AANR Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, September 16, 2003

0900

The Chair (Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.))

The Chair

0910

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

0915

0920

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

0925

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)

Mr. Paul Salembier (Senior Counsel, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development)

The Chair

Mr. Paul Salembier

The Chair

Mr. Paul Salembier

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Susan Baldwin (Legislative Clerk)

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

0930

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

0935

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

0940

0945

The Chair

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.)

Mr. Gordon Shanks (Assistant Deputy Minister, Economic Development and Special Initiatives, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development)

Mr. Paul Salembier

Mr. John Godfrey

Mr. Paul Salembier

Mr. John Godfrey

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

0950

0955

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

1000

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. Gordon Shanks

Mr. John Godfrey

Mr. Gordon Shanks

Mr. John Godfrey

Mr. Gordon Shanks

Mr. Stuart Swanson (Director, Special Initiatives, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development)

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

1005

Mr. Paul Salembier

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Stuart Swanson

Mr. Pat Martin

1010

The Chair

Mr. Gordon Shanks

The Chair

Mr. Gordon Shanks

The Chair

Mr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Middlesex, PC)

The Chair

Mr. Gary Schellenberger

The Chair

Mr. Paul Salembier

Mr. Gary Schellenberger

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

Mr. Paul Salembier

1015

Mr. John Duncan

Mr. Paul Salembier

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

Mr. Paul Salembier

Mr. John Duncan

Mr. Paul Salembier

Mr. John Duncan

Mr. Paul Salembier

Mr. John Duncan

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

1020

1025

The Chair

Mr. John Godfrey

1030

Mr. Gordon Shanks

Mr. John Godfrey

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

1035

1040

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

1045

1050

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

1055

1100

The Chair

1105

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. John Godfrey

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

1110

1115

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

1120

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

1125

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

1130

1135

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. Gordon Shanks

1140

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

Mr. Gordon Shanks

Mr. John Duncan

Mr. Gordon Shanks

Mr. John Duncan

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

1145

1150

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

1155

Mr. Pat Martin

1200

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

1205

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

1210

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

1215

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

1225

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

1230

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

NUMBER 085

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, September 16, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0900)

[English]

The Chair (Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): Good morning, everyone.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, February 25, 2003, we are studying Bill C-19, an act to provide for real property taxation powers of first nations, to create a First Nations Tax Commission, First Nations Financial Management Board, First Nations Finance Authority, and First Nations Statistical Institute and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

As you all know, we've done all the work we had set out for ourselves. The remaining part is the clause-by-clause, which we will go into directly today.

I've been advised that Mr. Schellenberger has not been recorded as a member, so we do not have quorum until that is done or until we have another member. We'll suspend until that happens.

¿ (0904)

¿ (0906)

The Chair: Colleagues, if you have no objections, we will start at clause 3. It was suggested by the clerk that we do this, and it makes sense to me. The definitions or interpretations may change if you amend the clause, so we'll come back to clause 2 afterward.

Is there any objection? Okay.

(On clause 3--Financial administration laws)

The Chair: Mr. Martin.

¿ (0910)

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Chairman, I'm at a bit of a disadvantage here. I understand the new committee books were circulated to the offices and it was my understanding that the new committee books would be distributed here at the committee when we opened up today. So I find myself at a bit of a disadvantage without the paperwork I need.

In terms of speaking to this bill, or speaking to the question of whether clause 2 shall carry, it strikes me, Mr. Chairman, that we're at a disadvantage in another sense too, in that we're going ahead with the clause-by-clause analysis of this bill without having fully studied this bill, without having had witnesses come forward to teach us and frankly to give us some guidance as to what the country thinks about this Bill C-19.

I know you're not going to be entertaining any motions that we go back to the point where we start hearing witnesses, but in actual fact that's where we should be. We should be hearing about the very detailed nuances of this bill. I think our committee members haven't really given full attention to it at this point. Every hour in the past couple of days I've been learning more and more about the details of this bill that give us cause for concern.

If we want to do a thorough job with Bill C-19, if we sought to actually achieve the stated objectives in the preamble of Bill C-19, we would be willing today to take one step back and start hearing witnesses about this bill, about the pros and cons of this bill, and about some of the very legitimate concerns that have been raised with me.

For instance, even those who are seeking to promote this bill--and there are people in the room who have been working for a decade or more to establish and put together the concept of a first nations finance authority, a mechanism by which to pool the risk of smaller communities so that they can go down to Moody's in New York and negotiate a decent bond rating, so that they can capitalize infrastructure projects or economic development projects with a reasonable rate of interest. People in this room have dedicated much of their professional career to achieving just such a goal. In fact, NDP members of Parliament worked with them for much of the last decade to achieve that goal. But those very people are asking, why is there no non-derogation clause in this, and why is this not considered optional? When we asked researchers, isn't this bill okay because it's optional and only those who choose to use it, who choose to avail themselves of this service, need to, the way it was answered was, well, drivers' licences are optional too, but if you want to drive a car you have to have one.

That's pretty much the way this bill is being viewed now by the public. Yes, it's optional--no one has to do it--but if you want to drive a car, if you want to borrow money, if you want to capitalize a major infrastructure project on your reserve and you go to the government and say you need help putting together this project, they're going to say go join the club, go get on board that new institution and capitalize your project that way on the open market, and good luck, God bless, and see you later, there's the door.

That's the fear that's been raised with me, and it strikes me as a legitimate fear. I don't even know if everybody around this table is aware of those concerns.

When I first started to let our views be known about Bill C-19, I said if only this was optional, if only this resource was available to those first nations communities that wanted to take part in these possibilities, then I wouldn't be opposed. So I got a phone call from the chair of the First Nations Tax Commission, I think it was, who said, “You don't get it; it is optional. It's 100% optional.” Well, we're not satisfied that it will remain optional or that it's optional in the truest sense of the word, that it won't have ramifications or impacts on the way business is conducted forever after.

So there's always this fear that there are secondary objectives at play here and that this is some kind of Trojan horse. The first reason we had for believing this was that it's tied to such universally unpopular legislation as Bill C-7. I'm of the belief that if Bill C-19, phrased somewhat differently, were introduced separately without being tied to this suite of legislation, it could in fact have succeeded much in the way Bill C-49, the First Nations Land Management Act, succeeded, with a normal review from people at this table, with a full debate in the House of Commons, with some amendments allowed by the government, but it would have passed. Frankly, it would have been up and running, and people in the audience here who want to see this up and running would have been availing themselves of it now. But the very fact that the minister chose to tie it to Bill C-7, and the very fact that the table that developed Bill C-7 and the table that developed Bill C-19.... The first time they got into a room together, they fought like cats and dogs, because they had completely different visions of where they thought they were going. The people who developed Bill C-19 were disappointed to learn that they had to integrate with Bill C-7. They didn't have any choice here. If they wanted Bill C-19 to pass, they had to carry Bill C-7. They had to drag that anchor with them. They were justifiably disappointed to learn that.

So there are other forces at play here that we're not comfortable with. When you ask the question, “Shall clause 2 carry?”, my answer to you is no, at this point clause 2 should not carry. Clause 2 should have amendments to at least give people the opportunity to satisfy themselves that there are no secondary objectives here that may have lasting and negative impacts. Even the greatest champions of this bill argue that there has to be a non-derogation clause. The absence of a non-derogation clause is a signal to anyone here that the government is trying to affect its relationship with first nations, and they acknowledge that it could in fact derogate from or diminish aboriginal or treaty rights.

So we're right back where we started, frankly, with Bill C-7 in many senses. As we look through clause 2, we believe many of these concerns that have been brought forward won't be addressed and that we won't have the luxury of time to address them in the context of a clause-by-clause analysis. We should have asked the experts. We should have asked the authorities. We should have asked people in the bond markets. We should have asked an expert like Professor Lazar why he believes none of this legislation is necessary at all, that there's nothing stopping first nations now from acting collectively and pooling their investment strength or risk--sharing the risk, if you will--when they approach the markets for capital.

¿ (0915)

That could be done today without legislation, in the view of some economists. So the jury is out on this. The jury is not in any way unanimous in their view of this.

You ask if clause 2 should carry. We're just getting started on the clause-by-clause analysis, and I want it satisfied in my own mind, before we undertake a full-court-press battle against this, that there's not more at play. We have the Assembly of First Nations, the legitimately elected leadership of first nations in this country, split down the middle. It's maybe down the middle, but if people knew the full implications of Bill C-19 and didn't just deal with cherry-picking the isolated good aspects of Bill C-19, I think you might find it even more. I think you might find it 70% opposed to the full package we see as Bill C-19.

I don't think there's anybody who speaks against the idea of the first nations finance authority and pooling risk in order to capitalize projects. But there are other aspects. For instance, why is there opposition to the idea of listing those communities who wish to avail themselves--

¿ (0920)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin. Your ten minutes are up.

Before I go to Monsieur Loubier, Mr. Martin, you received this book in June, and your office signed for a second copy September 11. So the book was distributed.

Monsieur Loubier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I share Mr. Martin's discomfort; he says we have not been given the assurance we should have received in connection with this bill, regarding, for example, the introduction of a non-derogation clause and the issue of whether the bill is optional. This was presented as legislation that might make it possible to reassure first nations that do not want to make use of Bill C-19 and to tell them that they will not be penalized if they do not follow Bill C-19.

But I am concerned by another question, which remained unanswered and which I raised in early June, when we began studying the bill. Over the summer, in July, there was a convention of the Assembly of First Nations and a change in leadership of the Assembly of First Nations. In early June, I had suggested to you that we wait until the new executive of the Assembly of First Nations was elected before studying the bill in greater depth in order to get a revised opinion from the new executive.

Mr. Fontaine was elected as leader of the Assembly of First Nations in July. It would have been worthwhile, before proceeding with clause-by-clause study of the bill, to hear from Mr. Fontaine and his new executive on Bill C-19. I am told Mr. Fontaine is more or less in favour of Bill C-19, but I would like to hear him say so, because he is bound by a resolution that was passed last year at the convention of the Assembly of First Nations, a resolution opposing Bill C-19.

Just what is the current position of the Assembly of First Nations? Is there still opposition to Bill C-19 from this organization representing all of the first nations in Canada because of the existence of this resolution, or have there been changes since Mr. Fontaine was elected? It might be a good idea to hear from the AFN before proceeding with clause-by-clause study. It is the least we can do, in my opinion, because they are the ones who are most affected by this bill.

So, like Mr. Martin, I feel profoundly uncomfortable proceeding with clause-by-clause study without having heard the position of the Assembly of First Nations.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Monsieur Loubier.

We know the procedure. If anyone wishes to move adjournment, you can do that. If anyone is not satisfied with the process you chose, if they wish to move adjournment, I'll always accept that motion between clauses. In the meantime, we'll continue.

Mr. Pat Martin: I would like to move that we adjourn, Mr. Chairman, for that reason.

The Chair: Okay. I'll put the question to the floor.

(Motion negatived)

The Chair: We will continue.

Now we'll go directly to G-1.

¿ (0925)

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, I have another motion to propose to members of the committee. I move that before proceeding to clause-by-clause study of the bill, we should have Mr. Fontaine appear as a witness before us.

The Chair: That would require an adjournment. That is the problem.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Yes, but if the motion to have Mr. Fontaine appear had been made earlier, perhaps it would have carried.

[English]

The Chair: It's not in order, but I will accept the motion by Monsieur Loubier that we invite National Chief Phil Fontaine before proceeding to clause-by-clause.

(Motion negatived)

The Chair: Now we will go directly to page 17, G-1.

Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): As the original text was reviewed, there were some concerns in terms of wording. I'd like to call upon our special witnesses this morning to give a brief explanation of their opinion on why that change would occur.

Mr. Paul Salembier (Senior Counsel, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I don't have that reference.

The Chair: Does anyone have it?

Mr. Paul Salembier: Sorry, Mr. Chairman. We're at something of a disadvantage; we don't have the numbers of the motions in our materials here.

We're talking, I believe, about the government amendment to clause 3.

The Chair: That clause 3 be amended by replacing lines 5 to 30 on page 4 with the following.... And then at number 3:

Before making any law under subsection 4(1), the council of a first nation shall make a law respecting the financial administration of the first nation under paragraph 8(1)(a).

Mr. Paul Salembier: Thank you.

This removes references to the First NationsLand Management Act. Previously the bill, as written, would require that first nations under the FNLMA obtain approvals by the First Nations Financial Management Board for any financial administration laws they had made prior to this, before taxing under this bill. What this amendment does is remove that requirement.

The Chair: Any questions?

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: I'm advised that NDP-14, NDP-15, NDP-16, and NDP-17 are not acceptable. Do you wish an explanation by the clerk, or has it been explained to you?

Mr. Pat Martin: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like an explanation, individually if you would.

Ms. Susan Baldwin (Legislative Clerk): NDP-14 amends the first subclause in clause 3. That subclause says that “the council of a first nation shall make a law respecting...”. Your amendment would say “consider whether it wishes to make a law”.

The bill as it was passed at second reading--so we have to consider the principle of the bill as adopted at second reading--clearly wishes to make the making of these laws mandatory. Therefore it's beyond the scope of the bill as approved at second reading.

The next three, NDP-15, NDP-16, and NDP-17, are beyond the scope of the bill as agreed to at second reading for the same reason: specifically, that this bill does not deal with inherent or treaty rights; it deals with various financial arrangements. It has nothing to do with the bill as it was agreed to at second reading, so it would also be beyond the scope of the bill.

(Clause 3 agreed to)

(On clause 4--Local revenue laws)

The Chair: Clause 4, NDP-18 on page 23.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin Mr. Chairman, there's a great deal of misunderstanding regarding the delivery of the books to my office. I'm at a serious disadvantage here in that I don't have access to the same information that every other committee member here has the luxury of dealing with. I'm not saying it's a breach of my privilege, but my office staff say they were phoned about a new book on September 11, but they did not sign for anything nor was anything delivered to them. I have a November....

¿ (0930)

The Chair: The clerk will clear it up. She'll show you the signature from your office.

Mr. Pat Martin: November 2002 is what I'm dealing with here.

Thank you. I appreciate the clerk bringing that to me. That's of some assistance.

This doesn't change the fundamental question that was raised by my colleague from the Bloc Québécois, however. This committee has not--

The Chair: Mr. Martin, you're speaking to amendment NDP-18 on page 23. That's what we're doing now.

NDP-18 is beyond the scope of this bill; therefore it's not acceptable. Is everyone paying attention? I'm not accepting NDP-18 or NDP-19. They're beyond the scope of the bill.

We're now on amendment G-2.

Mr. Hubbard, page 25.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Again, Mr. Chair, I'd call upon our witnesses for an explanation of this change.

The Chair: We will suspend until we have a copy of amendment G-2, which is on page 25 in English. When we get a copy, that will be 25.1. We'll suspend until we have that.

¿ (0930)

¿ (0933)

The Chair: We'll come back to amendment G-2 as soon as we have the translation.

We're now on page 26. Amendment NDP-20 is not acceptable by the chair.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chairman, through you, can we get...? We really only had an explanation as to why one of my amendments wasn't--

The Chair: Do you want an explanation on NDP-20?

Mr. Pat Martin: Yes, and with specific.... I know I'm not going to get a chance to debate with the clerk or with the experts, but I need to know why reference to the exercise of inherent or treaty rights could be deemed out of order or inadmissible in the context of a standing committee of the House of Commons on aboriginal affairs and the first legislation to this effect in years. How could it be out of order to raise inherent or treaty rights?

¿ (0935)

The Chair: The rule of the chair is not debatable, and she has explained that it's beyond the scope of the bill. If you disagree with that, I suppose you have two sources of appeal. One is to appeal my decision here. Two is to do it in the House, when the bill goes back.

Mr. Pat Martin: I think it would be a futile exercise to challenge your ruling here, Mr. Chairman, so I'm not going to start off our new session by challenging the chair. I just want it on the record that, for the life of me, I can't understand how it's out of order, or out of the scope of this bill, to deal with inherent or treaty rights in the context of any first nations legislation. To deny a non-derogation clause, first of all, and then to reject any reference to inherent or treaty rights--we're off to a hell of a start with this bill.

The Chair: I am provided with people who have done this work for years, and I choose to accept their advice. This way I won't be accused of being partisan.

Amendment NDP-20 is not acceptable. NDP-21 is not acceptable. NDP-22 is not acceptable, and NDP-23 is not acceptable.

We are on page 30, amendment NDP-24.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Well, now that you've undermined and pulled the rug out from just about every argument we had to make on this bill, we're left with an amendment that calls for amending clause 4 by replacing lines 18 and 19 with a simple word, “assessments”.

Mr. Chairman, this committee is remiss in its duty to Parliament by rushing this bill through, and it's remiss in its duty to Parliament by not entertaining the legitimate concerns I've brought forward by the amendment process, by the only mechanism available to me to voice our concerns about this bill. It's in keeping with the attitude we saw displayed during debate around Bill C-7, and I find fault with it. I'm going to limit my remarks to the amendment on clause 4. I can see the direction in which this is going, Mr. Chairman, so I'm going to be very careful to speak to clause 4 only, and my amendment to clause 4, so as not to be ruled out of order and lose this one opportunity I have to express our comments about this bill.

Mr. Chairman, without hearing the expert witnesses, people who know the bond market, people who can speak to the taxation base on reserves, and primarily without hearing from first nations, both those who advocate the bill and those who are against the bill...I question the legitimacy of this whole process until that exercise takes place. So as I do speak to and limit my remarks to clause 4, it's in that broad general context, that I resent the fact that again it's a bunch of white guys in suits who will be sitting around making this legislation without the counsel and input from the very people it will affect.

While we were away on our summer break, on August 26 in fact, the Federal Court of Canada made a ruling in the Bellegarde v. Canada case, which we should be aware of here because it has a direct bearing. The Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations was suing Canada on the grounds that the drafting and consultation process associated with Bill C-7 was not conducted with consultation, where Canada owes a fiduciary duty. The case puts in legal format what so many witnesses have told this committee, that Bill C-7 is likely to infringe upon or amend constitutionally protected rights, and they're asking the court for a declaration of a breach of fiduciary obligation and a declaration that in the future the minister must act within the honour of the Crown in its duty to uphold rights by conducting meaningful consultations with the leadership of first nations.

We just had a motion from my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot that we call in the legitimately elected leadership of the Assembly of First Nations. The leadership has changed since we left this room in June. I went to the national assembly in Edmonton, where a new national chief was elected. We haven't heard from that national chief, although in fact I understand the national chief is in favour of this legislation. But that doesn't change the fact that the last resolution ever taken at the Assembly of First Nations on the subject of Bill C-19 was on November, 2002, where it was rejected resoundingly. I have a copy of the resolution here with me. It was flatly rejected by the chiefs and their proxies at the Assembly of First Nations--overwhelmingly rejected--and we've had no clear direction from the Assembly of First Nations to the contrary.

I'm told there is going to be a confederacy held on October 8 and 9, where this subject will be dealt with and they may in fact take steps to overturn the most recent resolution that's on the books, but until that time, we're bound by that resolution. I'm committed to be bound to the directives of the legitimately elected leadership of the Assembly of First Nations in this country. That's what's on the record. That's what stands.

¿ (0940)

The lawyers for the government, the counsel, will be telling us...and they're telling the Federal Court that this legal action of Bellegarde v. Canada should be dropped, that it has no reasonable cause of action. The justice department lawyers are claiming that Parliament has the absolute entitlement to debate and to pass resolutions freely on any subject of its own choosing--that's the language they use--and that members of Parliament have absolute freedom of speech and debate.

Well, I challenge and contest that, because we are not having a legitimate debate on this subject. Neither are we allowing this subject a full hearing, because we're not hearing from those for or against this bill. We're fast-tracking and ramming through this bill once again.

Justice lawyers for the government are arguing that Parliament should not be bothered by the question of consultation, that the consultation process that didn't take place with Bill C-7 wasn't really necessary, that Parliament should be able to deal with it exclusive of the duty of consultation. They also argue that the whole case should wait until Bill C-7 actually passes.

Now, the Federal Court ruled against Canada on all counts. All of those arguments were dismissed by the Federal Court. As the committee has heard from this side of the table, Parliament lost that freedom in 1982, when it was bound with fiduciary responsibilities. A bill could be struck down by the courts through Parliament's failure to honour those responsibilities. In other words, Bill C-7 could be struck down by the failure of Canada to honour those obligations that came to us under the patriation of the Constitution in 1982.

The Federal Court has ruled that the FSIN, the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, has a reasonable cause of action, and that the case will proceed. So as we predicted, Bill C-7 is already mired in the Federal Court because of, I believe, the shortcomings of this committee. We're about to make the same mistake with Bill C-19 by not consulting, by not getting a full analysis, by not giving both sides an opportunity to have their cases heard, by not giving us the chance to question such people as economists, etc., who have full knowledge of what it's like to go down to Moody's and to Wall Street in New York, cap in hand, to beg for a good credit rating. We need to know all those things, and we need to know the context within which Bill C-19 came about.

We also need to know, and need to be able to learn through our questioning of witnesses, the real objective here. Why is the government so bound and determined to ram this bill through? Why did it tie these anchors to it by tying it to Bill C-7, trying to achieve secondary goals and objectives? We believe Bill C-19 is more about trying to relieve itself of its fiduciary obligations.

The Minister of Indian Affairs spoke to the Senate committee just recently. He essentially said that first nations need to capitalize, they need to invest, and they need to grow their economic base through economic development, but surely they don't expect government to pay for all of that. That essentially was the language he used, that surely they don't expect the government to pay for this. In other words, go out onto the open market and borrow it yourself. Use the equity, use your revenue stream or your taxation revenue stream as the equity and borrow your own money when you want to build a sewage treatment plant.

That's fine for Westbank, and that might even be fine for the Six Nations of the Grand River or other fairly developed communities that have a taxation base to use as equity. But what about Red Sucker Lake, and Pukatawagan, and Pikangikum, and other places that have no hope or possibility of a legitimate revenue stream? Their avenue of recourse is to go to the government, remind them of their fiduciary obligations, and ask them for a sewage treatment plant. But now the government's going to say, well, sure you need a sewage treatment plant, so go join the club. Go join the new first nations borrowing club and capitalize your own projects. Find your own equity. Share your own risk, whatever it is, with other first nations if they'll have you, if you meet the high standards they need to have in order to not be burdened with first nations who can't participate on their own financial basis.

That's the fear, but we're not going to get a chance to raise it except when I can sneak it in by debating what few amendments the NDP will be allowed. That's not good enough. If Bill C-19 passes--and we don't believe Bill C-7 will pass--it needs to be changed to separate Bill C-7 from it, because they were forced together. They were merged. At the end of the development process, the government took the two and forged them together. It linked them. We have to de-link them, by amendment, to make sure that Bill C-19, if it has enough--

¿ (0945)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): I have two questions for our witnesses, one narrow and one broader.

The first is on this particular amendment. I'm wondering if the witnesses could tell us what dropping the line “incorporating such procedures as are prescribed by regulation” would do. That's the first question--whether, in other words, there are unintended consequences here.

The second question more broadly refers to the opening remarks Mr. Martin made about the Bellegarde case. Do the witnesses think this case has any bearing on what we're currently doing?

Mr. Gordon Shanks (Assistant Deputy Minister, Economic Development and Special Initiatives, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Mr. Chairman, on the first question, the proposed amendment would drop the obligation to adherence to any regulations, particularly with respect to taxpayers' appeals of assessments. As such, it would be a less transparent and more uncertain environment for taxpayers and in general an environment less conducive to economic development.

I'll ask my justice department colleague to comment on the second question.

Mr. Paul Salembier: Regarding the Bellegarde decision, to my understanding it was a decision on a motion to strike the claim. The court simply said they couldn't say that there is absolutely no foundation, that there is absolutely no possibility of success in a claim like this; therefore, they're going to allow it to proceed to trial and they will hear arguments. The Bellegarde decision, though, has not gone to trial. It has not set down any law on that point yet.

Mr. John Godfrey: But is there any connection between the Bellegarde decision and what we're doing today?

Mr. Paul Salembier: I think it would be speculative. There would only be a connection if the Bellegarde decision were to be successful, and then we would have to look at the reasoning of the court there. But any impact it would have would require speculation on our part at this point in time.

Mr. John Godfrey: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have just a few brief comments. I know the proposer of this particular amendment didn't speak directly to it, and I'm not convinced the need for it would be made to our committee, but I am concerned, Mr. Chair, that he did imply that there were no consultations. I believe the record will indicate that we did have witnesses come before this committee prior to the clause-by-clause study. In fact, some of the witnesses who are strong advocates of this particular piece of legislation are in the room this morning. So I would hope he would review his agenda and see what we did before the June break.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hubbard.

We're all aware that the whips have eight more days to assign members to committees. In eight days it could be a completely new crew on this committee, and it would be unfair, in my view, to go with testimony that was presented to these members and have the clause-by-clause done by a completely new group. That's why I called the meeting as soon as I could when we came back.

Are we ready for the question on NDP-24, page 30?

Mr. Pat Martin: A point of order, Mr. Chair. What are the rules around the debate on amendments? Is it not that the mover of the amendment gets 10 minutes, and then any other person who wishes to speak gets 10 minutes, and then the mover is allowed a wrap-up of 10 minutes?

The Chair: That's right, and that is why I asked, “Are we ready for the question?” If you wish to speak, you say, “No, I wish to speak”.

Mr. Pat Martin: Well, I wish to speak, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Mr. Martin, you have 10 minutes.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Clause 4 is where the first nations fiscal powers are under the category of part one. The reason you found a number of amendments coming forward by the NDP in clause 4 was for the very reason that we're getting to the heart: we're getting beyond definitions, we're getting beyond the purpose of the bill as stated, we're getting beyond the preamble. We're getting into the substance, the meat and potatoes of first nations fiscal powers.

I think everyone here has been following the history and development of the review of the fiscal relationship between the federal government and first nations, which began in a formal way in 1996, by my understanding. Some committee members were members of this standing committee in 1996, and may have even been aware of the work that was going on at the Assembly of First Nations among first nations across the country. At that time, the directive that was given was to challenge or charge those participating communities or the leadership in those communities in a substantive review of the relationship between the crown and first nations as it pertains to fiscal arrangements. What came out of those, instead, was what we see as the recommendations for the four institutions: the statistics institute, the tax commission, the first nations financial authority, and the financial management board. That came as a surprise to much of the leadership of the Assembly of First Nations.

When the report came back, many felt that this really wasn't the question that was being asked. These specific institutions weren't what was being asked for. Niggling questions remain about the statistics institute, for instance: how can a national statistics institution be optional? If we're making the case that Bill C-19 is optional, how do you opt into a statistics institute? It boggles the mind, really. It would be a pretty impotent statistics institute if it could only maintain statistics on one-third or whatever the number of first nations communities that are in support of Bill C-19. That's only one question.

That's why we raised this particular amendment. The unfairness of it, and the reason I asked to speak to this again in closing and wrap-up remarks, is that it's unfair in a sense, in that our amendments were sequenced and had a sense of purpose and were arranged in such a way that on a line-by-line basis we sought to change the tone or the content of clauses. Well, NDP amendments 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, etc., were all thrown out, and we're left at NDP-24, which is changing one word and deleting one line. I can understand why my colleagues across would have difficulty understanding why this would be a good thing, taken in isolation. But that's the unfairness of it, that we didn't get a chance to explain all the amendments leading up to what we have before us now, in NDP-24.

I'm disappointed in that process. I think we do a disservice to the many people who will be ultimately affected by this legislation by not having that debate, and not even having the chance to explain why we sought to amend clause 4.

You may be enlightened. The committee may be enlightened. We may be the only vehicle by which those who have concerns about this bill will have their voices heard, because they weren't invited to explain it at this table, and they certainly weren't invited in any kind of a broad consultation process, a national consultation about whether we should do this or not.

Just two weeks ago, in Kenora, the minister told the media that there were other means of initiating reforms. We're not sure what he was getting at. He said he would work with the new national chief to promote the development of codes of governance, as well as the structures of band councils above and beyond Bill C-7. We know that he still has hope that under Bill C-19 some of what they set out to achieve will in fact be achieved.

¿ (0950)

I'm not trying to put words in the minister's mouth, but I think he was getting at the idea that they were incrementally, step by step, lightening the burden on the Crown, on the government, by minimizing, reducing block by block, lifting the fiduciary obligation off the shoulders of the federal government. His statement at the Senate was quite revealing: “You don't expect government to pay for all that, do you?” In other words, we already shovel $7 billion a year into INAC, and I challenge--

¿ (0955)

The Chair: Mr. Martin, we spent five months listening to the same speeches time after time after time. It's the second amendment that we go to, and you're repeating what you said the first time. Please spare us that. We did five months of it. We don't intend to listen to repetition every time we give you the floor.

Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chairman, thank you for that advice.

The fact is that we're told on one hand that Bill C-19 stands on its own and that what we're dealing with is a separate piece of legislation, and as chair of the committee, you would know better than anyone else that the duty of this committee is to deal with Bill C-7. But they're inexorably linked. I don't think you can talk about Bill C-19 in isolation, without the context of the fact that it's linked as part of the suite of legislation that's referred to by the government: Bill C-6, Bill C-7, and Bill C-19. And they were deliberately linked in order for the popular one, or the one that had some support, to carry the unpopular one and drag it along with it.

That's the burden Bill C-19 has, and I fully sympathize with those who are promoting Bill C-19. The challenge they have is that they're carrying a lot of very unpopular baggage along with the merits--and I am the first to admit there are some merits in some of the ideas that form Bill C-19. They're handicapped, they're limited, they're dragging their anchor.

The minister has said that Bill C-19 plays a key role in the government's larger strategy with Bill C-7, so how can I speak on Bill C-19 strictly in isolation?

The Chair: Mr. Martin, I'll answer that question. You're not talking to Bill C-19; you're talking to your amendment, which is one word. That's what you're talking to. So you can talk about all the other things and make us endure that, but the floor was given to you to speak on NDP-24, which is an amendment that has one word in it. That's what you should be talking about.

Mr. Pat Martin: I agree, and I acknowledge the valid point the chair makes. But just to be accurate, our amendment calls for deleting lines 18 and 19 on page 6 and then substituting them with one word. To be fair, the omission is more important than the addition in this case, or at least as important.

I could settle for a subamendment or a compromise amendment in this case, frankly, Mr. Chairman, by simply deleting lines 18 and 19, but then I'm afraid I'd be ruled out of order, because you're not allowed to go line by line and delete things without suggesting alternative language. So my hands are tied here.

The point we were trying to make with this amendment, amendment NDP-24, is that we sought to delete lines 18 and 19 on page 6 of clause 4 in Bill C-19. But I knew that would be ruled out of order. I didn't think all my other amendments would be ruled out of order, but I knew that would be, because it doesn't propose any positive amendment to the bill; it simply seeks to delete something from the bill, and you have never let me do that in the past. This time, we cooperate with you by suggesting a tolerable replacement, an amendment to the bill that we believe changes the tone as well as the content of the bill and mitigates some of the concerns we have about the bill. But again, without all the preceding amendments, I don't blame by colleagues across from failing to understand what on Earth we're talking about, because this cannot be taken in isolation either.

So my point is that we're off to a terrible start. Really, we're off to a bad start in terms of not consulting and not hearing from the people we need to, but we're racing through in the dying days of a dying regime. We're plowing this through, I would argue, against the will of the majority of first nations communities in the country, and we have yet to have that demonstrated to us.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

We go directly to the question.

(Amendment negatived--[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: NDP-25, NDP-26, and NDP-27 are not acceptable.

I think you have copies of G-2, which we should be able to go back to. It's page 25. Has everyone received...?

À (1000)

[Translation]

Has everyone received a copy in both official languages?

[English]

The copy you have just received in two languages replaces page 25 in your book. Page 25 is the unilingual G-2.

Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess this happened as a result of some photocopying; we didn't get the French version.

I'll ask again if our witnesses would briefly explain the significance of this amendment.

Mr. Gordon Shanks: Mr. Chairman, this amends subparagraph 4(1)(a)(i) to clarify that a first nations property tax assessment law may provide for the collection of information and the inspection of properties. Conditions for the inspection of properties would be prescribed by regulations. This is to take this tax regime into line with municipal tax regimes, where municipal real property tax laws permit municipalities to do inspections so that they can secure the proper information to prepare the municipal tax rolls. The current wording, without the amendment, does not provide sufficient clarity in the law for the first nations to be able to do this, and the proposed amendment would correct this problem.

The Chair: Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: By way of further clarification, would this be normal procedure for other governments with similar taxation regimes? Is this fairly standard practice?

Mr. Gordon Shanks: Yes, this is the way a normal municipality would do it. It has the right to inspect the property to ensure that it is doing a proper assessment and evaluation.

Mr. John Godfrey: Are you aware of whether this is also currently being done within any first nations governments?

Mr. Gordon Shanks: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I am not aware of the current practice in that regard.

The Chair: Mr. Swanson.

Mr. Stuart Swanson (Director, Special Initiatives, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): There are tax rolls assembled now, and they use the best information available. The purpose of this clause is to ensure that there's ready information so that a good and fair tax roll can be put together in the future.

The Chair: Is there other debate on G-2? Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chairman, as I understand this bill, it will take out the existing line 40--assessment of the value of those lands, interests, and rights--and replace.... Actually, you're just adding to; you're not replacing anything. You're saying “lands, interests and rights” and then adding “the requisition of any information necessary to conduct the assessment and the inspection, in accordance with procedures prescribed by regulation, for assessment purposes of any reserve lands that are subject to taxation for local purposes.”

I believe I understand what you're saying. I don't understand why you're saying that you have to replace those three words and then add them in again in the context of your own new paragraph.

But having said that, I know that one of the original concerns expressed about Bill C-19 when it was first introduced was the idea that this is a step towards the municipalization of first nations and that in actual fact, as first nations may go out seeking capital they may in fact be using holdings other than a revenue stream as equity. As they're looking for equity for borrowing purposes, land is equity, property is equity. Building structures, things the band collectively owns, are the common form of equity when you go to a bank looking for a loan.

That was certainly a fear a year ago, a year and a half ago: that we were somehow going down the American model, where there were examples in Alaska and elsewhere where first nations actually lost some of their land base with a loan using that land as equity, and the loan goes bad and the bank calls the loan. Through bad management or bad leadership, that sort of misfortune, some of the land base shrinks or diminishes--or property, or holdings or other communal assets of the community. That was the number one fear.

I'm pleased to say that no one believes that any more. People are satisfied now that under Bill C-19.... My question will be in that direction. It's my understanding that in Bill C-19 the only equity that can be used is the revenue stream from taxation, or other private operations or enterprises, I suppose. But the main revenue stream that's being contemplated is the revenue from taxes received from renting out or leasing band-held land or land that's a part of the first nation. That's the main question I would have about this.

I'd be interested to know how this helps to reinforce that when the word “land” is specifically cited here in this particular clause. Clause 4 is dealing with regulations and the definition of fiscal powers and authorities. Line 40 of clause 4(1)(a)(i) is what we're dealing with here, to make it even more clear to those who are struggling to understand this bill. What we're dealing with here is removing the words “lands, interests and rights” and replacing them with the words “lands, interests and rights” and then “the requisition of any information necessary to conduct the assessment and the inspection, in accordance with procedures prescribed by regulation, for assessment purposes of any reserve lands that are subject to taxation for local purposes.”

I guess I'll begin by asking, why was it necessary to delete the words “lands, interests and rights”, only to replace them with your own amendment, those words?

À (1005)

Mr. Paul Salembier: That's simply the standard legislative drafting technique for doing motions. They're done line by line. So if you're going to replace text, you replace the text in the line. There may be some of the text on the line that's going to be carried forward, as in the NDP motion where they repeated the word “assessments”, which was there. So it's simply standard legislative drafting technique. It may not always be as clear to someone else who doesn't have the bill with the line numbers on it, but it does basically save space and paper.

There's no magic to it. There's no intent behind it. It's just the drafting technique.

Mr. Pat Martin: My question is what do you tell people when they come to you and say they're concerned about a band or a community losing assets? Where in the bill does it satisfy those who would say there's a risk of a shrinking land base or using land as equity?

Mr. Stuart Swanson: In the matter of bonds, finance through real property taxation, the land itself is not used for collateral. What you're using as collateral is the ongoing flow of tax revenues over many years. The type of bond that's issued is actually a debenture that warns the investor that this is not secured by land or real property. So in the worse-case scenario where there was a default on the bond, the investor wouldn't have a claim against real property or land.

Mr. Pat Martin: I'm interested in that. Perhaps I could follow that a little further.

As for the bond itself, in the absence of language like you're proposing in clause 4, you would agree there's nothing stopping first nations communities from issuing bonds if they can find a financial institution willing to work with them. Would they be junk bonds? Would they be at such a high interest rate that the numbers wouldn't crunch, that it wouldn't be a feasible exercise? Is the legislation necessary for that purpose?

À (1010)

The Chair: Mr. Shanks, can you answer?

Mr. Gordon Shanks: Is that a permitted question on this motion, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Gordon Shanks: Yes, I can answer that.

As the member had asked, we consulted rather extensively with the financial institutions--with Moody's, with Standard & Poor's, with Dominion Bond Rating--and every one of them indicated that a strong legislative base was necessary to achieve anything close to an investment grade rating, and that without legislation there was no possibility of achieving a bond rating.

The Chair: Mr. Schellenberger is next.

Excuse me, Mr. Schellenberger, because you're new to the committee and I want to welcome you and Mr. Duncan and Monsieur St-Julien, I should mention that the rule we have for clause-by-clause is that every speaker has 10 minutes. So you have 10 minutes. If you move the amendment, you have the first 10 and the last 10.

Mr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Middlesex, PC): Okay. Do I have to take the whole 10?

The Chair: Please don't. Another rule is that you can't give it to Mr. Martin.

Mr. Gary Schellenberger: I must say what a pleasure and honour it has been to be named to this committee on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party. A lot of things are new. This was just handed to me this morning. I'm here trying to learn, so if my questions sound immature, please accept that I am new.

In this particular part, I don't understand the rights. I'd like the rights explained to me in this particular part. As a former municipal politician, I do understand bonds, I do understand taxation and assessments, but I don't understand the rights here.

The Chair: Mr. Salembier.

Mr. Paul Salembier: In common law you can have something called an interest in land. Something like a lease would be considered an interest. Other types of documents, things you might obtain, would be considered rights; they're not interests in the land. For example, a right of way is simply a right. So this uses the same language that's used in issuing interests under the Indian Act to say that this interest issued under the Indian Act can be taxed here.

One example would be that under subsection 28(2) there's a permitting scheme. Sometimes those are used for utilities. It's not clear that it would be an easement, which would be an interest; it may very well be a right. So this act is intended to ensure that first nations can tax those kinds of grants.

It's hard to use without using the word “right” or “interest”, but right now I'm trying to distinguish between the two, and that's why we use both terms here.

Mr. Gary Schellenberger: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance): I have a question for the officials.

This amendment adds a dimension to dealing with the requisition of information and makes reference to regulations made by the first nation. I'm just wondering if there's some other mechanism that defines how broad those regulations can be. It's obviously not in this clause, but it would have to be in some other authority somewhere.

I guess that's my question.

The Chair: We can also clear up who will make the regulations, the first nations or the government.

Mr. John Duncan: They're first nations regulations, as I read it.

Mr. Paul Salembier: No, sorry, perhaps I could clarify that. A further government amendment will add a cross-reference to this subparagraph that will clarify that it's the Governor in Council that will be making these regulations. The scope of these regulations is set out by the ordinary meaning of the terms here, so what they're going to do is set out procedures for inspections.

À (1015)

Mr. John Duncan: Can you tell us which cross-reference that is?

Mr. Paul Salembier: Yes, it will be a government amendment to clause 34, government amendment 8. You'll see a reference there to subparagraph 4(1)(a)(i).

The Chair: I'm told that it's G-8 on page 49 in your green book.

Mr. John Duncan: Is it 49 or 50?

The Chair: Page 49. Page 50 is the French, I think.

Mr. John Duncan: Sorry, can you say that again?

Mr. Paul Salembier: Yes. If you look on page 49, government amendment G-8, there's paragraph (a), and the first line beneath paragraph (a), which replaces lines 15 and 16, refers to “prescribed under”, and there's an addition of subparagraph 4(1)(a)(i).

Mr. John Duncan: So this doesn't specify the regulations in any shape; it just specifies that the regulations can be enabled by Governor in Council at some future date, basically. In other words, they don't exist right now.

Mr. Paul Salembier: That's right, they don't exist right now. These regulations can only be made after this bill receives royal assent and they can only come into force at the same time as these clauses of the bill come into force.

Mr. John Duncan: And they can be changed at any time by Governor in Council?

Mr. Paul Salembier: Yes, like other regulations, they can be amended from time to time.

Mr. John Duncan: That answers my question.

The Chair: Are we ready for the question on amendment G-2?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: We go to G-3, page 34. Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is only a very technical amendment, which probably Mr. Loubier has already picked up, but the word “peut-être” is not in the French version, and it's our amendment to put in that word, Mr. Chair--“may”, in other words.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 4 as amended agreed to on division)

The Chair: Now we're at clause 5, page 35, NDP-28.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chairman, I'm somewhat taken aback that I'm actually allowed to debate one of my amendments. Just give me a moment here.

Mr. Chairman, the NDP feels it is necessary to amend clause 5 by replacing lines 14 to 42 on page 7 and lines 1 to 7 on page 8 with the following words;

The council of a first nation shall determine how it wishes to give fair and proper legal notice of its intention to pass a law, such notice to be appropriate to the circumstances.

I think it's self-evident that we're seeking to amend this bill at every opportunity to reinforce and instill, for the benefit of those who may read this bill in the future, some fundamental principles. It should be the council of a first nation that will determine how it wishes to give fair and proper legal notice, etc. Throughout this exercise you'll find similar amendments the NDP will be moving in order to change the tone of the content and to reduce and minimize some of the language that those who are opposed to the bill have found offensive.

Had we listened to many of the witnesses...even had we listened to the witnesses who made reference to similar language changes; listened to the witnesses who currently exercise their rights under section 83 of the Indian Act; listened to the first nations who currently do in fact avail themselves of making bylaws with respect to taxation for local purposes of land, or interests in land, on the reserve. I think we heard them say in very clear language that they don't want anything in Bill C-19, in any clause, clause 5 or any other, that would in any way diminish or undermine or reduce the fiduciary obligation of the Crown, or infringe on inherent and treaty rights. Even in British Columbia, Westbank First Nation clearly speaks out that they see these measures as a step towards their inherent right to self-government.

As the members of the working group developed the institutions found within Bill C-19, they were abundantly cautious in their process to ensure that nothing offended these basic principles. I think in the final analysis, when they presented the results of their work to the government so that legislation could be crafted, they were alarmed to find that there were secondary goals the government wished to achieve. They were alarmed to find that they were being forced to integrate their work with the work of the table that developed Bill C-7, and to be saddled with that.

In Manitoba, my own home province, Chief Oscar Lathlin is actually a minister of the NDP government. The Opaskwayak Cree Nation in The Pas, Manitoba, has been enjoying revenue from the shopping mall and other developments in their community that they have leased to private sector interests for many years, for as long as I can remember. They were maybe one of the first in that prairie region to do so because of their close proximity to the community of The Pas, right across the river. That's where the non-aboriginal people in The Pas go to shop, to the reserve, because that's where the supermarket is. That's where the mall is. When kids go to the mall, they go to the Indian reserve.

I'm sure I can say without any fear of contradiction that if we had the opportunity to speak to him, Chief Lathlin would clearly express that they would not support or participate in any exercise that would in any way threaten to diminish or reduce inherent and treaty rights.

À (1020)

The same could be said in Nova Scotia, where Millbrook First Nation is one of the 107 first nations exercising their section 83 right--with the permission of the minister, of course, because the way the current Indian Act reads, everything is with the express permission of the minister. Currently first nations may in fact make bylaws with respect to taxation. They are allowed to do so under section 83. I use the term “allowed” very deliberately, because it's at the will and at the pleasure of the minister that they can do anything. The sun doesn't come up on Indian reserves without the pleasure of the minister, nor does it set.

In the province of Ontario we have the Chippewa of Kettle and Stony Point. This is a community we're all well aware of through the infamous situation at Ipperwash. This was Dudley George's home community, a community that members here will be well aware of. I believe it might even be in the chair's riding.

These groups, who we should be hearing from, are prominent groups. I'm specifically citing one from each province, because these are communities who currently avail themselves of their...I don't say “right”, because it's not a right when it's at the whim of the minister. Let's say they currently avail themselves of section 83 of the Indian Act, which allows them to make bylaws to do with taxation.

Had we heard from them, they would have expressly.... But I can't put words in their mouths. As a non-aboriginal person, I'm very sensitive of the fact that I'm not going to speak for them. All I'm going to say is that we should have heard from them. We should be hearing from them now. They're not in the room, but perhaps they would tell us that they wish to continue their revenue stream through taxation--I'm sure they do--and wish for greater freedom in what they can do. Perhaps they would tell us that they wish to act collectively, to pool the risk with other first nations, so that nationally they can get investment-grade bonds.

That would be much like the model of the municipal finances act in British Columbia, which was developed in Finland. I mean, we've been doing our homework on this. We know that the first people from Finland were invited to British Columbia to establish the municipal finances act, which serves as the model for this. The leader of our party, Jack Layton, a former city councillor in Toronto, had a role in those initial tentative dialogues that brought this concept to Canada.

The Muskeg Lake Band in Saskatchewan is another example, as is the Kingsclear First Nation in New Brunswick, as the honourable parliamentary secretary would be interested to know. As a representative of New Brunswick, I think he should be insisting that the Kingsclear First Nation be heard at this committee, or if not, he should be advocating their point of view, and making a deliberate effort to....

You know, this community might only have a registered population of 800 people, but they are using section 83 of the Indian Act to tax and to gain a revenue stream through taxation. Their opinion on this and their concerns about this bill are of interest to me, as they should be of interest to the parliamentary secretary, who represents that province.

So as we look at clause 5, the amendment would delete lines 14 to 42. It's a comprehensive amendment we're asking for here, Mr. Chairman. It deletes two-thirds of one page. It deletes language dealing with what the council of a first nation “shall” do, which is, again, very prescriptive language, very much like the tone we sensed in Bill C-7.

It says in clause 5:

The council of a first nation shall, at least 60 days before making a law under any of paragraphs 4(1)(a) to (c)

And so on. Well, we're saying that the first nation shall determine how it wishes to give fair and proper legal notice, not within the 60 days as outlined by the minister and as enforced by the minister. Let's face it, any time you put legislation in place you have to also put in place consequences for failing to comply with the legislation. This is mandatory, this is not for guidance. This is not necessarily a helpful tool. Any time the language says the council of a first nation “shall” do something within 60 days, if it takes 61 days, there are consequences.

We're promoting a much softer tone and much more general language. We've deleted 30-odd lines and in a much cleaner way replaced those lines with four lines that simply say the council of a first nation shall determine how it wishes to give fair and proper legal notice. It will still be fair and proper, but it will be up to the first nation to determine how it wishes to give notice of its intention to pass a law, and such notice to be appropriate in the circumstances.

À (1025)

Well, that's reasonable. It has to be fair, it has to be legal, but we're not going to put up with 40-odd lines of prescriptive, exact detail of what they must do and when they must do it. That's what offends people who read this bill, Mr. Chairman, and that's why you'll find, throughout our amendments, when we're allowed to present them and argue them, that we are trying to take the prescriptive out and put in place language that has the same effect, that is not offensive, that is not Eurocentric, that is not colonial, that is not politically naive, that actually reflects the reality of those working under section 83.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: To the witnesses, what would be the practical consequences of following Mr. Martin's suggestion and removing what he would call prescriptive language for more general language? What would be lost or gained by such an amendment?

À (1030)

Mr. Gordon Shanks: The way the bill is now written, it provides for a very clear and defined set of notice provisions that creates a transparent process, so that all taxpayers on first nations land are aware of the procedure. This makes it a knowable, transparent, clear process.

To modify that creates a very vague and uncertain process, so that taxpayers would not necessarily know what the notice provisions would be, and it would create an uncertain environment that would potentially cause some difficulties with the non-first-nation taxpayers and result in a less conducive economic development environment.

Mr. John Godfrey: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Godfrey.

More debate? Are you ready for the question? Mr. Martin wants 10 more minutes.

Please stick to the subject, the amendment.

Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chairman, the amendment we're seeking to achieve is actually a common theme we're seeking to achieve throughout the bill, and therefore, as I speak to this amendment, I am inadvertently referring to other clauses. There's no way to avoid that, because it's a common theme. It's one of the key objectives, as the NDP began its review of this bill, that we sought to achieve. You can't help but refer to Bill C-7 in the same context, because it was our intention throughout the debate around Bill C-7 to minimize the prescriptive language and to introduce language that was less offensive to many first nations communities. The relationship between Bill C-19 and Bill C-7 is a matter of record. As a matter of fact, it's a matter of our briefing book. We even had, as part of this massive briefing book, an entire chapter regarding the relationship between the different bills of what we consider to be the first nations governance initiative, the suite of legislation.

So when I say that the Tsuu T'ina First Nation from Treaty 7 in Alberta, outside of Calgary, should have been invited to participate and to share their views, I'm speaking about not just article 5, although specifically I am speaking about how they would view article 5 and the rationale given by our counsel here, from the departmental officials. I think they would be making a similar case that the council of a first nation should be able to give fair and legal notice, because it would have to be legal. Fair and proper is not up to us around this table to determine. There might be acceptable standards. It may be common practice to give exactly 60 days' notice for this particular announcement for that. It may be that you're supposed to publish it in the Wall Street Journal. I don't know. But that doesn't belong in legislation. As I say, we have to be careful what we put in legislation because legislation is enforceable. Somebody has to enforce legislation, and there have to be pursuant consequences to failing to comply with legislation.

Therefore, it would be better for all concerned to have less exact and less specific language. If we're writing this specifically to please the bonding agencies--as a socialist that's offensive enough to me that we're spending our time here to make sure Moody's likes it. Is that our primary concern, that Standard and Poor's likes us? My main concern is that it's fair, that it's relevant, that it's culturally sensitive, and that's it's enforceable as well. Who's going to be the police? Who's going to be the watchdog that ensures all of this language, that this very intensely detailed specific language, is complied with to the letter of the law? Better that we state the stated goals and objectives, better that we state the principles, better that we state what we're trying to achieve in as general language as humanly as possible, and stay away from these specifics that some of us would view as arbitrary in fact and some of us would view as being unnecessarily prescriptive.

Again, on behalf of those first nations who do not have a chance to be here and express and share these views, for me it's important to read into the record some of those communities and first nations that are, as I say, already availing themselves of what I see is their right and what others see as the minister's permission to tax and to generate a revenue stream and to use that revenue stream as equity or as collateral for capitalizing future projects.

We have communities like the Westbank First Nation that stands as a model perhaps, as it has developed perhaps one of the most comprehensive sets of community bylaws in Canada that cover the development of regulation of reserve lands. I have seen copies of their list of bylaws, and they cover matters as diverse as taxation, the assessment of reserve land, the subdivision of land, garbage and waste, dog control, business licences. All of those things, believe me, are being developed in first nations communities, those that have the administrative capacity or frankly the resources to develop these things. And all persons residing on or conducting business on reserve are subject to the Westbank First Nation's bylaws. That's the way it should be.

À (1035)

I recently visited the Musqueam reserve in the lower mainland of B.C., and they too are looking forward to the day when they can expand their bylaw-making ability.

It concerns me in this bill that other parties may have the ability to affect the bylaws of first nations communities, that inherent in this bill, as we get to clause 51, we'll be looking forward to debating just why first nations can have their bylaws altered by these appointed boards. Let's face it, the appointment of these boards is by order in council. Why should they have the authority to change the bylaws of communities instead of the legitimately elected leadership of those communities? That's another question and another one of the bugaboos about this legislation, that they'll be forfeiting independence, they'll be forfeiting self-governing rights.

If you want to sign on and play ball, in other words, Mr. Chairman, if you want to participate and join the borrowing club, the A-team, you may in fact be forfeiting your rights to govern yourselves, because to be in compliance, this newly appointed board will in fact be able to affect how you craft the bylaws in your community. That's a concern, and I'm sure that's a concern for the people in Westbank as well. It's been raised with us by even those who promote and support the bill.

The appointment of the boards, who shall appoint those boards, how shall the boards be constituted, what powers and authority should those boards have and should they in fact have the authority to alter the bylaws of a community just so they can participate in this shared risk borrowing, the first nations financial authority--those are some of the reasons, Mr. Chairman, that we sought to amend article 5, to delete the prescriptive, detailed language. We don't accept, frankly, the argument we heard from our technical advisers here. We believe the language we put forward would give satisfaction to those who would want to be certain that accountability and transparency, administrative capacity, and structure are in fact in place, that the prerequisites are in place so that the lending agencies would know that they're dealing with a trustworthy and established political structure.

A first nation shall be the one, though, to determine how it wishes to give fair and proper legal notice in terms of making a law under paragraphs 4(1)(a) to (c). In other words, in making bylaws, in passing rules, in serving notice that such bylaws and rules have been made, it will be the first nation who decides what's fair and proper legal notice. There's a huge, huge range of ways to give notice. Some people aren't satisfied unless you publish something in the Globe and Mail. The government's own standard is very, very low. When they give notice about a consultation in a community, they go in the day before and staple a notice onto a telephone pole and say, tomorrow night we're going to have a consultation on Bill C-7; see you there. Then when nobody comes, they can still brag that they had a full consultation in that community. Well, that's not adequate notice. Somebody should bind the government to a set of rules similar to the rules you intend to push onto first nations.

By the same token, if you are going to respect the inherent right to self-government and self-determination, don't be crafting legislation in the year 2003 that dictates--as we found in Bill C-7--where meetings should be held, how often they should be held, and, as Mr. Loubier and I used to joke, what they shall serve to the guests, be it tea, coffee, or milk, or whether there should be cookies provided. That's how prescriptive Bill C-7 got, and we see the same pattern in this bill here.

So we're adamant, Mr. Chairman, that we will seek amendments to this bill that will remove some of that language and that will also satisfy the very legitimate concerns about the composition of the board of directors of these four new fiscal institutions and the powers, the authorities, of those boards.

À (1040)

Elsewhere in legislation--under labour legislation, for instance--the powers of the arbitrator are seriously--

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: For those of you observing this meeting wondering why the chair allows members to ramble on, on everything but what the amendment is before us, it's because the chair is held hostage. If I interrupt too often, then some of the members may choose to use the subamendment game to get another 20 minutes and there's no end to it. That's why I'm enduring those 10 minutes--as you are. I know I should be interrupting every time we're not talking to the amendment. I happen to know that; I just can't do it.

NDP-29.

Point of order, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chairman, I don't think it's the role of the chair to add editorial comments on the merits of what you've heard. If you choose not to do your job and hold speakers to the subject matter at hand, that's your choice--

The Chair: That's not a point or order.

Mr. Pat Martin: The point of order is that you've commented that what they've just heard is rambling, as if it has no merit.

The Chair: That's a ruling I would impose if I would do my job.

Mr. Pat Martin: The point of order is the chairman is supposed to be a neutral bystander.

The Chair: Mr. Martin, we're starting the clock on NDP-29, page 36.

Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chairman, NDP-29 I will explain.

I think there are people here who actually are interested in what I have to say, Mr. Chairman, even if you are not. If you're not interested in aboriginal rights, etc., I don't know why you're the chair of this committee, to tell you the truth. If it irritates you that I'm taking my full 10 minutes to explain the shortcomings of this bill, it's because others weren't given any opportunity to explain their opposition to this bill. If you don't like what you're hearing, that's not my problem, but a chair is not supposed to be.... You used to interrupt witnesses sometimes and correct them on their opinions of things. That really goes beyond the role of a chairman.

In NDP amendment number 29, we seek to amend Bill C-19 in clause 5 by deleting lines 8 to 13 on page 8. Lines 8 to 13 on page 8 are really subclause (4), which says:

Before making a law under any of paragraphs 4(1)(a) to (c), the council of a first nation shall consider any representations that were made in accordance with paragraph (3)(c)...

--if you like, I can fall back to read paragraph (3)(c), if you're interested, Mr. Chairman--

or at a meeting referred to in paragraph (3)(d).

Again, there's an onus, a burden here put on first nations to very specifically comply with the detailed outlined process in paragraphs 4(1)(a) through (c), and “consider any representations”. They're bound to consider any representations made through a consultation process.

We're not bound by those same rules, I point out, Mr. Chairman. We're held to a much lower standard. As the House of Commons Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, we seem to be held to a lower standard than you seek to bind. I say “you” because you've already demonstrated your clear bias in favour of this legislation and jeopardized the impartiality, or you've made it clear you're not an impartial chair. You're clearly a biased chair who's promoting and pushing this legislation. So when I say “you”, I mean you and your government seek to hold first nations to a much higher standard than we ourselves are held at this committee in terms of what first nations can or cannot do, or will or will not do, or shall or shall not do.

There's no enabling language that talks about seeking the larger objective. It doesn't state the objective and then tell the first nation to take steps to ensure that these goals or these objectives are met. Instead, in kindergarten style it outlines very specifically, chapter and verse, exactly what will be done at the directive of the minister. If these terms are not met, I suppose the minister then has an absolute right, as always in any Indian Act legislation, the absolute right to intervene and to make these things so.

When we seek to delete lines 8 to 13, it's a clear deletion, a simple deletion that would take away any such reference. Rather than trying to replace this language with something that more accurately reflects the modern-day view of a mature relationship between first nations and the federal government, rather than trying to create a 21st century document, we decided not to suggest any other language at all. We simply seek to delete this language because we don't believe it reflects the new evolving and I believe maturing process in the opinion the federal government has toward first nations.

There are two schools of thought, I think, within the federal government. One is that we have to get out from under this fiduciary obligation because the courts are killing us. Every time we go to court we lose, consistently, and it's costing us a fortune. Therefore we have to take immediate specific steps to get out from under this crippling financial burden because we can't carry this any more. That's one point of view.

À (1045)

Another point of view that exists within the Department of Indian Affairs is that our past experience when dealing with aboriginal people has been nothing more than 130 years of social tragedy. We're embarrassed as a nation at our failure to deal honourably with aboriginal people. Specific attempts to wipe these people out have failed. Now let's find a mature 21st century way to alter the relationship between first nations and the federal government. Those are the competing camps within DIAND, within INAC, and within cabinet: expediency to get out from under the financial burden versus doing the right and honourable thing.

Expediency is winning out in these twilight hours of a dying regime. There's very little time left for the current Prime Minister to bring to fruition his unique vision of what needs to be done with the Indian problem. He has very little time left. He's running out of weeks. If he plans on making manifest the concepts of the 1969 white paper, he has very few days left to do it. His suite of legislation is exactly that, with the current Minister of Indian Affairs the willing dupe, happy to be brought into cabinet, happy to go along with whatever the Prime Minister had in mind in terms of, as I say, his unique but terribly tragically outdated and sad view of what needs to be done in terms of bringing aboriginal people into full participation in the Canadian mainstream economy. I'll say “economy” because that's the context we find ourselves debating with this bill. Making first nations and aboriginal people full partners in the Canadian economy is the goal and objective here.

So when we move amendments to this bill, as we have in NDP-29, to delete language that again outlines--in the previous amendment, Mr. Chair, I'm sure you made note that we not only sought to delete lines 14 to 42, but we also sought to delete lines 1 through 7 of page 8. All of the preceding language leading up to line 8 we sought to delete. Unfortunately, that amendment failed. We're stuck with that language now. This amendment seeks to delete lines 8 through 13--in other words, the next five lines--which we find to be in a similar vein, which we find to be as problematic as the language we sought to delete in the previous clause.

I don't fully understand why this clause is debatable when others have been deemed not debatable, when it seeks to delete but does not seek to replace language with anything else. It seems an arbitrary thing what's allowed to be debated and what's not allowed to be debated. Usually the rule of thumb is if it says “NDP” on the top we don't debate it. If it says “government” on the top we do debate it. That seems to be the rule of thumb.

Again, as the government pushes for time and seeks to find the time to bring this bill through all of its stages in the House of Commons, I think they're getting more bold in terms of process and breaching what anyone would consider to be normal due process at this level, this highest level, of government. You would think the standing committee on aboriginal affairs of the federal government would be held to a higher standard, that we would want to hear the full picture, not just the opinion of the government bureaucrats, not just the opinion of the Minister of Indian Affairs, but the opinion of the very first nations who will be affected and impacted by this, and again those witnesses not to be lopsided.

What we do have is a very clear resolution of November 2002 from the Assembly of First Nations at their national assembly. I attended that assembly, and it was abundantly clear by the resolution--I will read it into the record when I have more time--that they oppose Bill C-19 for a number of reasons.

À (1050)

So who are we going to listen to? Now the leadership has changed. I've made it clear that we are happy to take direction from the legitimately elected leadership of the Assembly of First Nations. That's the gesture we've made.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Are we ready for the question?

Mr. Pat Martin: [Inaudible--Editor]

The Chair: The intent in offering the mover the last say is to rebut what others have said in between. I won't argue; I'll let you win again. But I do find it unreasonable that you will burn another 10 minutes when no one else has spoken on it.

You have closing remarks.

Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chairman, I found it unreasonable when the government moved time allocation to limit debate on not only Bill C-7 but all future bills. This committee is one of the only committees in the House of Commons that doesn't allow free and open debate on issues. It moves time allocation.

The Chair: The time allocation spent five months on one bill. Don't accuse me of cutting people off. We've given you more time than you deserve. Therefore, let's be respectful here.

Mr. Pat Martin: That, as well, is an editorial comment. I don't think it's up to you to decide whether my comments are--

The Chair: You can take jabs and I'll take them back. I'm not going to just sit here and take the abuse from you. It has to be a two-way street.

Mr. Pat Martin: It's not abuse, Mr. Chairman. I'm accusing you of being clearly biased by pushing this--

The Chair: I'm accusing you of wasting our time and wasting money and not talking to the issues.

I'll back off now. We'll start the clock over.

Mr. Pat Martin: I can't understand why you're so hostile.

The Chair: Because you're wasting my time.

Mr. Pat Martin: Well, that's again an editorial comment.

I think you would benefit from some of the things I was saying if you would open your ears, if you would listen. Many presenters before this committee have implored this committee: “Listen to what we're saying”. But nobody has. They only listen to the minister, who is only listening to the Prime Minister. They're not listening to Indians. That would be unique. That would be novel if you'd clean out your ears and listen to some Indians, Mr. Chairman. That would be unique and refreshing for all of us, because then we could have a substantive debate about this issue and not have to play silly bugger with the rules in order to have things heard properly before this committee.

We're talking about maybe one of the most divisive pieces of legislation to come.... Well, the first real amendment to the Indian Act in 50 years is this suite of legislation as we alter the Indian Act and put in place new enabling legislation ostensibly to change and revisit the fiscal relationship between first nations and the federal government. We had hoped it would have been part of a maturing process. It's not a maturing process; it's been a disaster. It's been an unmitigated disaster. It's been the most divisive, destructive exercise this government has undertaken in its mandate.

It's created hostility. It's created a whole generation of activists in the same way the 1969 white paper was so offensive that it spawned a whole generation of first nation youth to essentially take to the streets and to get smart and to get educated and to get proficient in the rules that were affecting their lives. That was perhaps the only positive consequence of the 1969 white paper.

By the same token, this suite of legislation has had the same uniting effect on first nations activists across the country, aboriginal people who have been united in their opposition to this bill, united in their opposition to this suite of legislation. And it's been heartening. It's been an encouraging thing. I met young aboriginal people across the country at the Assembly of First Nations national assembly, for instance, in Edmonton just this year, where so many young people were motivated and mobilized in their opposition to what was being done to them. Again, that's the operative word: it's being done “to them” instead of “with them”.

Here we find an extension of that same hostility manifesting itself in the grumpiness of the chair--as is not unusual--but also as evidenced by the interest that's been expressed to us from across the country that as much as they did not want Bill C-7, they suspect Bill C-19 is an extension of Bill C-7, or an integral aspect of Bill C-7, and none of it is acceptable. It's unacceptable for any number of reasons.

The fact is they deliberately left out a non-derogation clause. Now, as a carpenter I know you sometimes leave out one thing so the building inspector will find it and then you fix that one thing and the building inspector is happy. Well, we suspect that's what the government has done with the non-derogation clause. I suspect they will allow it when that amendment comes forward. I believe my colleague with the Bloc Québécois has proposed language that would satisfy most people, and it will in fact have a non-derogation clause.

But the very fact that it was left out deliberately, consciously, even after the debate around the absence of a non-derogation clause in Bill C-7, the fact they would leave it out of Bill C-19 again doesn't speak very well for what the intentions of the government are. Let's face it, that's a slap in the face. It's an insult. It's saying “You may have forced it into this bill, but don't think you're going to get it into subsequent bills without a fight”.

It shouldn't be the subject of a fight. It should be a stated objective up front that in no way do we mean to diminish or affect or infringe upon inherent treaty rights by this legislation, so that some jurist down the road, after we're all dead and buried--or at least unelected--and there's no one there left to testify, can look back to the historic record and say the government didn't mean to infringe upon inherent rights, because it said so, right here in the preamble or right here in the text of the legislation. They can look back to the historic record and see it says that it is not our intention to infringe upon rights so that some future jurist can rule that way.

À (1055)

In the absence of that language, maybe it is the intention of the government to infringe upon inherent treaty rights. Maybe it is the intention of the government to try to relieve itself of the burden of the fiduciary obligations it currently has, and which the courts have upheld consistently, time and time and time again.

They're getting tired of being slapped around by the courts. They're getting tired of being told by the courts to make good on the fiduciary obligations. I don't blame them for being sick of losing so many expensive cases, time and time and time again. You'd think they'd learn. You'd think they'd start to incorporate what they've heard and what they've read. They claim that Bill C-7, the whole FNGA, in fact stemmed from being in compliance with directives of the court.

In actual fact, Mr. Chairman, the way it's crafted, there's more to be concerned about in Bill C-19 than meets the eye. We don't think it's in the spirit of cooperation or in the spirit of being in compliance with recent Supreme Court rulings. Why don't we have The Pas here, the Opaskwayak Cree Nation, to explain to us perhaps their experience, their recent experience? They're authorities in revenue generation through taxation, leases, and land rental, etc. I think their input would be invaluable to this committee.

That's the stage we should be at in this committee, had we not been so dogged by.... Had the government not been so bloodied and bruised by their experience of Bill C-7, they may have given Bill C-19 the attention it deserves. But because these things are linked together, unfortunately these bills are painted with the same brush.

Here's a suggestion, and it will come up later. In the context of deleting this particular clause, deleting lines 8 to 13 on page 8, it begs the question, if we clearly itemized which first nations communities wished to avail themselves of these measures and listed them, as we did with the land management act, you might not find this objection. Then those communities, with their eyes open, would be going into an exercise of shared risk or financial capitalization, or whatever you want to call it, without affecting the main body of other first nations.

That's how the First Nations Land Management Act was handled. They listed the 13 or 14 first nations that wished to be involved. And since then 70 or 80 or 90 more have actually come on board, once they saw there was something there they wanted to participate in. Why wasn't that the model we would use to...? Had this bill been tabled separately, in isolation, and been structured in such a way that it listed those communities that wanted to participate, I don't think you'd be having this acrimonious debate that we're having over this bill, Mr. Chairman.

So as we seek to delete, I think you're going to find other amendments, proposals by myself and other opposition parties, as we plow through this particular bill, that seek to delete specific language.

I think it's useful to revisit, to stay on topic here, the fact that we're talking about clause 5 and deleting lines 8 to 13: “Before making a law under any of paragraphs 4(1)(a) to (c), the council of a first nation shall consider any representations that were made in accordance with paragraph 3(c) or at a meeting referred to in paragraph 3(d).” So 4(1)(a) to (c) were the subject of previous amendments that the NDP introduced and tried to achieve, Mr. Chairman.

Á (1100)

If you'll remember, Mr. Chairman, that was respecting the taxation for local purposes of reserve lands, interests in reserve lands, or rights to occupy, possess, or use reserve lands, including the assessment of the value of those lands, interests, and rights; a mechanism to establish tax rates and apply them to the assessed value of those lands, interests, and rights; the taxation for the provision of services in respect to reserve lands; the taxation of business activities on reserve lands; and the imposition of development cost charges--

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

We'll go directly to the question on amendment NDP-29 on page 36.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 5 agreed to on division)

The Chair: Before we go to amendment NDP-30, which deals with clause 6, I understand there has been discussion by some members of the opposition, the department, and members of government throughout the summer about non-derogation and lists. If there have been some even informal agreements, or if there is something we can work with so that you can talk to one another, maybe the parliamentary secretary and members of the opposition, as Mr. Martin mentioned, then that would save a lot of other problems.

If we go through all the problems and then find out we had agreements, that would be very disappointing, so I am just inviting you, if there is any way to reach agreements, to share that with others so we can move on. The chair at least would appreciate that.

Mr. Hubbard.

Á (1105)

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are working toward that initiative. As we did with Bill C-7, we will certainly be attempting to apply that principle.

The Chair: On this issue, Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: On this issue, just so that I understand the rules of the game, in order for that to happen, to be able to introduce an amendment at this stage of the process, would there have to be unanimous agreement from the committee?

The Chair: Assuming there was agreement on a list, I would ask the committee for permission to deal with that amendment right away. If it affects other amendments, then it would save us some work. I will not accept new amendments, but if it means dealing with one amendment earlier, with the consent of the committee, that may be something we could benefit from.

(On clause 6—Further representations)

The Chair: Amendment NDP-30 on page 37.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chairman, amendment NDP-30 is seeking to amend clause 6 by replacing lines 17 to 24 with the following:

Commission, the council shall consider proper and appropriate ways to ensure that the passage of the law is known to those people with an interest in knowing it or that the law may have proper effect.

Now, that has to be taken in context, Mr. Chairman. It's our intention to delete lines 17 to 24, and the word “Commission” at the beginning of our amendment of course finishes the phrase, “First Nations Tax Commission”.

It's our intention to change this bill in clause 6 by taking away the language that says the council shall:

(a) provide a copy of the law to any persons who made representations under paragraph 5(3)(c); and

(b) invite those persons to make written representations to the Commission within 30 days after the day on which they receive the copy of the law.

Again, this entire chapter, Mr. Chairman, is to remind people listening--I'm sure there are people who are having a difficult time following this--that we're dealing with part 1 of the bill, entitled “First Nations Fiscal Powers”. In that context, clauses 5 and 6 describe what a council of a first nation shall and shall not do regarding the First Nations Tax Commission. Clause 5 talks about how the commission “may exempt a first nation from the requirements of subsection (1)”, etc., and clause 6, where we find ourselves now, outlines and describes what shall happen “when the council of a first nation sends a property taxation law or a law made under paragraph 4(1)(c) to the First Nations Tax Commission”. There's a very prescriptive, detailed outline of what shall happen then, when the First Nations Tax Commission acts.

We argue that the language we suggest achieves the same thing without that detailed, prescriptive language. We suggest that the First Nations Tax Commission shall consider proper and appropriate ways to ensure that the passage of the law is known to those people with an interest in it, not to make a photocopy and distribute it to any persons who made representations, as proposed by the government, and not to invite every person to make written representations to the commission within 30 days, etc., as proposed by the government. As we trust them to be educated and responsible people, we suggest that the council shall consider proper and appropriate ways to ensure that the passing of the law is made known to those people who have an interest in knowing it.

You know, we found in previous language, Mr. Chairman, that there was a burden and an obligation put on first nations higher than any other institution in the country in that they would have to make things known and available to anyone who asked, including you or me or some non-aboriginal person. For instance, in the accountability section of Bill C-7, they would have to make their audited statements known to anyone who asked at any time. We had to debate whether that should be in writing, or how many copies you would have to make, or who would pay the postage if somebody from Nova Scotia, say, demanded to see the audited financial statements of the Westbank First Nation. Does Westbank First Nation have to jump up and send off their audited financial statements by courier, by overnight express, to Nova Scotia?

Well, that's the kind of burden we're trying to avoid here. In Bill C-7 that language still exists because our attempts to amend that failed. As it stands, it's still on the books. Here it dictates that any time the First Nations Tax Commission approves something, the council then has to provide a copy of the law to any person who made representation. Even if it was a bunch of redneck hillbillies, who only came to oppose it, you'd have to send them out a copy of it. It invites any person who is interested in it to make written representations to the commission.

Again, I would point out that these are binding. When it's legislation, when it's federal legislation approved by the House of Commons of Canada, these are binding obligations, and the failure to comply has consequences. Why would you hog-tie a band and council to such a burden?

Á (1110)

Our language recognizes that certainly a council has an obligation to make anyone who has an interest aware that a bylaw has been passed, but we'll leave it up to them to decide how they're going to disseminate that information. Maybe it will be through their band council newsletter. And it won't be to anyone and everyone who has an interest in it. Who cares if the critic from the NDP phones up and demands to know this and that? If they don't choose to send it out, they don't have to, and there's no obligation to do so.

Certainly within their own band council and governance structure there's an obligation to make people aware of the bylaws and so on that affect the population of the community. Well, that obligation would continue, but in the context of their own customs and traditions and rules and bylaws as created by a self-governing institution, not as dictated by us in this room, or worse, by the minister of Indian Affairs, or even worse, by the Prime Minister, who we believe is ultimately orchestrating this whole exercise. If we believe in self-governance and self-determination, why aren't we willing to give bands and councils the right to determine how they will speak to interested parties affected by the implementation of certain bylaws to do with the First Nations Tax Commission?

The clause would then read:

When the council of a first nation sends a property taxation law or a law made under paragraph 4(1)(c) to the First Nations Tax Commission for its approval, the council shall consider proper and appropriate ways to ensure that the passage of the law is known to those people with an interest in knowing it or that the law may have proper effect.

So anyone affected by this law has to be notified. If somebody has a summer cottage on the reserve under lease, and the tax levy changes on that summer cottage, obviously they need to be informed and advised. But some kid doing a paper at a university somewhere across the country doesn't have a right of access to this information, and neither is that a fair burden to saddle the community with. They'll tell those people who were affected, they'll tell those people who are members of their community, and they'll meet that standard, but without the prescriptive language we find in clause 6. I think it's a reasonable thing, and it's important in that it changes the tone of the legislation in a very important way.

The language we use is very important, especially when you're dealing with issues that are incredibly sensitive in terms of the relationship between the Crown and the federal government, and in fact the Crown and first nations, whose relations have never been more strained. You'd think we'd be using an abundance of caution to check our language, to put the language we use through a screen to make sure that it's culturally sensitive, that it's respectful, and that it accurately reflects the flowery language we always put in the preamble of these bills--for instance, that we recognize the right to self-governance and self-determination; that this government acknowledges the right of bands and councils for first nations and whatever governance structure they use to determine these things; and that we should be reducing the number of incidents where the government dictates these things, not enhancing them and adding to that body of legislation that's already far too expansive.

If we allow this simple amendment, we believe there will be no downside in terms of achieving what the original clause purports to want to achieve, and that is to ensure that affected parties have adequate notice of a change in property taxation law to any change that's been sent to the first nations tax authority for its approval. Certainly, people have a right to know, but we'll leave it up to the community to decide. The legitimately elected council of the community will consider proper and appropriate ways to ensure that the passage of a law is made known to those people who have an interest in it, in knowing that law, or that the law may have proper effect.

In fact, Mr. Chairman, it probably should say “those who”.

Á (1115)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Anyone else?

Are we ready for the question?

Mr. Martin, ten minutes.

Mr. Pat Martin: Perhaps I could clarify some of the points I was trying to make in the context of the broader discussion we've been having regarding the first nations governance initiative.

What concerns us most is that instead of getting them out from under the Indian Act, instead of getting them out from under the absolute authority of the minister, language in this bill seems to be adding to the discretionary authority of the minister. Instead of reducing the effect of the minister and the absolute power of the minister, it seems to be augmenting and adding to it.

What was worrisome to us, Mr. Chairman--and I've been looking everywhere for the quote from the Senate committee--is where the minister himself said to the Senate committee, “You don't expect the government to pay for all this, do you?” Surely you don't expect the government to be on the hook, if you will, or to foot the bill for aboriginal people to take their rightful place in the mainstream economy of this country.

What he was saying, or certainly what many people read into that, is that we are actively looking for ways to get out from under the burden we find ourselves under. We all know there's important work to be done. We all know that to solve the situations of third world poverty there has to be substantial investment in infrastructure, because without that infrastructure there will not be substantial investment in economic development. So we're at the ground level of development here, not unlike a third world country in many situations, Mr. Chairman, where a lot of work needs to be done before any investment will take place. The fiduciary obligation, as we understand it, has it that the federal government is on the hook for at least those basic investments: infrastructure, etc.

What we're concerned about now are the very revealing recent comments the minister made at the Senate, which I will have in my hand shortly, which you'll be interested in, Mr. Chairman. The minister, we believe, showed his cards. It's worrisome to me that he showed his cards. It is the intention of the minister to try to relieve some of the financial burden, the $7 billion a year that he's so fond of citing and that we hear opposition parties harping on.

The contrast is so glaring to me. We spend $14 billion a year on our military for 50,000 people, and we spend $7 billion a year for a million people, to meet all of their basic needs, and then people are shocked and alarmed that it's too much. Well, substantially more money needs to be invested, Mr. Chairman, unless we're satisfied with a permanent underclass in our society, unless we have come to the realization that--

Á (1120)

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Chair, I have a point of order concerning the insult the member just made to our military people. I think the record shouldn't reflect--

The Chair: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Pat Martin: No, it's not a point of order, Mr. Chairman. It's not even close to a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, the point I was making, of course, is that there are those who are concerned that this entire package, this particular clause of this particular bill, is part of a trend, an initiative on the part of the federal government that should really be titled completely differently. Instead of the first nations governance initiative, it's the get-out-from-under-our-financial-obligations initiative, and that's what people certainly find suspect.

We were told on the one hand that Bill C-19 stood on its own, and on the other hand, we were told it was part of the same legislative package as Bill C-7. I'd be interested in knowing from the parliamentary secretary if it's the intention of this government to go ahead with Bill C-19 when it's obvious that Bill C-7 will not be going ahead, at least in its current form. Even in recent meetings this week, the newly elected chief of the Assembly of First Nations made it abundantly clear that he does not support Bill C-7, he never has, and he never will. So the former elected officers of the Assembly of First Nations rejected it soundly; the newly elected officers of the Assembly of First Nations reject it soundly. If the two are to be connected, Mr. Chairman, how are we going to move one forward without the other? I predict that you can't have one without the other. They're inexorably linked in many ways without substantial amendment, and the way things are going, it doesn't seem to be the mood of this committee to allow any substantive amendments.

We need to ask ourselves whether the minister's comments about using other means to accomplish the objectives of Bill C-7 do not also apply to Bill C-19. That's a question this committee should be concerned about. Witnesses told the committee it was not the institutions that were offensive to them, but rather, the legislative base they would be provided by Bill C-19.

We were told that the institutions are already being funded; in fact, they're all up and running, and that begs the question from a public accounts point of view, if this bill is the enabling legislation that creates these four institutions, how is it that they're currently spending millions of dollars a year and have staff and offices? There are business cards printed, there's staff. It begs the question, isn't this the cart and the horse situation? If we're debating now whether or not we should create these four financial institutions, who are these people here in their offices and the $25-million budgets? There's something we're not being told about this whole picture. Staff have been hired, their offices rented, and all this without parliamentary approval, without spending warrants.

That's why the big push here--it's after the fact, let's get it approved after the fact--because I think the minister knows he's in hot water. He had no authority, no direction of Parliament, to create these institutions. They technically don't exist, yet the spending is going on as we speak. A whole constituency of interest has been created by the minister, Mr. Chairman, consisting of 100 or so employees and board members, and they're lobbying aggressively. When we hear from first nations people lobbying in favour of Bill C-19, more often than not they're being paid for it. They're salaried staff of the four institutions that we're here to create. They already exist, believe me, because that's most of the phone calls and most of the lobbying that members have been getting.

If these boards and institutions are already up and running, he's clearly found the money. I don't know where he's found it. Why should he insist on creating division by creating Bill C-19 if these institutions already exist?

The objections that we find over and over to Bill C-19, including the clause that I seek to amend in NDP-30, is the municipal language, the municipal-style thinking, which represents a very limited view of the rights and the distinct place that first nations have in Canada. That's why I lament the fact that we haven't matured, to the point where in the year 2003 we're still writing documents that would easily and comfortably fit into the colonial days of pre-Confederation, essentially. We haven't matured in our thinking; we've been left behind by progressive thought. This committee is in some kind of time warp.

There is progressive work being done out there; there are admirable people doing bold and innovative and creative things. There are well-educated people on the first nations side who avail themselves of the access program, etc. There's a generation of young, bright, progressive aboriginal people doing exciting things. But the legislation we're mired in doesn't reflect that, and that's one of the biggest frustrations I find myself dealing with.

Á (1125)

You heard it too, Mr. Chair, at the committee hearings of Bill C-7. Witnesses objected to the minister's characterization of Bill C-19 as being the solution to what he himself termed the “web of poverty and desperation”.

The committee should be calling expert witnesses on this issue. To what degree will Bill C-19 reduce the unacceptable poverty suffered by so many first nations? We need to see that. And what is the degree to which taxation and bond issues will affect first nations poverty? I'm not talking about to what degree it will allow already successful and progressive first nations from moving even further; I'm talking about how it will help Shamattawa or Pukatawagan or Red Sucker Lake or Pauingassi, communities that have virtually no hope or possibility of having a revenue stream generated by taxation.

This is the same spirit, the same mind-set, in which many non-aboriginal people would be happy to leave Indians behind and to accept the fact that we will have a permanent underclass in our society. It's almost that same logic, it seems, where some successful first nations are willing to move forward and leave behind the others who have not been fortunate enough to be sitting on land that is desirable or that they can glean revenue from. It's just not acceptable.

Mr. Chairman, as I wrap up on my amendment to clause 6, one of the largest fears is that as we direct our attention and energy to this bill, we take energy and resources away from--

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

We'll go directly to the question on NDP-30 on page 37.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 6 agreed to)

(On clause 7--Information accompanying property taxation law)

The Chair: We're now on clause 7, page 35, NDP-31, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chair, we're trying to amend this clause by replacing lines 25 to 44 on page 8 and lines 1 to 35 on page 9 with a simple five-line paragraph. If you'll work with me, Mr. Chairman, what we're trying to delete is 19 lines of text on page 8 and 35 lines of text on page 9. I won't read that language, unless you want me to, but I think you'll agree that clause 7 would be cleaner, more precise, and easier to understand if the intent of all that cumbersome language is encapsulated in the following:

7. A property taxation law--including an amendment of a property taxation law or a law made under paragraph 4(1)(c)--shall, as a council deems appropriate, include such details as are needed for the law to be just, fair and effective.

I think you'll admire the economy of language used there, Mr. Chairman. We should be speaking in plain language and saying what we really mean. I thought it was a new initiative of the federal government to try to revisit legislation and render it in language that is more easily understood by those affected by the bill. I'm not saying anybody reading the bill is too dumb to understand the current language, I think we understand it full well, but I also think, if members take the time to study this, you'll agree that we can achieve the same overall goal and objective that all this ponderous language on pages 8 and 9 seeks to achieve with far less language and without a lot of the things we find in addition to the main goal of the bill. If the intention of clause 7, which we are seeking to amend here, is to ensure that any property taxation law includes all such details as are needed for the law to be just, fair, and effective, why don't we say so? Why don't we simply say that, instead of dragging us through all the specific, prescriptive language we currently find in this page and a half of ponderous text?

For the benefit of the council, which I guess it is assumed will not be just, fair, and effective unless it is directed to be so, it outlines in wondrous detail here what a property taxation law shall be accompanied by. In part, it says any property taxation law shall be accompanied by “a description of the lands, interests or rights subject to the law; a description of the assessment practices to be applied to each class of land, interest or right; information regarding services to be provided from local revenues, existing service agreements and any service agreement negotiations under way at the time the law was made; a description of the notices that were given....” I don't disagree that all these things should be included; I do disagree that they have to be itemized here in federal legislation. We're not writing regulations here, we're writing legislation. This is law, this is an Act of Parliament dictating that when you initiate a property taxation law, you should really include any service agreements that are currently under way, or even under negotiation at the time it's being enacted. Surely, that's a matter for regulation, not legislation. That is my first point, Mr. Chairman, as we move forward with this particular clause.

It goes on for another full page actually. It's not only page 8. It's also lines 1 to 35 of page 9.

Á (1130)

It goes on to say:

The First Nations Tax Commission may exempt a first nation from the requirements of subsection (1) in respect of an amendment of a property taxation law if the Commission considers that the amendment is not significant.

Again, do we need that level of minutiae in legislation? Again, this should be perhaps part of the codes and practices or the operating guidelines of the First Nations Tax Commission. It may be found in regulations, it may found elsewhere in the bill, but surely not in such minute detail at this point in time

As to “Accompanying information”, subclause 7(3), again, we're dealing with the powers of the fiscal institutions:

A law made under paragraph 4(1)(c), when submitted to the First Nations Tax Commission for approval, shall be accompanied by

and it lists what other things you have to stuff in the envelope. It really reminds me of the Volkswagen“Guide for Idiots”. It's almost that patronizing in its tone--these are things you will do, shall do, the minister says you have to do--instead of a broad general statement that the council shall include such details as are needed for the law to be just, fair, and effective. In creating these amendments, that's all we need to say, Mr. Chairman. It would be simpler to reduce the text.

The final thing it would address, in lines 25 to 35, is “Additional information on request”. Do we really need to say in an Act of Parliament that “at the request of the First Nations Tax Commission, a first nation shall provide any documents that the Commission requires in order to review a local revenue law; to determine that the law was made in accordance with this Act, the regulations or any standards made under subsection 33(1); perform any of its other functions under this Act”?

All of the above concerns could be satisfied with a simple amendment, Mr. Chairman, with all that language compressed into one efficient, economical paragraph. In fact, I'd be willing to move a subamendment to make it even cleaner, Mr. Chairman, that “a property taxation law or a law made under paragraph 4(1)(c) shall, as a council deems appropriate, include such details as are needed for the law to be just, fair, and effective for the purposes of their community.”

Á (1135)

The Chair: Mr. Martin, did you move a subamendment? You said you would be willing. Are you moving it or not?

Mr. Pat Martin: Not at this time, Mr. Chairman.

How is my time?

The Chair: You have two minutes.

Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chairman, the intention is to clarify the language in the bill to reduce some of the apprehensions that exist in the communities. Those who are opposed to this bill really oppose it, are very opposed to it. We're seeing the same level of rancour developing out there as we saw over Bill C-7. We expect that these rooms will be full of people again, and we remember the all-night sessions and the mobilization that took place. Those who opposed Bill C-7 are just as committed to blocking and opposing Bill C-19 if they don't see substantial amendments.

I don't like the direction this is going so far, Mr. Chairman. I don't sense any good will on the part of the Liberal Party on this. Let me make it abundantly clear, it's not those members present, because I think there is good will among some of the members present, but they're definitely being whipped into a certain course of action by the outgoing regime, which seeks to achieve what it couldn't achieve fair and square with the 1969 white paper and to at least make some inroads before he leaves office. So as we find ourselves debating Bill C-19 again, it can't be in isolation, it has to be in the context of the larger picture. Until we get some clear evidence that the majority of first nations, through their own political structures, approve of Bill C-19, you're going to see the mobilization of activists across the country to oppose this bill.

The Chair: Mr. Martin, thank you.

Are you ready for the question?

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 7 agreed to)

(On clause 8--Financial administration laws)

The Chair: On clause 8, NDP-32, page 39, is not accepted by the chair, as it is beyond the scope of the bill.

(Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to)

(On clause 10--No repeal by borrowing members)

The Chair: On clause 10, we have G-4, page 40. Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On page 11, subclause 10(3), we have a replacement under “Financial commitment” reading as follows:

The borrowing member shall, in every year, reserve such local revenues as are required to ensure that all amounts authorized to be paid to the First Nations Finance Authority in the year are actually paid in that year.

I would ask our officials to briefly explain the change in wording for subclause 10(3).

Mr. Gordon Shanks: This amendment is necessary to make it very clear that not only must a first nation budget the local revenues for payments, but it also must reserve the funds within their funding regimes, so that there is no mistaking that the priority for these payments is to the First Nations Finance Authority. The financial markets have indicated to us that the establishment of priority to the finance authority is a necessary condition for supporting an investment grade rated bond issued by the authority.

Á (1140)

The Chair: Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: That's all, thank you. I'm ready for the vote.

The Chair: Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: I have a question for the officials that perhaps goes beyond this amendment. Would third-party management exclude a band from participation in any way in this scheme? Is that addressed in any way, shape, or form by this bill?

Mr. Gordon Shanks: Mr. Duncan, if you mean whether, if a first nation is under third-party management under the current funding arrangements with the government, it may be not eligible, the bill provides a very extensive review process by the financial management board on the conditions of how a first nation is managed. It would be an empirical question, but it would be highly unlikely that a first nation that's under third-party management would meet the conditions the financial management board would require for it to be certified as a well-run and well-managed first nation.

Mr. John Duncan: I agree with that statement. It's unlikely, but in the event that a first nation fell into third-party management after such time, is that addressed in any way in the legislation?

Mr. Gordon Shanks: Yes, the legislation very clearly deals with issues of changes in management, and both the tax commission and the First Nations Finance Authority have the capacity to ask the financial management board to intervene. The financial management board can in fact become the third-party manager of a first nation under those circumstances. There are significant capacities of that board to act in the interest of the first nation if it's a member of the borrowing pool. So the legislation has a very extensive regime to deal with that.

Mr. John Duncan: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The amendments we see from the government side, largely technical ones, don't address some of the bigger pictures we've brought forward. Amendment G-4 is amending clause 10, replacing lines 10 to 15 on page 11, and I think it's instructive for everybody to look at lines 10 to 15:

A borrowing member shall not obtain long-term financing of capital infrastructure for the provision of local services on reserve lands, or for any other purpose prescribed by regulation, from any person other than the First Nations Finance Authority.

Now that's deleted. I hope I'm understanding this correctly. Under “Financial commitment” new language is proposed. In other words, the restriction on financing is to be removed entirely, which was a worrisome item. In fact, I welcome the deletion of this language, but it is substituted by a clause entitled “Financial commitment”:

That raises, Mr. Chairman, some of the concerns that have been brought to our attention, and I'd like to speak to the matter. A letter to the Globe and Mail recently, signed by the Penticton First Nation, the president of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, seven other first nations chiefs and grand chiefs, the chiefs of Ontario, and the chief of the Six Nations of the Grand River, said:

Innu leader Peter Penashue's sad need for a hockey rink for his new Labrador community will not be met by any of the proposed federal legislation for new “fiscal institutions”. What are the chances for that community of selling bonds on Wall Street? How will the bonds be retired? From a non-existent tax base?

This speaks directly to this amendment, Mr. Chairman.

They go on to say:

What a cruel joke. For The Globe and Mail to suggest that the government's initiative is “good news” is even more cruel. What is “good news” about “giving” native communities the means to finance their own developments? Historically, governments have appropriated all natural resources, stripping from First Nations the means through which they have always maintained themselves. Now reduced to poverty, First Nations are told they are “free” to finance their own developments.

In other words, instead of recognizing a sharing of natural resources and lands and assets, the shift is that we'll take all the natural resources and leave you with nothing, and now you are free to finance your own developments with what little you have left. It is a cruel joke. So there's very little good news associated with that.

They go on to say:

We agree that building of First Nations communities should not rest forever in federal hands. It wouldn't be there now if governments had dealt honourably with our people. Until federal taxpayers insist that governments return a fair share of resources and prosperity to First Nations, the costs of maintaining Third World communities in shameful circumstances will continue to rise.

Indian Affairs Minister Robert Nault's policies are not at all innovative--they are regressive, deceptive, and are being railroaded through Parliament with total disregard for democratic principles and in the face of widespread opposition from most First Nations.

It is the government's stubborn insistence in maintaining the current colonial environment, not the Assembly of First Nations' efforts to move into the 21st century, that keeps Canada stuck in a “time warp.”

As I say, that was sent by the chiefs of Ontario, the Six Nations of the Grand River, the Penticton First Nation and president of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, and also signed by seven other first nations chiefs and grand chiefs who were not listed in the newspaper.

It's a concern to me, Mr. Chairman, that “the borrowing member shall...reserve such local revenues as are required to ensure that all amounts authorized to be paid to the First Nations Finance Authority in the year are actually paid in that year.”

Á (1145)

In the context of what we've heard expressed and the frustration articulated so well by these chiefs, they point to the fact that we're chasing a red herring again, and we're being diverted from the real issue here. Instead of a sharing of the world's bounty and the world's resources, it's “We'll take all that and we'll leave you with a scrub patch of land that has very little value”.

However, in Bill C-7 they do have the right to sell their gravel. If you remember, Mr. Chairman, we've extended the right to manage resources to include not fish, not timber, not gold or iron ore or molybdenum or any of the resources that might be worth something, but to mud, sand, and gravel. Indians have the right to capitalize and to govern their access to that resource.

In the face of having the resources taken out from under their feet and anything of any value taken away from them, they now have the right and they are perfectly free, in our vision of equality here, to borrow money based on what they have left, which is nothing.

I don't know why they chose to use this particular example of Innu leader Peter Penashue's need for a hockey rink. I presume this letter to the editor was referring to an article in the newspaper, which was celebrating this opportunity for first nations to capitalize or to finance their own developments. They're now free to finance their own developments. In other words, the government doesn't have to. “Don't come to us looking for money for your hockey rink; go borrow it yourself on the open market. Go ask Bay Street and Wall Street like everybody else. You're free. You're equal.”

It's this bastardized version of what is equal. To treat unequal people equally is not equality. It's the antithesis of equality.

Mr. Chairman, we saw this developing. We should have seen it coming, because before amendments like the government has put forward with G-4 came forward, we followed the history or the development of this whole exercise. It began in 1996 with an AFN resolution that supported the development of a new fiscal relationship between first nations and the Government of Canada. At that time it said it was based on principles of flexibility, fairness, certainty of governmental service delivery comparable to other jurisdictions and economic incentives and efficiency.

Well, people have called that exercise busy work, that they were dispatched across the nation and told to go out there and work in round tables and develop recommendations that would be a new fiscal relationship for first nations and the Government of Canada. Their round tables were even staffed and resourced generously, some would say. Through the generosity of the federal government there was funding for it. There was great hope and optimism at this exercise in 1996, but no one really expected them to come back with the package we see before us today. This isn't what they meant, Mr. Chairman. This deviates wildly from what was anticipated and contemplated. The resolution came from the severe problems that first nations face in terms of the current fiscal relationship with the government. That's what needs to be addressed.

Financial transfers are inadequate. That's why I raised the military by way of example: that some people use scare tactics by throwing out large dollar figures of $7 billion as if, “Oh, my God, we spend a lot of money on those Indians, $7 billion a year”. Well, I'm asking Canadians to put it in context. We spend $14 billion a year on the military for 50,000 people. We spend $7 billion a year for a million people. That works out to like $7,000 a head. We spend more than that in Winnipeg per high school student for their high school education alone, never mind to provide their health and clothing and housing and education and infrastructure and sewer and water and all those other aspects.

So it's not a lot of money. In fact the financial transfers are inadequate to provide the basic needs of survival for first nations people, and we know that. But instead of resolving that, instead of taking the bull by the horns and addressing that, we're saying, “Well, you guys are short of cash. You better go out there and borrow some. We'll show you how. If you get into a jackpot, you're on your own, frankly.”

This is binding first nations to make their payments every year. Those who do.... We all know what it's like to be hitting the wall in terms of debt. This particular clause moved by the government only augments that.

The current problem with the fiscal relations with the government is that they're already subject to onerous conditions and reporting obligations. That's what the Auditor General pointed out.

Á (1150)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Anyone else?

We'll go to the question. Those in favour of G-4 on page 40?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 10 as amended agreed to on division)

The Chair: Shall clauses 11 to 15 carry? There are no amendments.

Mr. Martin, you wish to debate...? Which one?

Mr. Pat Martin: Well, first of all, as a point of order, I don't believe you can move all three of those as one motion, because if I choose to debate any one of those motions, it's not fair.

The Chair: I'll split them up, no problem. Which one do you wish to debate?

Mr. Pat Martin: Your motion was to adopt clauses 11--

The Chair: I'll backtrack. Shall clause 11 carry?

Some hon. members: Carried.

Mr. Pat Martin: Debate.

The Chair: Mr. Martin on clause 11.

(On clause 11--Legal capacity of first nations)

Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chairman, we should be cautious as a committee, and I'm appealing to other committee members to revisit clause 11, because we're dealing with the legal capacity of first nations. And that, as you know, has been one of the flashpoints and the concerns and apprehensions about this bill from day one. On the legal capacity, many communities have said this bill is broad and sweeping and comprehensive and exceeds what is even necessary.

The Chair: Excuse me for interrupting, Mr. Martin, but I hope you realize that the debate you are engaging in on clause 11.... We will not accept amendments. You're asking your colleagues to vote against clause 11, which means the elimination of clause 11 and no replacement for it. As long as you know that's what you're doing....

Á (1155)

Mr. Pat Martin: Absolutely.

Mr. Chair, there was no amendment put forward for clause 11, in part because of the time limitations. In the middle of our work with the Privacy Commissioner and the intense, all-evening meetings we were having in the government operations and estimates committee we learned that we had two days to develop amendments for Bill C-19, that the cut-off was to be Friday, June 12, I believe--I could be wrong on the date. All I know is my office could not do justice to this bill in the timeframe we had and the limited resources we have as the fourth party in opposition. We physically couldn't do it. So instead of having alternative language proposed in this bill, I am appealing to my colleagues, fellow members of this committee, to agree that this particular clause is not worthy of this bill, because it doesn't reflect the maturity, as I would like to believe, in the relationship between first nations and the federal government. The right to sue and be sued is problematic and worrisome, and it deserves to be debated in full, deserves to have witnesses brought. On that question alone we could have a national consultation process. It's too much, it doesn't belong here, I argue it shouldn't be before this committee, and I certainly argue that it shouldn't pass simply without comment and without debate. I'd be interested to hear what my colleagues on the other side have to say about this. But before we pass it, let's do this issue the justice of having that debate.

“A borrowing member has the capacity to contract and to sue and be sued”. I understand that. It was raised with us early on as one of the apprehensions about the municipalization of first nations, the first nations' view of themselves as just that, nations; the relationship is that of nation to nation.

As we contemplate the actuality, the manifestation of self-governance, we have to get our minds around the fact that there will be a third order of government in Canada. We don't want to predetermine what that third order of government will look like by implementing incrementally indications that we view this third order of government as much like that of a municipality. It's not a municipality, people will argue that vehemently. Yet if we allow this, it's what I see as a cowardly way of developing policy instead of--well, a lazy way in the fact that we're letting the courts do it for us, and a cowardly way in that we're trying to impose a Eurocentric model of an outgoing Prime Minister: if we have to tolerate and allow self-governance, that is going to look like something we already have a picture of in our mind, a rural municipality, a municipalization of first nations. In the minds of many aboriginal people they're anything but a municipality; they're a proud and strong nation, a nation state, if you will.

I know the Alliance will probably want to get in on this debate, saying there are 50 nations and 633 first nations communities--you don't mean we're going to have 50 new nations living within our borders? Are they going to print their own postage stamps, have their own money, have their own currency, have their own laws? That's a legitimate question I've heard the Alliance raise, and I don't think that's what the model should look like either. It's not a Lesotho situation, with a small country surrounded by a larger country, but it's not a municipality either. It's not as simple and straightforward.

I don't have the answers here, and it's presumptuous of us to assume we have the answers here. I'm simply asking you not to fly so flippantly through these clauses and allow them without comment and without even the courtesy of debating how we would see the evolution of self-governance in the country. Surely, people at this table wouldn't be on this committee if they didn't have some ideas on how they would see economic development, independence, self-governance, and prosperity for aboriginal people. If you don't have any idea of what you'd like it to look like, you shouldn't be here, but if you're willing just to accept the government's outdated, archaic, obsolete world view, then you're irresponsible and derelict in your duties as well, because you're not doing your job to hone and fine-tune and massage this bill to be the best it can be.

Â (1200)

I don't believe for a minute that any of my amendments are going to succeed here, because you've made it abundantly clear you're not willing to accept amendments, and the ruling majority on the ruling party side here has determined that these will be whipped votes and this bill will be rammed through. But surely, we on the opposition side owe it to the issue to have a full debate. The legal capacity of first nations is not something that can be dealt with in three lines in one clause of a bill. That would have happened in 30 seconds if I had not turned that 30 seconds into 10 minutes--poof, and the legal capacity of first nations would be dealt with, it's now law, now legislation, now an Act of Parliament. That's how quickly stuff happens around here. People would be disappointed to know the reality. People are either too exhausted or too busy to give full consideration to important issues. I confess that I was too tied up with another committee, because we have to sit on two or three in my party, to actually prepare an amendment for this clause, or you would have seen an amendment put forward by the NDP.

It's on that basis that I ask people to consider whether we really want to determine the legal capacity of first nations at the snap of a finger, in an instant. Limited access to public debt capital for long-term financing of infrastructure is a problem that's been identified from the round table on the fiscal relationships from day one, and I'm willing to accept that, but I'm also insistent that we recognize that most of the wealth created on first nation land flows to other governments, not to be used for the development.... First nations would be rich beyond our wildest dreams if they had access to the natural resources. They'd be at least at contemporary first world standards if we had anything resembling a fair share of land and resources for first nations people, but we seem to be deliberately steered away from that debate. That's the debate I want to have around the table of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs.

I cite an example from 1973 in Alberta, involving one of the wealthiest oil fields in the country. The first nation people who sit on that oil field got their one-time lump sum settlement of $17,000 each. A lot of new pickup trucks were bought that year, and I guarantee you there's not one of them still on the road today. That community still lives in abject poverty, and the oil continues to flow from underneath their feet. That's an example, Mr. Chairman. There are many first nations communities that live within the largest cutting rights in the world, which are owned by a foreign corporation. The largest timber cutting rights in the world are in Canada owned by a foreign corporation, and not one of them has access to any kind of stumpage or user fees, even access to the jobs. They've bid on being the trucking company that delivers the logs from the forest to the mill, and they can't even get--

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin. We'll go directly to the question.

(Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to on division)

(On clause 13--Audit)

The Chair: Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chairman, I have to ask again for your indulgence to have the committee concentrate on clause 13. When you ask whether clause 13 shall pass in its current form, unamended, we should be very concerned that it should proceed without comment, at least without a second look at it.

This is about audits. This is pretty serious. This whole exercise began when the Canadian Alliance kept pointing out isolated incidents of financial mismanagement in small communities across the country and tried to paint the picture that all Indian reserves are corrupt or incompetent, one or the other. That was the choice the Canadian Alliance gave Canadians: Indians are either corrupt or incompetent, and therefore we need the federal government to swoop in with new codes of conduct, new practices, new codes of governance, to take that out of their hands and do it all for them. That was the thesis of the Canadian Alliance, and auditing was one of the most graphic illustrations they pointed to. They claimed that first nations communities don't show their audits to their people. Well, they were proven wrong; over and over again they were proven wrong.

Â (1205)

The Chair: Mr. Martin, on that I will interrupt. If the Canadian Alliance have something to say, they will get the floor and they will speak for themselves. We've had an agreement for a while that we don't interpret what another party says because then I have to give them an opportunity to rebut. We know what the result is, so I would ask you to cooperate on that.

Mr. Pat Martin: Absolutely.

But we're dealing with the subject of audits, which is key and paramount to the whole stated objectives of the first nations governance initiative. It really wasn't about self-governance, it was about reining in the mismanagement; it was about accountability and transparency issues. That was the buzzword; it was the popular buzzword 18 months ago, Mr. Chairman, in the government's dealings with aboriginal communities.

Key and central to that pursuit of accountability and transparency were the audit provisions. Nowhere in here do we see helpful directions. We see more, again, directions that imply that such audits wouldn't take place in any kind of businesslike fashion and wouldn't be distributed in any acceptable businesslike fashion if the Minister of Indian Affairs didn't make it so. In fact, 96% of all first nations file their annual audits on time without incident and without complaint, and of those remaining 4%, most of the time what some political parties claim is mismanagement is really the inability of band and council to meet the basic needs of their membership because of inadequate resources, of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

We have the example of a grand chief in Manitoba who recently found herself up on charges. I fully anticipate that when the courts are finished with this case, it will be seen that it's a matter of this woman trying to meet the basic needs of her people with inadequate resources, where money gets juggled around because of a desperate need to try to provide housing and other basic needs for people. That's more than often the case.

So it's completely disingenuous--in fact, it's completely false--to make the case that financial abuse or maladministration of funds is so rampant in Indian country that it warrants the government's heavy hand to intervene and to discipline first nations with rigid rules when the Auditor General herself has already said that first nations are over-audited, that no one else is held to this level of accountability, 168 separate forms per year. Three times a week they have to fill out audit forms to keep the revenue stream flowing from the various sources of revenue to first nations communities.

How much more auditing can we tolerate, Mr. Chairman? You're literally tying the hands of small communities. They almost need full-time staff to do nothing but keep filing these forms or the revenue stream is discontinued to the further disadvantage of people who are already marginalized. When you're already poor, it doesn't take much to push you over the edge to desperation, Mr. Chairman, and that's the situation many of the communities in my home province of Manitoba find themselves in.

It's the audit report in clause 13 I'm asking members to revisit here. In subclause 13(2) it says “The audit report of the local revenue account shall be made available to the members of the first nation”--fair enough--“any other persons who have an interest in, or the right to occupy, possess or use, the first nation's reserve lands”--I suppose that's an issue where if you are affected, if you are an interested party, you will have access to a report--and “the First Nations Tax Commission, the First Nations Financial Management Board and the First Nations Finance Authority”. And then of course there's paragraph 13(2)(d) on the next page; don't forget “the Minister.”

Where the bill is silent is on this. If we are serious about putting acceptable business practices into the audit process or the accountability provisions of any legislation dealing with first nations communities, we should be concerned with the larger picture of audit and what constitutes an audit. I wouldn't have objected, frankly, if this particular clause had outlined a requirement for the independence of auditors, where if an accountant sells other financial services to a first nation, they should not also be the auditor of that first nation. That we can agree upon, Mr. Chairman. That deserves comment.

But the private sector does the same thing. In fact, audits are usually thrown in as a loss leader by accounting firms because what they really want is the IT business, the database business, and the tax consulting business. The audit is a freebie; they toss it in. That's what happened at Enron, that's what happened at WorldCom, and that's what happened at Xerox and Disney and in all the other embarrassing situations in the business world. But there's nothing here that is crafted in such a way as to look after the interests of first nations, to protect them from that kind of audit mismanagement.

Â (1210)

The only comment on auditing is what they must do and what they shall do as if they wouldn't show their own band members their own audit. It's based on the premise that there are first nations out there who deliberately withhold audits from their own membership, yet as I said, 96% of all first nations file their annual audits on time without incident and without any corrective measures needing to be taken. So if we're starting from the premise that there are thieves out there, that they're dishonest or incompetent...that tone or that attitude certainly finds its way into this bill, and I think it should be deleted.

Subclause 13(1) says “The local revenue account shall be audited at least once each calendar year and reported on separately from other accounts.” It should have made reference to “independently” as well as “separately”. That would have been doing a service, reflecting the business climate out there and the lack of confidence in the auditing profession out there. That would have been a useful and, I believe, precedent-setting comment for the federal government to make, that we're concerned that first nations may be cheated by the auditing profession, that there is serious white-collar crime and disrepute in the auditing and accounting profession in our country. Therefore, reference to it in this legislation would have been a way to flag that this government is concerned with those things. Instead, the only reference to it is for further duties and obligations for first nations as to what they shall and will do, what the minister will dictate in very minute, specific detail, the steps they shall and will take in the reporting of their audit, and who it shall be reported to.

Now, the one positive point here is that we don't have the same burden we had in Bill C-7, where these records had to be made available to all and sundry, to anybody who picked up a phone and demanded to see an internal, private audit. That was offensive. That gave us an indication that very little thought had gone into seeing to the best interests of first nations in the development of that bill and a lot of thought had gone into responding to the fear-mongering developed by the official opposition to do with accountability and transparency.

That's really what motivated the government, that they were getting embarrassed when one party in the House of Commons would stand up with isolated incidents of financial mismanagement and try to thread together a picture that the mismanagement was so widespread and so problematic that the government had to sweep in and protect our $7 billion because it was being wasted by those Indians and they were not even telling us where it was. That was what we heard for 18 months from the official opposition, and that's why the country recoiled, frankly, and I notice they've backed off from that. Their critic for Indian Affairs no longer speaks that way because (a) they found out they were wrong, I think, and (b) the public backlash was such that...nobody liked hearing that kind of misrepresentation.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Chairman, I think we heard similar talk when we were dealing with Bill C-7, and I'm rather amazed at the honourable member's position. It would appear that he did have time to amend this if that part of the bill was not acceptable to his party. I'm rather amazed as a member of this side of the House to hear his party try to state to us here in this meeting this morning that audits would not be required if this part of the bill were deleted. It seems a rather peculiar position for his party to take.

Â (1215)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hubbard.

(Clause 13 agreed to)

(On clause 14--Definitions)

The Chair: Mr. Martin, do you wish to debate?

Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chairman, with clause 14 we move into part 2 of this bill. I think it's important that we begin our deliberations on such an important issue as the First Nations Tax Commission by at least laying the groundwork to have a serious, honest, open debate and dialogue about this, and I'm not satisfied, frankly, that we'll have that opportunity when the bill returns to the House of Commons.

I think the definition of taxpayer, as a person paying tax under a property taxation law, is important for the purposes of this bill. But I also think we need to establish, at the front end of this entire debate, our approach to the whole concept of establishing and organizing this commission; the context of what we find acceptable in terms of who shall be the directors of such a commission; the way in which they're appointed; and who they answer to. Frankly, all of those issues are of great concern. We don't want to see this as a job creation exercise for those who were in favour of the bill. We want to see that the legitimate, necessary expertise is there on the committee, but more importantly, we want to see it be first nations driven, first nations managed, first nations occupied.

I can't imagine why any non-aboriginal people would be members of the board of this commission. Any number of ex officio consultants or advisers who don't happen to be aboriginal could be brought in to share expertise, but we're going to be very, very concerned with the composition of the board if the first meaningful amendments to the Indian Act and the relationship between the first nations and the Crown in 50 years results in some kind of hybrid institution that is supposed to govern and have jurisdiction over....

Mr. Chair, I think we're short of quorum.

The Chair: We don't have quorum.

Â (1218)

Â (1221)

The Chair: Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chairman, the point I am trying to make is that as we enter into the second phase of this, and onto clause 14, we need to be fully aware as a committee of the impact of what we're doing here. I'm asking that we encourage debate on this broad general subject, the creation of the First Nations Tax Commission, and I think the appropriate place to begin is under this clause, which is so titled, and in interpretation and in dealing with definitions.

Again, had we had the luxury of time to give this bill the attention it deserves instead of it following directly on the heel of 55 days of hearings on Bill C-7, you would have seen amendments coming forward from the NDP on this particular clause and we would have been happy to share them. But now the point we're making is that there is no justification for rushing this through at this stage, except for the political expediency of the outgoing Prime Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I know that you personally have sat on the Indian affairs committee for years, even before this Parliament, and you of all people would know the gravity of the situation we're dealing with here--how repugnant the Indian Act is, the overwhelming body of work that needs to be done to address the international embarrassment of the living conditions of first nations people in this country. I think you would be one of the first to agree as well that it doesn't do this issue justice. Even if I were to accept that this issue, this whole creation of the First Nations Tax Commission, was a step towards the future economic development of first nations, even if I was willing to concede that, I think you would agree that it deserves far more attention than we're giving it in this compressed timeframe we find ourselves in.

Parliament adjourning in November is a very real possibility. This looming deadline does not do justice to issues of great gravity and great import such as what we're dealing with here today.

The committee owes itself, we owe it to ourselves and to first nations, to get answers to some serious questions about the creation of the tax commission. We should be getting the economic studies that prove or disprove what the minister asserted without proof. What he said was that Bill C-19 will open the door to new sources of revenue and improved infrastructure. On what basis are we hearing that? We have to hold those kinds of political comments to a fairly high test before we're willing to make and create an act of Parliament.

I take that very seriously. We're not going to go by the whims of the minister. If we are to take the whims of the minister seriously, it's even more worrisome to contemplate this quote from a presentation the minister just made to the Senate committee on May 6, 2003. He said:

It is safe to say that if there is going to be a successful Aboriginal government in Canada, it will have to have a means to generate revenue. Are we suggesting that the Government of Canada will continue to pay the whole bill? I do not think that is the intent of Aboriginal governments, or of our government.

Sometimes when he deviates from his speaker's notes...this was the only comment he made that I think reflected his own thoughts, whereas the rest was read into the record from a carefully prepared speech. But it's very revealing when comments like that are made. It's not a Freudian slip, but I think you can see through to what the real goals are here.

The committee was asked, Mr. Chairman, by numerous witnesses to give Bill C-19 the proper study it deserves. The committee is the master of its own proceedings--we're always told that--and there's nothing that prevents us from giving Bill C-19 additional time to hear from expert witnesses and then going on to the clause-by-clause analysis. There's even nothing stopping, with unanimous consent, us interrupting the clause-by-clause analysis.

Perhaps at this juncture, because we've finished with part 1 of the bill and we're now at part 2 of the bill, it would be an appropriate and convenient time to adjourn these proceedings and call supplementary witnesses such as the newly elected chief of the Assembly of First Nations.

Â (1225)

It's incredible that this proceeding is going forward without hearing from the newly elected leadership of the Assembly of First Nations. It's arrogant. It's arrogant and colonial that we would proceed with this without hearing from them. In fact, by way of further arguing why it's a common courtesy and should be considered mandatory protocol for this committee not to do anything until we've heard from the leadership of the Assembly of First Nations, you might even like what he has to say. Frankly, I think he supports this bill. So if that's an added incentive for us to adjourn these proceedings and call a few more witnesses to really get our minds around this, instead of being the little automatons that many accuse us of being in Parliament...I for one want to do this concept justice and to do it properly.

The committee was asked by witnesses to give, they said, this bill the proper study it deserves. The result I think would benefit everyone here. It would probably result in meaningful amendments being made that would make the bill palatable. For instance, if there was movement on a non-derogation clause, on the composition of the board of directors, and on a list of those who would be participating in this new financial authority, if those first nations who are interested in having this bill apply to them were listed clearly in the bill, and if there was some recognition that meaningful amendments are necessary, you may find a willingness on the part of some of the opposition parties to support this bill.

What a way to end a parliamentary session that's been full of nothing but rancour in our dealings with issues affecting aboriginal people than to be able to craft at least one piece of legislation, to salvage one meaningful, useful piece of legislation, and be able to close this Parliament on that note. I urge committee members to consider that we should be suspending the meeting until a planning committee meeting can be held. We should be suspending the clause-by-clause analysis until this committee can meet as a group--

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Monsieur Loubier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, I would like to extend my hand to you. This has not occurred very often since I have been representing my party on the Aboriginal Affairs Committee, but this time around, I would very sincerely like to extend my hand to you and to all other members of the committee.

Today we have been sitting for almost three and a half hours. We are at clause 13 and several other clauses remain. Remember that, in the case of Bill C-7, we engaged, and rightly so, in what is commonly called a filibuster that went on for 55 days. We have seen the same dynamics since 9 this morning, and I think that this could easily be avoided; namely, we could work on this bill in a positive manner.

I carefully and very respectfully listened to my colleague from the NDP, and I can say that there are not many contentious issues. For example, the bill provides for a notwithstanding clause and in addition, this act would be optional and would not penalize those first nations who choose not to avail themselves of it. For example, the first nations will be able to choose members from the various institutions provided for in the bill without any interference from the minister or the governor-in-council.

In all humility, I would ask you, this morning to hear from the new national first nations chief. That is my very humble and very sincere suggestion. I would not like us to fall back into the situation we had with C-7. We will fight to the end to defeat C-7 because we have the deep conviction that C-7 is not suitable. However, as far as this bill is concerned, I think that if everybody were to cooperate, we would find common ground to satisfy those who are in favour and those who are against this bill.

First of all, I think that it would be wise to suspend the clause-by-clause consideration. I agree with you that we will be wasting a few hours, but we will be wasting a few hours and not days. It would be wise to go to the trouble of hearing Mr. Fontaine explain, as the new national chief, how he sees this bill. It would be appropriate to engage in an exercise that we have already done with Mr. Hubbard or with others, namely, to find points that can bring us closer together and to collectively move four or five general amendments that may satisfy the parties.

I would therefore make this suggestion, and I do so in all sincerity. This bill contains some positive and some not-so-positive aspects, but some aspects are particularly attractive. I am therefore making this motion and you will do with it what you like, but I think it would be appropriate to adopt it.

Â (1230)

The Chair: Mr. Loubier, thank you for your offer. I too would like to have us talk to each other and try to find the solutions that you have described.

If the committee were in agreement, I would be prepared to call the vote, unless this is one of those controversial clauses you would like to defer, but I do not think that is the case. If we could vote on this clause since we have already reviewed it, I would be prepared to adjourn the meeting until 3:30 tomorrow. Moreover, you have received in your offices a notice indicating that the next meeting will take place tomorrow at 3:30. I hope that the parliamentary secretary and the opposition members will attempt to find a solution as you have suggested.

I do believe that we can now call the vote.

[English]

Is there any more debate on Bill C-14?

We'll go directly to the vote and then we will suspend, if I have permission from committee members, in the hope that dialogue will occur between the parliamentary secretary, the members of the opposition, the officials, and whomever, to find a solution to the problem in which we are engaged.

(Clause 14 agreed to on division)

The Chair: With permission from my colleagues, we will adjourn.

The meeting is adjourned until 3:30 tomorrow afternoon in the same room.