginal residents will be largely excluded.

Will the law making power granted under this agreement, Bill C-49, undermine the Constitution? Is the rule of law so little regarded by our political leaders? From my reading of the agreement and Bill C-49, I would have to answer yes to both of those questions.

Take clause 37 in this bill:

In the event of any inconsistency or conflict between this act and any other federal laws, this act prevails to the extent of the inconsistency or conflict.

To me it sounds as though the rule of law and the supremacy of the Constitution are being disregarded. Bill C-49 will undermine the rule of law and the Constitution by granting to aboriginal people the right to create laws that will supersede those of the federal government.

Caught in the middle will be the 7,000 residents of Westbank who are non-native. They will lose their rights to be governed by the laws of Canada, subject instead to the laws set by the minority based on race. This is absolutely unacceptable.

Debating legislation that grants special rights and privileges to a select group is not something I imagined I would be debating when I became a member of parliament in 1993.

The land management powers given to the Westbank government will be extensive. It will have jurisdiction to manage, administer, govern, control, regulate, use, protect and benefit from Westbank lands. It will also be able to grant licences and control zoning in addition to controlling access to and trespass on Westbank lands. These are extraordinary powers given to a minority of people on Westbank land.

The law making process under Bill C-49 and the Westbank First Nation agreement also exclude the non-Indian majority living in Westbank.

Only Westbank citizens will be eligible to vote in elections for the Westbank Band Council. Westbank citizens will be those 18 years or older on the Westbank band list. The majority in most cases are non-ethnic first nations people and will have no vote on the laws of the Westbank band though they will be bound by those same laws. It appears to be taxation without representation.

The most these non-aboriginal people are entitled to is to making representations. I quote from the agreement in principle:

—representations to the Westbank government with respect to proposed to Westbank laws and proposed amendments to Westbank laws that directly and significantly affect such non-Westbank citizens wishing to make representation.

This flies in the face of the principles of democracy. How can the government espouse democracy and equality abroad while cultivating undemocratic institutions within our own borders?

Bill C-49 and the whole self-government process need to be brought back to the drawing table. Canada has thrived as a nation that has garnered international acclaim due to our quest for the principles of democracy, equality and rule of law. As a member of parliament with a number of Indian bands in my constituency I have worked hard to support economic development and educational development projects within natives communities. However, trampling the rights of the majority is not the right path to take and that is the path the Government of Canada has chosen.

The secretive and piecemeal fashion in which we are approaching land issues is a recipe for future discontent among all parties involved. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is part of the problem, not part of the solution. We need to build a new and brighter future and a better relationship between aboriginals and non-aboriginals. Aboriginal people need to be full and equal citizens empowered to manage their own lives without being marginalized. Bill C-49 is not the answer to this problem.

[Petitions, October 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, since 1867 it has been a right of Canadians to petition the Parliament of Canada and the crown for redress of grievances.

I have three such petitions today which are asking the crown to review the hepatitis C compensation package for Canadians infected by tainted blood.

I would like to be able to add these to Joey Haché's petition of 30,000 names which was presented to the Prime Minister yet I found out through the clerk of petitions that the Prime Minister has not enacted his responsibility by presenting that to the House.

Therefore I present these 259 names from Okanagan—Coquihalla and ask where is Joey Haché's petition.