Leon Benoit

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask for unanimous consent of the House to have the minister respond to questions.

[Immigration, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, media reports today indicate that illegal entry into Canada from China is a very serious problem. According to the RCMP and immigration officials, people smuggling is mushrooming. While legitimate refugees wait in line, those willing to break the law continue to stream into our country.

My question is for the minister of immigration. Do legitimate refugees waiting in line not deserve better than this? Do they not deserve to be put first in line?

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to the first group of amendments to Bill C-41 which includes Motions Nos. 1, 6 and 7.

I will start my presentation by reading a fairly lengthy paper by Wendy Lockhart Lundberg entitled “Native Women Threatened by Federal Bill”. The author is a registered status Indian and a member of the Squamish nation in B.C. If the government is not willing to listen to us on this bill, I hope it will listen to the grassroots aboriginal people who have something to say about this bill. I strongly encourage the government to listen.

This paper makes a case for the amendments we have put forth in this group. It makes the point very clearly that this legislation needs some change, that it is not as widely accepted as some members of the governing party claim it to be. It is time to listen. Maybe the government has not listened to the grassroots aboriginals in particular but I encourage the government to listen to Wendy Lockhart Lundberg now:

While media attention focuses on the formal treaty process, federal actions are attempting a legislative end-run around treaties by offering bands powers over land management. Native women will bear the brunt of these legislative provisions and will be denied the protections they could be afforded through treaties.

A little-publicized government bill, C-49, the first nations land management act, is scheduled for third reading in parliament next week and poised to become law. Bill C-49 would give legal effect to land management agreements which have already been signed by 14 bands. These include my band, the Squamish, as well as Vancouver's Musqueam band and ones across the country, and will be open to other bands in the future.

Bill C-49 grants participating bands almost unlimited powers over the ownership, management, and expropriation of band lands. The implications of C-49 for the rights and position of native women are large, and the B.C. Native Women's Society (supported by three major organizations) has lodged a court case against the federal government to require that issues of native women's rights be properly addressed before enactment.

When the marriages of native women fail, as all too many do on account of poverty and related conditions, they and their children typically lose the family home. Their ex-spouses typically get possession of the family home, based on decisions of the band council. The women often have nowhere to live on the reserve, and may end up in the worst circumstances in urban ghettos. Unlike all other Canadian women, native women on reserves do not have the protection of property division laws.

Bill C-49 contains two provisions which are particularly worrisome for native women. First, it states that rules and procedures regarding the use, occupation, and possession of land upon the breakdown of marriage will be determined by the land codes of each signatory band. Yet, there is little assurance that these future provisions will be any less tilted against the interests of women and their children than the results of the current system.

Second, Bill C-49 offers band councils draconian powers of expropriation, which must concern native women as well as other native people living on reserves and non-natives with leasehold interests. Specifically, “a first nation may ... expropriate any interest in its first nation land that, in the opinion of its council, is necessary for community works or other first nation purposes”. The band need give at most 30 days notice to expropriate, and it is obliged to pay “fair compensation” that can be disputed only under rules set by the band itself.

I encourage the government to listen to this part in particular. It is worth listening to some of the problems that come as a result of the way this is being proposed. The paper goes on to state:

Not only may these powers be used against native women; they may also be used against band members outside the governing elite. For example, the Squamish nation has valuable waterfront property in North Vancouver, rumoured to be the subject of band council plans for commercial redevelopment. These plans could displace many band members living there to a reserve area up the coast, thus making expropriation powers very useful to the band council.

In addition, any party having a leasehold interest on a reserve has reason to fear the strong expropriation powers for bands in Bill C-49. With the sword of quick expropriation hanging over their heads, current leaseholders will find few parties willing to buy their leasehold interests, and their property values will plummet. A band can then expropriate their property by offering “fair compensation” at the depressed market values.

A band council's expropriation powers will be unlike those of a municipal or senior government; it will be able to expropriate for any “other first nation purposes”, not limited to the need to build schools, highways, and the like. Many bands see their lands as a major means for economic development, so that leaseholders can expect their land to be expropriated whenever a band finds a more valuable use (the band will fully control zoning). But with this ever-present threat, how many non-natives will want to make the investments needed for development or leasehold arrangements with bands?

Again, I hope this government is listening to that thought which is coming from a band member. It is well worth listening to because it is an important point. She goes on to say:

My mother lost her native and band status when she married a non-native many years ago. Her status was restored following the 1985 amendments to the Indian Act, but her father's property was never returned to her. The Squamish band allows someone else to occupy the property and uses its diverse powers to block my mother's efforts to regain her familial home. Under Bill C-49 her land could be permanently lost through expropriation.

The Squamish nation has sent a council member to Ottawa to support Bill C-49, while not informing the general band membership of the existence of the bill.

I am going to repeat this because I do not think that message is sinking in. She says that the Squamish nation has sent a council member to Ottawa to support Bill C-49, while not informing the general band membership of the existence of the bill. I think that really shows the lack of knowledge on the part of band members about this bill because they have not been told about it. I digress. I will finish reading the paper:

The Squamish nation has even intervened, on behalf of all the signatory bands, on the side of the federal government and against the B.C. Native Women's Society's Bill C-49 lawsuit.

I believe that my mother's rights, and those of many other native women, will be lost forever if Bill C-49 is passed in its present state. Their chances of obtaining legally binding provisions that restore their human and property rights would be much better served through an openly debated treaty process.

Bill C-49 was introduced into parliament by a female minister of Indian affairs, and its passage would be enacted by Her Majesty in right of Canada. I doubt whether either of these women shares native women's concerns about their lands, homes, and families.

I see that my time is up. I remind the members of the government who are here that the author is someone who understands this issue extremely well. She has written a very thoughtful paper. I think she has presented the case in balance.

Government members should listen to what they have heard tonight. The member for Vancouver North said 100 people from the band signed a petition in such a short time saying that they do not want this to pass. The member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast and the Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee said that they do not want this to pass as it is, as did municipalities in the lower mainland. The list is growing and growing.

[Questions On The Order Paper, February 1st, 1999]

For the years 1997 and 1998, what was the total number of full time equivalent positions needed in the skilled worker class under the economic immigrant category in Canada?

[Questions On The Order Paper, February 1st, 1999]

What was the total number of skilled workers allowed into Canada in 1997?

[Aboriginal Affairs, December 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, a group of aboriginal constituents met with the justice minister on the weekend about the issue of compensation for residential schools.

In a letter to me they expressed their shock that the minister said she is not willing to pursue the issue of compensation to victims because aboriginals already compensated have not spent the money properly.

Is she honestly saying that aboriginals are not to be trusted to spend their money properly? Is the minister going to apologize for these comments, or is she going to stand by them?

[Petitions, December 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present this petition on behalf constituents mostly from Cold Lake dealing with marriage.

The petitioners pray that parliament enact legislation similar to Bill C-225 which would define marriage and that marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a single female.

[Farm Income Protection Act, December 2nd, 1998]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-462, an act to amend the Farm Income Protection Act (crop damage by gophers).

Mr. Speaker, I noticed a couple of chuckles on this bill. In fact it is an extremely important bill for farmers who are having crops damaged and acres and acres of crops completely destroyed by gophers. My bill calls for compensation to be paid through the crops protection act for farmers who have had damage done to their crops because the proper concentration of strychnine is no longer being allowed and they have no access to it. Farmers have had thousands and thousands of dollars of crops destroyed due to this lack of control.

This bill will allow for compensation for that if the government will not change its mind and decide that the proper concentration of gopher poison will be reintroduced.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Agriculture, November 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will focus on a fairly narrow area.

The member for Peace River did an excellent job encapsulating the trade situation and what did not happen and what should have happened in that area, although when it came to the North American Free Trade Agreement and its predecessor, the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, Canadian negotiators in those agreements did an excellent job of negotiating.

We are very thankful for what they did. When it came to the GATT negotiations that ended in 1992 and were signed by the government in 1993, Canada took a very weak position. They did not negotiate in agriculture anything like they should have. As a result we ended up with a very weak result that is harming Canadian farmers right now.

Reformers came to the House in 1993. The campaign started in 1992, the year before the election. We came with a comprehensive agriculture policy which, if it were examined today, would demonstrate that it would deal very well with the problem that farmers are in. During that campaign and in the House Reform MP after Reform MP spoke out on what we saw as a policy that would have prevented the situation we see today.

I am not only talking about tough trade negotiations. I am talking about a specific program that we called the trade distortion adjustment program. This program would have taken part of the value of the Crow subsidy. We called for the subsidy to be eliminated. The Liberals eliminated it but they did not do a key thing we proposed they should do. They did not put a part of the capitalized value of the Crow subsidy into the trade distortion adjustment program, which would have provided money for the situation our farmers are in today. It would have provided money to directly compensate for damage to commodity prices which could be attributed to unfair trade practices and unfair subsidies in other countries.

The major cause of the crisis in grain farming, the single major cause, is unfair trade practices in Europe and to some extent in the United States, combined with import restrictions into Japan, Korea and other Asian countries. Those things more than anything else have led to the crisis we see today.

In my first speech in the House I proposed that the Liberal government adopt the trade distortion adjustment program. Dozens of times Reform MPs throughout the following years raised the issue until the Crow benefit was eliminated. However the money did not go into this program. There was a $1.2 billion political payout to farmers which did them very little good. I would argue that it split the farm community between renters and farmers actually farming the land.

The Liberal government is facing a situation right now that must be dealt with. It ignored what I believe was very good advice over those years, presented again and again and again. A strong sensible position was presented, a position which would have clearly helped deal with the current situation.

Under the plan that we proposed the capitalized value of the Crow benefit would have been somewhere between $7 billion and $9 billion in total. We recognized the deficit situation. Reform more than anybody recognized that the deficit had to be removed and pushed for it. We recognized that taxes were too high. Reform more than anybody called for tax reduction. Recognizing all of that, we called for only part of the capitalized value of the Crow benefit to go into this fund. Possibly $3 billion or $3.5 billion.

With the interest that would have accrued on that we would have a good sum of money in place right now which would have been available for farmers to compensate them not just in an ad hoc way. That is not what farmers want. Farmers do not want handouts. They want fair trade. When other countries are not trading in a fair way, farmers want some help to deal with that. That is precisely what the trade distortion adjustment program would have done.

The Liberals did not take our advice. It was not just advice coming from Reform MPs. It was coming from the farming community. They did not take our advice and as a result we are in a situation today where we are talking about another ad hoc payout and nothing to deal with the long term problem.

This type of a situation cannot recur every 10 years or so. That has happened for too long. Farmers should not have to face that time and again. I know in my life before politics I worked as a farm economist and I did business consulting with farmers. I sat across the table from 100 to 200 farmers, farm families at their kitchen tables, families facing a crisis just like this one today. Most of them lost their farms. There is nothing I want less in my life than to have to sit at the kitchen table with families that are losing their farms again.

What is to be done? The Liberals have to come up with the answer. Knowing they did not act in a responsible way over the last five years, it is up to them to come up with an answer or a solution. It cannot just be a short term payout. It has to be a long term solution to the problem. That is what they have to do. I will be watching. Farmers in my constituency will be watching to see what they do.

[Aboriginal Affairs, November 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this weekend the United Nations Human Rights Conference was held in Edmonton, while across town an aboriginal summit was held by a new grassroots aboriginal group, Aboriginals for Accountability.

While Canada's justice minister paid lip service to human rights at the high profile event, grassroots aboriginal Canadians were listing basic human rights that are being ignored by their leadership, by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and by this government.

The rights being denied them include: freedom of speech, freedom from persecution for political views and freedom from persecution based on race. This is coming from their leadership as well as from non-aboriginals.

They also talked about scandalous living conditions, poor health care and jobs being awarded to the band leaderships' friends and families.

This government has virtually ignored these problems for years. Things are getting worse. Clearly, this government's words are much, much more than its actions.