Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments that Bill C-49 is a good piece of legislation. I would agree with her that it is a good piece of legislation.
I would like to address a couple of the fallacies in this legislation and a couple of what I believe are mistakes in some of the statements made by members of this House.
Certainly there are some difficult issues in this legislation but it is a very positive piece of legislation and one that will give control of land management to first nations, something that they do not have now.
I would like to correct the member for Souris—Moose Mountain who stated that there was no accountability in this bill. This bill is all about accountability. Perhaps there are parts of the bill the member did not read. I will explain the accountability sections in this bill for members of the House.
Historically the Indian Act has given DIAND virtually all decision making authority regarding the use and disposition of reserve lands and resources. The minister has limited accountability to the members of the first nations for management of reserves and has limited accountability to the members of first nations for the management of land transactions, resources, environment and revenue.
As the law exists now, there is no accountability at all. The 14 first nations that have signed this agreement have made accountability to their members one of the main principles of the framework agreement.
Bill C-49 does not deal with elections or other subjects such as governance which remain under the Indian Act. There are a couple of important points that should be made about accountability in this bill.
The framework agreement ensures that a first nations council will account to both on reserve and off reserve members. First nations members both on reserve and off reserve must approve the decision to opt out of ministerial administration of reserves, the content of the land code and any amendments to the land code and the individual transfer agreement with Canada. A first nations council must manage its lands for the use and benefit of the first nation. That sounds like accountability to me.
A land code must contain provisions to ensure accountability and transparency of decisions for lands and related revenues. A land code must contain provisions for first nations law-making procedures and the publication of first nations laws. All land codes are public documents available to the members of first nations and the general public. The land code must identify a local dispute resolution mechanism for land management decisions.
This bill is about accountability and it is strictly about accountability. I think it is time that some of those who are in opposition to this bill sat down and read the bill. Let me give a few more examples of accountability.
Eligible voting members can introduce first nation land laws for consideration. Proposed land laws must be publicly posted and distributed to members before being voted on by council. First nation land laws must be published. The public has access to those laws at the first nation office during business hours. Conflict of interest rules require that persons in conflict may not participate in making decisions on the matter.
Eligible voting members must approve certain types of leases and licences of first nation land. Council must adopt a budget, explain it to its meeting of members and make the budget available for inspection by any members who request it.
Expenditure and contract controls, books of accounts and records must be kept in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Any adult member can receive a copy of these financial statements. The auditor has complete access to the financial records. It is an offence to restrict access to the financial records.
Community approval for a ratification vote is required before certain laws or land transactions can be made. At the annual meeting, first nation members are required to discuss land matters and to receive the auditor's report.
That is about accountability. That is what the bill brings to the nation. That is what the bill brings to the 14 first nations that have signed the framework agreement.
It is important to understand that those 14 First Nations stretch from coast to coast in Canada. There are five from British Columbia: Westbank; Lheit Lit'en; Musqueam; N'Quatqua; and Squamish. There is one from Alberta, Siksika. There are two from Saskatchewan, Muskoday and Cowessess. The one from Manitoba is the Opaskwayak Cree. From Ontario there are four: the Chippewas of Georgina Island; the Mississaugas of Scugog Island; the Chippewas of Mnjikaning; and Nipissing. There is also Saint Mary's in New Brunswick.
Are other first nations interested in joining this initiative? Yes, 40 or 50 first nations are interested in joining this framework accord for land management. A number in my own province of Nova Scotia are interested in joining.
There is absolutely nothing in this agreement that changes the Constitution. There is nothing that changes the charter of rights. This does not deal with the difficult issues before us in the House of Commons. This deals with a very simple idea that all of us should be very familiar with and that is control of lands that one owns.
For first nations to try to take their place in Canadian society, to share in the economic opportunities of this country, it is criminal that the Indian Act discriminates in the way it does. The minister of the crown is responsible to tell a first nations individual living on reserve whether or not they can cut firewood on that reserve, whether or not they can cut timber on that reserve, whether or not they can have a gravel pit on that reserve, whether or not they have an opportunity for mining interests on that reserve.
Nor does this bill exclude any other bills that have already gone through parliament. The Indian Oil and Gas Act still pertains. This does not change legislation. This simply gives an opportunity for us in the Parliament of Canada to allow first nations to have economic opportunities of their own upon reserve in Canada.
It bothers me very much when I listen to the opposition's discussion of this bill. I have looked at this bill. I have read it backward and forward and frontward and sideways and I really cannot see the problem with it.
There was some discussion of first nations women and how they would be accepted under the aegis of this bill. The fact remains that the bill deals with the breakdown of marriage. It deals with the separation of husband and wife. It deals with children after the breakdown of marriage.
The bill deals with all the pertinent issues that are before the first nations with the ownership of land upon reserve. It is incumbent upon us as parliamentarians to support positive legislation. Certainly this is a piece of positive legislation.
There are many things that are difficult for us as members of parliament to do. I addressed them before but I think it is important to point them out again, and that is what this piece of legislation does not do. It does not change the Constitution of Canada. It does not change the laws that govern the equality of rights under the charter of rights. This bill allows first nations economic opportunity and control of their own land. It is a good bill. I support it and I would ask other members of the House to support it.