Debates of March 5th, 1999

Questions On The Order Paper

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-49, an act providing for the ratification and the bringing into effect of the framework agreement on first nation land management, be read the third time and passed.

First Nations Land Management Act

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my continuing intervention I must point out, as I tried to do on a point of order immediately after question period, that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development during question period, and at other times, incorrectly stated that members of the Reform Party supported Bill C-49 at second reading.

For the record, I have a copy of the vote that was taken on December 1, 1998 when the bill was being voted upon at second reading. The results of that vote were: yeas, 199; nays, 38, the 38 comprising all of the Reform members who were present in the House for the vote that day.

I note that the minister addressed her remarks specifically to me. I would also point out that I was here for that vote and that I in fact voted against Bill C-49, which is in direct contravention to the minister's statement.

I think this goes to the heart of the problem. The government, the minister and the parliamentary secretary continue to put out misleading and erroneous information on a regular basis on this bill. They have, as a result of that, undermined the confidence of people, particularly in British Columbia but across Canada, as to the intent of Bill C-49. I suggest they have done themselves no favours by doing this. The parliamentary secretary was talking about driving wedges. There is nothing worse in terms of driving wedges between people than putting out information which is incorrect, which is deliberately done and which is done to try to leave people with a false impression of what actually has taken place.

Prior to Christmas, as a result of lobbying by a number of different people, including aboriginal leaders who stand to be affected by Bill C-49, we agreed to sit down to see if there was a way that we could support Bill C-49 with amendments, because we certainly agreed with the principle inculcated in the bill, that decision making should be taken out of Ottawa and put into the hands of people in local areas.

We were led to believe by the government and by some of the people we were dealing with that these amendments would be possible, but it turned out at the end of the day that the government was not prepared to entertain these amendments. For that reason, regrettably—and I say regrettably very sincerely— we could not support Bill C-49. To have done so would have been to really let down the people across Canada who have been asking us to stand up for these amendments and to make sure the bill was fixed prior to being adopted.

I will return to discussing the expropriation powers in the bill, which is where I left off prior to question period.

The parliamentary secretary and the minister deny that the expropriation powers in Bill C-49 are broad and sweeping. The parliamentary secretary said that the federal Expropriation Act would actually confine aboriginal bands to that particular legislation.

I point out for the people watching and for the parliamentary secretary that the bill specifically states that in the event of a conflict between Bill C-49 and the federal Expropriation Act, Bill C-49 would take precedence. Clearly that means that the federal Expropriation Act, in effect, does not have any real influence over how expropriations might take place on reserve land in the future. The expropriation powers are not only a concern to people on leasehold land on reserves across Canada, they are also very much a concern to band members.

One of the reasons we have had great difficulty in supporting Bill C-49 is this. I have personally met with some of the chiefs who have been trying to get this legislation passed and trying to get Reform's support for it. They indicated that their band members were in support of it. In fact, in the case of the Squamish band, regrettably, we found out after the fact that most of the people on that reserve were not consulted about Bill C-49. We have a petition signed by some 230 members of the band saying that they were not consulted, that they are opposed to the bill and that they want it to be changed. They are very concerned about their rights as band members. They say very clearly that up until a very short while ago—the end of January—they were never consulted and they were not even aware that the band council was working with the government to have Bill C-49 brought into effect.

These band members are equally concerned, just as those who have leasehold interests on reserve land are concerned, about being expropriated. They feel that the chief and council will have altogether too much power and too much ability. They do not want to rely on a land code which may come into effect down the road to grant the protection they are looking for. They want it to be enshrined in the legislation.

I cannot for the life of me understand why the government, the minister and the parliamentary secretary are standing in opposition to that. I cannot understand why they want to deny these people having their protection and their rights enshrined in this legislation. It is not a difficult matter for that to be accomplished.

The minister said that the concerns about expropriation are overblown. However, a real estate agent wrote a letter to a client on the Musqueam reserve, advising him to take his house off the market because in his professional opinion as a real estate agent that house currently has no market value. The parliamentary secretary and the minister can argue with Reform, but they certainly cannot argue with the marketplace. I can assure the House that right now—and this is a very clear situation—the marketability of homes on the Musqueam reserve is at zero. They cannot sell their homes. These are homes that were often valued at several hundred thousand dollars each a couple of short years ago. Many of the people who are living in them are at or near retirement and living on fixed incomes.

The fellow who first contacted me about the inability to market his home, and the letter that he had received from the real estate agent advising him of that, does not live on the Musqueam reserve. He in fact lives in Calgary; he has retired to Calgary. He wants to sell his home to get his equity out it. The sale of his home was a big part of what he was counting on to retire.

We can see how people have been dramatically affected by not only Bill C-49 but by other moves the government has been making with respect to the disposition of lands on reserves.

A large part of the problem on the Musqueam reserve arose because federal governments over a long period of time have made changes without disclosing to the people who lived on those reserves that they had made those changes.

In 1980 the Liberal minister of Indian affairs, John Munro, signed a discretionary letter that he was authorized to sign under section 53 of the Indian Act, transferring his authority to the Musqueam Band Council in terms of dealing with the leases. That was done without any notice and without any consultation with the people who live in those houses, the leaseholders. They had absolutely no knowledge that this had taken place.

Furthermore, in 1991 another minister of Indian affairs, Tom Siddon, signed a further agreement which gave the band taxation authority over those leaseholders. This was contrary to what the people had been led to believe when they entered into the leases in 1965 through 1973. The deal at that point was that the city of Vancouver would be providing the services and would be collecting the property taxes.

Incidentally, once that transfer was done the property taxes rose dramatically, two to three times. A large portion of those property taxes have been for school taxes because we know that in Canada property taxes are levied in most municipalities for municipal services and there is a separate component for schools.

The band has collected, according to news reports, about $6 million in school taxes since 1991. Yet not one penny has actually gone toward school or education. Not one penny was transferred to the provincial government in aid of education. There has been absolutely no school services provided by the Musqueam band to the leaseholders that have been paying these taxes.

Those are the kinds of flaws which leave people very uncertain and very concerned about the kinds of sweeping changes Bill C-49 contemplates. For the life of me, I do not understand why the government and the minister are not prepared, if they want to get the bill passed, to look at amendments that would provide protection and give people a level of comfort so that they would be willing to move forward.

We know that by and large Canadians are decent, fair minded people. I have met personally with virtually all the Musqueam residents. I know they are decent, fair minded people. I know they are not opposed to the aspirations of the band. They just want to be treated fairly. At the present time they feel they have been treated extremely unfairly, not only by the band but also by the government because the government has chosen to proceed with major changes without any consultation and without any notice to the leaseholders.

Going further and talking about marital property rights, in the minister's intervention she talked about the fact that she as minister and previous ministers for the past 130-odd years had been making decisions on behalf of bands for the disposition of reserve lands.

I certainly agree with her that it is completely inappropriate that these decisions be made in Ottawa. We certainly agree with the principle of devolving that decision making power. However, where the government is in error and where the minister is in error goes back to the whole notion of collective property rights.

I live in a municipality and the municipality does not own the land I have my house on. Why would people living on a reserve want the band council to own the land that their houses are on? Why is there no provision for private property rights? Why is there no provision for the property rights that all other Canadians enjoy, and in particular that all other Canadian women enjoy on the disposition of a marital home in the event of a marriage breakdown?

It is not rocket science. It is not difficult if we have people who are willing to examine that issue and provide those protections, but we see no inclination in that regard whatsoever. Now what we find is that the government is intending to send the bill to the Senate to have the Senate fix it up because it has finally come to understand and recognize that there are problems with it.

In conclusion, I would like to propose the following amendment:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after “Management” and substituting the following therefor:

“be not now read a third time but referred back to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development for the purpose of reconsidering all the clauses with a view to ensure that the land code is consistent with the federal Expropriation Act and provincial expropriation acts as applicable.

I would ask that the House adopt the amendment.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The amendment is in order.

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I did not want to interrupt the hon. member while he was speaking, but now that he has completed his speech I want to take this occasion to indicate to the House the following.

I regret to inform the House that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or (2) with respect to the report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-55, an act respecting advertising services supplied by foreign periodical publishers.

Pursuant to Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that, at the next sitting of the House, a minister of the crown will be moving a time allocation motion for the purpose of allotting a specified number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at these stages.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-49, an act providing for the ratification and the bringing into effect of the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management, be read the third time and passed; and of the amendment.

First Nations Land Management Act

[Derrek Konrad, Reform, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-49, the First Nation Land Management Act.

Originally the kings of Britain owned and taxed everything. The nobles got fed up with that and forced the king to back off on what he had previously owned. He had been able to tax and to decide who could use land, when and how. The nobles forced some changes. After the nobles finally had their say for a number of years, the commoners stepped in and had their say.

We do not yet have full ownership of land. We have something called an estate in land and the estate most Canadians have is an estate in fee simple. Fee common is not as common as one might think. It has finally come to the stage where Canada's Indians will perhaps get a stab at having an interest in land which the government does not control.

The evolution of ownership has been accompanied by armies of lawyers and consultants who have taken fees for their opinions. If we follow it all the way through, we get to Bill C-49 which purports to allow first nations to manage their lands.

Anybody watching the debate is aware that the official opposition has some very grave concerns about Bill C-49. It is not only our concerns. These concerns have been raised by a number of people.

Petitions have been filed. People have called talk shows and written letters to editors. Personal representations have been made to members of parliament, particularly from the west coast. Now they are coming in from the east coast where people are concerned about what Bill C-49 will do, what powers band councils will have and what will be the limits of their powers.

While the B.C. Liberal member for Vancouver Quadra has not spoken in the House in opposition to the bill, he has expressed opposition as reported in the Vancouver Sun on March 3. The article indicated that he “voted with the government Monday but said he is working behind the scenes to ensure there is a thorough Senate committee study, including public hearings and possible amendments”. It went on to indicate:

“No, I don't” support the bill, the MP for Vancouver Quadra said on Tuesday.

“Some concerns that had been felt by B.C. MPs on the fast track procedure are being resolved by what's emerging as an understanding that the Senate will study and hold public hearings and will possibly consider amendments and changes for the House.

“The details will be worked out in the next few days”.

It further indicated that the member said:

—the bill, along with media coverage of a 7,000% rent increase imposed on non-natives living in Musqueam Park in Vancouver, is fuelling more public concern over broader and more crucial native issues such as the $490 million Nisga'a treaty.

That treaty is also under attack because it is perceived to be granting far more power and lack of accountability.

The member for Vancouver Quadra has stated that Bill C-49 was poorly drafted. He supported concerns expressed by others who said that expropriation rights for Indian bands were excessive. There is a lack of protection for native women who often use their right to marital property after divorce and the omission of any mechanism requiring consultation with surrounding municipalities on development matters. He said “The public's concern is correctly focused on it”.

Another government member plans to vote against Bill C-49. He said the bill was excessive and criticized the government for imposing closure to limit debate in the House of Commons. He accused the minister of intentionally trying to avoid public consultation on land claims and self-government matters across Canada. He stated that their position was to keep the dummies in the dark.

When government members raise those kinds of concerns, the government should be listening. It is not just us.

Today I asked a question about the government shutting down debate on Bill C-49. I am going to quote what a respected academic elder at the Saskatchewan Indian Federated College said, “The problem with entrusting band councils to help develop divorce laws is that traditional customs are vague”.

The government has refused to deal with an issue that is going to create a mosaic of rights across Canada as bands write their own laws in respect to divorce. Does it seem fair when a woman from one reserve marries a man from another reserve and finds out that she has a different set of rights than she was born with? This is Canada, one country. Surely this country will respect equality at least between men and women. This is not too much to expect at all.

I would like to speak for a moment on the expropriation provisions in this bill. Clause 28 of the bill, a very short section, talks about expropriation which allows a band to write its own expropriate act. Subclause 5 states:

A first nation shall pay fair compensation to the holder of an expropriated interest and, in determining that compensation, the first nation shall take into account the rules set out in the Expropriation Act.

Taking into account is not the same as being bound by. I am not a lawyer and do not claim to understand all the legalese, but I am sure that we are going to see judges beginning the process, after this bill is passed, if it is passed unamended here or by the Senate, of determining what it would mean to take into account the provisions of the Expropriation Act which is a federal act. The federal act lays out in very clear stages what the mechanisms and timelines are for recourse with respect to dispute resolution at arbitration in the event there is a conflict over expropriation.

As I said earlier on in the debate, getting control over land is a process that has taken centuries. It has gone from the kings to the nobles to the commoners and it is finally getting down to the Indian bands. However, let us not leave out the people who are affected by it. It is not always the leaders. It is the people who are governed by the leaders. We want to ensure that they are not unfairly left out.

The expropriation does not necessarily have to be natives over non-natives. It can be natives over natives. Whoever owns an interest can have that interest ended by expropriation.

A municipal expropriation act will talk about the compensation proposed. It might talk about the description of the land, what is the extent of the land required, the reasons for doing it and those types of things. If people do not agree, they have recourse. Provincial legislation sets up all of the conciliation and arbitration boards to determine how compensation is paid. It is always in the interest of a municipality to have a mechanism to obtain land for public purposes but the owner of the interest has to be protected. We certainly do not want the courts to be involved early on in every dispute.

I am sure that introducing a simple motion calling for the clauses in the federal Expropriation Act to be binding is not too much. We want to see development on Indian land, but if people are concerned that they may not have their interests safely held, we will not find people investing. One thing investors look for is certainty of profit and certainty of a continuing profit and that it will not end. If people own a home they want to ensure that they hold it now and in the future. They do not want it taken away without proper compensation.

The bill is deficient in that way. It is in the interest of the signatory bands to put those amendments in place. It is not in our interest. It does not matter to me. I do not live on band land. I have a home that is held in fee simple in the town of Nipawin. Consequently, I have nothing to gain in this but the bands have something to gain and those who hold interest in the land have something to gain.

Perhaps I do have something to gain. When the Reform Party forms the next government, I do not want to be back here having to deal with Bill C-49. I want to be able to move on to new legislation the government will have on its agenda at that time.

Those are all good reasons that we should not rush ahead on this bill. It is the government's role to write legislation and to get it right the first time. If the government does not do this, it has to be willing to make the necessary amendments.

It is not our role to write the legislation but to ensure it goes through the House in correct form. It is our role to make it perfectly clear to the public that a bill is deficient and that the government will have to do something about it. That is what we are doing. I hate to think we are going to send a bill that originated here to the Senate of all places asking that it make the amendments we refused to make. That is a ridiculous thing to expect.

What can we say about the matrimonial home? The children live in the home, the mother lives in the home, the father should be staying in the home. We want to see the family as a unit but realistically, families break down. The B.C. Native Women's Society has raised a concern as have native women across Canada and the national native women's organizations. Why has that not rung a bell with the government? Why is the minister simply saying that they are consulting? Why not get the consultation done first and then come to the House with a bill that is complete in its current form?

I read earlier about Mr. Cuthand, a respected elder who was a priest in the Anglican church. Why are the concerns of men like him not listened to? The government has rushed ahead and allowed this to go on the back burner for who knows how long. There will surely be court cases, payouts and domestic tragedies because the government has refused to accept that it has a responsibility not only to chiefs and councils but to the people they govern as well.

Let us talk about the issue of ratepayers on reserves which I do not believe has been raised today. They have no vote. Prior to the American revolution some protesters dressed up as Indians and threw a load of tea overboard from a ship docked in Boston harbour. Why? Because they did not want to be taxed without representation. What we have here is taxation without representation. Many cottage owners have raised the concern that they are going to be taxed but they are not going to be represented. Does the government consider this fair?

Indians have been kept down in the past but overwaiting is not any better. It still creates conflict and hardship. It is a major concern to everyone.

The lack of public knowledge about this bill is coming to light. There is a newspaper article that talks about women from the Saint Mary's reserve near Fredericton. A woman in the article is demanding equality, an honest and responsible government, and she is against the mismanagement of funds. She is concerned about Bill C-49. She says that it will give up control over management of reserve land.

I do not think that every reserve has a government that is irresponsible and unresponsive, but they are there. Certainly we want people to have the power to hold the members of the council to account. We do not see that with Bill C-49 going through in its current form.

I am asking the government to vote in favour of the amendment my colleague from Skeena put forward today. Send the bill back to committee to address these valid concerns and then bring the bill back to the House, not so that anybody's rights are diminished, not that what they intend is diminished, but that the bill be made sufficient and not be passed in this deficient form.

We heard convincing arguments earlier that there existed a high level of support for the bill by members of the reserves and all the communities surrounding them, but in January events overtook that testimony. Concerns were expressed, as I said before, in letters to the editor, talk shows and letters to MPs, all of these things. Municipal councils raised concerns. Constituents raised their concerns. They all stated that they had concerns with Bill C-49 in its current form. Consequently we are required as members of parliament to bring these concerns to parliament.

Aboriginal women and children living on reserves do not enjoy the protection of property division laws that are available to every other Canadian woman. There is no protection whatsoever regarding the use, occupation and possession of land when a marriage breaks down with each band devising its own land code.

A band of 200 people here, a band of 200 members over there, a band of 1,000 people over here, what kind of legislation will result from individual bands as different pressure groups push to have their interests represented? Why not do it here in our national parliament where all sides of the debate from all reserves can be heard. We can come up with a fair and equitable law allowing for the division of the matrimonial home and other property. It just is not right to do it the way it is being done.

We know that the band councils probably wish the best, but do they know what is best? Do they know the laws? Do they have access to the expertise to write these codes? Do they have the expertise to write property division acts? Do they have the expertise on expropriation?

We are not talking about Bill C-49, which has been developed by the Government of Canada. We are going back to the individual reserves, many of which are already under stress where their finances are concerned. They are being asked to put more money into developing parts of a land code that could be adopted right here in the House of Commons. They could simply apply it. Judges could take it and understand it. Then one judgment where there was possible alternative application would be binding rather than having every band's land code subject to judicial interpretation. It just does not make any sense.

I will end with a clear call to the government to reconsider forcing this legislation through. It is denying the legitimate expressed concerns of band members, municipalities and other interested persons. Not only have they said it to the official opposition, but we know they have expressed these concerns to the government as well. They want us to get the bill right in the House the first time so that we do not see all kinds of amendments going through at the Senate study of the bill. We know it is going to come back for amendment.

[David Iftody, Liberal, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have had discussions with the House leader of the Bloc Quebecois. I believe that for the purposes of expediency and to make sure with the 30 minutes we have remaining that both the NDP and PC parties have an opportunity to get on the record, that the member currently speaking for the Bloc Quebecois will speak not longer than 20 minutes. We can begin another session with the PC party speaking first and the NDP without questions and comments.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

We may have to go back to the drawing board. The information I have is that debate will terminate in 14 minutes. We can by unanimous consent extend the time to 1.30 p.m.

[David Iftody, Liberal, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I ask consent to give other parties an opportunity to speak by extending the time from 1.15 p.m. to 1.30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at the request of my colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Jean and Bloc Quebecois critic on aboriginal affairs, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-49, an act providing for the ratification and the bringing into effect of the framework agreement on first nation land management.

I would like to draw attention to the excellent work done by our colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Jean, who was unable to be here today. He has done excellent work on aboriginal issues since 1993, first of all by lending an attentive ear to the first nations, and also by raising awareness of the aboriginal reality in Quebec and in the rest of the country.

This framework agreement was signed by 14 chiefs of Canada's first nations, and the federal government, in February 1996. The bill was introduced just before the dissolution of parliament in June 1997, as Bill C-75, dying on the Order Paper when the election was called.

Aboriginal groups concerned by this bill worked very hard to get it back on the legislative agenda as soon as possible. They did an excellent job of lobbying the government and opposition critics.

The Bloc Quebecois lent them a hand in getting the bill back on the legislative agenda as soon as possible. I should point out that the 14 signatory first nations are dispersed throughout British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and New Brunswick.

The British Columbia first nations concerned are the Westbank, the Musqueam, the Squamish, the Lheidli T'enneh and the N'Quatqua.

I ask any aboriginal people listening to excuse my pronunciation. I lack my colleague from St-Jean's familiarity with these names.

The signatory in Alberta is the Siksika, while there are two first nations signatories in Saskatchewan, the Cowessess and the Muskoday.

In Manitoba, they are the Opaskwayak Cree; in Ontario, the Nipissing, the Mississaugas of Scugog Island, the Chippewas of Mnjikaning, and the Chippewas of Georgina Island. Finally, in New Brunswick, it is the first nation of Saint Mary's.

One of the key objectives of this bill for the 14 first nations is to allow them to establish their own system for administering their land and natural resources. It will allow them to manage the land and natural resources on their reserves. Land management will no longer come under the Indian Act. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will therefore no longer have discretionary powers in this regard.

The bill makes provision for the 14 first nations to draw up a land code through a process of community approval. This land code will be used to resolve issues such as the use, possession and occupation of lands. Provision should also be made for the division of matrimonial property in the case of marriage breakdown.

The Bloc Quebecois is in agreement with the bill's underlying principles. My colleague, the critic for native affairs, has said in the House and in committee that he supports the spirit of the bill, which gives the 14 first nations the necessary tools to control their lands and thus ensure their economic development.

This bill is therefore one more step towards greater native autonomy. This principle of autonomy is consistent, moreover, with the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Bill C-49 will therefore give the 14 first nations greater control over their lands and their economy.

In fact, the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development has been studying the economic development of the first nations since last year. The members of the standing committee are trying to identify the obstacles to aboriginals' economic development, and there are many such obstacles, of which the worst is the Indian Act.

This legislation is paternalistic. It treats aboriginals like children and is a major impediment to their economic participation in their communities. This bill will mean that the 14 first nations can break free of the paternalistic clauses in the Indian Act and finally develop economically. The chiefs who appeared before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development on December 3 all spoke of this economic impact of Bill C-49 on their communities.

According to Robert Louie, head of the transitional land management commission, Bill C-49 will give first nations control over their resources and lands. They will be able to assume the responsibilities inherent in this control. It is a way of putting an end to the archaic and paternalistic attitude of the Indian Act and the federal government's power to administer their lands.

Chief Austin Bear of the Muskoday first nation of British Columbia told the members of the standing committee at this same session that his community, and many others, had missed out on opportunities for economic development because of the restrictive and paternalistic nature of the Indian Act.

He spoke about an American manufacturing company that had shown an interest in locating in their community. When told of the procedure that had to be followed, obtaining the approval of the Minister of Indian Affairs and going through all manner of red tape, their response was that they did not have time for that; it was too slow.

At the present time, the Muskoday first nation is also seeking to develop its tourism potential in partnership with others. If there is one thing Chief Austin Bear does not want, it is to miss out again on an opportunity to do business with an interested partner because the Indian Act deprives them of control over their resources and land.

We are very much aware that aboriginal people have a different concept than us about community, land and resources. The Bloc Quebecois aboriginal affairs critic has referred to this on more than one occasion here in the House.

Chief William McCue of the Georgina Island first nation in Ontario also touched briefly on the economic issues relating to this bill when he appeared before the standing committee on aboriginal affairs on December 3.

The Georgina Island community is located on three islands in Lake Simcoe, 60 miles north of Toronto. Its main source of revenue is the rental of 500 cottages, and the leases of most of these terminate on March 31, 1999.

This represents $1 million in revenue, which is used to finance various programs, including housing and community maintenance and infrastructures. Cottage rentals are therefore a source of operating income for the community, and create and maintain a number of jobs.

Chief William McCue raised one interesting point about the economic dynamics in his community. Most of those responsible for leases and therefore the management of the cottages on Georgina Island are women.

Despite these positive aspects of the bill, the Bloc Quebecois not only had reservations, it presented amendments. The Bloc Quebecois believes the native women will not have legal protection during the transition period leading to the signing of the land code in the reserve in the case of marriage breakdown.

To better understand the sense of the Bloc Quebecois amendments, we must recall the legal context of native women. Currently, they face a legal void, because the Indian Act contains no provision for distributing matrimonial property in the event of the breakdown of marriages between native men and women.

Native women cannot claim the same rights as Canadian women, who are governed by provincial laws. This situation causes concern to associations of native women in Canada and Quebec.

I refer specifically to the British Columbia Native Women's Society, the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Association des femmes auchtotones du Québec, which have made representations to the native affairs critic and the leader of the Bloc Quebecois expressing their concerns in this regard.

They convinced us to introduce amendments to protect native women legally during the transition period, the 12 months in which the land code comes into effect.

I must say that at the start of Bill C-49's parliamentary journey, the Bloc Quebecois put a lot of stock in the independent inquiry initiated by the minister of Indian affairs at first reading of Bill C-49 last June.

The purpose of this inquiry was to find solutions to the legal vacuum in which native women find themselves. But since the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been dragging her feet, the inquiry has not even begun. The Bloc Quebecois had no choice but to move amendments concerning the claims of the native women of Quebec and of Canada.

An inquiry is a good way to examine the problem of the legal status of native women generally, for, in our view, the problem goes well beyond the scope of Bill C-49.

In fact, what is required is a complete overhaul of the Indian Act, an outmoded piece of legislation from the last century, which completely ignores gender dynamics on the reserves. We in the Bloc Quebecois believe that this reform is necessary so that legislation such as Bill C-49 can be enacted quickly, with prejudice to no one. In this case, it is native women who are affected.

I would add, however, that this reform of the Indian Act should not take place unless there is genuine consultation with all native groups in Canada. Only then would the legislation truly reflect native concerns.

Because the inquiry into the legal status of native women is stalled, the Bloc Quebecois has moved four amendments at report stage.

These amendments are necessary because of the foot-dragging of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on this issue, for which she was strongly criticized by the native affairs critic at the time the amendments were moved. All these amendments are therefore based on the provision in the bill on environmental protection.

In fact, the Bloc Quebecois wanted to ensure that there are minimal standards for the protection of aboriginal women with respect to matrimonial property in the case of marriage breakdown. This protection is based on the existing legislation in this regard, that is, provincial statutes.

The amendments, which were rejected, amended clauses 17 and 20 in order to establish the minimal protection necessary during the transition period of 12 months following the taking effect of the land code, in which the 14 first nations are asked to include general rules and procedures, and I quote:

—in cases of breakdown of marriage, respecting the use, occupation and possession of first nation land—

This was taken from clause 17.(1).

There is another clause I would like to deal with, if you will allow, Mr. Speaker. I will only need in seconds.

This is clause 7, which was based on British Columbia's family heritage legislation. We hoped it would apply until general rules had been incorporated into the land code. We are very surprised—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I am sorry to interrupt the member.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to seek the unanimous consent of the House to allow the NDP to speak in support of Bill C-49.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would be perfectly agreeable to doing that but the member's proposition did not set a time to it. If we could agree on say 15 or 20 minutes, of course we would agree to that on our side at least but not without a time limit, obviously.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it was the government that invoked time allocation on this legislation. It should have thought about being so generous with the time allocation before it brought in time allocation. Further, we have already dealt with this point of order and unanimous consent was refused.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It being 1.15 p.m., pursuant to order made Monday, March 1, it is my duty to interrupt proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?