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

Monday, June 9, 2003

1230

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

Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard (Quebec and Labrador Region, Assembly of First Nations))

1235

1240

The Chair

Vice-Chief Satsan Herb George (Office of the B.C. Regional Vice-Chiefs, Assembly of First Nations)

1245

1250

1255

1300

1305

1310

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance)

Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard

1315

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Vice-Chief Satsan Herb George

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Vice-Chief Satsan Herb George

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Vice-Chief Satsan Herb George

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Vice-Chief Satsan Herb George

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Vice-Chief Satsan Herb George

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Vice-Chief Satsan Herb George

1320

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Vice-Chief Satsan Herb George

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

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

Vice-Chief Satsan Herb George

Mr. Yvan Loubier

1325

Le vice-chef Ghislain Picard

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Vice-Chief Satsan Herb George

1330

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

1335

Vice-Chief Satsan Herb George

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.)

1340

Vice-Chief Satsan Herb George

1345

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard

1350

The Chair

Vice-Chief Satsan Herb George

The Chair

1530

The Honourable Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development)

1535

1540

1545

1550

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Hon. Robert Nault

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

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

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Gordon Shanks

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Gordon Shanks

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Hon. Robert Nault

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

1555

Hon. Robert Nault

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Hon. Robert Nault

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Hon. Robert Nault

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Hon. Robert Nault

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Hon. Robert Nault

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

1600

Hon. Robert Nault

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Hon. Robert Nault

1605

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Hon. Robert Nault

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Hon. Robert Nault

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

1610

Hon. Robert Nault

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Hon. Robert Nault

The Chair

Hon. Robert Nault

Mr. Pat Martin

1615

Hon. Robert Nault

The Chair

Ms. Anita Neville

Hon. Robert Nault

Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.)

1620

Hon. Robert Nault

1625

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Hon. Robert Nault

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Hon. Robert Nault

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Gordon Shanks

The Chair

Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance)

Hon. Robert Nault

Mr. David Chatters

Hon. Robert Nault

Mr. David Chatters

Hon. Robert Nault

The Chair

Mr. David Chatters

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Hon. Robert Nault

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

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

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Paul Salembier

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Paul Salembier

1630

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Paul Salembier

The Chair

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

The Chair

Hon. Robert Nault

1635

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Hon. Robert Nault

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Hon. Robert Nault

1640

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

Hon. Robert Nault

Mr. Alan Tonks

Hon. Robert Nault

The Chair

Hon. Robert Nault

1645

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

NUMBER 080

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Monday, June 9, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Â (1230)

[English]

The Chair (Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): The order of the day is 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 .

We are pleased today to welcome, from the Assembly of First Nations, Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard; Vice-Chief Satsan Herb George, from the office of the B.C. Regional Vice Chiefs; Noah Augustine, executive director of fiscal relations and program transfers; and Roger Jones, senior legal counsel.

We welcome you and thank you very much for being here on what is known as short notice. So we really appreciate your cooperation.

We invite you to make a presentation, to be followed by questions. We have until 2 o'clock, so I hope you will allow some time for questions.

Please proceed.

Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard (Quebec and Labrador Region, Assembly of First Nations)): Merci beaucoup, monsieur le président.

[Witness speaks in his native language]

Greetings and good morning to committee members. My name is Ghislain Picard. I'm the AFN vice-chief for the Quebec and Labrador region.

Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you again, this time to speak on Bill C-19. Unfortunately, National Chief Matthew Coon Come could not be here today, due to previous commitments. He sends his regrets and also his greetings to all of you, whom he has come to know quite well over the last 12 months. In his absence, I am delivering the presentation on behalf of the national chief, who is the primary spokesperson of the Assembly of First Nations.

At the outset, it is necessary to advise this committee that there's not uniformity of thinking among first nations leaders on the benefits of Bill C-19. Differences of opinion and perspectives are something you are all familiar with. The principles embodied in the charter of the Assembly of First Nations are intended to promote collective action and consensus. Such principles are not always achievable; the charter recognizes this. Our organization must try for consensus, but at the same time, we recognize that first nations are a diverse group of more than 50 nations, some 633 first nations communities, and individuals living on and off reserve. Consensus is not always achievable, nor is it necessary in all situations.

The formulation of Bill C-19 has challenged us. There has been a strong exchange of ideas and opinions, but we can still continue to move forward together.

Â (1235)

[Translation]

It is important to know the history of AFN's activity in these matters in order to understand the perspective of Bill C-19 that will be articulated herein.

The fiscal relationship between first nations and government is overly dependent on federal transfers based on programs, policies and formulas developed and administered through federal authority.

It is a relationship thoroughly in need of an overhaul and one based on a government-to-government relationship. This would be consistent with our historical relationship, consistent with the treaties signed between first nations and the Crown and consistent with the recognition of inherent aboriginal and treaty rights as recognized in Canada's Constitution of 1982.

Further, it would make for a more effective and efficient way of doing business between first nations and Canada. This would be good for first nations, good for Canada as it would enable greater strides in economic development and economic self-sufficiency. We can all recognize that first nations want to participate and contribute to a greater degree in the national economy.

In 1976, the Assembly of First Nations identified the need to do developmental work to address this fiscal relationship.

The situation described at the time was that first nations' democraphics indicated increasing demands on community infrastructure and services. At the same time, the fiscal relationship indicated little potential for growth with respect to federal transfers to meet community needs. Therefore, the work which was envisioned was intended to investigate and develop options, strategies and opportunities to move in a more creative and bold direction.

In 1998, the AFN established a national Chiefs Committee on fiscal relations to undertake the work envisioned with respect to the desired fiscal relationship.

In December 1999, through a memorandum of understanding, the AFN and the government of Canada established the National Table on Fiscal Relations in order to further the AFN fiscal relations initiative begun in 1996 and 1998. The purpose of the National Table was to facilitate a partnership approach to develop models of government-to-government transfer systems which provide greater fiscal autonomy and financial capacity in support of first nations governance responsibilities and delivery of agreed upon public services.

Subsequently, in 1999 and 2000, the AFN endorsed the established of the First Nations Finance Authority, First Nations Tax Commission, First Nations Statistical Institute and First Nations Financial Management Board. These various institutions were supported in principle and were aimed at advancing the fiscal relations work.

Clearly, there has been enthusiastic supporters of this initiative such as the first nations that were already participating in the First Nations Finance Authority and those first nations with established taxing authority. Others, however, clearly took a “wait and see“ approach before embracing the idea of the creation of institutions to further the work envisioned.

This developmental work was endorsed by the AFN, though no one had seen or could predict the specifics of any legislation that might be required to implement measures in support of the fiscal relations objectives.

I am sure you are all familiar with the saying that “the devil is in the details“. The first nations who had been cautiously and patiently observing these developments were displeased when they saw the legislation because it establishes the institutions as federal government agents.

[English]

Last November 2002, AFN resolutions expressed rejection of the proposed legislation, mostly due to the fact that this legislation was viewed by those in opposition to it as another unnecessary use of federal legislative authority to appropriate first nations ideas and initiatives. Any measure of trust and willingness established and shown by first nation leaders who had concerns to begin with was lost in seeing the legislation and in seeing the Minister of Indian Affairs embracing it as part of the federal government's modernization agenda. The minister himself referred to Bill C-19 as part of a suite of governance legislation, even though the work on fiscal relations predates his arrival on the scene.

The other components of the minister's modernization agenda are Bill C-7 and Bill C-6, and you are all familiar with the views of first nation leaders and non-first-nation parties with respect thereto.

Let us be clear that the AFN resolutions do not represent an attitude or intention on the part of first nations to deny other first nations their right to participate in initiatives they see as being beneficial to their situation. Indeed, the AFN resolutions recognize and respect the right of individual communities or groups of first nations to see to their own arrangements.

There is a concern that the use of federal law-making authority pursuant to section 91.24 of the Constitution Act, 1867, especially in the context of the creation of first nations institutions, may have an uninvited and unintended effect on the rights of other first nations and their ability for advancement on similar subject matters.

The Assembly of First Nations supports the principles of a new fiscal relationship between first nations and Canada, and we will endeavour to pursue initiatives that reflect those principles. The official position of the Assembly of First Nations by resolution is that we cannot support this formulation of Bill C-19 as it stands today in its present form.

(Witness speaks in his native language)

Thank you very much.

Â (1240)

The Chair: Thank you, Monsieur Picard. Are there other members, your colleagues, who will make a presentation?

Mr. George.

Vice-Chief Satsan Herb George (Office of the B.C. Regional Vice-Chiefs, Assembly of First Nations): Thank you very much.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, committee members. It's good to see you again.

Just in coming here, I have to say this. I was very nervous and I still am a little bit. I was talking to my son about it and he said, “Don't worry, Dad. Knowing you, you'll do well”. But I have to try to find something to attribute this nervousness to, and in my life, it's always been about being free--having the courage to be free. That's the nature of my nervousness, and I know it will help me through this time.

As you know, my name is Satsan, and I'm one of the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs. I'm Gil seyhu from the Flying Frog Clan. I introduce myself to you in this fashion because that's who I am and that's how I'm introduced when I enter our house of government, which is our traditional system based on our clan system and our hereditary chiefs. I believe it's important for you to understand that.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I appear before you as the AFN vice-chief for British Columbia. I'm a member of the AFN executive, and the AFN represents 633 first nations across this country.

While we acknowledge the AFN has been instructed in their position, this direction stems from the voice of 39 chiefs and proxies out of the total 633 chiefs we represent across this country. Clearly, this should not be interpreted as an opinion of the majority of first nations of this country.

I am also a task force member of the First Nations Summit, representing some 140 first nations in British Columbia, the second-largest organization in Canada next to the Assembly of First Nations.

The First Nations Summit, by unanimous resolution, expressed its full support of Bill C-19, the First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, and the creation of the First Nations Tax Commission, the First Nations Financial Management Board, the First Nations Finance Authority, and the First Nations Statistical Institute.

I have also been the co-chair of the AFN Chiefs Committee on Fiscal Relations, as well as the co-chair of their steering committee for the National Table on Fiscal Relations, which initially oversaw the development of the first nations statistical institution initiative.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to make presentation to this committee on Bill C-19, the First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act.

I want to be very clear. First Nations have the inherent right of self-government. This has always been so and always will be. Only recently have Canadian laws recognized this. Only recently have our rights been affirmed in the Canadian Constitution, and only recently have the courts recognized our rights through such cases as Delgamuukw and Marshall.

I have spent the better part of my adult life working on the Delgamuukw and Gisday'wa decision that came out of the Supreme Court of Canada on December 11, 1997. The connection in my mind between the decision in Delgamuukw and a new fiscal relationship with Canada is inescapable, and I would like to quote from that decision:

First, aboriginal title encompasses the right to exclusive use and occupation of land; second, aboriginal title encompasses the right to choose to what uses land can be put, subject to the ultimate limit that those uses cannot destroy the ability of the land to sustain future generations of aboriginal peoples; and third, that lands held pursuant to aboriginal title have an inescapable economic component.

If you want to look at the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Delgamuukw, you can find this at paragraph 166 of the decision.

Delgamuukw recognized that aboriginal titles over our traditional territory exist, and that aboriginal title includes an inescapable economic component. This was reaffirmed in Marshall.

Â (1245)

A growing number of divisions from lower courts are utilizing the principles of Delgamuukw, and you see this in British Columbia and other jurisdictions across the country. Delgamuukw is the law of the land.

The courts are telling us to negotiate. They are telling you that you must share the wealth with us. To me this means revenue and resource sharing among all of our governments. To me revenue sharing means a new fiscal relationship, the same as you have between Canada and the provinces and territories.

I recognize that this represents a challenge for all governments. Sharing revenues is not an easy topic for government. There are many unanswered questions. What will be the impact on services? Will we have to change transfer formulas? How can we transfer revenue room to our governments in a fashion that improves the investment climate?

I got involved in the National Table on Fiscal Relations to address these challenges. Aboriginal titles and rights affect all of us. We have to work together to find a way to address our common challenges. How do we implement our rights within Canada?

It is in this spirit that first nations led the fiscal institutions initiative. I view this bill as a cause for celebration. It's a step towards implementing our rights.

I was talking to Manny Jules this morning. We were both born in 1952, and in our minds it was within the beginning, and possibly at the centre, of the greatest upheaval in our societies amongst our people in British Columbia. Children were taken away and removed from our families, and we thought about how lucky we are that we survived it. How great it is that we can be here talking about freedom, building institutions to be free.

In our history, this is only the third time that we have led a change to the Indian Act. In our history, this is only the second time that we've led a change away from the Indian Act.

For the first time since colonization, we will have the clear powers to regulate our own revenues. This protects our clear jurisdiction over people who lease our lands.

For the first time since colonization, we will now have the power to obtain information about ourselves. This means we will be able to hold them to account for services they provide.

For the first time since colonization, we will take control and regulate our own financial assistance. Our assistance for financial management will be higher than that of other governments.

For the first time since colonization, we can pool our revenues and issue our own debentures collectively, and this allows us to build the infrastructure that we so desperately need in our communities. It's a need that we cannot continue to wait for.

We have worked very hard to be here. The National Table on Fiscal Relations was established in 1999, and our objective was to develop a new fiscal relationship between first nations and Canada. We have largely completed our original work plan. We have completed numerous research papers and we have developed an extensive library on fiscal relations in Canada and internationally. We hosted a think-tank on fiscal relations at Whistler in 2001. We hosted an international conference on indigenous fiscal relations in April 2002 in Vancouver. We have coordinated and prepared pre-budget submissions and provided analyses of three federal governments and two throne speeches on behalf of the Assembly of First Nations. And of course we have played a leadership role in the development of the fiscal institutions legislation before you today.

Along the way we have reported on our work to the Assembly of First Nations at every confederacy and every annual general assembly. The assembly has given us six resolutions of support for our work. We have taken our responsibilities to the chiefs very seriously. We are following our mandate and our commitment made to the chiefs. In those resolutions they directed that.

Â (1250)

In 1996 the chiefs in assembly passed a resolution establishing the principles for a new fiscal relationship. They directed that our new relationship must ensure comparability of services and service quality. It must contain clear revenue jurisdictions. It must be optional and effective. These are the principles against which we test all our initiatives.

In 1998 the chiefs in assembly established a Chiefs Committee on Fiscal Relations. This lead to the National Table on Fiscal Relations and the comprehensive work plan that was approved by the chiefs committee in 1999.

In 1999 the chiefs in assembly approved the development of legislation for the First Nations Finance Authority and the First Nations Tax Commission. After that, the Assembly of First Nations signed an MOU with these two institutions, asking us to lobby for their legislation. To my knowledge, those MOUs are still in effect as we speak.

In 2000 we received approval to proceed with the development of the First Nations Financial Management Board and the First Nations Statistical Institute.

In July 2001 the chiefs in assembly approved the development of legislation based on the business plans of the institutions.

Our mandate and support from the Assembly of First Nations is clear. I would like to read to you the full passage from the July 2001 resolution of support for this legislation, duly passed at that assembly. I quote:

that the Chiefs in Assembly encourages the Chiefs Committee on Fiscal Relations to continue the work necessary to further First Nation interests respecting resource revenues, other revenue options, more fair, flexible and certain transfer payments with fewer conditions, and proceed to organize and prepare for a national conference on that part of its work plan in the near future;

Be it further resolved that the Chiefs in Assembly hereby endorse the recommendation of the Chiefs Committee that the four new national First Nation fiscal institutions be established through federal legislation tentatively called the First Nation Fiscal Institutions Act;

Be it further resolved that the Chiefs Committee on Fiscal Relations continue its work towards the establishment of the aforesaid national First Nation fiscal institutions, and particularly, that the National Chief and Executive Committee of the Assembly of First Nations, the Co-Chairs and representatives on the Chiefs Committee on Fiscal Relations, along with its technical support team and the appropriate staff of the Secretariat:

continue to effect intensive consultations with First Nations and First Nation organizations across the country to set forth, explain and elaborate upon its work, and

in the legislative development process, ensure that the legislation accurately reflects the design and functions of the First Nation fiscal institutions as proposed and set forth in the business plans for the said institutions, and

prepare and mount an effective lobby in Parliament, including appropriate participation in Parliamentary Committees, to ensure that the proposed First Nation Fiscal Institutions Act is passed as envisioned herein.

We have lived up to the spirit and letter of our mandate. We presented the legislative framework to the chiefs in 2001 and again in 2002. A consultative draft was sent to every first nation by the national chief in August 2002. In September we held a National Conference on Fiscal Institutions and Fiscal Transfers at the Squamish Nation in British Columbia.

The national chief has sent out two letters of support for the institutions to all of our chiefs. As the national chief wrote in the letter to all chiefs last August:

Unlike the Governance Initiative and other federal legislation, the proposed Fiscal Institutions legislation has been developed with our involvement and is entirely optional to First Nations (a copy of the draft legislation is in enclosed). As I said at the Annual General Assembly in Kahnawake, these institutions have been developed over many years and they come from us.

Â (1255)

We have presented the strategy for a new fiscal relationship very clearly: first, to state our vision; second, to identify barriers to that vision; and finally, to systematically remove them.

We envision a new fiscal relationship that implements in a practical way our treaty rights and aboriginal title. We want a new fiscal relationship that gives us control over the programs and services affecting our lives. We want a new fiscal relationship that gives us access to revenues and resources, and we want a new fiscal relationship that raises our service quality to the standard the rest of Canada takes for granted.

We have identified the barriers to this vision. There is little understanding of how fiscal relations work. We need the expertise to engage other governments in fiscal discussions. There is a general lack of confidence in our governments. There are many inaccurate statistics about our people leading to the unfair allocation of transfers. Poor statistics means other governments are not held accountable for services. Other governments fear a loss of revenues to us, and there is a lack of economic opportunity to generate revenues from our lands.

The work of the chiefs committee has been about systematically removing those barriers to our vision for a better future. We are building understanding. We have gained expertise. We have developed pre-budget submissions to articulate our interest and proposed solutions to the federal government. We are actively engaging the federal government in policy review and discussions.

The fiscal institutions are one part of the strategy. They will support economic development by building infrastructure and creating the certainty and confidence in our governments. They will support a new fiscal relationship by providing us the expertise, the research, and information we need to tackle issues like financial and data management, transfers, debt finance, and taxation.

Our strategy has more elements to remove all the barriers. The institutions will help us build support for a new fiscal relationship by helping to establish more regional processes. The initiative's institutions will help us engage the federal government on policies that will affect all of us, such as own source revenue and remedial management. The institutions will provide needed tools to implement the new relationship alluded to in the Penner report and the Charlottetown Accord, and articulated in the Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.

We are aware of some questions that have been raised by Bill C-19. How does this legislation help us implement our rights and title? This legislation will help us assert our rights in two ways.

First, legislation has been proven to be an effective way of asserting inherent powers. In 1988 the Indian Act was amended to facilitate first nations property tax powers. In 1995 the Supreme Court of Canada was asked to interpret Bill C-115, known as the Kamloops amendment. They were asked to interpret the nature of first nations property law jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the intent of that legislation was to enable first nations to levy property tax as an exercise of an inherent governmental power. This represents an affirmation that through federal legislation the inherent rights of our government can be exercised.

Second, institutions are required to implement rights and title won in the court. In the U.S., treaty rights in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Washington state meant that all tribes were entitled to one-half of the fishery in those states as a result of the Boldt decision. With institutions, the tribes found it difficult to ensure jurisdictional harmony in implementing their rights. Tribal institutions were eventually established to regulate their component of the fisheries, to enforce their regulations, and to provide due process through tribal courts to all users of the resource.

· (1300)

The second question is why do we need federal legislation? In our view, legislation is required for three reasons. First, it is required to enable first nations to exercise and enforce their inherent powers of government without paternalism and without undue influence or interference. This legislation will remove the minister and the Department of Indian Affairs from the approval process over a large number of our laws and replace it with a more efficient and transparent system. Federal legislation is the most practical and timely means to accomplish this. Second, it is required to provide security and confidence to purchasers of bonds issued by the First Nations Finance Authority. Federal legislation will save us millions of dollars in interest charges and multiply our investments tenfold.

Third, we need legislation to collect, analyze, and utilize first nations data, while also maintaining confidentiality. This will give us access to federal and provincial data so that we can hold other governments accountable.

Next question: Is Bill C-19 related to the governance act? The short answer is no and the long answer is no. Bill C-19 is a stand-alone piece of legislation developed by first nations. Bill C-19 is a part of our agenda and should not be confused with any other federal legislative initiative.

Next question: Do all first nations support this initiative? The answer again is no. Some first nations do not support this legislation. To the best of our knowledge, the number of committed non-supporters is between 50 and 60 communities. When you consider this, I ask you, do all Canadians support every piece of legislation in Parliament? Like you, the Assembly of First Nations seeks to accommodate differences. That is why any new element of a new fiscal relationship must be optional. These institutions are optional. A great many first nations do support this legislation. A conservative estimate would suggest we have over 200 first nations that have demonstrated and committed their support for this legislation. This includes the First Nations Summit in British Columbia, the Union of Ontario Indians, the Atlantic Policy Congress, and first nations with tax authority. These first nations are from coast to coast. Many of these communities have volunteered their time to make presentations before this committee should you feel it is necessary.

My colleague discussed some of the resolutions passed in the last seven months that did not support this legislation. I respect their opinions and know they also respect ours. The result of our differences is that the Assembly of First Nations cannot articulate a national position on Bill C-19. The best compromise is to ensure that this legislation is truly optional and does not impact our existing rights and title.

Can we just schedule those first nations that want to work with the fiscal institutions? In our view, scheduling participants is a bad idea; just ask the first nations that are waiting to get into the First Nations Land Management Act. It diminishes the autonomy of first nations to make their own choices. It is expensive for any first nation that wants to opt in at a later date. It relinquishes control of our agenda to the uncertainty of the federal parliamentary process. Scheduling would increase the costs of first nations to participate and, while we are waiting, will mean lost economic opportunities.

Finally, there are 133 shared governance institutions in Canada. None of them have restrictions on whether a Canadian can use them. Can you imagine establishing such a precedent in this instance?

How are these institutions optional? These institutions are truly opt-in and opt-out. You can choose to opt in by submitting your laws into this process. You can choose to exercise those same powers through an inherent right or through an agreement with the federal government. You can also choose to opt out of these institutions.

· (1305)

How can we be assured first nations have control of these institutions? The legislation gives us three broad assurances that these will be first nations institutions.

First, we believe the majority of all boards will be qualified first nations persons. Qualifications will be made clear through regulations, they will be selected on merit, and we hope by doing so in this way that this will also depoliticize the process.

Secondly, the mandate for each institution is to provide specific services to first nations. They were designed by first nations for first nations.

Thirdly, each institution will be accountable to the first nations who use their services. They will provide an annual report to them in addition to the institutional accountability framework that's laid out in the legislation.

Finally, for greater certainty, we suggest an explicit amendment to the preamble of the legislation that states that these are first nations public institutions.

Can Bill C-19 be improved? Even though I believe the optional nature of the legislation has been addressed, I urge the standing committee to consider some amendments to improve Bill C-19 to reinforce this.

First, the preamble should reiterate the optional nature of the legislation and the first nations character of these institutions.

Secondly, a non-derogation clause should be added to the legislation.

I believe these changes will help allay any concerns that may exist in the Assembly of First Nations on Bill C-19.

Thirdly, respect the independence of the institutions. Ensure that there are no incursions into the mandate of Bill C-19 from other legislation, such as Bill C-7.

I would like to acknowledge the great support we have had along this long, arduous journey. I would like to acknowledge the First Nations Summit in British Columbia for their continuous support and willingness to sponsor the development of the First Nations Financial Management Board. I would like to acknowledge the Union of Ontario Indians for their support and sponsorship of the First Nations Statistical Institute. I would also like to acknowledge the support of the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs.

I would like to acknowledge the support and work of the First Nations Finance Authority, the Indian Taxation Advisory Board, and the first nations who collect property taxes. I would also acknowledge the Chiefs Committee on Fiscal Relations, who have provided the direction and the leadership for this initiative.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge the support of the business and financial communities who have demonstrated their confidence in our government and our communities through their investments in our lands.

In closing, we urge you to expedite the passage of Bill C-19. This means getting this bill through this committee before the House rises in a few weeks.

I want to repeat, we would like this bill through this committee before the House adjourns for the summer recess. This legislation is required urgently by many of our communities. The costs of further delay are too high. This is not a political football. It is an expression of our aspirations, it's the hope of our children, it's the legacy of our elders, and we cannot lose any more opportunity as the winds of change are passing.

Thank you very much. I appreciate your attention.

· (1310)

The Chair: Thank you very much, both of you, for an excellent presentation that was very much to the point and very informative.

Before I go to our first round, you made comments about wishing to have this done. We use June 20 as the date, because it seems we're staying here until June 20.

For me as chair, this is an important point. Colleagues, believe me, I'm not trying to influence--one way or another, it doesn't change my life that much--but I get the feeling that this legislation is needed. If it is, we have to get serious about this as a committee. We will have future business at 5 o'clock this afternoon when we will decide how we will approach this bill.

I am concerned that if we don't, if it's needed now and we don't do it before the end of June, with the leadership and the new Prime Minister coming on and everything happening in the fall, I would fear that we would prorogue and miss the opportunity. That would mean maybe a year or six months.

Monsieur Loubier doesn't agree, but I'm just expressing my heartfelt feeling.

In the questions, if there's anything you wish to add to direct the committee...not to respond to my request, because I'm not requesting it, but I'm saying as chair, if it's a rush and you need it fast, I need to know, because we have to plan the work of the committee, we have to get agreement among the committee, and we have to be fair to those who oppose it.

So we'll start the first round now, which is a seven-minute round. The official opposition gets two minutes more.

Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To either Ghislain or Chief Satsan, as you wish to respond here, when the draft version of the bill was released, it was unclear if all the four institutions would be crown corporations, but now the final version of the bill before us explicitly states that the First Nations Statistical Institute would be a crown corporation. My first question would be, I guess, your surmise on why the department decided not to have all the institutions crown corporations, and are you okay by that?

Perhaps I could get quick responses. I have a series of questions.

Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard: I guess all I could say--and this is the basis, certainly, of our position in Quebec and of many first nations across the country--is that we view having a hold on these institutions as being difficult, because of the fact that they will be crown institutions. So that's the short answer to that question.

· (1315)

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay, so you would prefer that none of them be crown corporations. Do I understand you, Ghislain, on that?

Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard: That was the understanding at the outset of this process.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: As to my next question, I'm not sure if any of the gentlemen at the table would be aware whether the First Nations Finance Authority has already issued bonds. Do you happen to be aware of it, Chief Satsan?

Vice-Chief Satsan Herb George: Thank you very much.

As I mentioned earlier, one of the issues regarding the statistical institute was, first, to be able to access and compile our own data, and secondly, the confidential nature of it.

In terms of the crown corporation, in this instance it was necessary for us to have this to be able to access crown data. So in that regard, in our view, it was needed.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So do you know whether the First Nations Finance Authority has already issued bonds?

Vice-Chief Satsan Herb George: To my knowledge, in terms of the legislation that we are talking about, we're waiting for this to come through so that we may be in that position.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay, but no bonds have been issued thus far by the First Nations Finance Authority?

Vice-Chief Satsan Herb George: No, not to my knowledge.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay.

Another question here is in terms of the body that comprises the FNTC. The predecessor with the Indian Taxation Advisory Board had five commissioners to fulfill the mandate. Now, in terms of the organizational composition here, the FNTC needs 10 commissioners, or twice the number, I guess we could say. Why is that the case? Why does the FNTC need twice as many as the Indian Taxation Advisory Board? What's your take on that?

Vice-Chief Satsan Herb George: I think we have to demonstrate.... As I mentioned, among those who do not support the legislation, there is some concern that somehow or another it infringes on their rights. So we have to try to address that through the optional nature of the legislation.

In terms of the numbers of people you're referring to, I think it gives us a better opportunity to have fair representation from coast to coast.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So you like the fact that it will be a big body, with the number of ten compared to five under the previous—

Vice-Chief Satsan Herb George: I like the fact that it gives us better representation.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: To head to my next question, INAC currently funds local infrastructure projects on reserves in conjunction with Infrastructure Canada and the first nation communities. If a first nation is a borrowing member of the FNFA, is it still eligible or able to borrow funds to answer these funding arrangements with INAC?

Vice-Chief Satsan Herb George: I can answer that in this way—but I want to just give you some sense of how it is for us. I don't think you can really understand this.

I moved back home to my village after being at a residential school and a couple of years after hitchhiking around the galaxy in 1975. I moved home to take on the role of band manager in my community of Hagwilget in northern British Columbia. The formula we had in place then, which exists to this day, for our population.... While waiting for the ability to build a house, we were allocated one-half house a year, and as a result, we had to wait two calendar years to accumulate enough money to build one house. At the same time, we had to get in line and wait for capital infrastructure projects. In our instance, we weren't able to get a proper water and sewage system into our community until just the last decade.

The point I'm trying to get across to you is that this is the way it is now. We're proposing giving communities, who can take advantage of this opportunity, a means of being able to deal with it now rather than later. That does not stop us from being able to access the dollars that are available, but rather it allows us to take greater responsibility to put in place the infrastructure and deliver the services that our people so desperately need now.

· (1320)

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Is it your understanding, Satsan, that this will not in any way eliminate or shut you out from this infrastructure funding? It's not your understanding that you'd be cut off—

Vice-Chief Satsan Herb George: It's my understanding that it does not cut us out.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: All right.

Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard: I'd like to pick up on that question as well, because the reality that Satsan speaks about is the reality of the day. In the words of one of our chiefs in Quebec, a chief from a community that is only about four hours away from here, we have to find a way of levelling the playing field before we can even talk about institutions that would put us at the same level as the federal government.

We have a community that doesn't yet have running water and electricity. They have shacks not bigger than the rectangle in front of us here. The chief says, why should I get myself involved in this type of legislative process if this is what my community's faced with?

To me, there is still lot of catching up to do in this regard.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Are you saying that if he were part of the FNFA, the First Nations Finance Authority, it would cut him out from infrastructure funding through INAC?

Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard: No, the argument here is that the mindset of his people is not even there yet.

What do we do to make sure a community enjoys the same standards as the municipality next to it? That's really what the question is.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: If I get a second round, I'll ask another question then.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Loubier, you have seven minutes.

Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): I would like to give vice-chief Satsan Herb George the opportunity to answer the question of Mr. Vellacott.

[English]

If you want to continue on the answer given by Mr. Picard, I invite you to do so.

Vice-Chief Satsan Herb George: I'm sorry, I couldn't make out what your question was.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Okay, fine.

Mr. Chairman, if I reacted to what you said earlier, it is not because I am unaware of the urgency of the legislation or of a need to work seriously. But I deplore when such an issue becomes the subject of petty politics, because you know perfectly well that it is totally impossible to pass such a bill by June 20. First of all, it is not part of your government's priorities, you need only to look at the calendar for confirmation. Next, since there is a difference of opinion between two groups--which is fine--we need to hear all groups who are interested to express views on Bill C-19. This is why you saw me react. I think it is completely ridiculous to say we will plan future business of the committee at the end of the afternoon and that this might allow us to pass Bill C-19 before we rise for the summer. This is why I reacted in this fashion.

That being said, I can see there is no unanimous opinion regarding this bill. However, people agree on at least one thing, that the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs did not spend the tiniest bit of energy in preparing this bill. Nevertheless, it presents it as being it's own initiative, as part of a trio of bills, i.e. Bills C-6, C-7 and C-19, which are said to be three pieces of a puzzle that will allow first nations to achieve greater development.

A big issue in the case of Bill C-19 is the fact that the minister presents it as being one of a set of bills that also includes Bill C-7, which is being unanimously rejected and which we just finished considering. Am I wrong in saying that this is the main problem, the second being that there is a great disparity in the levels of development of first nations?

· (1325)

Le vice-chef Ghislain Picard: As I mentioned earlier, in the months before it was approved, we have consulted all regions and taken into account the positions they expressed or adopted, which is perfectly logical and legitimate.

In our area of Quebec and Labrador, we did not really distinguish between the various legislative approaches. We were aware that a legislative approach was under way which was comprised of the three bills under consideration.

In our view, the basic assumption of all three bills is defective. This is why we say that we need to go back to the drawing board to rethink the whole framework and negotiate a new one if necessary in order to level the playing field.

In the beginning, our region agreed with the substance of all three bills, that on governance, that on an independent claims commission and that on fiscal institutions. However, we have seen how things have evolved over the last two years, with the results you see today.

The more time goes by, and the more we have our backs against the wall. I believe that at this stage of the debate, all regions will have to make up their own mind. This is what we have done in ours. The region of Quebec and Labrador is unable to support the approach as presented, regardless of its value.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Vice-chief Satsan Herb George.

[English]

Vice-Chief Satsan Herb George: Thank you very much.

First of all, I'd like to address the issue of urgency about trying to get this legislation done before the summer break.

As I mentioned earlier on, I'm also a member of the First Nations Summit executive in British Columbia, which represents 140 first nations within the province. We are currently involved in the treaty negotiations with Canada and British Columbia, and have been involved since 1992. We have yet to conclude treaties within this timeframe, but I have to tell you that within the last several recent years, it has become increasingly obvious to those of us who are in the treaty negotiations that the fiscal component of our ultimate treaties is, in our view, the most critical component, and that component will determine the kind of future our children will have.

In British Columbia, and in particular in the First Nations Summit, the institutions we are looking at here are critical to us, and they are urgently required. While we sit back over the summer and maybe you can have your break, our people are still going to be at the table negotiating our future within this country.

Of course, as my colleague has set out and as I have also set out, there's no doubt there are differences of opinion. But you can have a difference of opinion about whether a horse is white or not; it doesn't change the fact that it's a horse. I think you have to look at the legislation. I've tried to make it very clear that we not only recognize that differences of opinion exist; we respect that fact. In that respect, we try to address it by ensuring that the opt-in or opt-out nature of the legislation is clear. As I mentioned earlier, we asked you as a committee to make amendments to ensure it is clear.

In terms of the minister putting forward that the fiscal legislation is his and is a part of his suite of legislation, I think there are two explanations for it. The first explanation is one that you should understand very well; it's a technical explanation. We could have brought this bill in through the Minister of Finance, or we could have brought it in through any other avenue available to us. We chose to bring it in through the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In that respect, the minister is the one with the responsibility to bring it forward. The unfortunate part of it is that we get caught in a timeframe where the minister is bringing forward—and I'll make reference to it—the First Nations Governance Act, which of course, as you know well, is very controversial across this country. It is controversial because there is some question about whether or not proper consultation has taken place.

As I've mentioned in my report to you, this is our work. We put it together. I'm here to tell you that we did this. It's our work; it's for us; it's for our people. Whether you choose to believe the minister when he says it's his work or choose to believe me when I tell you this is our work is for you to decide. This is our work.

· (1330)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Thank you, both of you, for trying to make it as clear as possible, but you have to at least acknowledge it puts some of us in a very difficult situation. Speaking for my own party, the NDP, we very much want to work with and to show respect for the legitimately elected leadership of first nations, which we see as the Assembly of First Nations.

Even though there are past resolutions and letters from the leadership in support of this initiative, the most recent messaging is contrary. That can be explained somewhat by saying the concept was good and up to a certain point there was quite a great degree of consensus, that support was there, but in its present form there are reservations about it. There are people who are apprehensive about the current form. That could easily happen in any organization. I don't see that as a flip-flop; I see it as saying, yes, it's okay to this point, but now there are some concerns.

I guess the timeframe worries me, too, because if anything, I would see those who are in favour of this bill wanting it distanced even further from Bill C-7. But it can't be. It has been inexorably linked, at least in this process, by the minister's own language, that he's putting forth a three-party trinity of bills that is really one initiative. In fact, that's what it was called—the first nations governance initiative—which meant the FNGA and the other two.

It's linked in a very difficult way. I wish we were having this debate last year or next year, any time other than while we're fighting—and I mean fighting—over Bill C-7.

Would you not agree the most logical thing maybe to do right now is to let the Assembly of First Nations have their confederacy in July? I think it's July 14 or 15. Surely this is going to come on the floor there and be debated fully. I would rather take guidance from an up-to-date resolution from the Assembly of First Nations. If there were a resolution passed on July 15 that said by a majority—not by unanimity but by a majority—vote of that assembly, “We want you to go ahead post-haste with Bill C-19”, then I would take that as guidance. But I don't have that now. I still have people raising serious concerns about the municipalization of first nations and about the idea that even if this is optional, once it's institutionalized, first nations that don't choose to opt in will be told, you want support with infrastructure funding? We're not going to give it to you; go ahead and opt in to the structure we just put in place. There will be pressure to opt in if you want to get any satisfaction.

I don't mind acknowledging that the current format is optional, but it's only optional to a point, because once it's established and there are still first nations who are outside it but who want to go ahead with initiatives or economic development, or who need access to capital, they'll be told, well, there's your choice, it's available to you; just opt in to the new fiscal institutions.

First of all, would you agree that notwithstanding what the chair has told us, the most logical thing is to wait for some clear direction from the assembly that's happening not a month from now?

· (1335)

Vice-Chief Satsan Herb George: Mr. Martin, you think you have a difficult position, and I can appreciate your difficult position. I mean, look at how you're seated here. We see that firsthand, as aboriginal people across the country, and we have to deal with it from province to province and territory to territory. We have a difficult position. It has been very difficult this past while, going through the process at the Assembly of First Nations—as I mentioned earlier, I represent the First Nations Summit—to the point where our people stopped showing up because they felt there was not respect shown for the fact that they want this and need it, and that there was not respect shown for diversity, for differences. Unfortunately, that's the situation we have, much like the situation you have.

I think bringing it up at the next AFN annual assembly is just not on. The Assembly of First Nations, through the small numbers of people who came forward to kill the legislation as far as the AFN was concerned, have done their job. What happens as a result is that as the First Nations Summit, as the Union of Ontario Indians, as the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nation Chiefs Secretariat—as those independents who choose and want this legislation, who need this opportunity, we are put outside the fence. But it doesn't remove the fact that we need it, and it doesn't change the fact that we support it.

I want again just to underline to you that we represent, in our province, almost six times as many first nations as voted against the legislation at the Assembly of First Nations—simply because they chose not to show up.

So I don't think it's on for the upcoming AFN assembly, and it's our job as supporters of this to bring it forward and get you to understand why we need to bring it forward.

On the linkage between Bill C-7 and the minister, we could talk about that all day. You know as well as I do that this is our work, and if you choose to be linked with the minister's rhetoric in your minds, that's your choice. This is our work. It's unfortunate that the links are there, but we have to deal with that.

As I said in my opening remarks, freedom takes courage. That's what we're doing here: showing our courage to you and hoping you can understand it.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Dromisky, you have seven minutes.

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I have to give my emotional response, first of all. I am very pleased with the presentations you people made. I am also very pleased with the nature of it, the tone of it, and the attitudes portrayed by you leaders. To me it's democracy in action. There are different viewpoints. Mr. George, I agree 1,000% with some of the statements you made regarding diversity. That's essential. Diversity was not allowed to be revealed when we were dealing with Bill C-7, but here it is. I'm so pleased that the leaders are sitting side by side and saying these are the kinds of things we have to do.

However, the first point I'd like to bring out is that I came into this committee at the beginning of February, and I have been heavily involved here. A tremendous amount of time was wasted on Bill C-7, so it's probably going to be very difficult for us to get this bill through before June 20, as you know, because we have to bring in witnesses and so forth. That has already been presented by one of our members.

The minister has never said to me, and I have never seen it in writing, that this bill is his. In fact, I heard the opposite. I hear him bragging about the fact that as a Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development he has been successful in getting first nations people to sit down and create something for themselves.

I know how important this bill is. A quarter of a mile from my office in my riding of Thunder Bay--Atikokan is the Fort William First Nation Reserve. Under the dynamic leadership of Peter Collins, tremendous things are happening on that reserve. But I do know about all the problems he and other chiefs before him had in the last 10 years regarding projects and developments they were planning for that property. They have a huge industrial park and so forth. This bill is a dynamic bill. It's extremely important to people who are providing that type of leadership and economic development on their lands. I can apply this to all first nation peoples and their properties across the country. It is absolutely essential that we get it through as quickly as possible. I agree with you.

There's a point I have to clarify in my mind. As I understand it, in November the Implementation Committee on the Protection of Treaty and Inherent Rights was formed to lobby against all first nations legislation. I don't understand that kind of thinking against all first nations legislation. Surely there must be legislation that is good, as this is, which you have created yourselves. That's extremely important. You can't go against that. A special assembly was held where 80-some members voted against the fiscal initiatives. Were these members of the special committee or were they separate, or were these chiefs who came in for this special meeting?

I don't understand what happened there in November. Does anyone know?

· (1340)

Vice-Chief Satsan Herb George: The short answer is to ask, first of all, why you have a situation like this. I think it arises, if you look at the information surrounding it, because rather than trying to deal with the opportunities that exist or creating opportunities to move forward, people are waiting for an explicit recognition from Canada that aboriginal and/or treaty rights exist and it wants to deal with them. There's also a concern about extinguishment--a very high level of distrust. There's also a concern about the whole inherent right issue.

Some people, you know, have a problem with this. However, my view is a little bit different. I believe we have to recognize ourselves. I believe the issue of recognition--for example, of aboriginal title and rights--has been accomplished. This is clearly so in the decision of Delgamuukw and Gisday'wa out of the Supreme Court of Canada in 1997.

The issue of extinguishment is also, in my view, being dealt with in that same decision. The Supreme Court of Canada has made it very, very clear that no one can extinguish your right unless you agree to it; and until you do so, those rights are protected under section 35 of our Constitution.

Third, there's the whole issue that this might be a contradiction of the inherent right. The irony for me, as I'm dealing with this and as I've said to this committee in terms of dealing with Bill C-7, is that I've never really concerned myself with the Indian Act in my life. I've chosen to live outside of it and to live to be free. As I said earlier, I spent a good part of my life working on that court action in Delgamuukw and Gisday'wa. The Supreme Court of British Columbia, just this past year, has recognized the inherent right in the Campbell case.

So in my view, we can either stay in the box and be afraid to come out because we might jeopardize these things, or we can recognize that we have them and step out of the box to take our rightful place on our own lands within this country. I think that's where the difference is--whether or not one has the courage to be free or is just too afraid to move. That's ultimately what it comes down to.

· (1345)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Dromisky, but it's been seven minutes.

We have 13 minutes left, and what we'll do is ask members to ask a one-minute question. If you wish to, you can respond in each of your five-minute closing comments.

Mr. Vellacott, you have one minute.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I guess this would be one of the concerns that Ghislain brings from his perspective in Quebec, or I guess any of the others. Why is a borrowing member of the First Nations Financial Authority not permitted to use alternative debt financing if a more competitive rate is available elsewhere?

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Loubier.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. George, I would just like to make one comment. Even with the best intentions in the world and if it were the government's priority, it would be impossible to pass Bill C-19 by June 20. We still have to go through the report stage on second reading, then third reading and then the bill has to be passed in the Senate.

I have one question for Mr. Picard and for Mr. George. If we made all the amendments you have proposed, Mr. George, and additionally some of those proposed by Mr. Picard, i.e. those aimed at ensuring that these institutions are optional, are first nations institutions, plus adding a non-derogation clause and an amendment to guarantee the independence of these institutions--in other words, ensuring that there will be no crossing over on Bill C-7 and no prejudice to other first nations--would this bill then be more acceptable and would you be able to rally behind it rather than remain divided?

[English]

The Chair: Merci, Monsieur Loubier.

Ms. Neville, you have time for a one-minute question.

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you both very much for your presentations.

I'm having some difficulty understanding quite what has happened here. I wonder if one or the other of you would mind elaborating for me on how 39 chiefs in the assembly at the AFN put forward a motion that impacts on a much greater number. I'm reading the resolution that came forward from the Assembly of First Nations and I wonder if one or the other of you could just give me some further explanation of it, because I am--perhaps it's my problem--just having some difficulty understanding the real meaning behind it.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Picard or Mr. George, you each have five minutes. At five minutes, I will turn on this light so you will gently pass over to your own colleague. Okay?

Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard: I guess I find it ironic that you would have difficulty understanding, because then you must not really understand what happens in this House every day. As both of us expressed, there are differences of opinion on this issue. To me, that's what we're talking about. I think the very fact that we're both here reflects this.

My view is that a lot of the questions you raise should probably be returned to you. They are concerns raised not only by those groups who oppose it but as well by those groups who support this particular legislation. The safeguards are not necessarily there.

We talk about Bill C-19 being optional. Is that the case now, or can it be the case? We talk about Bill C-19 being independent from other pieces of legislation that are there as we speak. Is that the case? Is it very independent? And if it's not, can it be made so? I think that's what we need to raise.

The other thing, in response to what Mr. Loubier said, is that we know there are these groups and communities supporting this particular piece of legislation. And as we did with the Land Management Act, is it possible--and you probably can respond to that--to attach a list of those groups and those first nations who are supportive of this particular legislation?

Thank you.

· (1350)

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. George.

Vice-Chief Satsan Herb George: Thank you very much.

First of all, on the question raised by Mr. Vellacott, the benefit of the legislation we're putting forward, to be able to raise revenue, to raise capital to build infrastructure in our communities and give people the ability to debt finance, is that we can offer it at reduced rates, far better than you could get anywhere else. When someone comes in to borrow in that fashion, then we presume they'll be there until the debt is paid. We need that support.

If you borrow from somebody and then you borrow here and borrow there, it makes it confusing. We believe we can offer the best rates and we don't believe it's going to be an issue.

On the question about whether the bill would be acceptable if all the amendments to it were made, I think making all those amendments would be an improvement to it. Whether or not it would be acceptable to everybody is a tough question. Some of those in opposition to it are opposed just based on an ideology that is against any kind of legislation. So I believe, in that instance, they would be impossible to satisfy. As with everything, you have differences and you move on.

As for the question raised about the 39 votes at that assembly, as Vice-Chief Picard has already answered, it's unfortunate, in my view, that this occurred; however, it happened. As I mentioned earlier to you, I'm not letting that stop me in my capacity as an executive member of the First Nations Summit Task Group to sit here and tell you why we support this and why we need it. That's all I can say about that.

I want to thank you very much for the opportunity and your attention.

The Chair: I thank you very much, on behalf of my colleagues, for your valuable input. I would hope you would continue in communication with the clerk, with members, to assist us in doing the best we can.

Colleagues, we will suspend until 3:30 p.m., when the minister will appear.

· (1354)

¹ (1529)

The Chair: Good afternoon, everyone, as we resume our study of 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.

We're pleased to welcome this afternoon Mr. Robert Nault, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. As you know, this is a continuation of a meeting we had at 12:30 p.m.

We welcome your comments. You know the routine. We invite your comments and then we'll go to rounds of four, five, seven, or whatever number of minutes we have left, keeping in mind that both questions and answers are included in that time.

Mr. Minister, we invite you to make your comments.

¹ (1530)

The Honourable Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's always a pleasure to be here. I am pleased to have the opportunity today to address the committee members.

I'd like to start, of course, with some prepared remarks and would be very pleased on behalf of our ministry and the government to answer any questions.

I believe the issue before us is of vital importance to all Canadians, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike. Canadians recognize that prosperous, viable first nation communities can contribute immensely to the national economy. I am convinced, and I have said it many times before, that to foster this degree of prosperity, first nations people must first control local development and must be able to plan and direct their economies. I believe these are essential preconditions for the development of sustainable self-determining communities.

Mr. Chairman, the First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act offers tools that are needed for first nations to control their economic destiny, practical tools that will help address immediate needs while marking a significant advance towards self-government. These changes will also help first nation governments gain access to revenue sources in ways that other governments have long relied on to build critical infrastructure and attract much needed investment.

Also, Mr. Chairman, property taxpayers on first nations lands will now benefit from legislative provisions that further the principles of certainty and fairness as part of the modernized and more robust real property tax regime being proposed.

The bill sets out the legal underpinning to enable participating first nation communities to operate in Canada's financial mainstream, and establishes institutions to oversee and support these operations.

It is important that we recognize that this bill was developed by first nations for first nations. First nations leaders helped to define the concepts underlying this Fiscal and Statistical Management Act several years ago.

The genesis of many of these concepts can be traced back to 1996 when the Assembly of First Nations passed a resolution in support of developing new fiscal relationships between first nation governments and the Government of Canada. What's more, the institutions proposed by the bill will have strong representation by first nations representatives.

Mr. Chairman, this bill plays a key role within our government's larger strategy. The combined effect of today's bill, along with the First Nations Governance Act and the existing First Nations Land Management Act, is to affirm first nations' jurisdiction over their own lands, finances, and governments. This goes well beyond, in my view, tinkering with the current relationships and processes. Frankly, I believe the need for change on this scale is both obvious and urgent.

I expect, Mr. Chairman, that everyone in this room shares my feeling about the state of affairs in so many first nation communities. Why is it that, in the 21st century, in such a prosperous country, so many people are caught in a web of poverty and despair? It is clearly time for action. The status quo is unacceptable.

That's the driver behind the legislative vision we are proposing, and that's why I've come here to speak to you today. The approach taken in this particular piece of legislation has already yielded impressive results. More than a decade ago, when the Indian Taxation Advisory Board was first established to help first nations establish property tax regimes, few people--and I stress this--few people predicted the level of success it enjoys today.

At that time, staff within my own department estimated that perhaps 20 first nations would choose to participate. Today, close to 100 first nation communities collect property taxes and use the money to improve conditions locally. At last count, there were 29 communities waiting to join, and even more are considering making that request.

¹ (1535)

The initiative, Mr. Chairman, has injected more than $40 million annually into local economies. When I examine the list of projects funded by these property taxes, I'm impressed by their diverse nature.

Let me give you a few examples. The Musqueam Band in British Columbia directed some of its property taxes to a safety patrol program, and the community today enjoys the lowest crime rate in Greater Vancouver. The Squamish Nation, also in B.C., used its funds to build much-needed community recreation facilities. The Innu in Quebec expanded their on-reserve shopping mall. The WestBank First Nation in British Columbia built a new water purification system, and added new sewer lines. The Coldwater First Nation in British Columbia embarked on an ambitious plan to rebuild community infrastructure. The Millbrook First Nation in Nova Scotia has used its property tax powers to become one of the fastest-growing economies in that province.

The list is much longer, Mr. Chairman, but these projects demonstrate that positive developments occur when community leaders have the tools to direct and control local development.

The taxes to fund these projects were collected from users of their community lands, including non-aboriginal taxpayers, first nation and non-first nation business interests, and, Mr. Chairman, from utilities.

It is important for members of the committee to remember and remind themselves that before the introduction of the first nations real property tax regime, these taxes were largely collected by neighbouring municipalities, or were not collected at all, meaning that a significant opportunity to provide the infrastructure and services to attract business, and to improve the quality of life on reserve, was being lost.

In the words of Manny Jules, chairman of the Indian Taxation Advisory Board and a proponent of the bill now before us, “First Nations have been legislated out of the economy during the past 126 years—these institutions start the process of legislating our way back in”. I believe that Manny Jules is absolutely right. I have to admit that I've cited that quote many, many times, because it's hard to imagine developing a society without any legislative or institutional structures to work with other governments. This legislation will enable first nations people to control and develop their economies, thus paving the way for effective self-government.

Mr. Chairman, a community or government with few resources of its own, or one that is totally reliant on another government, is clearly destined to struggle. Unfortunately, that is precisely the situation many first nations communities face. Currently federal cash transfers account for more than 95% of the revenues of first nations governments. The proposed bill opens the door to new sources of revenue to improve infrastructure and, Mr. Chairman, to attract new investment.

Let me speak now of the four institutions established by the bill, which offer first nations the fiscal tools to attract investment, build infrastructure, create jobs, and address social issues—all on first nations' own terms.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to provide a few details about the purpose and the function of each institution and how they work. All four are independent bodies, operating at arm's length from one another—and I dare say, from the Government of Canada.

The first is the First Nations Finance Authority, which will provide access to sources of low-cost capital to fund infrastructure projects. This institution will be created out of an existing first nations body that enjoys healthy and productive working relationships with the leading bond underwriters. Independent credit raters advise that the proposed legal framework and institutional structure will significantly enhance first nations' ability to access the bond market, and to raise private capital for development purposes using investment grade securities.

¹ (1540)

As you are all aware, Mr. Chairman, governments in Canada and around the world finance infrastructure projects via the bond market. The finance authority will ensure that first nations can participate in this market and, in the process, realize a better rate of return on tax dollars. But more importantly, gaining access to the bond market will lower the costs of borrowing for infrastructure development by a whopping 30% and, in some cases, by 50%.

The First Nations Finance Authority will ensure the integrity of each borrowing transaction proposed by a first nation, and will incorporate all approved borrowing in the form of a periodic first nations security issue.

Mr. Chairman, the interest rates on these securities will be based upon the creditworthiness of the First Nations Finance Authority in total, and not that of an individual first nation. In this way, smaller communities will be able to benefit in the same way as larger communities do. The diversified projects and communities in the bond issue make for a lower risk investment and thus lower interest rates. Each first nation in the bond issue will effectively guarantee the borrowing of all other participating first nations.

The next institution, Mr. Chairman, is the First Nations Financial Management Board, which will reduce risk even further by assuring capital markets that first nations have the expertise to exercise sound fiscal management. Each first nation will have its financial management system certified by the First Nations Financial Management Board before being eligible to borrow through the First Nations Finance Authority.

The management board is being created as a neutral, independent, and professional organization, which will work in concert with the finance authority and other institutions to ensure that participating first nations adhere to the management and operational standards expected of other governments in Canada.

Mr. Chair, the third institution created by Bill C-19 is the First Nations Tax Commission. This body will expand the role currently played by the Indian Taxation Advisory Board and will enable communities to establish and manage their own property tax systems.

Money collected from property taxes not only pays for day-to-day services in first nation communities, but also serves as security to access capital for development purposes. This is a crucial feature of the proposed bill, because it will allow first nation communities to leverage their limited resources and to obtain larger sums to finance local projects.

Consider the effect, Mr. Chairman, that the exercise of this power will have on other first nations. As more communities collect property taxes, more money can be pooled through the finance authority into bond markets, further reducing risk and financing costs. Lower financing costs free up more money for services and infrastructure, which in turn support further development and a growing tax base. And as certainty and confidence in the system grows, more investors will purchase first nations securities, multiplying the benefits for all.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, the First Nation Statistical Institute will assist first nations in developing the tools needed to strengthen decision-making and accountability. Existing first nation information systems are a product of the seventies and eighties and are very much geared to reporting to federal funding agencies. With the move toward self-government, these systems need to be rethought, giving more weight to supporting and informing local decision-making.

¹ (1545)

Mr. Chairman, first nations must play a central role in rethinking these data collection systems to ensure investments in these systems are well focused on the issues first nations face, while at the same time addressing practical needs. This information will touch all areas of service delivery.

The rebuilding of these data collection systems, Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, is a very complex task. First nations statistics will provide first nations with a tool by which they can fully participate, working together with Statistics Canada and other federal agencies and departments. Such data are essential for effective governance and community planning. The new institute will ensure information is available to support more effective decision-making at the local, regional, provincial, and national levels. They will help first nations tell their own stories.

Mr. Chairman, these four institutions will exist independently from one another, but will work together to foster a new era of prosperity for first nation communities. Together, the institutions will reduce the cost of new community infrastructure, thus spurring economic growth and job creation, while enhancing quality of life and improving the foundations of governance. Many first nations regard this work as offering practical measures for stepping beyond the severe limitations of the Indian Act, allowing participating first nations to get on with the development and strengthening of their communities. With the means to work directly with the financial markets and investors, first nations will be able to do so based upon the same financial standards as apply to other governments. More to the point, Mr. Chairman, these communities will be well positioned to take advantage of economic opportunities not just within Canada but around the globe.

Through practical measures, first nations leaders can also look to maximize the benefits to their people from existing resources and, perhaps in time, from those resources negotiated through claims and self-government processes. They are tools that will be relevant in both the near and the long term.

With this bill, I believe the Government of Canada and first nations are taking an important step forward. It's one that will enable first nation communities to blossom today and tomorrow and look forward to a brighter future filled with opportunities.

Mr. Chairman, I have laid out in very broad terms what the four institutions are intended to do. I look forward to the work of the committee. I brought some of my officials with me--Mr. Gordon Shanks and Mr. Paul Salembier--who will be with me to answer any and all questions that you may put to me this afternoon. As well, I welcome any other opportunity to bring forward questions that the committee might have.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

¹ (1550)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

For the record, I will state that Mr. Gordon Shanks is assistant deputy minister, economic development and special initiatives. Welcome. Mr. Paul Salembier we know very well, as he has spent a lot of hours with us--late hours--as senior counsel.

Thank you very much.

Now, for the first round, we'll have a seven-minute round. Therefore, the official opposition gets nine minutes. Who will start?

Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I expect there are probably quick answers to these things, so I just want to know about the costs to set up and maintain these institutions on a yearly basis, Minister.

How much will the First Nations Finance Authority cost to set up and maintain on a yearly basis? What will be the cost of setting up and maintaining on a yearly basis the First Nations Financial Management Board, and also the First Nations Tax Commission? Lastly, what will be cost to set up and maintain on a yearly basis the First Nations Statistical Institution?

Hon. Robert Nault: All right.

Mr. Shanks will give you a breakdown of each of those areas, our estimates of what the costs will be. Just so you know, these costs have been factored in over a number of years now. As I said in my opening comments, in 1996 we started working with first nations representatives through the AFN and through “Gathering Strength” to set aside the financial resources for these institutions.

To put it to you in a different perspective, Mr. Chairman, this has been a long project and long term. So, yes, we built it into our existing budgets many years ago.

Mr. Shanks will lay it out for you precisely.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I just want to say, Mr. Shanks, I want to move to some other questions, so I don't want long explanations, if that's okay by you, just basically, in approximate numbers, what you assume to be the costs to set up each one of these.

Mr. Gordon Shanks (Assistant Deputy Minister, Economic Development and Special Initiatives, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): In approximate numbers, it's about $10 million a year for all of the institutions to operate--

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: For all of them combined? Do you have the breakdown in terms of each one?

Mr. Gordon Shanks: I do in very rough terms. The tax commission is about $5 million a year. The statistical institute $1.5 million to $2 million a year, and the financial management board about $2 million. The finance authority will be a private corporation that will be primarily funded by its membership, so there should be relatively minor costs for the government.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Will there be cost recovery?

Mr. Gordon Shanks: Yes, all of the institutions will have a cost recovery element to them, and as they develop, that'll become a more significant part of their operation.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: In respect to the statistical institution, has there been explored with the AFN and so on all other possible avenues to meet the statistical needs of Canada's aboriginal population before creating this new institute? Could it be an adjunct to the existing Statistics Canada? Are there other ways, Mr. Minister, that have been fully explored in respect to that?

Hon. Robert Nault: Well, as I understand, before I was the minister the discussion revolved around how best to deal with the gap in information gathering for first nations and the abilities to get the kind of information we all need, as governments, to make the informed decisions.

Over the time of the discussion, what came forward was the need to have a statistical institute run, operated, and controlled by first nations people themselves, with the objective that we would enter into agreements officially with all the different departments, including StatsCan, which I understand will be coming forward to speak to you in support of the legislation and the statistical institute and with an explanation of how this work would flow.

But to answer your question, I understand there were discussions on exploring other venues and other methods of proceeding with this, but this was seen to be the most cost-effective and most appropriate for the culture and the respect of the first nation governments.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I gather from our witnesses before the break, before question period, they alluded to the fact that there had been a lot of working together, cooperative effort. One witness indicated that there was real ownership of it; the other witness from Quebec was less inclined that way. So I think there has been, on the whole, a fair degree of effort at cooperating, working together, in that fashion.

I have a question with respect to the AFN alleging there hasn't been an ability to finalize the budget and final agreement with the federal government of late, and they are concerned. As you know--you've probably seen it by now--the letter to the Prime Minister asking for a release of funds promised to the AFN...and in their words, to desist from becoming involved in the political campaign of first nations democratic leaders. They need the release of funds prior to the annual assembly in July, and they have concerns about that, obviously. So there needs to be cooperative effort.

I'm pleased to see there were real efforts at that in respect of Bill C-19, at least by your own indication and that of some of the witnesses here. But how would you respond in terms of not releasing funds to the AFN? It really penalizes them. They feel that way. Their successes are met with a financial penalty, if you will. I don't know what your response on that would be.

¹ (1555)

Hon. Robert Nault: Well, the core budget of the AFN was released at the beginning of the new fiscal year.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: And until they get their audit in—which as you know is not until it's approved at the assembly, I believe—would there be no more release of funds to them?

Hon. Robert Nault: No, we have agreed to release funds with the work we're doing on education. But for all PTOs who have contribution agreements outside the core budget, we have requested a copy of the audit and that an assessment of the audit be made before we release discretionary funds. It includes not just the AFN, but all PTOs and organizations across the country.

The Chair: Mr. Vellacott, I'll just clarify what PTO is: it's provincial and territorial organizations, just for the record.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay, thank you.

How much time do I have left?

The Chair: You have two and a half minutes left.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: At this juncture, then, I guess you're maintaining here that it's simply a matter of course; it's just departmental policy and has nothing to do with penalizing anybody by withholding those funds and not having agreements in place and finalized prior to the AFN elections?

Hon. Robert Nault: Well, Mr. Chairman, for the members' interest, the core budget is over $2 million. The fiscal year just began, as you know, at the beginning of April, so that works out to over $1 million a month. I would be surprised if anyone around the table would see that as somehow the minister punishing or trying to hold back funds.

It certainly is our interest to move on the core-like budgets, as we call them, which are discretionary and are not core, once we've had an opportunity to see the financial results of our work in the previous year. That's the policy and the position of the government.

I would have thought $1 million a month, which is what it has been the last two months, would certainly be considered a significant contribution in anyone's terms. I'd remind colleagues that I'm not the only minister who funds the AFN. They get a significant amount of financial resources from other departments in this government. So I suspect our request is a reasonable one: that we would want to see audits before we make decisions on flowing discretionary funds.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: If I could just interject, Mr. Minister, given that we're two and a half months into the new fiscal year, there's certainly a problem somewhere in terms of the sequencing of things, that we're that far in the new fiscal year and there haven't been approvals. Somebody has to get this done in advance, before people are holding the bag.

Hon. Robert Nault: You're absolutely right. The sooner we get an audit, the better.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Well, you can always have an audit partway into the fiscal year. But in fact funds are not released until we're a quarter of the way into the year already. Is that the standing position of the department?

Hon. Robert Nault: Mr. Chairman, I'm surprised we're having this discussion. You would think that for the sake of this discussion today we would all agree it's the role of the minister and the department to be accountable for taxpayers' funds. That's the whole objective of wanting to see the audits. It's the approach we take right across the country with all first nations in discretionary funding. It's our intent to work very closely with the organization, but we will not be transferring funds until we see the results of our work in previous years.

The Chair: Thank you.

Monsieur Loubier, vous aurez sept minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Maybe the minister Nault will understand better in French the line of questioning of my colleague.

I would like to know how come the Assembly of First Nations has been unable, since April 1^st, to finalize its operating budget with you and that you even refuse to meet with them. It is not a matter of waiting for an audit or seeing results, the fact is that you refuse to meet with them since they came out in opposition to Bill C-19, but especially in view of their radical opposition to Bill C-7.

The Quebec Native Women's Association, whom we have met recently, told us the same thing, that you had cut off their funding because of Bill C-7. I wonder if this refusal to listen to their arguments and this withholding of their funding is not a device to weaken the Assembly of First Nations. The Assembly has been running up debt now for almost three months in order to keep operating.

Is this a strategy to weaken them? I would like a clear answer from you. Are you, yes or no, going to meet with the representatives of first nations very soon, meaning in the coming hours, in order to finalize funding negotiations?

You are weakening this organization in order to punish it because of its opposition to Bill C-7. I can see no other reason for this.

º (1600)

[English]

Hon. Robert Nault: Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, my department met with the AFN and its administration and staff as late as last week, discussing the requirements necessary for us to release funds from the Government of Canada.

But I do want to correct the member, because he's misinformed. We have no core budget that flows to the aboriginal women's groups and never have had. So I've not cut the aboriginal women's funding ever, because we don't—

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Just a second! The Quebec Native Women's Association had a special project with you with a $40,000 budget, but you took it away. They also had a special subsidy in the amount of $140,000 from Heritage Canada which was cut following your recommendation. So stop taking us for fools.

I am beginning to understand why first nations people say that if somebody else had introduced Bill C-19 we would not be seeing such divisions. So don't play dumb and stop making fools of us.

The Chair: Mr. Loubier...

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I have a question for you on Bill C-19.

The Chair: Mr. Loubier, please, let's stop making personal accusations. Let's be more professional and deal with the subject under consideration. Such attacks lead nowhere.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: We heard this morning that you were bragging left and right that Bill C-19 is yours; I too heard you say the same thing. You stated earlier that you had been thinking about this since 1996 while in real fact neither you nor your department had anything to do with it. This bill was developed by first nations people.

If you presented things in a different way, rather than introducing bills C-6, C-7 and C-19 together as complementary legislation aimed at building up your legacy, it might be easier to achieve consensus with first nations. Furthermore, if you stopped being so arrogant with first nations, this too might change the way things are unfolding. I call on you to give the Assembly of First Nations its operating budget back. This is senseless and undemocratic.

I ask permission to table a letter the Assembly of First Nations is sending today to the prime minister in order to protest this situation. I table it for the information of the committee.

The Chair: You do not really have a question to ask?

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Yes, there are questions.

The Chair: There are attacks, accusations and interpretations, but I did not see any question on Bill C-19.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Here is my question. Will you admit once and for all that your attitude in relation to Bill C-19 is the major problem and that you--and not the first nations--are indeed the real problem? You keep throwing oil on the fire and this is why things are going so badly with Bill C-7 and Bill C-19 especially.

[English]

Hon. Robert Nault: Mr. Chairman, I have said many times—and I've quoted Manny Jules in my opening comments for a reason—what Bill C-6 is doing, if I understand the work Parliament does, is build an institution to deal with specific claims, a commission and a tribunal.

What we're doing with Bill C-7 is building an institution of structures of governance, as an interim step as we work our way to building capacity to move to self-government.

Bill C-19 is exactly the same. They are institutions being built to give modern tools to first nations to be successful. That's what I have said many times over the last number of months.

º (1605)

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Regarding Bill C-19, are you ready to...

[English]

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): I want to raise a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: I have a point of order.

Mr. Alan Tonks: This is not going to go anywhere. The member is interrupting the minister. This is not in the interests of getting on with the bill. With great respect, Mr. Chairman—

The Chair: Absolutely, and I will rule on the point of order. The seven minutes belongs to Mr. Loubier. If he chooses to ask questions and is not interested in the answer, I'll have to let him have the mike for his seven minutes. It's counterproductive, but that's the way we operate.

Mr. Loubier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I would like the minister to tell me--and this is why I interrupted--about Bill C-19.

Mr. Nault, are you ready to accept substantial amendments to Bill C-19 in order to overcome the distrust in relation to this bill and in order for it to be passed quickly in the fall if you manage to be sufficiently convincing?

How far are you willing to go in terms of substantive amendments to the bill? With Bill C-7, you had invited us to submit amendments but the liberal majority did not accept a single one.

[English]

Hon. Robert Nault: Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, we passed 51 amendments to Bill C-7, so I commend you for your work in the committee.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: They were Liberal ones.

Hon. Robert Nault: I want to commend the NDP for their work, because we accepted one of their amendments. I don't accept the argument made by the honourable member that we did not want to work with a very open mind to see improvements to Bill C-7.

Now, on Bill C-19, Mr. Chairman, it's my understanding you will hear from witnesses, including those who've been actively involved in developing Bill C-19, on the technical work they have done and the work we have been involved with in partnership with them.

It's my understanding that this bill has tremendous support in the communities. I would hope, unless there are areas we have missed in our work together, that this legislation is in fact ready to move forward through the legislative process.

But as always, I'm in your hands. As you know, the standing committee is a process I have no control over. The committee can look at amendments and make decisions based on what they think is appropriate.

I think this work is one first nations are waiting for. They want to see the bonding process, the finance authority, in place as quickly as they possibly can, because it costs a lot of money to run a government and to develop the kinds of infrastructure and opportunities needed in the communities. The longer we delay this, the longer first nations will pay—those who want to participate—30% to 50% more in interest than they need to.

My answer to the member's question is, unless there is some area I'm not aware of that people have some concern about, I leave it to the work of the committee to make those decisions.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Martin, you have seven minutes.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you Mr. Chair.

Let me start by saying, Mr. Minister, I don't think we should be dealing with this bill while Bill C-7 is still working its way through the House of Commons. I think it's too much to ask the standing committee to even entertain another comprehensive, broad, sweeping piece of legislation while, especially being from one of the smaller parties, I have to be here at the committee and be in the House of Commons to monitor Bill C-7. It's not a fair process, from my point of view, to fast-track Bill C-19 through the committee at this point.

Within the seven minutes I have, I'd like to comment first on the amount of spending that's taken place so far in the four institutions as they exist.

Well, technically they don't exist, do they, until Bill C-19 comes into force? Yet there's staff in place, and has there not been hiring and spending and offices rented. etc.? Even people who made application to come as witnesses to this committee are from all the various institutions that don't exist yet, but apparently they have salaried staff with travel budgets, and they're up and running. That seems to me why there's such an interest in fast-tracking this, because I don't think there have been spending warrants in place.

I'd be interested in hearing by what authority the current spending has taken place.

º (1610)

Hon. Robert Nault: Mr. Chairman, under contribution agreements, the minister enters into working relationships with the AFN and other organizations across the country to develop policy and the kinds of institutional structures and drafts you have before you. So yes, through the contribution agreements and work plans, there are individual working groups on each institution we're working on, on the understanding of making sure the vision and view of aboriginal people are articulated in this legislation.

So if that's what the member means.... If you want to know specifically how much money has been spent since we started this process at least 10 years ago, or since 1996 or in 2002-03, I can give you all of that information, because this has been going on for a long time.

And, Mr. Chairman, for anyone to suggest we're fast-tracking this.... As I've said very openly, this started before me and, I dare say, before my predecessors in this particular government. We've been talking about fiscal relationships, fiscal institutions, and the structure of taxation, or taking up the taxation room that the provinces or federal government currently has, but which is lost to the first nation community. This discussion is not a new one, but has been ongoing for many years.

Gordon has given me a list of what we've spent in 2002-03. If I can read his handwriting, we spent $1.8 million on the First Nations Tax Commission; $1.7 million on the First Nations Fiscal Management Board; $1.7 million on the First Nation Statistical Institute; and $500,00 on the First Nations Finance Authority. That's been the cost this fiscal year to develop the work we're talking about.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, from a transparency point of view, I don't mind giving you the cost of this development over the last 10 years, if you so wish, showing the amount of commitment of this government and this parliament to improving the abilities of first nations to develop their economies, because that is exactly what our interest is.

If the member wants to know, does it cost a lot of money? Yes, it does. Are there people involved in this who are attached to it in the sense of having done the work? I refer to people like Chief Tom Bressette, who I understand was asked by his colleagues over time to be on this; and people like Manny Jules, who has been involved in the Indian taxation process since the eighties—or even before that, as far as I understand. So I have no difficulty, Mr. Chairman, in giving the honourable member any information he wants on the cost.

Mr. Pat Martin: That answers my question.

The Chair: You have two minutes left.

Mr. Pat Martin: Two minutes. Thank you.

I was worried that the minister was going to filibuster my time out.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Hon. Robert Nault: I'm learning from one of the experts.

The Chair: You're learning from the best.

Hon. Robert Nault: I've been known to filibuster a couple of things on my own, from time to time.

Mr. Pat Martin: I have no doubt.

I'm interested as well, though, by your comment that the “genesis” of these concepts can at least be traced back to an Assembly of First Nations resolution in 1996. But it is a fact that there was a more recent opposing resolution by the AFN in November 2002. While there have been a couple of letters from the national chief in favour of the process as of four or five years ago, the most recent opinion or view of the Assembly of First Nations has been in opposition.

When we had witnesses before the committee earlier, I recommended that we put this completely in abeyance until at least the July annual general assembly, when we can hear once and for all from the legitimately elected leadership whether they are for it or against it. That would give us some direction.

Out of respect for the legitimately elected leadership, would you not think that would be the logical thing to do?

º (1615)

Hon. Robert Nault: Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, as late as August 2002 the national chief was extremely supportive of this work, and we have worked long and hard in partnership to bring this legislation and these institutions forward for your consideration. Yes, I accept the argument that there are those who are opposed, and it is your role, as parliamentarians, to make decisions on whether the legitimacy of that opposition is based on the legislation before you and the work of these joint working groups that we've had for almost 10 years, or if it is more of a philosophical or political nature, where there are differences of opinion in any organization. I dare say in my own party, and I'm sure in your own, we have differences of opinion and we debate those and we argue about those on a regular basis.

I firmly believe that this work is at a point where we need to move ahead. I am confident that when you hear from first nation leadership themselves, as you did this morning, even though there were two grand chiefs sitting side by side saying they had differences of opinion, the fact remains that there are many who believe this optional bill will make a difference to building an economy locally in their communities.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

I understand the Liberals will share the seven minutes between Ms. Neville and Mr. Binet.

Ms. Anita Neville: We will, Mr. Chairman, because we don't get a lot of opportunity to ask questions.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. I want to ask you some questions about the nitty-gritty, the establishment of the institutions that we're talking about.

As I understand it, the bill now requires the Governor in Council to make the appointments to them, and it indicates that they should appoint qualified individuals to serve on the institutions. I'm interested in knowing your comments in terms of the allocation of first nations members. Should it be a majority? Are we looking at regional representation? Can you talk a little bit further about the appointment process to the various agencies established?

Hon. Robert Nault: Mr. Chairman, there are some specific numbers in the legislation, but I can tell you that in working with my colleagues and the leadership across the county, it certainly is my hope that every single board member would be aboriginal, which is the intent of the legislation. It's not specifically laid out that way because, for example, on the financial management board, or on the statistical institute, it was argued by aboriginal leadership themselves that there may be a need to have some expertise on some of these boards that they would want to get in the non-native world. I don't see a problem with that myself, but the objective of this is to get the most qualified people available to manage the affairs of these institutions, because it's not the objective or the interest of the department, or the minister, or the government that I represent to participate at all in these boards. These are aboriginal, first nation-driven, and it is my hope that the people on the board will be the qualified people put forward.

If I can, I hope, in working with the leadership, to bring forward lists of people to go for Order in Council who are all aboriginal, because that's the objective of our work.

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, Mr. Nault. It is a pleasure to have you appearing before us today. We are not dealing with Bill C-7 today but we had a lot of discussions about it.

In my previous life I was a mayor and I knew very little about first nations communities. I can tell you that I know much more since I started sitting on this committee.

The debate on Bill C-7 taught me a whole new perspective. I visited many communities and met a lot of their leaders. It seems to me that, contrary to Bill C-17, they view this legislation in a very positive light.

As it says in the report, it is always a matter of trust. I could quote a paragraph that shows that when first nations communities felt that the government was changing the bill, they were ready to reject it. It is a lack of trust in the Canadian government. I would like to have your opinion on this because according to what the chiefs said earlier, this bill has been entirely developed with the first nations.

The member for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot asked you a question but I did not hear the answer. He told us this morning that you did not do even the least bit of work on Bill C-19. There are presently several bills under consideration. I would like to know your answer to what the member for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot said in this regard.

º (1620)

[English]

Hon. Robert Nault: Mr. Chairman, one of the most important discussions you've been having in your committee over the last number of months, and an important question that needs to be answered by the aboriginal leadership.... There is a significant split and difference of opinion, and this difference basically suggests that for all intents and purposes--and this is not everyone's opinion, I'm sure--many believe the Government of Canada, no matter what the legislation is, does not have a right to bring this legislation to Parliament.

I think, at this point at least--and governments can change and direction can change-- as I understand the process, there is no other way for a piece of legislation, jointly worked on, to come forward to the House of Commons without being presented by the minister of the Crown. So I'm presenting Bill C-19 on behalf of this partnership and this work that's been done over the last number of years. The First Nations Land Management Act was very much in the same vein; it was brought forward by ministers. As for Bill C-6, even though there's been more controversy about whether we fundamentally change the principles of that work, it's my belief that Bill C-6 was a culmination of a lot of work between us and first nation leaders and communities. So it's our objective to bring forward this legislation on behalf of first nations people.

If the member is asking me whether there's a lot of mistrust or reason for mistrust, the answer is yes, there is. Over the last number of years there certainly have been policies put forward that suggested governments of all stripes--in particular, I suppose, the two governments that have governed this country for the last some 130 years--have not supported the goals and aspirations of first nations people.

My point to you, and one I've made many times, is that when we moved forward to bring aboriginal rights within our Constitution, it was my hope that we had moved past this debate and that now we believe we are a partnership that needs to be developed. This legislation, these institutions, bring forward the strength and the tools necessary for first nation governments to be successful. That's the objective of the exercise we're entering into. We're not here, and we're not interested as a government, to diminish the rights of aboriginal people, as we understand them.

That debate, of course, is one that goes on and there are many differences of opinion, but my opinion is that Bill C-7, Bill C-19, Bill C-6.... This fall we will bring a piece of legislation that we've been working on for quite some time, in particular in the oil patch in Alberta and Saskatchewan, that will bring some strength to the work of first nations in the oil patch, because it needs to be redone. Are we going to have the same debate here as we're having? Probably we will, but it needs to be done.

I'll give you the reason why. On the oil and gas side, Alberta--

An hon. member: What about Samson?

Mr. Robert Nault: --made 12 different changes to their legislation to improve the abilities for the private sector to do its job in that particular sector. We have not changed ours since the seventies. I think we need to continue to improve that as we go forward.

º (1625)

The Chair: Thank you.

We have time for a four-minute round.

Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'll share my time with my colleague Mr. Chatters here, but I understand, Mr. Minister, that INAC currently funds local infrastructure projects on reserve in conjunction with Infrastructure Canada and the first nation community. If a first nation community is a borrowing member of the FNFA, are they still eligible to enter those funding arrangements, in respect to infrastructure, with INAC?

Hon. Robert Nault: Yes, there's no difference. There's no change in our relationship with first nations vis-à-vis our capital that we put forward for infrastructure, our capital dollars we put forward for improvements in the communities on a yearly basis. In fact, we've increased that substantially, as you know. So, no, this is not to substitute one for the other.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: They can have both.

Hon. Robert Nault: Yes.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Also, why is a borrowing member of the FNFA not permitted to use alternative debt financing if a more competitive rate is available elsewhere? Once they're in the FNFA, if I understand it, they can't go elsewhere for alternative debt financing.

Mr. Gordon Shanks: I'll try to answer that.

It's because they want to develop a pool that has complete integrity within itself, so the bond markets are familiar with those first nations and are able to respond to them as a collective. If you get a variety of competitive systems going, it generally causes confusion in the market, and the attempt here is to create integrity, strength, and stability.

The Chair: Mr. Chatters.

Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): Thank you.

What is the total financial risk exposure of the Government of Canada as a result of the creation of these institutions?

Hon. Robert Nault: None.

Mr. David Chatters: None?

Okay. Is it true the First Nations Financial Authority is already issuing bonds, before this bill is passed?

Hon. Robert Nault: No, it's not true.

Mr. David Chatters: Well, we have a fact sheet here that suggests that's the case, that the FNFA is currently issuing bonds.

Hon. Robert Nault: I'd love to see the fact sheet, Mr. Chairman. I don't know where the member got that information from, but there's no legal capacity to do that at this time.

The Chair: Mr. Chatters, are you willing to make a photocopy and distribute it?

Mr. David Chatters: That's fine.

The Chair: If you could, we would appreciate it. You have a minute left.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'll take it back then.

In fact, what it indicates here is that the FNFA has successfully established two investment pools that average approximately $6 million to $8 million on deposit. So that money just kind of sits there.

Is that what we're talking about?

Hon. Robert Nault: I think you're talking about investment pools. Those are different instruments from the bonding mechanisms we're using now. Gordon is directly responsible for those, so if you would like--I know you have a short time in your questions and answers--he could give you some information.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Could he quickly respond on what's done with those two investment pools of $6 million to $8 million in deposits, then?

Mr. Paul Salembier (Senior Counsel, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Perhaps I could clarify. The FNFA you're referring to there is a private corporation. It is not the statutory entity that's being created by this bill.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Will this become that institution, then?

Mr. Paul Salembier: Not by operation of law. It may be that the first nations that are currently participating in the investment pools of the private corporation will choose to do business with the First Nations Finance Authority established by this bill, but that would be totally their choice.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: It has the same name and is just kind of folded over, then?

Mr. Paul Salembier: Well, it's a similar name but it's not--

º (1630)

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: It's the same name.

Mr. Paul Salembier: This is not First Nations Finance Authority Incorporated. This is the First Nations Finance Authority as created by this statute.

So as I say, I believe it's probably contemplated that those first nations members of the private corporation will do their investing and their borrowing through this authority, but there's nothing in this bill that requires them to do so by operation of law.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Vellacott and Mr. Chatters.

Now Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Thank you, Minister. I have two questions.

The first relates to the process that has got us here. I have a short timeline sketch.

The co-chair of the chief's committee on fiscal relations, Manny Jules, and you released a consultative draft. Just in terms of the process that led to that, were there substantial issues unresolved that might have then translated into the subsequent decision by that special assembly of the AFN to vote against the process? Or was there something else in play?

That's the first question. I'll just give you the two, so you can take the time to divide them up.

The second has to do with the question as to whether this legislation is mandatory or optional. The preamble suggests it's optional, but it is also stated under clause 141 that taxation laws adopted pursuant to section 83 of the Indian Act will be deemed to be laws made under section 4 or 8. So are those first nations that are currently collecting taxes automatically in if they come under section 83?

I guess the same applies to the issue of natural resources. Is there a question of opting in if a first nation decides to collect non-tax revenues from natural resources from first nations land?

Those are three questions.

The Chair: You have two minutes.

Hon. Robert Nault: We believe it is an opting-in bill. I have sections of the bill that refer to that, Mr. Chairman. I would like to table these with you, because there are a number of people who argue it's not optional.

At the same time, I want to suggest, though, there are components of it that deal with...for example, previously for collecting property tax they went to ITAB, so there is the property tax collection side that's being transferred from one institution that exists now to another. So it could be argued that if you want to get into that business, you would go there, and that could be considered to be mandatory versus optional, but it's optional if you want to go there.

The other point I want to make is on the consultation side. If I understand your question correctly, what's being asked is what drove the special assembly or the confederacy to change its support for Bill C-19 after it had been supported for a number of years. Not having been at the assembly or talked to every individual who was there, I can only say, as I understand it, it was a matter not so much of the technical aspects of the bill but the philosophy of whether first nations should go down the road of building institutions that, in essence, are delegated authority, if I can put it that way, that are acceptable to some first nations.

So the consultations have been extensive. There have been technical working groups for many years now. When you hear from the people who will come forward, they will explain in detail, I hope, in substance the technical working groups that were there and culminated in drafts. Of course, as you know, as a minister of the Crown, I have to get special permission of cabinet to share a consultative draft legally. We did do that. We put it out on the ground so people could have an opportunity to reflect on the legislation before it was presented. That was a part of our commitment to the first nations that were involved in this work.

I can't answer directly the question of why people changed their opinion. You'd best ask those who made that decision.

º (1635)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

[Translation]

Mr. Loubier, you have four minutes.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I have four specific questions for the minister and I would like specific answers.

Firstly, I would like to know why you did not include immediately in Bill C-19 a non-derogation clause. It was the same thing with Bill C-7 where there was no non-derogation clause. Would you be willing to propose yourself the addition of a non-derogation clause?

Secondly, would you be willing to write into the legislation a statement to the effect that the institutions created under Bill C-19 are first nations institutions made to serve first nations only, exclusively?

I am going to ask all my questions and you can answer later.

[English]

Hon. Robert Nault: Sorry, can you repeat the second one? I don't think I got exactly what the question was. I'm trying to understand it.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: In addition to a non-derogation clause in the bill itself, would you be willing to include a provision stating that the institutions created under Bill C-19 have been created by first nations for the service of first nations? This is what you said in your speech. How come there is no mention of it in the text of the bill itself?

Thirdly, there should be a provision stating that this is voluntary and optional. In other words, a first nation that does not opt into those institutions would not be penalized in any way. It would not be penalized as the Assembly of First Nations has been penalized because of its opposition to Bill C-7 and others bills by having its budget withheld.

Fourthly, are you willing to write into the text of the bill that you will respect the independence of these institutions and that there will be no interference between Bills C-19, C-7 and C-6 as you suggested recently? In my view, this has created lots of needless frictions and tensions with first nations.

[English]

Hon. Robert Nault: My personal view has always been, and it remains today, that the aboriginal and treaty rights of first nations people are protected under section 35. Non-derogation originally came about by individual members of Parliament who wanted to send a signal not to forget that we have certain obligations to aboriginal people. Non-derogation has now become quite a debate in the House of Commons and, as you know, has been sent to a Senate committee for review as to how we would approach the interests of a non-derogation clause above and beyond the protection that already exists in section 35.

It has been my view that the conflicting kinds of non-derogation clauses that are being put in bills may confuse the courts more than help them. It's my preference, quite frankly, that non-derogation clauses stay out of bills if they are going to be such that every piece of legislation has a different wording to its non-derogation clause. Until we get some agreement, we would best be careful as to what the results of that work would be by members of Parliament on behalf of good intentions to protect the rights of aboriginal people.

So it's my view that Bill C-19 doesn't need a non-derogation clause, and legal arguments go to some extent to explain why that's not necessary. Others have been suggesting non-derogation clauses with other interests. The interest is to give further protection in section 35--the argument I hear from time to time--which would give further strength to that section than was intended when it was put into the Constitution.

So that debate does occur, it's one that you need to have, and it's one that I'm supportive of seeing people have.

As you know, you put a non-derogation clause in Bill C-7. We are not going to attempt to remove that non-derogation clause, simply because I understand the interest and the assurances of having it there. If you're asking me, I don't believe it's necessary, but then again, it goes back to what one other member asked, and that's the issue of trust and what it means.

º (1640)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister. You were asked five questions, with two minutes to answer. You won't be able to answer. The time is up.

Mr. Tonks.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Minister, to you and your colleagues, for being here.

With respect to the--

The Chair: Mr. Loubier, on a point of order.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, I asked four questions. The minister answered only one. It is up to the minister to better manage his time. I ask questions and I want answers. You say that because the minister spoke for too long on the first question, I am not entitled to an answer to my three other questions. This is unfair.

[English]

The Chair: The time is up.

Mr. Tonks.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You mentioned the Indian Taxation Advisory Board. Under that concept, did those who had jurisdiction within that act or that legislation have the right to borrow, or was it just that they could use their own property tax base to finance their initiative?

Hon. Robert Nault: Under the ITAB there was no pooling of the resources to reduce the risk in the formal sense that we're talking about today. Nothing stood in the way of people borrowing.

The issue we're confronting today is, because of the risk that the financial institutions see of lending money to first nations, they charge a premium and then some. The objective of this exercise is to reduce that risk so that we can get bonding and borrowing of money at the same rate as other governments in Canada do presently.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Just on that--and this is very instructive, Mr. Chairman--municipalities in Ontario do not have a pool. Each of them is rated by Standard & Poor's, which puts municipalities with weak assessment bases in a disadvantageous position. You're illustrating that in order to avoid that and to provide for an equitable pool, you're using the strength of the total portfolio, the total group. What amount of support did you have from the first nations in your dialogue for that, if I may say, extremely progressive concept?

Hon. Robert Nault: As I understand, close to 200 first nations are extremely interested in this process and are looking forward to seeing the creation of this institution, with the objective of knowing more what the savings will be.

The First Nations Financial Management Board and its independent structure...and the objective of that board is to go out and give advice and show the benefits of the pooling of the risk. This is not a unique concept; it's one that's used in British Columbia now. As I understand, over a number of years the B.C. municipal federation has been using the same tool, so the small municipalities get the same rating as the larger one--as large as, say, Vancouver. So it does help the collective, and so we're hoping that has the same success.

In your discussions you will hear from the financial people, from the bonding agencies to the financial institutions, who will come and explain in detail how successfully this has worked somewhere else and why they see it working successfully in the first nation communities.

The Chair: Thank you.

We have 15 minutes. That's not enough time for a full round and 10 minutes for closing remarks. So we'll go directly to closing remarks.

Hon. Robert Nault: Mr. Chairman, before I do that, I wonder if I can use some of my time to answer Mr. Loubier's questions. I don't want to give him the impression that somehow I was filibustering, because of course this is too important.

I want him to know it is very much our view that this is an optional piece of work, and we are going to give you some detailed information as to why we believe it is so. But at the same time, there are some people coming to the committee who are suggesting--and I want to focus on this--that the committee agree to a schedule of those who would be in and those who would be out.

If you do that, you force the minister to be actively involved in putting communities into the legislation on a regular basis, as they come forward--which is another really regulatory structure that's not necessary, and the minister should not have to do that. But there are some who think, if you want to make it optional, you should have a schedule of who's in and who's out. I really want you to consider the ramifications of doing that, because I don't support that. There's no need for it, because it is optional.

I want to confirm for my colleagues that I believe these institutions are and will be independent. It's not the intention of the government to continue in the same form as we've been with the Indian Act, that every single thing that goes on with this order of government will have to be dealt with by the minister and his bureaucracy.

It's the intention to develop the institutions and the strength of first nations as an order of government in Canada. It can only be done independently, by people for their own people, and that is the objective of this legislation, as it is with all the work we're doing here in the House.

I believe--and I want to close with this point on a question that Mr. Loubier asked--this legislation was created by first nations. We have consulted significantly over the years. We have worked very closely. We have attempted to listen and to put forward what we heard, as technical as these institutions and these pieces of work might be.

So I hope that attempts to answer the questions of my colleague.

Lastly, I understand that you will be lobbied extensively by a number of aboriginal leaders who are very supportive of your moving quickly to get this legislation passed and into existence. I very much support that, because I think this is good work. This is work that should not get caught up in other political work or issues that are going on out there.

Yes, there has been a lot of controversy and a lot of debate. I'm very supportive of the debate that's going on in this country on governance. These are institutions that will strengthen, building an economy that strengthens governance, and yes, they are complementary from the view that they do help develop the first nations societies. I'm not, as some people might be, squirmish and squeamish about the issue of this debate. It's one that should have been had many years ago.

I've told many people this in the last few days, so I will close with it. When I go home and visit my communities this summer, I will be talking to every single leader and their communities about this work. I will be talking about their fears, their mistrust, and what they think of the work we've done so far and where we're headed, straight up, head on--not an issue for me--with the objective of doing one thing. When I see all those young kids running around the communities, I want to be assured that 20 or 30 years from now we won't be in the same place.

I want to see some success. I want to see good governance. I want to see good fiscal institutions. I want to see an order of government that's a partner with the rest of the governments in this federation. That's what it is, and that's what it's all about; and those who disagree with me should take the opportunity to come to the committee and voice their opinion. But you've wanted to know what mine is and what the government's is, so I share that with you today.

Thank you very much.

º (1645)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister, for answering the questions upfront the way they were presented to you. It's very helpful.

We will adjourn the public portion of this meeting, and at 5 o'clock we will have an in camera meeting to decide how the committee chooses to go about doing the work, and we look forward to working with everyone.

Thank you very much.