Mr. Speaker, we are at the report stage of Bill C-49. Our significant amendment reads as follows:
That Bill C-49, in Clause 45, be amended by replacing line 16 on page 22 with the following:
“so signed, that a land code has been developed and adopted in accordance with this Act and that the governing bodies of neighbouring jurisdictions have confirmed in writing that consultations respecting the land code have been completed in accordance with the laws of the province in which the first nation land, for which the land code has been adopted, is situated”.
That is very important. It has to do with consultation and accountability.
We can say that the bill is well intended but is has holes in it big enough to drive a truck through.
The bill ratifies and brings into effect the framework agreement of first nation land management concluded between first nations and Her Majesty in Right of Canada. It provides for the establishment of an alternative land management regime that gives first nation communities control over the lands and resources within their reserves. It also gives first nations the power to enact laws respecting interest in and licences in relation to first nation land respecting the development, conservation, protection, management, use and possession of that land.
The enactment also provides for a community approval process that enables first nation members to vote on a proposed land code and an individual agreement between the first nation and Her Majesty. The community approval process is monitored by a verifier jointly appointed by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the first nation.
I will not speak to the whole bill, but at first blush when one looks at the bill, it gives any reasonable person great concern. If a band or council decides to be malevolent, I think there are insufficient controls and balances to the powers given. In some of the sections there are limits to the federal government but not parallel limits to the bands. There does not appear to be a balance of power between the federal government in the bill and the bands in the bill.
Significantly, there is a problem with section 12 and I will refer to it. In section 12(1) on page 7 of the bill it states:
A proposed land code and an individual agreement that have been submitted for community approval are approved if
(a) a majority of eligible voters participated in the vote and a majority of those voters voted to approve them;
(b) all those eligible who signified, in a manner determined by the first nation, their intention to vote have been registered and a majority of the registered voters voted to approve them; or
(c) they are approved by the community in any other manner agreed on by the first nation and the minister.
Let us describe a typical situation in many bands. We have 100 eligible voter adults and of course the band has total control to decide who is eligible.
In that case 51 votes are needed for the overall vote to be valid and only 26 votes are needed to pass the code. This could then certainly be reasonably within the realm of all the relatives and kin of one family that happens to hold most of the paid positions in the band administration.
Under the theme of accountability I am talking about, the bill talks about a vote and the supervision of the vote but nowhere are there assurances that the votes will be conducted by secret ballot, nor does it refer to a standard set of rules for how votes can be conducted. There are just general rules in the bill that appear completely open to manipulation.
Then the bill grants statutes or status of freedom from judicial review and grants immunity from prosecution in section 35 for error. There are limits on liability and provisions of immunity and freedom from judicial review.
When regular municipalities in a province are in conflict with each other, the provincial government can intervene. In British Columbia, municipalities are governed under the municipal act. It is a creature of the province. The provincial authority is the fallback power.
Who mediates the powers of the band and other regular municipalities in a province? It is not very clear. There is no obligation in this bill to talk, let alone co-operate for mutual benefit between these jurisdictions.
The general intent of the bill is appropriate. It is trying to go in the right direction but the details are an absolute mess. There are reasons why there is cause to worry, for the best predictor of future trustworthiness of how these bands will use these newfound powers is the past. They likely will be used in the same manner as has been in the past on reserves across the country. The track record of band management so far tells us how it will be managed in the future. That is a worry.
In contrast, clear and fair rules and open accountable processes are the best protector of human rights. What we have been trying to stand up to here are especially the rights of status Canadians under the Indian Act. Those are the ones who have been contacting us and they are the individuals for whom we have been trying to stand up.
In conclusion, this bill appears to completely fail on those very important basics.