House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 43% of the vote.
First Nations Land Management Act November 6th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is Friday and I hate to delay the time of the House, but you are aware that it is incumbent upon the government to keep a quorum in the House. I do not see a quorum. It is a very important piece of legislation and we should have a quorum.
Employment November 6th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, Port Saxon in Shelburne County will lose 25 jobs in December this year when Acadia Seaplants relocates to Cornwallis Park. This relocation is occurring because of a $1 million loan from the federally funded Cornwallis Park development and a $750,000 interest free loan from ACOA.
When the new plant is operational it will create 32 jobs. However, 25 jobs are already in Shelburne County so the net gain of jobs is only 7. This is a wrong approach to job creation.
It is worth stating that the cost of these seven jobs is $1.7 million. Surely this is not a good investment. Plus the loss of the 25 jobs in Port Saxon, Shelburne County, is a serious blow to the economy of Shelburne County as the economy is already reeling and has been ravaged by the downturn in the ground fishery.
First Nations Land Management Act November 5th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, again I think it is a pertinent point, the whole principle of fee simple ownership. However, it is not the case within this piece of legislation and it is protected within the legislation from reverting to fee simple ownership.
I will not speak for first nations as they will speak for themselves, but first nations may find that is the direction in which they want to head. They can incorporate that. Once there is some economic activity and the chance for advancement, jobs and everything that comes with economic activity on reserves, that whole idea of land ownership may be a principle or idea that will be more fully embraced by first nations. It may not. I am not trying to speak for them.
They have a system of government which has worked for a great deal of time. Many of us have a great culture the same as the first nations do and a lot of history that has evolved over a period of time. I would hesitate to say all Canadians will be governed in 100 years by the same governments and the same types of policies we have now because things change. Things may change in the future.
We are not dealing with the future but with the present and the possibility that something that is closer to fee simple ownership or fee common ownership will enable first nations to utilize their land without having to go to the federal government every time they want to carry out any type of economic activity. That is the situation now. Anything that takes us away from that situation is a good thing.
First Nations Land Management Act November 5th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question. It is a legitimate question. I heard a couple of questions in there so I would like to answer everything the member spoke about.
First of all the British Columbia Native Women's Society and the entrenchment of matrimonial rights under the legislation or under Indian affairs versus what is offered for protection under provincial legislation is a very important point. It is one that is going to require a great deal more study. However, the division of property on the breakdown of a marriage can be met within the land codes which are all voted on in a democratic process and come before both on reserve and off reserve members of each individual first nation.
I did not say that this legislation was perfect but it is a step in the right direction. Far too often in the history of this country we have looked at legislation, and all legislation is inherently flawed to some degree, but instead of moving forward and allowing 99% of the legislation to be good, we get hung up on 1% of it. This is the case.
The first nations are responsible themselves in their land codes to decide the division of property on the breakdown of a marriage. I expect they will do that in a democratic process, although there may be some room for abuse of that process.
The other issue is fee common ownership. That is a very good analogy. I used fee simple because fee simple is what most of us understand. The member is absolutely right about fee common.
Again a democratically elected chief and tribal council will decide what activity is going to be carried on. The whole idea of common ownership for the greater good is not one that all of us are familiar with. I am a private landowner and a sixth generation farmer. The whole idea of ownership of property is something that is inherent to my culture and the way I was brought up.
However, the idea of a common ownership of land is not completely foreign to us. There is no reason why they still cannot have democratic representation through common land ownership with the chief and the tribal councils being democratically elected.
First Nations Land Management Act November 5th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-49, an act providing for the ratification and the bringing into effect of the framework agreement on first nations land management.
This piece of legislation has been almost 10 years in the making beginning in 1989 as the lands revenue and trust review. That agreement encompassed a number of areas, land management being one of them. While that agreement fell through, a number of first nations persevered with negotiations for land management.
The bill was formerly introduced as Bill C-75 on December 10, 1996, but died on the order paper. Bill C-49, while similar to the original bill, has some important amendments to address the concerns of native women. I will discuss them in greater detail later.
I congratulate the 14 first nations that are signatories to the framework agreement. They are Westbank, Musqueam, Lheidli T'enneh, N'Quatqua and Squamish, all from British Columbia; Siksika in Alberta; Muskoday and Cowessess in Saskatchewan; the Opaskwayak Cree from Manitoba; the Nipissing and the Mississaugas of Scugog Island, the Chippewas of Mnjikaning and the Chippewas from Georgina Island, all from Ontario; and the Saint Mary's in New Brunswick. These first nations have worked hard to have this legislation reach this stage of the process and are anxious to see it become law.
Bill C-49 allows the 13 first nations who signed the framework on February 12, 1996 and the Saint Mary's from New Brunswick who joined in May 1998 to assume control of land management and move out from under the provisions of the Indian Act. This does not affect other first nations that are not signatories to the agreement. Nor does it diminish the authority of the Indian Act for areas other than land management.
The legislation is an incremental step toward self-government and should be a positive move for the affected bands as they have greater influence over economic development on their reserves. The framework agreement will allow the first nations the opportunity to manage their land and resources through the establishment of land codes.
The framework agreement may become a model for other such agreements on land management once the legislation passes and the first nations are given the opportunity to implement it. Thirty or forty first nations have already expressed an interest in the framework agreement. I expect many more to do so as they are able to see the benefits of the legislation.
We are all aware of the faults of the Indian Act. As I mentioned, the legislation will allow first nations to move out from under the restrictions of the Indian Act and provide opportunities for first nations to manage their own land and resources. This will be done through land codes that they will develop to meet their own requirements.
The first step for each of the first nations will be to develop that land code. It will outline the rules necessary for land management, covering such things as what land is affected by the land code, rules for use and occupation of the land, revenue collection, amendments and a dispute resolution process among other things.
Not only does this transfer authority from the federal government to the first nations, but through the land code it also encourages stronger community participation. Land codes must be ratified by the communities and voted on by first nation people living both on and off reserve. This is an onerous job but one that the first nations felt was very important and warranted the extra work.
It is worth mentioning that the land codes must be ratified by the community but not by the federal government. Following ratification each reserve must enter into an individual transfer agreement with Canada. The transfer agreement will include the development and operational funding to be paid by Canada to the first nation and the details on the transfer of administration. The community must ratify both the land code and the transfer agreement. First nations will manage their land and resources under Bill C-49 including the associated revenues, except for oil and gas revenues which remain a federal responsibility.
Only 14 first nations have signed the agreement, a very small percentage of the 633 first nations in Canada. One of the reasons for this small number relates to land management under the Indian Act. While it is possible under the Indian Act to request delegated authority from the federal government to manage lands, only 9 of the 633 first nations have done so. Dissatisfaction with the limitations of the delegated authority was the impetus behind the framework agreement and the legislation we are discussing today.
Another reason for the relatively small number of signatories to the agreement is concern by a number of first nations that these agreements would be similar to the proposed amendments to the Indian Act that have met with resistance. This agreement however is reserve specific, affecting only the bands listed in the agreement. Furthermore the agreement is not a treaty and does not affect treaty or constitutional rights of aboriginal people. The reserves remain a federal responsibility under section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867, and the lands continue to be protected from surrender of sale.
At the same time these 14 first nations will have the opportunity to manage their own land and the legal status to govern their own land and resources. The only difference from other land owners will be the inability to sell that property.
As I mentioned earlier, the legislation is long overdue and eagerly awaited by the first nations that are anxious to begin implementation. There are however some concerns regarding the legislation as outlined by the British Columbia Native Women's Society.
Although I have had some difficulty contacting the British Columbia Native Women's Society, it is my understanding of its position that it feels the legislation transfers responsibility for equality on reserve, particularly for native women upon the breakdown of marriage, from the federal government to first nations. It sees this as an abdication of federal power that demonstrates the government's lack of commitment to equality.
In addition, there is no minimum standard provided in the legislation for the division of property such as exists in provincial law upon the breakdown of marriage, which increases the possibility that inequality will not be dealt with in an acceptable manner perhaps by the first nations involved.
These are legitimate concerns that stem from the flaws of the Indian Act that established and perpetuated an inferior position for women in the legislation. The first nations that are signatories to this agreement listened to the concerns of the British Columbia Native Women's Society and drafted amendments to the framework agreement to address its reservations.
The amendments require the first nations to establish community process in their land codes regulating use, occupancy and possession of reserve land should a marriage breakdown occur. At the same time it places the onus on the first nations and their respective members to adequately provide regulations for division of matrimonial property. This ensures that the process meets the requirements of the first nations members and avoids the age old problem of having the federal government dictate to the first nations.
While I feel it would have been useful and informative to have met with the British Columbia Native Women's Society to discuss its concerns, my request for meetings were not answered. I look forward to hearing the society outline its position as we discuss the legislation in detail at committee.
While there are concerns with the piece of legislation, the objective or the impetus of Bill C-49 to allow first nations to move closer to economic independence is long overdue. As the Nisga'a treaty in British Columbia demonstrates, first nations want the opportunity to govern their lands and people and are prepared to accept the challenges of doing so.
The positive effects of such legislation will be evident as more first nations take steps toward self-reliance and independence.
The chiefs of the first nations with whom I have spoken have all expressed their support for this legislation and the opportunities it offers them and their respective first nations. As I have mentioned they are prepared to begin implementation of this bill once it completes the legislative process. Currently three first nations have land codes prepared and five more are in development.
I look forward to examining this legislation in committee. I welcome the opportunity to hear my colleagues' comments on this legislation, Bill C-49.
In summing up I would like to add a few points. The hon. member from the Bloc mentioned a concept which many of us take for granted, that of fee simple land ownership. I would dare to say that there are many people who sit within the halls of this parliament itself who do not understand the Indian Act. Certainly I am not pretending in any way, shape or form to be an expert on the Indian Act but I have read it and it is a terrible piece of legislation.
The whole concept of fee simple ownership that we take for granted is that one can actually own a piece of property. For instance the first nations reserves in Nova Scotia may have a piece of woodland of a couple of hundred acres that they may want to cut timber on but they do not have the ability to that. First they have to apply, they have to go on bended knee to the federal government to get permission to carry on work on property that they own but which is somehow being held in trust for them by the federal government.
This bill is about the whole concept of land ownership. It is about not having to apply to someone else if they want to have a gravel pit on their property, if they want to build a road to access timber resources, if they want to utilize those timber resources for the economic benefit of the reserve, if they want to look at the mining potential for the property. These are all things that private ownership takes for granted. It does not even think about because it is a foreign concept to think about it any other way, but first nations do not have that ability.
There are some problems with the bill and issues it does not address. However, it does address a very important point for economic renewal, the ability for first nations to have economic activity and bring themselves out from under the Indian Act and actually have some activity in Canada and take their place as equal citizens on the property which the rest of us take for granted.
First Nations Land Management Act November 5th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the member's speech and I heard the passion in her voice. I believe she believes that what she is saying is correct. It is important that what we say in debate be recorded in a factual manner and that we not mislead the people watching this debate or other members of parliament. Certain statements were made to Reform, its right wing agenda and its friends. I am not sure who she was talking about. She talked about there being a century of NDP support for the social agenda and for the first nations in Canada. She may have her terms of reference a bit out of whack. Maybe she went back a little further than the party does.
I will give an example of the real issue. There was an emergency meeting last night with aboriginal affairs committee members of the Senate and the House concerning the tragic situation that has developed in British Columbia. I am not here to stick up for the government or for the Reform Party. I attended that meeting last night as a member of the Progressive Conservative Party. A Liberal member, a Bloc member and a Reform member were there but there were no NDP members.
If the member is going to tell the House that she supports first nations then let us see her at the committee meetings, at the drudgery and the work that there is no fun in, where there are no cameras and no glorious speeches.
Fisheries November 4th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Nova Scotia and Bay of Fundy lobster conservation measures are not being applied evenly across the board. If the minister wants these new regulations to work, then adjacent lobster fishing areas must have the same conservation measures. For instance, lobsters that are illegal to catch in district 33 are legal to catch in adjoining district 34. How is the minister going to prevent smuggling and illegal sales between these two adjacent districts?
Lobster Fishery November 2nd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has stated that he accepted all the conservation harvesting plans proposed by Nova Scotia lobster fishermen for 1998 and 1999. What he has not stated is that these plans have been changed.
The discussions with fishermen promised an evenly implemented across the board plan to double lobster egg production. The minimum carapace size would be increased to 3 8/32 inches. Egg-bearing females would be v-notched and females with a carapace of over 5 inches would be released. This was supported because it was seen to be applied evenly across all lobster fishing areas.
We now learn that this is not to be the case. In short, once again this government has been advised by fishers to apply one set of conservation measures. The rules have been ignored, their advice has been ignored and another set of measures has been applied.
For instance where fishers share a line, between district 33 and district 34, they are so close together that the buoys entangle. How does it expect one side to obey conservation—
Transport October 30th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, more than 20,000 future jobs in the region may be at stake if the full potential of the port of Halifax is not maximized. We need changes that reflect the economic needs of Atlantic Canada, not the control needs of the minister.
The joint proposal to alter the port authority is consistent with the new Canada Marine Act. In 1997 the predecessor of the Minister of Transport promised to provide local interests with a strong voice in the port's direction. This voice would make Halifax a panamax player instead of a port that unloads the top layer of containers on ships headed for New York.
Transport October 30th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the era of post-panamax shipping is upon us. The port of Halifax is ideally suited for growth at the expense of our international competitors.
Yet the government risks losing this opportunity because the current port authority structure does not represent local interests. The Metropolitan Halifax Chamber of Commerce, the Halifax Shipping Association and the International Longshoremen's Association have proposed a new management structure to the Minister of Transport. Will the minister commit to these needed changes?