John Cummins

[Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement Act, June 16th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my friend and want to re-emphasize the notion that in this place there is an obligation to debate, to not simply rubber-stamp deals agreed to by bureaucrats. As well, I think there is an obligation on us to determine affordability. When we start talking about reconciliation, it is something that works both ways. It should not tip the scales in favour of either one.

One of the issues the member tends to overlook is the issue of overlaps. I know full well that there are overlaps with the bands that are resident in her area. The problem is that when these overlaps occur there is an obligation on the part of the federal government to compensate the Tsawwassen Band for the extent of the overlap.

That is going to be a significant cost, because there are nine bands that have registered concerns about overlaps. Thus, there are nine bands that are going to have claims in which the federal government will be liable.

The member also talked about the land and Chief Baird suggesting that the reserve was fronted by a dead body of water. What is also interesting is that recently when the band, and Chief Baird in particular, was negotiating a deal with the Vancouver Port Authority, Chief Baird and her council elected not to utilize their aboriginal and environmental concerns over this expansion of the Vancouver Port, because the port was willing to pay them to overlook this obligation of the federal government to redress aboriginal and environmental concerns.

So as we see, anything can be on the table here. Anything can be bought and sold. It certainly was when it came to the port expansion and Chief Baird.

The member quoted Chief Baird. I would like to quote Bertha Williams, whose family has been on that reserve since the beginning. Her grandfather was chief, as was her father, and she was a councillor. She said:

A lot of our elders...are new to the community...They lost their status years ago. They went off, got married, they didn't want to be labelled as native....

These elders...don't know our history...don't know our culture.

I have never surrendered my birthright...I have never left my homeland....

[But] we are outnumbered...The majority of those who are voting members live off the reserve.

There are people that live in Alabama, Los Angeles...across the Prairies...They are band members but they have no intention of ever living on the reserve. Yet they are voting on our business. A lot of them have never even visited the Reserve. It is just ludicrous how much they have to say on our livelihood--

[Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement Act, June 16th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where to start, in response to my friend, but I remind him that this place is the House of Commons. This is where there is supposed to be debate on a variety of issues, including proposals put forward by people who have been given the responsibility to negotiate these treaties on our behalf.

I have represented this area, before the Tsawwassen treaty negotiations began. In fact, during all that time, I was never approached by any of the treaty negotiators and asked my opinion. I was not asked what the people in my riding thought about how the treaty negotiations were going.

During these negotiations, the municipal council in my area had a representative at the treaty negotiating table and that individual backed away from it. Anything the representatives heard or learned at the treaty table, they were unable to bring back to their councils. It all had to be kept secret and they found that it was simply not productive to participate in the process. The same transpired with the fishing industry, which has been participating in treaty negotiations in British Columbia as well. The representatives also backed away from the table because they felt their input was not being realized.

The sad part about all this is it is not only me who has a particular opinion that is at variance with the member opposite, and obviously at variance with some of the people in my party. The fact is I have addressed these issues in my community since the beginning. Anything I have said in the House, I have said in my community. The concerns I have expressed are broadly shared in my community. I was elected to represent my community and to speak to those issues here. That is exactly what I do.

Not only that, I represent native people who live on the Tsawwassen Reserve. What I say here reflects very clearly the concerns of people like Bertha Williams, whose family, as I mentioned earlier, has lived on that reserve since it was created. Her grandfather and fathers were chiefs and Bertha was a council member. She would not have any difficulty with what I have said here.

The allocations being made on this treaty, if replicated with the 200 treaties remaining in British Columbia, simply are not affordable. With regard to the fisheries there simply are not enough fish—

[Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement Act, June 16th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to my friend's comments. I always find that when people go on the attack and suggest that other people do not know what they are talking about, they certainly leave themselves open to that criticism. However, what I would say, given the member's comments, is that it shows to me the reason why there should have been a more open debate on this.

So I do not take up all of the time of the member opposite, as there are only five minutes left, let me approach the issue of the salmon. The member suggested that somehow I had it all wrong.

The salmon issue is fairly clear. All of the bands up the river and down the coast have stated a desire to share in the commercial harvest of salmon, over and above their food fish allocations. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that there is no entitlement to a commercial allocation, but in this treaty the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada has been ignored.

In fact, the government has entered into three treaties in the last two years. There is the Tsawwassen treaty. The first one that the government entered into was the Yale treaty. The Yale band is located just at the western entrance of the Fraser Canyon. It is a small band, yet it got an allocation very similar to the allocation of the Tsawwassen band.

The second treaty is the Lheidli T'enneh treaty. That band is resident and its lands are adjacent to Prince George, which is 500 miles up the river. That band has never had a commercial harvest of salmon. In fact, I would suggest that by the time the salmon have reached 500 miles up the river, they are not fit for commercial sale. Yet the band was given, although it rejected the treaty, a commercial allocation of salmon similar to the allocation given to Tsawwassen.

The member talked about precedents. Given the precedents, it is not outrageous for me to say these are the populations of these various bands and if they are given the same allocation as the Tsawwassen band, we are going to end up with a--

[Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement Act, June 16th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, my friend has raised a number of issues.

He suggested that the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development examined very clearly the bill. That is simply not the case. I think the bill was before the committee for two hours. For an hour the committee members heard from the minister and for an hour they heard from the chief. That is hardly a careful examination of the bill.

What the member does not seem to understand is that there are 160 band members who live on the reserve and the band claims a membership of 360. Most of the band members do not live on the reserve. In fact, they live in Los Angeles, California, the states of Washington, Oregon and Alabama, the province of Ontario, and Winnipeg, Manitoba, yet this treaty gives these people the right to determine what kind of lifestyle the people who are resident on the reserve will have.

Let me provide an example. The family of one of the band members who is opposed to the treaty, Bertha Williams, has lived on the reserve since the land was created. The family has held a certificate of possession of the land which her house sits on and about an additional 50 acres of land. When this treaty goes through and the land use planning is put in place, and remember that all of this happened with the majority of people living off reserve, Bertha's house and property will be in the middle of a rail marshalling yard, in the middle of container storage and warehousing, for whose benefit? It is for the benefit of the port of Vancouver, because that is what this treaty is about. It is about advancing the business enterprise of the port of Vancouver. It is not about--

[Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement Act, June 16th, 2008]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-34 be amended by deleting Clause 5.

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-34 be amended by deleting Clause 7.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-34 be amended by deleting Clause 8.

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-34 be amended by deleting Clause 9.

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-34 be amended by deleting Clause 10.

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-34 be amended by deleting Clause 11.

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-34 be amended by deleting Clause 18.

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-34 be amended by deleting Clause 28.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-34 be amended by deleting Clause 32.

Mr. Speaker, these motions are important because they address and highlight key flaws in the Tsawwassen treaty, flaws that most residents of British Columbia and most members in the House are not aware of.

There are issues that should not be tolerated in a free and open society and represent an ongoing fiscal commitment of the federal and provincial governments that is not justifiable.

Motions Nos. 8 and 9 address taxes. Treaty negotiators have repeatedly advised Canadians that post-treaty Tsawwassen Band members will pay taxes just like other Canadians. That is incorrect. Post-treaty, all band members resident on Tsawwassen lands will pay income taxes to the band government, not the Government of Canada as other Canadians do.

Post-treaty, all residents of Tsawwassen treaty lands, native and non-native, band members or non-band members, will pay income taxes to the band government, not to the federal and provincial governments.

All GST collected on band lands will go to the band government and half of the PST collected on band lands will go to the band government.

Currently there are approximately 160 band members living on Tsawwassen lands and 500 non-native, non-band members living on the reserve.

The federal government estimates that $1.5 million would have flowed to band coffers in 2007 based on these tax concessions. The government refuses to indicate how much tax revenue the federal treasury expects to lose when all treaties in British Columbia are signed.

Observers conservatively estimate that when all the treaties are signed in British Columbia, the cost of lost tax revenue to the federal government alone would be $100 million annually.

If members vote against the amendment to delete the tax concessions, they will be voting in favour of increasing the tax collected from Canadians by $100 million annually.

Motion No. 2 addresses treaty lands. The treaty approves the transfer of approximately 1,100 acres of prime farm land to the Tsawwassen Band. Approximately half of that land will be moved from the agricultural land reserve and used for a rail marshalling yard, container storage and warehousing area as agreed to in a deal with the Vancouver Port Authority.

Initially, the government evaluated the land being transferred at $26 million. Independent appraisers put the land value at 10 times that. They put it at $254 million and they lowballed the numbers.

If all the bands in British Columbia are given land of equal value, the cost alone to satisfy treaty requirements would top $120 billion. British Columbia and the federal government cannot afford the bill. Furthermore, much of this farmland has served a dual purpose.

As protected farmland, it ensured an economically viable farm economy in the Fraser delta, provided green space for the population of Delta and Vancouver and, perhaps most important, formed part of what is recognized as the most important bird area in Canada by providing forage areas for the millions of migratory birds using the Pacific flyway.

Without the farmers, the area is lost to wildlife and green space for the million or more residents of greater Vancouver and Delta.

An added injustice in the whole farmland fiasco surrounding the treaty is the anticipated taking, for treaty purposes, of an additional 700 acres of farmland at Brunswick Point as the existing farm families are squeezed out.

If members vote against the land amendments, they will be voting to commit senior governments to pay $120 billion to complete the land portion of the treaties remaining in British Columbia and the wanton destruction of valuable farmland and wildlife habitat.

Motions Nos. 5, 6 and 8 address the fisheries. The treaty ignores the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada in Sparrow and Van der Peet that rejected aboriginal claims to the trade and barter sale of food fish and the commercial sale of salmon. It creates a treaty right to be enjoyed by at least some members of the band who are not even Canadian and have never stepped foot on the Tsawwassen Reserve.

Using basic calculations based upon the current population of status Indians published by the Department of Indian Affairs and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Pacific Salmon Commission records of the Fraser River salmon run size, it becomes clear that 170% of the total allowable catch of Fraser sockeye would be required if the salmon allocations given the Tsawwassen Indian Band are repeated for bands claiming Fraser sockeye.

Not only are there not enough fish to satisfy Indian claims to similar allocations, there would be nothing for sport or commercial fishermen.

The government claims that only 33% of the total allowable catch would be required to satisfy Indian claims. This unsubstantiated estimate by the Department of Fisheries appears to be based on the findings of a departmental study to assess the coast wide implications in the Nisga'a treaty allocations. That study was based on the Nisga'a treaty allocation of 26 fish per person. The Tsawwassen allocation is 156 fish per person. Clearly, the fisheries' allocations need to be revisited before the treaty proceeds.

If members vote against the fisheries' amendments, they are voting for a fisheries' allocation that is not sustainable and which will make even the delivery of food fish to upriver natives impossible.

Motions Nos. 1 and 9 address the issue of protecting parliamentary supremacy.

The Tsawwassen government, which would be created by this agreement, would have the power to enact laws that would prevail over federal laws and the law-making power of Parliament in approximately 40 specific areas.

Parliament must maintain the supreme law-making power for those matters entrusted to it by our Constitution. Parliament has a responsibility to ensure that laws enacted under these federal constitutional powers respect the rights and privileges historically enjoyed by Canadian citizens.

The Tsawwassen government would have the power to imprison Canadian citizens. It is a government that is not representative or responsive to the Tsawwassen band members who live on the reserve. It is a government that is controlled by off-reserve band members, many of whom are permanent residents and citizens in the United States. It is a government that is not accountable to Tsawwassen residents, is exempted from the scrutiny of Parliament and is a government that can largely act with the knowledge and guarantee that it cannot be held accountable if it acts contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This House must remain the supreme law-making authority so as to protect the rights and privileges of Canadian citizens and the powers entrusted to it by our Constitution.

If members vote against the motion to delete clause 5, they will be voting for a form of government that will prevail over federal and provincial law, a situation that should be viewed as intolerable in an open and democratic society such as Canada.

The Tsawwassen treaty is troubling in the extreme to those of us who have taken the time to study the implications of the treaty. It is troublesome for the reasons I have given but it is also troublesome because it does not recognize individual effort.

Harvey Enchin, in The Vancouver Sun on the weekend, had an outstanding article on Canada's native reserves. He stated that we should:

Abandon the failed socialist concept of collectivism and protect individual property rights.

As Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto has proven in the developing world, formal title (along with a formal system for recognizing it) [that being property rights] is the building block of financial independence. Without title to their assets, aboriginals cannot participate in the mainstream economy; they can't use their property as collateral for bank loans to upgrade their homes or take out equity to invest in or start businesses.

Aboriginal reserves are repositories of what de Soto might call dead capital.

He suggests that:

Unlocking that capital and leveraging it will put aboriginals on the path to amassing individual net worth....

The underlying flaw in this treaty is that it does nothing to remove the dependency on the federal government. It simply shifts dependency on the federal government to dependency on the band leadership, which is fundamentally wrong.

[Income Tax Act, June 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank those members of Parliament who spoke in support of Bill C-520 today and on April 15. I would like to highlight some of their comments briefly.

Bill C-520, as has been said, will increase from $20,000 to $25,000 the amount of money first time homebuyers can borrow from the savings they have accumulated in their RRSPs. That, of course, would increase the amount a couple could utilize from $40,000 to $50,000.

This will be the first adjustment in the borrowing limits since the homebuyers plan was created in 1992. Of course, much has changed since 1992 and it is time to bring the plan up to date so it can be of even greater use to first time homebuyers.

Canadians like the homebuyers plan today and they have liked it from the moment it was brought forward by a former finance minister, Don Mazankowski, and was enacted by Parliament.

Canadians have used the homebuyers plan more than 1.8 million times since 1992 and have borrowed more than $18 billion from their own savings, using the plan to make down payments on their first homes.

The homebuyers plan of Bill C-520 will help Canadians realize one of their most fundamental desires: the desire to own a home of their own.

This bill has received strong support from members of all parties represented in the House: the Bloc, the NDP, the Liberals and the Conservatives. Their support is a testament to the support the bill has throughout the country.

I have received hundreds of letters of support from members of the Canadian Real Estate Association and their local chapters and associations across the country. Their hard work in support of Bill C-520 is much appreciated. They are on the front lines and know just how helpful the bill will be to young Canadians hoping to own their first home.

The Canadian Real Estate Association and its provincial associations were at the forefront of the creation of the homebuyers plan and have been working to renew the homebuyers plan for the future. They deserve special thanks for all their hard work on behalf of all homebuyers.

In conclusion, I would like to ask that all members of the House lend their support to Bill C-520. First time buyers are relying on us to get on with the business of amending the homebuyers plan so they can make greater use of their own savings to put together that all important down payment on the purchase of their first home.

[Petitions, June 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of the House to land in Richmond that is commonly known as Garden City Lands. A number of the residents of Richmond bring this to the government's attention. They suggest that if the British Columbia Agricultural Land Commission refuses to allow that land to be drawn from the agricultural land reserve, the Government of Canada restore its ownership of the Garden City Lands for its program needs within the ALR to serve the people of Richmond and Canada as urban agriculture and for ecology uses.

[Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement Act, May 16th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the comments of the member opposite, who mentioned that there is resistance, as she termed it, each time the government tries to get people out of the Indian Act. She said it saddened her that people are only looking at negatives.

With all respect, I would remind my friend that the job of this House is to scrutinize bills that are put before it. That should be the case with this bill, as it is with others. This treaty was negotiated by some bureaucrats. I have been the member of Parliament in that area since before these negotiations began. Never once during the whole process was I asked by either government for my comment or what I thought the people in my constituency might be thinking.

The folks who did participate in the process were sworn to secrecy, the councillors and whatnot from the municipalities, such that they could not even report back to their own councils. These folks walked away from the table.

It was not an open process and the issue was sidestepped in the provincial legislature, so the fact of the matter is that this is the last place this treaty will go before it is brought into effect. Our job here has to be to scrutinize this bill.

Bertha Williams was in town the other day. I had hoped that she would be able to meet with the member opposite and express her concerns to the member, because Bertha has been there all along. Her grandfather was a chief. Her father was a chief. Her brother was a chief of that reserve. Also, Bertha served on the council, yet she is the one who is going to pay the bill because the land that her family has owned since the reserve was created is going to be expropriated and industrialized.

I would like to know from the member if she thinks that is appropriate. Is it appropriate that the members who are living on that reserve are to have their property expropriated so that folks who are living elsewhere, as I say, in Los Angeles, Alabama, Winnipeg and elsewhere on the North American continent, can benefit? I would like to know if she thinks that is okay.

[Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement Act, May 16th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend's comments on these social issues that are addressed by the treaty.

The minister says that the treaty is to provide certainty and economic opportunity, including the development of the Vancouver Port.

I would like to know from the member where in the treaty there is an initiative to build and strengthen families, which are the basis for a strong society and a society where these social issues are addressed. Where in the treaty does he see any indication that this is a concern of the government?

[Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement Act, May 16th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for his very astute and acute observations on this particular topic.

My friend opposite mentioned it but I want to note that in her opening address to the treaty negotiations, Chief Baird noted the low levels of education, the high unemployment and the high number of people who were on welfare in her community. My friend asked a very pertinent question: Are treaties the magic bullet to fix that problem? He made a clear case that it was not so. I would agree with him and say that those kinds of problems are the problems of families, not the problems of governance.

He also noted that in Tsawwassen there are only 160 members living on the reserve out of the 350 and asked the question: How does one ensure that nepotism is not the order of the day? That is a very real question. How does one ensure that democratic principles are followed?

I want to point out that in the last election, Bertha Williams ran for chief and yet she was denied the membership list of the band which she wanted in order to run an effective campaign. Again, I believe that is a violation of charter rights, something that would not be tolerated at the federal level but certainly was at that level. With this treaty, charter rights will not be recognized.

Another question I have for the member is this. The industrialization of the reserve that will flow from the agreement with the Vancouver Port Authority will result in the expropriation of Bertha Williams' property so that band members living in Los Angeles and Alabama, not to mention Winnipeg, can cash in on the money that will flow. Does the member opposite think that this is a worthy result of a treaty?