AANR Committee Meeting

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

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

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

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, June 10, 2003

0805

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

Mr. Clarence (Manny) Jules (Chair, Indian Taxation Advisory Board)

0810

0815

0820

0825

0830

The Chair

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

Mr. Clarence (Manny) Jules

0835

The Chair

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.)

Mr. Clarence (Manny) Jules

0840

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Mr. Clarence (Manny) Jules

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Mr. Clarence (Manny) Jules

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

0845

Mr. Clarence (Manny) Jules

0850

The Chair

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

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Clarence (Manny) Jules

0855

The Chair

Mr. Clarence (Manny) Jules

The Chair

Chief Tom Bressette (Chairperson, First Nations Statistics Advisory Board)

0900

0905

0910

The Chair

Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ)

Chief Tom Bressette

0915

Ms. Pauline Picard

Chief Tom Bressette

Ms. Pauline Picard

The Chair

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

Chief Tom Bressette

0920

Ms. Anita Neville

Chief Tom Bressette

Ms. Anita Neville

The Chair

Ms. Pauline Picard

0925

Chief Tom Bressette

0930

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)

Chief Tom Bressette

0935

The Chair

Chief Tom Bressette

0940

0945

0950

The Chair

Mr. Harold Calla (Chairman, First Nations Financial Management Advisory Board)

0955

1000

1005

1010

The Chair

Ms. Pauline Picard

Mr. Harold Calla

1015

1020

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. Harold Calla

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. Harold Calla

1025

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. Bruce Campbell (Legal Counsel, First Nations Financial Management Advisory Board)

The Chair

Ms. Pauline Picard

Mr. Harold Calla

Ms. Pauline Picard

Mr. Harold Calla

1030

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Mr. Harold Calla

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Mr. Harold Calla

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Mr. Harold Calla

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Mr. Harold Calla

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Mr. Harold Calla

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Mr. Harold Calla

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

1035

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Mr. Harold Calla

The Chair

Ms. Anita Neville

Mr. Harold Calla

1040

Ms. Anita Neville

Mr. Harold Calla

Ms. Anita Neville

The Chair

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

Mr. Harold Calla

1045

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Harold Calla

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Harold Calla

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Harold Calla

1050

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Harold Calla

The Chair

Ms. Pauline Picard

The Chair

Ms. Pauline Picard

The Chair

Mr. Gérard Binet

The Chair

Grand Chief Charles Fox (Ontario Regional Chief, Chiefs of Ontario)

1200

1205

1210

1215

1220

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Grand Chief Charles Fox

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Grand Chief Charles Fox

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

1225

Grand Chief Charles Fox

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Grand Chief Charles Fox

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Grand Chief Charles Fox

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Ms. Pauline Picard

Grand Chief Charles Fox

1230

Ms. Pauline Picard

Grand Chief Charles Fox

Ms. Pauline Picard

Grand Chief Charles Fox

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Grand Chief Charles Fox

Mr. Stan Dromisky

1235

Grand Chief Charles Fox

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Grand Chief Charles Fox

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Grand Chief Charles Fox

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Grand Chief Charles Fox

1240

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Grand Chief Charles Fox

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Grand Chief Charles Fox

1245

The Chair

Chief Tom Bressette

The Chair

Chief Tom Bressette

The Chair

Ms. Deanna Hamilton (President and Chief Executive Officer, First Nations Finance Authority)

The Chair

Ms. Deanna Hamilton

1255

1300

1305

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

1310

Ms. Deanna Hamilton

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Deanna Hamilton

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Deanna Hamilton

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Deanna Hamilton

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Deanna Hamilton

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Deanna Hamilton

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Deanna Hamilton

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Deanna Hamilton

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Deanna Hamilton

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Deanna Hamilton

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Deanna Hamilton

1315

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Ms. Pauline Picard

Ms. Deanna Hamilton

1320

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Ms. Deanna Hamilton

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Ms. Deanna Hamilton

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Ms. Deanna Hamilton

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Ms. Deanna Hamilton

Mr. Stan Dromisky

1325

Ms. Deanna Hamilton

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Ms. Deanna Hamilton

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Ms. Deanna Hamilton

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Ms. Deanna Hamilton

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Deanna Hamilton

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Deanna Hamilton

1330

The Chair

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Ms. Deanna Hamilton

The Chair

Ms. Deanna Hamilton

1335

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

NUMBER 081

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, June 10, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¾ (0805)

[English]

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

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, a First Nations Financial Management Board, a First Nations Finance Authority, a First Nations Statistical Institute, and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

We are pleased to welcome this morning from the Indian Taxation Advisory Board, Mr. Clarence Manny Jules, chair; Leslie Pinder, legal counsel; and Wayne Haimila, legal counsel.

Welcome. We have 50 to 55 minutes together, so we invite you to make your presentation followed by questions. You know the routine, so please proceed.

Mr. Clarence (Manny) Jules (Chair, Indian Taxation Advisory Board): Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am Manny Jules, chairman of the Indian Taxation Advisory Board and former chief and councillor of the Kamloops Indian Band from 1974 to 2000.

For the last three years I have devoted more of my energies to developing a new fiscal relationship between Canada and first nations. In particular, I have worked on the development of the First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, Bill C-19.

Today I am proud to appear before you as a proponent of this legislation. The last time I appeared before this committee was in February. At that time I spoke of our vision for change in the next 10 years. The government has supported our vision. A great many others also share this vision.

That vision is clear: In 10 years there is no Indian Act; it has been replaced by first-nations-led legislation. In 10 years there is no Department of Indian Affairs; it has been replaced by first nations institutions. In 10 years we will be full participants in the economy. In 10 years we will be full partners in the federation and responsible for our lands.

Bill C-19 is a step towards realizing this vision. The First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act is an historic act of good faith in our partnership with Canada. We are building institutions of first nations government through federal legislation. Some are skeptical of this approach. They are mistrustful. In the last 130 years, federal legislation has not benefited us. It has been used to force us off our land, out of the economy, and has destroyed our ability to govern.

Consider the following. The original Indian Act's stated purpose was to assimilate us. The permit and pass amendments in 1881 meant we could not trade without permission. The farming policy of 1889 meant we could not produce more than we needed. Attempts to collect our own revenues and take responsibility for our own affairs were systematically thwarted.

Let me give you a specific example. Our first post-Confederation property tax system was in 1875 at the Mohawk community of Tyendinaga. The community wanted to collect property taxes from their lessees to pay for local services. The band, the township, and local Indian agent agreed to the property tax system. Canada and the Department of Indian Affairs did not. They ordered the tax system stopped.

Other attempts to develop our own sources of revenue were also denied. The Six Nations of the Grand River were denied the ability to collect a rail tax in 1908. In that same year they requested and were denied the ability to collect dominion subsidies.

As well, our traditional methods of redistributing wealth amongst ourselves were also banned. In 1884, potlatches were banned. In 1890, sun dances, giveaways, and similar ceremonies were banned. Thirst dances were effectively banned due to the permit and pass system.

In 1918, an amendment to the Indian Act enshrined these previous restrictions. It read that every Indian who engages in or assists the giving away or paying back of money is guilty of an indictable offence. At that time an MP from Alberta, Mr. Tweedie, stated during the debates:

Well, the Indian may be satisfied and he may not. My personal view with regard to the Indian is that he is the ward of the Government, and being a ward he is bound to accept the treatment given him.

Bill C-19 is a step towards reversing this legislative injustice. It is a step towards bringing our governments into federation. As Abraham Lincoln said, “We cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today”.

Clearly, excluding our governments from Canada has not served us well. Efforts to legislate us to the margin of the economy and the federation have failed this country. Our poverty is costing all governments in Canada an additional $4 billion a year in higher social, health, education, and housing costs. Our poverty represents $5 billion a year in lost productivity. This level of poverty is unsustainable for an aging society.

Bill C-19 is about clearing the jurisdictional path so that we can compete for investment. It is about providing first nations with the same tools of government that you take for granted.

¾ (0810)

Four years ago I attended a conference hosted by the Forum of Federations. President Clinton was the keynote speaker. He spoke of the benefits of federalism. A successful federalist state balances regional and cultural interests with national standards. Standards are required to generate wealth. Successful federations accommodate diversity and provide a framework for nations to achieve common objectives, objectives like economic prosperity, security, good government, and quality public services.

I was gratified to learn that the President of the United States shares my understanding of federalism. After that conference, I was invited to become a board member of the Forum of Federations. I accepted that invitation. Since that time, I have reflected on the Canadian federation and realized that it has worked for everyone but us.

Bill C-19 is about finding our rightful place in the federation. The idea of ensuring the rightful place of indigenous populations within federations is a global issue. Bill C-19 is a practical and innovative model that Canada can be proud of.

In April of last year, the Forum of Federations and the Assembly of First Nations hosted a conference on indigenous fiscal relationships. There were representatives from the United States, Mexico, Brazil, and Australia. They were impressed by our proposal to develop first-nations-led institutions. It is now clear that other countries are looking to Canada for leadership.

It seems to me I've been working towards this legislation my whole life. In 1985, I followed the work of my father, Chief Clarence Jules. We began in Kamloops to organize support to amend the Indian Act. It needed to be changed so we could take responsibility for property tax on our lands. We received support from 120 band councils from across the country.

In 1988, with all-party support in the House of Commons, the first amendment to the Indian Act led by a first nation, Bill C-115, was made. It was a short amendment. We knew we would have to come back and fill in the regulatory framework. The Indian Taxation Advisory Board, or the ITAB, as we refer to it, is the result of Bill C-115. I am very proud of what we have been able to accomplish.

When we started, some thought only 20 first nations would benefit. However, today there are over 100 first nation communities across the country collecting property taxes. More and more are expressing interest each year. Property tax jurisdiction provides first nations with $40 million annually, better services to taxpayers, greater certainty to investors, and all that from one short amendment.

Now I would like to briefly summarize what Bill C-19 will accomplish. The other proponents of the institutions will provide additional details. Bill C-19 will create a First Nations Tax Commission. It will be the successor institution to the ITAB. The FNTC will promote first nations tax jurisdiction. It will balance the interests of taxpayers and first nations. It will protect the integrity of first nations tax systems. It will build capacity for managing tax systems. It will provide a policy framework for the generation and expenditure of tax revenue.

The First Nations Finance Authority was established in 1995. It will provide investment and borrowing services to first nations. Its member first nations have been waiting eight years for legislation that will allow us to issue our own debentures, using our property tax revenues as securities, just like other governments in Canada.

The importance of infrastructure to our economies cannot be underestimated. According to the World Bank, rates of return to basic public infrastructure are around 20% annually. Better infrastructure will help break our vicious cycle of federal transfer dependency. The First Nations Statistical Institute was conceived in the early 1990s after a successful partnership between Statistics Canada and a number of regional first nation organizations.

At present, the quality of first nations statistics is inadequate. Even our most basic statistics, such as population counts, are suspect. The FNSI will allow us to improve the quality of first nation information and provide timely, relevant information to our residents, potential investors, and other Canadians, just like other governments in Canada.

¾ (0815)

The First Nations Financial Management Board will protect first nations who join the FNFA. This organization will develop principles, best practices, and models for first nations financial management. It will certify good government. The FMB will build confidence and capacity in our governments, just like other governments in Canada.

Collectively these four institutions will do what they cannot accomplish individually. They will provide a supportive framework for our governments and investors. They will provide the stability and certainty of standards. They will also help build a new fiscal relationship.

They will raise the service standards and improve administrative arrangements between first nations and the rest of the country. In sum, these institutions will provide us with the benefits of the federation, just like other governments in Canada.

Bill C-19 is not without its critics. Many criticisms have been made, and I would like to take a moment to respond to some of them.

It is misleading to suggest that this legislation has not been first-nations-led. In the last 15 years there have been six resolutions of support from the AFN for each institution and for the creation of this legislation.

We have received resolutions of support from the First Nations Summit in British Columbia, the Atlantic Policy Congress, and the Union of Ontario Indians. All of these resolutions were introduced by first nation leaders. All of these resolutions were passed by first nation leaders.

First nations collecting taxes and their taxpayers support Bill C-19. These include the Canadian Taxpayers Association as well as the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, whose members constitute the largest property taxpayer. These taxpayer organizations and associations support Bill C-19 because it will provide more transparency and certainty to the first nations tax system.

Bill C-19 has been reviewed and supported by some of the largest financial institutions in Canada. It has also been reviewed and supported by the bond rating agencies, the most demanding critics of financial management practices.

Some critics have suggested that we have not consulted adequately. This is not the case. The work on this bill was directed by a regionally representative chiefs committee of the Assembly of First Nations operating under the mandate and support of AFN resolutions.

For the past two years we have made close to 200 presentations to all representative stakeholder groups, regionally, provincially, and nationally. The feedback from these meetings has directly informed the development of the legislation.

We have also mounted a vigorous communications effort with a view to keeping first nations and parliamentarians informed of our progress. This includes five websites, a monthly newsletter mailed to all stakeholders, and two separate mailings of a Bill C-19 informational kit. Every first nation has also received three copies of the bill through separate mail-outs by the federal government, the AFN, and the fiscal institutions.

Some critics have maintained that we cannot trust the federal government to do the right thing. Mistrust should not be an excuse for inaction. Bill C-115 demonstrates that federal legislation led by first nations can work. While remaining vigilant, I believe we must work with Parliament to develop first-nations-led legislation. Partnership is not about subservience. It provides us with an effective avenue of change.

Legislation allows an orderly transition of power from your government to ours. Legislation provides certainty and confidence to investors, the market, and the public.

This legislation has been characterized as a part of a suite of first nations legislation, a suite that will lead to the destruction of our governments. Let the record be clear. Bill C-19 is a stand-alone piece of legislation that has been developed by and for first nations. It is not part of some hidden agenda.

Some suggest that Bill C-19 is not optional. This simply is not true. Bill C-19 is optional in three fundamental ways. Any first nation is free to choose the services of the institutions. The decision to use the services of a particular institution begins with the first nation. For example, for the tax commission a first nation government would have to pass a local revenue law and submit it to the tax commission--subclause 4(1). For the finance authority a community must also formally apply to be a borrowing or investing member--subclause 74(1). First nations can choose to use the statistical institute--clause 104. A first nation can choose to use the financial management board--subclause 48(1). A first nation can choose not to use the services of the fiscal institutions. After reviewing the fiscal institution legislation, the first nation government can choose not to exercise the powers enabled through this bill. A first nation government can choose to exercise similar powers through a self-government agreement or some other mechanism negotiated with Canada.

¾ (0820)

First nations can choose to stop using the services of the institutions. A first nation can always choose to stop using the services of the fiscal institutions. Although the situation has never arisen for the Indian Taxation Advisory Board or the First Nations Finance Authority, this would require a passage of a law, repealing a law under subclause 4(1) in accordance with the FNT standards--paragraph 33(1)(a). To protect the system and other first nations, there will be some requirements such as fully paying out outstanding debentures or honouring existing service agreements in these opt-out processes.

Some critics have suggested that we could build these institutions through first nation laws. I would suggest this is exactly what we are doing. These institutions protect the standards and systems already existing in first nation laws. Bill C-19 provides certainty to the model first nation property tax law, the model first nation financial administration law, and the model first nation business licensing law.

Some have suggested that we could build these institutions by convention or agreement. This is a quaint idea from the 1800s. It had merit at a time when trade represented a fraction of our income, when most of us did not travel more than 50 miles from our home. Global trade and high-speed exchange of information cannot take place by convention. It requires certainty and stability of standards and legislation supported by institutions.

Some will propose waving the magic wand of constitutional change to perfect our rights. Constitutional change may be necessary and possible in the future, but that does not mean we should do nothing in the interim. Further recognizing our rights alone will not improve our infrastructure, build our systems of government, attract investors, or build a single house. We need practical solutions and we need them now.

Other critics have stated that a first nation institution will not be truly independent if it is appointed by the federal government. I have more faith in common sense than that. To be effective, these institutions must be credible. Poor or political appointments will destroy the legitimacy of these institutions, and to depoliticize the appointment process we have ensured that only qualified candidates will be appointed.

Some have suggested that we are duplicating what already exists, that we will be collecting our own statistics when Statistics Canada and the Department of Indian Affairs already does this, that we will be providing support and services already provided by the Department of Indian Affairs.

According to an objective evaluation by the Auditor General, the Department of Indian Affairs has not served us well. We have no interest in duplicating the Department of Indian Affairs. Like you, we want to remove it, and in establishing first-nations-led institutions, this is exactly what we are doing.

The priority of these institutions must be to develop first nation economies. We will accomplish this. Our governments will build competitive infrastructure. We will provide certainty to investors. We will have reliable information. These institutions will help our communities manage the risks associated with economic development.

The Department of Indian Affairs has not and will not and cannot accomplish this. The services and the reporting standards supported by these institutions will be of the highest quality because incentives are there--more investment and more employment opportunities. Our institutions will support our communities. Our communities will support each other. We recognize that we are in this together.

¾ (0825)

This is the basis for cost-effective government. Standards and rules are not imposed; they are accepted. This means lowering the cost of monitoring, quality control, and regulation.

Some have suggested only a few will benefit. These institutions will benefit all first nations in Canada, whether large or small, rural or urban. The smallest first nations need the support and resources of these institutions. The larger first nations can look after themselves. In particular, the design of the FNFA is to provide smaller first nations with access to capital they currently cannot receive.

Bill C-19 should not be viewed, however, as the last step in this process. As the next step in our partnership we need a comprehensive economic strategy that encompasses land claims settlement, institution building, and infrastructure. We need a strategy to address the root causes of our poverty--a poor investment climate caused by poor access to resources, markets, and technology; substandard infrastructure; and absent institutions of first nations government.

This strategy must be implemented by our own institution, an organization for economic cooperation and partnerships. Working in partnership with other governments and potential investors, I believe it will be the next agent of change as part of our forward thinking. In building future first nations institutions, first nations leaders and Parliament can use a similar approach to what has been established through Bill C-19.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Nault for his courage and determination in making Bill C-19 possible. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank a very special person. She has been my most trusted counsel and good friend since 1984. She is a successful author and a brilliant lawyer. She is retiring to become a brilliant author and to be remembered as a lawyer who created change. We wouldn't be here without her.

Thank you, Leslie.

Today I believe history is on our side. With Bill C-19 we are demonstrating that we are willing and able to take responsibility for our future. We want to share in the greatness of Canada. As Winston Churchill stated, “The price of greatness is responsibility”.

With Bill C-19 we are standing on the threshold of a new era in our relationship. We are not dependants. We are partners in Confederation. Our objective in being here is to receive all-party support for this bill. This will signal our shared commitment to partnership with all Canadians.

We had all-party support for the last first-nations-led Indian Act amendment in 1988. In particular, we had the support of Minister Bill McKnight, Keith Penner, Nelson Riis, and Jim Fulton. We hope we can receive similar support again.

I wish to conclude by reiterating what I said in February. Never doubt that a few thoughtful, courageous people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only way it has ever been.

Thank you.

¾ (0830)

The Chair: Thank you very much for an excellent presentation.

We'll go directly to questions. The first round is a seven-minute round.

Monsieur Loubier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Chairman, it's too bad the official opposition isn't here today to hear Mr. Jules.

Your presentation is clear and really very interesting. I think it's the first time I've heard such a concise and intelligent explanation of Bill C-19. I thank you for that. It's clear that you have worked on this vision for a good part of your life.

However, I'm a bit disappointed that this bill is being looked upon with such mixed feelings by the first nations. It would have been interesting to arrive at a consensus on Bill C-19. Believe me, I'm really disappointed it's not the case. However, some questions were raised yesterday and we've been hearing about them for a few months. In my opinion, they are legitimate and an interest must be shown in them.

Amongst other things, yesterday I asked the minister why he had not included, in Bill C-19, a non-derogation clause. He told me that it wasn't necessary and that the fiduciary role of the federal government was protected under the Constitution and so on. He even made a mistake yesterday when he said that when Bill C-7 was being examined an opposition amendment on a non-derogation clause had been turned down because it was felt to be unnecessary although in reality such a clause was adopted here. In fact, it's the only substantive amendment to C-7 that was passed unanimously by my colleagues.

In your opinion, is it necessary to put in a non-derogation clause? Besides, don't you get the impression there's a kind of breaking of trust between the minister and the first nations as the minister introduced C-19 within the general framework of three bills, including C-7, that were rejected by the first nations almost unanimously? Having C-7 together side by side with C-19 is not very positive.

In short, what is your opinion concerning the non-derogation clause and this broken trust?

[English]

Mr. Clarence (Manny) Jules: First, on the consensus, as I mentioned, I was chief of my community and a council member for some 26 years. As Chief Dan George said, we always endeavoured to persevere, trying to find an accommodation that would include broad-based support from all of our community members. From time to time, our community, for a lot of reasons, made decisions based on the majority will of the community. Some of them were unpopular decisions and were very difficult to reach. But the fact is the community made those decisions and moved forward.

There seems to be a different standard by which first nations are viewed. It seems if we don't reach a consensus on an issue, then nothing should happen. If somebody in the room doesn't agree, well then we shouldn't do that. If that happened in the rest of this country, there would be no issues moving forward. We wouldn't have the ability to be able to deal with the very difficult issues of governance, of creating economies, of creating a future.

So when I look at the controversy that surrounded Bill C-19, I feel it's been one of the best debates I've personally been involved in. The debate that took place in Halifax was absolutely phenomenal. We had seven hours of debate. At the end of it, well over 150 chiefs voted in support of Bill C-19 and about 80 voted in opposition--roughly the same number who have been opposed all along.

So the debate has been there. There has been controversy, yes. But communities that have chosen to continue to support this initiative will continue to do that, because we don't want to be hamstrung and bound up in the shackles of the Indian Act. Our freedom lies beyond that.

This whole notion that we've been wrapped up in this suite of legislation is again a misnomer, because government is here to govern. They're here to look at legislation in many different aspects. Gun control was dealt with without adequate input from first nations. We're still having to deal with that issue.

This is a particular piece of legislation that has its roots in our communities. It has practical applications. It arose because we wanted to be able to have governance and jurisdiction over our own lands when we didn't have any.

We want, as I said in my speech, not to be a ward of the federal government. We want to be able to stand up on our own feet, to be able to contribute to our own betterment. We can't do that right now because the Indian Act says we can't.

The minister was talking about education and the importance in the long term for our youth to be educated so we can be less dependent on the federal government and its transfers. I reminded the minister that under the Indian Act he is still the truant officer. He can come into my home. He can come into other peoples' homes in my community and literally take away their children. You can't remove that horrible section of the Indian Act without legislative change.

What we're doing here is unprecedented. We've said section 83 of the Indian Act shouldn't be under the auspices of the Minister of Indian Affairs. Why can't first nations have this responsibility ourselves? Why can't we demonstrate to other governments, to our citizens, to the people who do business with us that we can be accountable, that we can provide services, that we can stand up on our own?

¾ (0835)

I suggest to all of you that the only way we can do this is through a quick and speedy passage of Bill C-19.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Jules.

Government side, anyone?

Ms. Karetak-Lindell.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): I have a very simple question. In your presentation you talked about how the four institutions could be very separate. To clarify my understanding, could they choose to be part of one of those and not the other three, or a combination? When you talked about the opt-in and opt-out ability, does that mean if they opt in to one, they're not obligated to be part of the other three. Can you explain that a little more as to what it would mean to a community?

Mr. Clarence (Manny) Jules: In my particular case, in Kamloops, we have and will continue to have a real property taxation regime. If we are to be a borrowing first nation, we want to ensure, through the FNFA, that the standards are there. There is going to be a requirement for the passage of a financial administrative law. We would be in a position to be able to help facilitate that with the first nation community, because it's going to be in their best interests to ensure that they have a system in place that's accountable and that's transparent.

There is a linkage between the institutions, but they are all individually stand-alone institutions. With the statistical institute, an individual first nation can contract directly with that particular institution.

¾ (0840)

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Yesterday, when the minister was here, we heard some questions asked by the Canadian Alliance that they felt there were already some bands that were supposedly posting bonds without this legislation. You talked about how old some of these groups already are, and we have some people saying that you really don't need legislation.

I want to get your point of view as to what it means if we don't pass this legislation, let's say in the next week or so.

Mr. Clarence (Manny) Jules: We have a lot of communities across this country that have been waiting for another stream of revenue they can have access to in order to build their own infrastructure. Right now, if you're going to put in a water system, you're going to be restricted to the social conditions of your community. The Department of Indian Affairs will sit down and negotiate with you for x amount of dollars for that particular piece of infrastructure, whether it be water or some other need.

You can't support economic development with that kind of infrastructure. What we're going to be able to provide through the development of these institutions is the ability to go after our own sources of revenue to be able to do that.

There's no way we can be able to do this on our own. You need the legislative framework. You need the legislative certainty to be able to go out to the international marketplace to get people to come and invest in our communities. Right now, when we talk about economic development in a first nation community, if there's a controversy on the west coast, it affects all of us right across this country. Then you have a situation where investors don't even come and talk to us. They go to talk to the Department of Indian Affairs about economic development within our own communities. That isn't how you do business. That isn't how you're able to move forward.

These institutions are incredibly important for our communities because we want to break the shackles of that history, of that yoke, of that beast of burden called the Indian Act. We can't do that by wishing for a better life, by saying that if we close our eyes and hope and pray, this world, when I open them, is going to be different.

We can only do that by practical application, by changing those laws that affect us, and by beginning to develop a partnership that's unprecedented in this land, that can demonstrate globally that we're prepared to work with indigenous peoples, all indigenous peoples of these continents called the Americas.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: What about the comment from the Alliance yesterday that there are already some bonds out there?

Mr. Clarence (Manny) Jules: Well, there's just no legislative framework to be able to do that. We need legislation in order to be able to go after the bonds and debentures. We've met with Moody's. We've met with other financial institutions. They're prepared to work with us, but it's very clear how they're prepared to work with us: through the certainty of a legislative mandate.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Monsieur Loubier, pour quatre minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Jules, I have two questions for you.

Yesterday, I asked the minister whether he was open to amendments to Bill C-19 to reassure those who have lost trust. I suggested four amendments. I asked him whether he was ready to set out within Bill C-19 the fact that the institutions in question are public but that they were conceived by the first nations and are strictly at their service. Then, I suggested that the use of those institutions be optional and that it be so recognized within the act. I also suggested that a non-derogation clause be added now as was done in the case of the amendment introduced in the context of Bill C-7 which led to there being a non-derogation clause. I also proposed that we assert the independence of the institutions and the confidentiality of the data. Finally, I suggested that it be set out in the bill that there should be no prejudice or threats hanging over the first nations not using those institutions. That has been done in the past.

Besides, the Assembly of First Nations has not received its funding since April 1. I get the impression it's because they're opposed to bills C-7, C-19 and C-6 and they're being blackmailed. That's how I interpret the situation. Such things have been witnessed in the past.

Yesterday, the minister did not answer those recommendations directly. He beat about the bush except for the non-derogation clause of which he said that it was not necessary. They said it wasn't needed in Bill C-7, but there was one put in thanks to our amendments. Why are they now saying that it's not needed in Bill C-19 because the fiduciary role of the federal government is protected under the Constitution?

¾ (0845)

[English]

Mr. Clarence (Manny) Jules: First I'll go to the whole question of the non-derogation clause. Of course, this was one we felt would provide a basis for garnering support amongst those involved with the Assembly of First Nations to support the legislation.

When we were going through the drafts of the legislation, we felt--from the chiefs' committee on fiscal issues through to the drafters--that it wasn't particularly necessary to have a non-derogation clause included in Bill C-19. The reason is that we do have something in this country called the Constitution. The Constitution protects our rights under section 35. We felt we didn't need to repeat that particular section in this piece of legislation.

Again, having said this, if it provided a level of comfort to the assembly, we felt we would be prepared to recommend it. It was there as part of the consultation draft, and then ultimately wasn't. I feel very much the same as I have in the past, that really it isn't necessary to have the non-derogation clause in Bill C-19 because I think the legislation will not take away from the rights we have under section 35, and that's very clear. But again, if the committee chooses, in its wisdom, to include a non-derogation clause, I'm not about to object to it.

As for the whole issue of opting out, I think I've addressed it in the body of my presentation. It's very clear the legislation is optional. This was one of the fundamental principles adopted by the chiefs and assembly. It has to be optional so it can accommodate the diversity of first nations across this country. It reinforces this whole notion of free will and choice and the ability to be able to work together without the huge regulatory regime that would come into being if this legislation was prescriptive.

Again, I addressed the whole issue of independence in the presentation. I feel that the way the appointments will be handled is very clear. We want, as everyone else wants, the best-qualified people to be able to sit on the commissions, because we want these commissions to be the best not only in this country but to be leading examples in the world.

As far as the public role of these institutions goes, of course, it's incredibly important for us to ensure that these are public institutions and they have to continue to build public confidence in them. Again, the independence of the institutions in the long term is absolutely, critically important.

As we move forward in creating this new partnership, we have to be able to have the independence of our own governments to be able to reflect who we are. But also, we have to be very conscious of the people who reside within our communities and pay taxes to our governments. We have to be very conscious of all of those people, of all of those interests. So it's important that they maintain independence of government.

¾ (0850)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Jules.

Monsieur Binet.

[Translation]

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

Mr. Jules, congratulations on your presentation. I loved it.

Before becoming an MP—I was elected in November 2000—I was a mayor. So when you talk about coming back to the basics, I understand you. We know that here in Canada, there are three levels of government. When you're a mayor, you are really at the grass roots. With the taxes we collect we can decide to undertake certain projects and sometimes we wind up with something extraordinary very quickly.

I can give you an example. In my municipality, in two and a half or three years, we really did extraordinary things but everybody had to work together. Success didn't rain down from above, it came from the grass roots. Everyone worked together and helped things advance. Ideally, of course, you need the means to fund these projects. Today, to do things, you have to have enough money.

When we collect taxes, we have to be accountable. So we have to do things in the best possible way in order not to be criticized later on. I believe in your system, I encourage you in continuing down that road and I hope that some day we'll have an opportunity to meet again. I would like to have the opportunity to hear you again in the future.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Dromisky, there are about two minutes left.

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): I know I don't have very much time. However, I want to tell you that I can understand why you were a chief for so many years; you are an excellent teacher. There's no doubt about it.

We should be cherishing that presentation today because you have so many concepts in there that are really very enlightening. I think it's the kind of document that should be shared by educational institutions, not only from the historical viewpoint but also due to the fact that you have a presentation that indicates that you are really and truly a visionary.

Keeping that in mind, the fact that you are such an excellent teacher, you are a visionary, you're looking to the future with the right kinds of tools, I might say, and the framework in which to operate, how do you envisage this being implemented and financed? How do you see the various bands and communities being prepared to understand and to move forward? Do you see some type of structure, within each province or nationally? I'm concerned about financing two levels because it's going to cost a lot of money just to educate people, to prepare them to understand and to move forward.

The Chair: Mr. Jules, that was an excellent question from my colleague; it took most of the time that was left, though.

I would invite you to include your response in your closing remarks. We have about 10 minutes and we'd like to hear more from you.

Mr. Clarence (Manny) Jules: I will say this. When I first started doing a lot of this work, there was a reference to a couple of “short” amendments here. When I first started I was at least 5 foot 10 or 11, and I've worn down since then.

It means we have to keep on with the work.

In closing, I would like to thank the committee for your time and support. As the AFN vice-chief of British Columbia, Satsan, said yesterday, I urge you to get Bill C-19 through this committee before the summer recess. Putting this off to the fall, or whenever this House reconvenes, will be costly to all of us. Your message will be clear. Legislation developed by and for first nations is of secondary importance. Can Canada afford to generate more mistrust? Don't send that message.

Almost 20 years ago a few of us talked about building our own national institutions of governance. It was, like most ideas, just a dream. Today I am before this committee urging Canada to make our dream a reality. It fills me with the greatest pride to hear and feel the passionate support for our dream.

We would not be here without a great team. Many parts of that team are here today. On behalf of first nations who will benefit now from Bill C-19, and those who will benefit in the future, I thank you. Rest assured, you will make a difference through the speedy passage of this bill.

¾ (0855)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Jules. I picture you at 5' 11" with a brush cut.

Thank you very much. It's always a pleasure hearing from you.

Mr. Clarence (Manny) Jules: The last time I ever had a haircut in a barbershop was when I was about 15 years old and my mom made me do it. It was close to a crewcut.

The Chair: Well, with all the work you do, I'm sure you don't have time to go for a haircut. We like you the way you are. Thank you.

We now invite the delegation from the First Nations Statistics Advisory Board. We welcome Chief Tom Bressette; Alfred Linklater, executive director; Max Dokuchie, legal counsel; and Jennifer Espey, technical support. We'll give you a bit of time to settle in.

Chief Bressette, I understand you'll be leading off. We have an hour together. I ask you to please consider leaving time for questions and answers.

Please proceed.

Chief Tom Bressette (Chairperson, First Nations Statistics Advisory Board): Good morning, Mr. Chairman and committee members, ladies and gentlemen.

I'm Chief Tom Bressette from the Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point First Nation.

I want to acknowledge and thank the Algonquins of Golden Lake as we are meeting here today on their traditional territory. I also thank the committee for allowing me to speak here today.

I'd like to begin by providing you with my political background. I was elected first a member of council for two terms in my community. After that I was asked to fulfill the position of chief. I reluctantly took that position on, because I know the amount of work and dedication it requires.

As well, I was elected to the regional chief position within our political organization, the Union of Ontario Indians, for the southwest region. I'm an executive member of the Union of Ontario Indians as well, which is sponsoring the development of First Nations Statistics.

I've also served as the Ontario regional vice-chief with the Assembly of First Nations in 1997. I have served politically for over 17 years, and over that time I've seen firsthand the problems and challenges that first nation communities face dealing with both social and economic issues.

I would not be here today if I did not believe in the development of a first nations statistics institute. I really believe this is an essential and integral part of what we need to move forward. It will have a great impact on resolving the challenges we face as first nations people.

Critics of our initiative have cited surveys conducted by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, which found that first nation peoples' priorities are housing, health care, unemployment, education, and culture. They have indicated that institutional development for first nations is not considered a priority.

I believe having to rely on data derived from sources other than first nations institutional processes says a lot about the need for a first nations statistics institute. Consider this: Do the community leaders presently have data and statistics in priority areas available at their disposal? No, they do not. I know that because I've served as a chief. I have firsthand knowledge.

At all other levels of government this information is readily available. The question is, why don't we have the same availability, as first nations?

As a community leader, if I had credible statistical information available in these areas, not only could I show my people why certain decisions needed to be made, but it would also strengthen my arguments to other governments and interests on what and where these improvements are needed. Leadership would be better equipped to negotiate with the government for program and service delivery. We would be able to strengthen our positions by backing them up with information derived from our own institution.

Policy development by federal departments on first nation people is based on information that is currently flawed. Not only do first nation communities face obstacles in information requirements in dealing with social issues, but we also encounter difficulties in attracting outside investors or entrepreneurs who are interested in doing business with first nation communities, because we do not have statistical information that would convince them.

Investors expect to have accurate and comprehensive statistics and data on communities readily available. Due to a lack of information in these areas, they're wary of doing business with us.

How will First Nations Statistics address these deficiencies? First Nations Statistics will assist in the development of capacity to all first nation communities to have data analysis, assessment, and published statistics and information that is relevant, reliable, and responsive.

First Nations Statistics will be a one-stop shop for information on first nation communities. It will ensure that case-specific statistical collection, analysis, and interpretation better meets the needs of first nation governments, businesses, and organizations.

¿ (0900)

The institute will integrate the modern language of statistics with a proper understanding of the traditional value systems and knowledge of first nations. Respectfully, the federal government cannot offer that.

Some people have asked why we sought federal legislation and the creation of this institute. Legislation gives the First Nations Statistics the authority to access federal documents or records relating to first nations and to compile, analyse, and publish based on agreements reached with first nation communities.

Much of this information has already been collected. However, nothing is being done with it. It is stagnant. Legislation gives the First Nations Statistics access to these documents so that a more thorough analysis can be completed.

Further, legislation ensures that personal information provided by an individual, a household, a first nation, a business, or an organization will always be maintained in confidence. No analysis or disclosure will be carried out in any way that can allow identification of individual respondents. Ultimately, legislation allows First Nations Statistics to assume jurisdiction over first nations statistics from the federal government.

The development of the institution has been first-nations-led and driven right from the beginning. The idea of creating a first nations statistical institute responsible for data collection, analysis, publication, and information management has long been an objective for first nations. It became even more important after the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples made the following assertions in volume 2, on page 349:

For Aboriginal people, knowing how political, demographic, social and economic changes will affect their nations and having in place data collection vehicles that provide a community and nation level aggregate picture will be essential to Aboriginal government implementation and planning processes.

Also in volume 2, on page 349:

...as Aboriginal governments assume significantly increased authority and responsibility in areas such as citizenship, financial planning and management, and new services sectors, the demand for data management systems and related capacities will increase.

The Assembly of First Nations took action. Following these recommendations, the AFN passed a resolution in July 1998 to analyse and develop a first nation capacity to monitor, analyse, and distribute data about the national fiscal and economic matters that impact on first nation communities. The mandate was further enhanced in the July 2000 and 2001 AFN general assemblies, where resolutions were passed giving the chiefs' committee on fiscal relations the direction it needed to pursue a legislative framework for the statistical institute.

As you can see, the development of First Nations Statistics has been first-nations-led and driven right from the beginning, and the AFN has had an active primary role in its creation. However, this bill can still be improved. Therefore, I'm proposing some amendments that I'd like this committee to consider seriously.

In order to maintain the direction of the institute's development as being first-nations-led and driven and lay claim to that same creed, if and when the institute is established, we must have a first nations majority on the board of directors. Currently this bill provides no guarantees that any members of the board will be first nations persons. How else can we assure our people that the institute is managed from a first nations perspective?

The institute is currently proposed as a crown corporation. Our preference would be a shared governance corporation; however, either corporate structure will enable First Nations Statistics to fulfill its mandate. The success of the institution will be better realized as a shared governance corporation.

Furthermore, the head office of First Nations Statistics must be on first nation lands. Having a first nations majority board of directors and the head office on first nation lands will enhance First Nations Statistics' utility, credibility, and legitimacy in the minds of first nations people.

I'm proposing the following amendments.

In clause 90, we'd like to delete that and constitute as a board....

¿ (0905)

We propose a subclause 93(2): “The Chairperson shall be a member of a first nation.”

Clause 94 we would modify to read: “On the recommendation of the Minister, the Governor in Council shall appoint a minimum of eight, and a maximum of 13, additional directors, of whom a majority shall be members of first nations, to hold office during pleasure for a term not exceeding five years.”

Subclause 97(2) should have added: “The Vice-Chairperson shall be a member of a first nation. The head office of the Institute shall be on reserve lands at a location determined by the board or at such other location as the Governor in Council may determine.”

Subclause 105 (1) should be modified to read: “Subject to subsection (2), documents or records relating to first nations, Indians or other members of first nations that are maintained by any department, body or corporation shall be disclosed to the Institute for the purposes of this Part in accordance with an agreement referred to in subsection (3).”

Subclause 105(2) should be changed to read: “A department, body or corporation is not required to disclose any information that it is required to withhold under any federal law.”

We would add a subclause 108(3): “Notwithstanding section 13 of the Statistics Act, Statistics Canada shall not acquire or obtain access to the Institute's data without entering into agreements under section 104 of the Act, and refusal to do so does not constitute an offence under the Statistics Act.”

We would modify clause 111 to read: “The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister having regard to any representations by the Institute, make regulations prescribing anything to be prescribed under paragraph 103(2)(q).”

One might wonder why I agreed to participate in the development of the institute as a chairperson of a first nations advisory panel. As I've outlined in my presentation, I feel the establishment of first nations statistics could have a tremendous impact on first nations communities. It will improve community leadership's ability to plan for its members. It will provide us with a road map or blueprint to begin to improve the social and economic conditions of our people.

Over the years I have seen how our communities have been shortchanged and disadvantaged because we did not have access to or possession of vital information and statistics. I am tired of negotiating with federal and provincial governments on an uneven playing field. We do not have the information to back up our arguments or equitable resources and services for our people.

First nation communities are inching closer towards self-determination. I feel the establishment of a first nations statistics institute is an important step in this direction. Not only that, but on a much broader scale I strongly and sincerely believe the establishment of first nations statistics is an important step in improving my people's lives.

Meegwetch, and thank you for inviting me to speak to you today.

¿ (0910)

The Chair: Thank you very much for an excellent presentation. It's very helpful, and I know your suggestions for amendment have been noted. Hopefully the members will present them when we do clause-by-clause.

We'll go to a first round of questions.

[Translation]

The first round will be seven minutes and that will include questions and answers.

Ms. Picard.

Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Bressette, I listened to your presentation carefully and I found it most interesting.

I'd like you to tell us in very concrete terms what advantages there would be to setting up such an institution for the first nations as there's already an institution like that one called Statistics Canada.

What differences would there be between both organizations and would such an institution allow you to improve the quality of life of the people and meet their needs?

[English]

Chief Tom Bressette: I'd like to thank the honourable member for the question. The information that is currently collected by Statistics Canada is not analysed, and it does not disseminate the information it collects. It primarily gives a picture, a ratio: how many first nations people there are; how many are employed or unemployed. It doesn't deal with specifics that are useful to first nations leadership.

I look at the data compiled by Statistics Canada as a chief. It doesn't do me any good to know how many Indians are in the province of Ontario, how many are in Manitoba, how many are unemployed, how many are employed. It doesn't relate to the service requirements they need educationally; it doesn't identify how many children have special needs in education; it doesn't identify the social conditions of a community, or how to improve those aspects; and it doesn't deal with day-to-day matters that impact on our people on a regular basis. It's by and large a mass data collection field that is put into play.

What we would like our institution to be able to do is enter into agreements with the leadership of communities. That's why the institute is contracted from communities. It's not something they're forced into. It's optional, so they can ask us to deal with specific issues such as employment-related matters, matters dealing with housing conditions, the age of homes in communities, the number of homes, the number of families that are there.

Those things are not collected in the current information that Stats Canada gathers. We are proposing that people will work with this. We have been studied to death as a people; that's what many of our people feel. Everybody collects information on us. They have it; why aren't they using it to our benefit?

We feel if we become involved and engaged in data collection for specific directives from communities, we can identify those factors to them.

¿ (0915)

[Translation]

Ms. Pauline Picard: Will that institution have an auditor to analyze the Statistics Canada data and give assurances every thing was done as it should be? Before, you mentioned the structure of that institution and how the board of directors could be set up, but in the model you're proposing, would there be someone whose job it would be to verify whether the data are exact and if everything is done for the reasons for which such or such piece of information was extracted? I'm thinking about an auditor or an expert in the field of analysis.

[English]

Chief Tom Bressette: To answer your question, the institution will analyse existing data from all government departments, and not just from Statistics Canada. As well, we would have the chief statistician of Stats Canada as an ex-officio member on our board. We realize that data collection is statistical information. We need support in establishing this institution as we move along, so we've made allowances for people like that whom we can access to have that information.

In particular reference to an auditor general or someone of that calibre, I was working on a previous review of approximately 85% of the sections in the Indian Act, and in those discussions at that time we were talking about having our own auditor general or ombudsman-type person. As we evolve institutions—I'm sure we're just at the beginning stages—these kinds of positions will evolve and assist us as we move towards self-government.

[Translation]

Ms. Pauline Picard: Thank you very much.

[English]

The Chair: Merci, Madame Picard.

Ms. Neville.

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Chief, for attending here today.

You answered some of my questions in your response to Madame Picard. As you were speaking, I found myself questioning what the relationship will be between the statistics institute and Statistics Canada. Will there be a role for the chief statistician from Statistics Canada? Will there be sharing of information? How do you anticipate that relationship?

Chief Tom Bressette: Thank you for the question.

I've had meetings with the chief statistician. I've outlined this whole process that we're looking at and he has been very supportive of this move, because I think one thing Statistics Canada does clearly understand is that they're having difficulty acquiring data from first nations people.

Statistics Canada shows up and says, “We'd like you to do a survey”, and people say, “No, thank you”, and shut the door. They recognize that this is creating an impediment in their providing the government with accurate data. We do have meetings, and, as I said, he will be an ex-officio member on our board.

Definitely he will have access to information and be able to sit and discuss that information with us. I think he recognizes the fact that our people have always stressed the need for our own institutions. We're always being told, why don't you just join the rest of us? Why don't you just understand that we have institutions of government in place?

The difficulty is that if you look at every nation on the face of the earth, they have an indigenous population, and in every nation those indigenous people have the same desires our people do, to have our governments recognized and not be disseminated and wiped off the face of the earth as if we didn't exist, until a group of people come and absorb us.

I can't say it any clearer than this: we have a genuine heartfelt desire that we are nations and we don't want to lose our place on this earth. We are a people. We always have been here, and we've been quite generous in our acceptance and sharing of our country with everyone else who's had disadvantages.

That's just a feeling I've always carried that my grandfather instilled in me and his father instilled in him. You can't take that out of an individual. We have a desire to be our own nations.

We don't mind being in a collective with the people of Canada. We understand we have to live side by side, coexist, and share this country. That's the one thing we sincerely hope we're able to do.

We don't have a voice actually for the first nations in the Parliament of Canada. We have representatives who are elected by a large collective. But specifically, that's why the AFN exists today. That's why the chiefs support the AFN; it's that drive. It's out of no disrespect that I say that. It's something that's instilled. It's in our nature, our heartfelt desire.

¿ (0920)

Ms. Anita Neville: Thank you.

If I could follow up on Statistics Canada for a moment, I've just come from another meeting this morning where I heard from organizations about their difficulty in obtaining information from Statistics Canada for their planning and their organizations' efforts.

Have you experienced difficulty in receiving information from Statistics Canada when you said you need it for presentations to know how to interact with governments?

Chief Tom Bressette: Yes. It's not very clear how we can use this data because somebody else collects it and their collection purposes are protected under various acts of legislation. So one can't merely call Statistics Canada and say we would like information.

The whole reason why we're doing what we're doing is we want to be able to have the people who need the data be able to use it. If we did create our own structure and said we're going to make our own statistics institution, who would respect it? We're not legislated; we're not a legal entity in this country.

I think that prevents the sharing of data from Statistics Canada to just any organization, and I think it's the law that does this and causes these people to be denied the access they want. It has to be very clear and specific. Why do you want the data and what are you going to use it for?

Ms. Anita Neville: Thank you very much. No further questions.

The Chair: Cinq minutes.

[Translation]

Ms. Pauline Picard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Sir, I would like to understand why it's urgent to adopt so quickly, before the end of the session, the provisions on setting up that institution. I know it's very important for you and I know it is urgent to adopt the provisions on the constitution of a committee on taxation, management and so on, but I wonder if it's as urgent also to set up that institute on statistics. I know it's important and I don't want to show disrespect, but I would like to know why you would like it to be done now.

¿ (0925)

[English]

Chief Tom Bressette: I think my predecessor, the previous speaker--I'll call him Chief Manny Jules because in my mind, in my heart, he always will be a chief--said this is a work that he's taken a tremendous amount of time on. I know he has. Ten years is a long time. In Canada we see bills rammed through the House rather quickly.

We've been working on this, and we would like these institutions to start to be able to fulfill the work we've been doing. We can't say it enough: for our people, the more you delay, the less we have access to build the resources to create jobs for our people.

If you live in a first nations community you have to wait in line for infrastructure. We don't have infrastructure to attract businesses. We don't have the infrastructure to generate a small industrial park, a large one, to attract business so we can have jobs for our people.

Our people are like anybody else who lives in a community. This is home. They don't want to leave home. They want to build their life, and our children want to grow up where they live. They don't want to have to move to a city, chasing jobs around the country. That's what they ask us to do as leaders: find them a job. They don't want welfare. I don't want welfare.

I grew up in a system that turned into a dependency. My grandfather never had welfare. He was a chief when the government offered welfare. They told him, this will help you, but it's become a burden around our neck.

Without having the access for capital infrastructure, we have no way of attracting business. Statistics have to support the other institutions. When entrepreneurs, companies, are asked to come and locate on the first nation, they would like to see statistical information on that community. What is its financial standing? How much land does it have? What is the population base? How many people can you provide me with to work 24 hours a day? They want to know that if they locate there, their business will succeed because there's the amount of people and the manpower required.

If we have this information, it helps us to move forward. If we keep waiting.... We've been waiting a long time. We have welcomed people here to our country, and in the system that has evolved, we stand in line and wait for our issues to be addressed. I think that's the reason I feel it's necessary that we advance, because the more we're told to wait, the more complacent people get. They tell us, we have more urgent business; the first nation can wait. They set us aside.

The only example I have very clearly in my mind as a leader is that 50 years ago they took away a community from our people. They moved us off the land. They took our land. We have another reserve base and everybody was moved here.

Wars have come along and evolved. We're negotiating with Defence to return our land. Last time it was Desert Storm and we got pushed aside. This time it was Iraq and we got pushed aside. When will the Government of Canada deal with our issues, the first nations people's issues, instead of going across the country, across the oceans, somewhere else to deal with matters there and leave unfinished business for our people?

That's the urgency I feel. I feel when I spend three years engaged in doing something and it gets put aside, and we have a change of government and we get put aside.... That's why we feel there is an urgency. We've worked a long time and we'd like to see this bill move forward.

¿ (0930)

The Chair: Thank you, Chief Bressette.

Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning.

Thank you for your presentation. I guess, Mr. Chair, we've had a suggested number of amendments, which sort of took me off guard. I didn't think we were going to see so many suggestions for change after we had some degree of confidence that your groups had been involved with the actual writing of the bill. That is a little bit of a concern in terms of progressing quite quickly with this, Mr. Chair.

With the establishment here, you mentioned where it might be located and so forth. You must have spent quite a bit of time on this. We talked about it being optional. We have over 600 different first nations groups.

You mentioned also that there has been reluctance, and also reluctance on the part of Stats Canada, to provide you with the type of information that the various first nations might need.

What will the cost be in terms of setting up this project?

Second, in terms of that cost structure, and the opting in and opting out, would it be costed on the basis of the different first nations who participate in the program contributing towards the institute? How would you see this overall project progressing with participation and total cost to either first nations peoples or to the Department of Indian Affairs in particular?

Chief Tom Bressette: My first response is, we have already been asked by some departments within government to do work. Nobody works for free. We don't just say we'll provide the data and pay for it all ourselves. Government has needs; they provide their own structures to collect and disseminate this information, or analyse it.

Through a contractual arrangement, I can see us working those things through. Currently, every community has funded people who've maintained some data and information. If someone wants to conduct a survey--and I think this was mentioned before--there would be a charge-back structure that would be set in place so we could generate this.

We will be engaged in some cost recovery over this, but as I said, if we're to do work for a federal department, we would be charging them for the service they would ask us to do. Statistics Canada engages in cost recovery in providing specific information to government departments, and I think we'll be operating in the same fashion they do. That's why I stated earlier that we have had, and do have, meetings with people from Statistics Canada to analyse this.

On your question about why all these amendments are coming forward, we're trying to deal with the criticism we're receiving from among our own people; that's why we've put forward the amendments.

We want to try to appease the people who are really not supportive of this. There's no sense in building a house if nobody wants to live in the house. But there are numbers of people who are willing to move into the house; it's not as if everybody is opposed to what we're doing. One thing I've heard at previous meetings of first nation representatives is that they recognize we have to have a system to collect and analyse what our needs are in order to be able to forward those positions to government. It's concise and precise information that we've collected from our people.

Statistics is a very important, integral part of any business operation, any government function. Without it, the problem I see that's going to be facing us, and the reason I feel it's so urgent, is we have a young population. Young people want to work. When young people don't have work, all kinds of things go wrong in and amongst a young population. They become frustrated and angry and they'll take it out on whoever else is around.

If you deny somebody a job, what do you put them in? I think a classic example--and I don't want to call our communities ghettos--is if you look at the inner cities of the large cities in the U.S., where there are a lot of people unemployed and young people, you have graffiti all over the place and you have crime and those kinds of things.

We want to give our people a good quality of life. That's what this is all about. It's not about building a big white elephant somewhere, a golden statue; it's actually to do things that will enhance our people's ability to generate a decent living in this country and demonstrate that we can be participants in the economy of Canada and succeed at it the way everyone else does.

Without institutions and these kinds of things, it leaves us labouring to catch up to the rest of the country.

¿ (0935)

The Chair: Thank you.

Madame Picard, avez-vous d'autres questions?

Is there anyone else?

Then, Chief Bressette, I invite you to make closing remarks. We have a fair amount of time; you take the time you want.

Chief Tom Bressette: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

When I became engaged in the work we're doing here for First Nations Statistics...I was asked to undertake the work. I previously had done a lot of work looking at the Lands and Trust Services at Indian Affairs. We were looking at amending approximately 85% of the Indian Act at that time. We had a broad consultative process where we were out talking to communities right across the country.

We had regular meetings, and we had support at that time, because our people truly want change in their lives. The yoke of the Indian Act is not just a statement. It actually is a yoke. It's something I didn't like from the beginning. I don't like the fact that somebody can just come and take our children away from us, or somebody can come and tell us, “You have to vote this way; you have to vote that way.” That should be a democratic decision we make in our communities.

I agree with being accountable to our membership. That's the one thing I feel is very important. That's why I put forward these amendments, because I think we have to give our people some assurances that we are truly representative of the issues and concerns they have. They've put some degree of trust in us in doing this work.

The chiefs I work for, the Union of Ontario Indians, was founded in 1949 as a political institution. It acts as an advocate and secretariat to 43 first nation communities in the province of Ontario, representing 30% of the first nations in Ontario and 7% of the first nations in Canada.

The Union of Ontario Indians was incorporated as a secretariat to the Anishinabek Nation. The Anishinabek Nation is our political entity; the Union of Ontario Indians is a corporate structure under the laws of Canada.

The people in our communities, as I said, are looking at our nationhood, our status. We have a confederacy of three fires. It dates back long before there was any European contact. Our people had an actual governing structure, which we operated under.

The Union of Ontario Indians agreed to sponsor and host the development of First Nations Statistics. In summary, the Union of Ontario Indians believes First Nations Statistics could play a vital role in our pursuit of self-governance and the restoration of jurisdiction in our communities. As first nation communities move towards self-determination, there will be a greater need for a national and regional infrastructure and institutions to manage information and statistics for our people.

That's a statement our grand council chief was going to make when he came here, but because of the scheduling of the hearings, we have conflicting meetings within our organization, and he wouldn't be able to be here--but he was going to send someone to replace him.

Still, this whole notion of having these institutions, to me, is paramount for our development. The Assembly of First Nations supported us all the way along until Bill C-7 came about, and Bill C-6, and all of a sudden it was bundled together as a suite of legislation, and that's what it was called. That's where the opposition from the AFN came from, when it was all pulled and bundled tightly together under a resolution opposing all three of these bills. For clarity, that's when the opposition and the switch came from the Assembly of First Nations.

I've served as executive member on the Assembly of First Nations, as a vice-chief. I represented Ontario, and it was in my capacity representing Ontario as a vice-chief that I did the work on the Lands and Trust Services.

¿ (0940)

The reason we wanted the changes to that particular piece of legislation, part of the Indian Act, was that it was very intrusive. We wanted to make recommendations to government in a cooperative manner, where we weren't at odds with and opposed to one another. We wanted to do it in sitting down, making sure people could understand why we were after the changes we were.

I felt there was a lot of support from the chiefs to move and advance in that area. I genuinely think the chiefs feel there's a need for this statistics institute, or I wouldn't be here today or I wouldn't undertake this work. I know there's going to be criticism of me for doing this. But if you always want to sit back and wait till the moment's right, you may lose the moment; time goes by. I have served a long time in this political area amongst first nations. I don't want to leave defeated, as if I spent my whole life just opposing and saying, “I don't want to go forward. I don't want to change.”

The one thing I learned a long time ago from a group of elders was the circle or wheel of life. We have four colours that represent people. Within that circle, everybody brings something to the life cycle. We're all blood related or we are all family. No matter who we are, we have the same blood, we breath the same air, and we have feelings and emotions. In a group of people, everybody brings something.

I sat down with elders and asked them various questions, and they said, “One thing I want to tell you is that you can't hate people based on the colour of their skin, because when you do, you hate a part of yourself.” They said, “People bring things to the circle.” They started to identify the characteristics that certain people brought to the circle of life. He said a lot of our people have problems with what they call “white people”. He said, “There really is not such a thing as a white person, or people with lighter complected skin, because nobody has skin the colour of that piece of paper.” He said, “Those people brought movement, and without movement we'd die as a people. Anything that doesn't move eventually will die; it has to go somewhere or move. Even plants move; plant life moves. White people brought movement; they brought change to us, which we have to accept.” The black people bring a sense of analysing something for a long time; they'll think about it. For example, if this were in my way and I kept trying to look around it, and if they were here in the circle, they would just move it out of the way and say, “There, that's what should have been done.”

I think our people bring to the circle the same things that everyone else does--a desire to be part of the whole collective. Our people have been very generous; we've given medicines and we've given everything we had. There's an old saying, called “Indian giver”. I don't know what that means, because we never gave anything away. Somebody assumed we did when we said we would share our land. They now say, “You've given your land away, and now you want it back.” It's just understanding the way we perceive things.

Genuinely, I'm here today to say that I believe we need an institution that is going to deal with all of the things we require as a people, and that we make a decision that will be of benefit to all. I believe we all have to work together, and that we can't fight and we can't argue. I believe we should be supportive of one another's aspirations and not hold anyone back. That's why I think we, as first nations people in this country, have to come to an understanding that we may not like what our neighbour does, but we don't have a right to tell him he can't do what he wants to do. We have to learn to respect that diversity, because that's how we always lived, and that's how we have to live as a country here. If we can't respect each other's diversity, we wind up with situations, or we run off and start a war. Just because you win a war doesn't mean you are right.

¿ (0945)

Here we have a group of people in this country, the first nations. There are 630-some communities across the country. They have aspirations, but we have the government here, and we have to try to work within that structure. We're here today trying to work within the structure, so everybody has a clear understanding of what we want to do and why we want to do it. I just want to say that I'm here primarily trying to get that message across, that we want to enhance the quality of life of our people. We are not here to argue with people. We are not here to force things on them, but we're here to hopefully get your support for the passage of a bill.

Why a bill? I don't know. I didn't make the laws of this country. I never made the processes that exist here, but I respect them, and I'm here today looking for your support.

I don't know if my colleagues want to add anything, but I think I've done a lot of speaking here about our institution. I could probably go on for a great deal of time, but I don't think I want to sit here and make people feel, “All right, I heard your story, now let's move on with the business of the day.”

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Chief Tom Bressette: But I genuinely appreciate the opportunity to appear here today. It's nice to hear laughter, which makes the day go a lot better. Even if you're upset or bored with somebody, you can laugh and enjoy a little bit of expression.

With that, I'd like to say chi-miigwetch from our institution, our people. We look forward, hopefully, to the speedy passage of this.

Like anything else, I know that when you start something.... I'll go back to the First Nations Land Management Act, because our community wasn't supportive of that. It was a piece of legislation. I went and attended the meetings, and I thought, “This is great; we should do this.” I went home and told my council, because everybody else was being told, “It's no good; it's no good”, which my council believed. They listened, and over time we leased property and lands. We saw the advantage of that piece of legislation, so my council reversed its position and said, “We have to do this.” So now we're in it.

So if there's apprehension at the beginning of entering into something, I think by and large if there is a very negative message going out, you think, “We shouldn't do this.” But if there are people who believe it's going to work and can demonstrate that it does work, other people join them. That's why I think we should consider leaving the message that this is an optional process, so that people can opt in if and when they're ready to do so. They don't have to if they don't want to, so nobody is being abused or taken advantage of.

That's just what I want to say in parting.

Thank you.

¿ (0950)

The Chair: Chief Bressette, we want to thank you very much. You're a very wise person--which shows. You live your mission, and the people you represent will benefit from the work you've done. I can assure you that not a word of what you said is nonsense.

Thank you very much.

I'd like to invite representatives from the First Nations Financial Management Advisory Board to come forward.

I'd like to welcome the chairman of the First Nations Financial Management Advisory Board, Harold Calla, and the legal counsel, Bruce Campbell. We invite you to make a presentation followed by questions.

Ms. Karetak-Lindell has left, but she will be back shortly. She is tabling a report in the House on my behalf.

Mr. Calla, please proceed.

Mr. Harold Calla (Chairman, First Nations Financial Management Advisory Board): Good morning, and thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members, for the opportunity to come and give testimony here today on Bill C-19. As they say, it's déjà vu all over again.

As a signatory to the framework agreement on land management, the Squamish Nation, of which I am a member and a councillor, went through this process on several occasions. We made it to the altar several times and we were turned away several times; it took ten years.

It's time, I think, to learn from those lessons, all of us, that when opportunity arises as the government sets priorities and much time and effort has been invested, it's incumbent upon all of us to seize the moment, as they say, and continue on with this work.

I think before I start I have to acknowledge and thank the former national chief, Phil Fontaine, the current national chief, Matthew Coon Come, the vice-chief from British Columbia, Satsan Herb George, and, as we now refer to him, “the Chairman”, Manny, for undertaking this work, for having the courage to bring it forward.

I too would also like to thank the minister. We're always in dialogue with the minister, and sometimes in debate. We don't always agree, as I'm sure he will be the first to admit, but I think in this particular case he was prepared to and has demonstrated very clearly his willingness to allow first nations to begin to evolve in ways that have not been permitted in the past--or only in very limited ways.

I think this is about bringing a greater vision to reality. As I mentioned, I am a member and a councillor of the Squamish Nation. The Squamish Nation is an amalgamated community in Vancouver. And I just want you to know that, despite the rumours, I brought the sunshine from Vancouver to Ottawa.

I am a certified general accountant, a member of the Aboriginal Financial Officers Association. I received my designation 26 years ago, and up until I returned home to work, I worked in the private sector in a company involved in manufacturing and wholesale distribution worldwide.

Sixteen years ago I was invited to return home to work, and during this time I have held several positions, including director of finance, surveyor of taxes, and the co-chair of our economic development committee.

My council has given me leave to work on this initiative because the Squamish Nation is a member of the first nations summit in British Columbia, representing some 140 first nations involved in the treaty process. I'm also heavily involved with the first nations summit on tax and fiscal matters, which are being discussed in the context of modern treaty making.

In 1988 I was invited to participate in the national table on fiscal relations. This was a bilateral discussion between the Assembly of First Nations and Canada to consider options for establishing a new fiscal relationship between Canada and first nations. I jumped at the chance because it represented the first opportunity I saw to make real change and to move away from the status quo.

I was asked to co-chair the revenue options technical table. One of the responsibilities of that table was to explore and then advance the concept of institutional development. Bill C-19 is the result of these efforts and of the participation from coast to coast of a lot of first nations communities.

When I returned home, I was quickly confronted with the shocking reality of a situation I'd never had to confront before. Notwithstanding the fact that I was previously the chief operating officer of an international operation, I found myself constrained in making decisions in my new capacity, decisions that couldn't be made without first seeking and securing approval from someone outside our structure--Indian and Northern Affairs.

We could not gain access to capital without severely discounting the value of our inputs, and gaining access to fixed-rate long-term debt was out of the question. In fact, it took four years of establishing a relationship with one of the major lending institutions in this country to develop the opportunity to actually borrow.

¿ (0955)

How could first nations advance themselves in those conditions? We were mired in a vicious circle of endless dependency and poverty. We could utilize the envelopes of Indian Affairs funding to try to address the staggering needs, but the funding never seemed adequate, and we realized that remaining highly dependent on single-source transfers was not a long-term solution.

It seemed to me we were all destined to deal only with the symptoms; we were afraid to look at the problems themselves. I want to repeat this. We were destined to deal with the symptoms all the time; we were afraid to look at the real problems.

I believe first nations were--and in many cases still are--looked at as a social issue, and I suggest that we have much more to contribute. In this, the 21st century, first nations are not well-positioned to participate in the economy of this country and to share in one of the highest standards of living in the world. We live in third world conditions. According to recent figures, Canada's standard of living ranks near the top, while first nations peoples are living at standards equal to a country ranked somewhere around 62nd.

Why is this happening? After my sixteen years, and listening to the wisdom of a lot of people, I've concluded that there is no single or simple answer or solution. I recall when I was asked to negotiate the first economic development project for Squamish. I found it took me six times longer and was six times more expensive to complete that project than any other project off-reserve.

How can we engage in the economy? We were not empowered to make our own decisions and we had limited access to capital and restricted access to debt for the infrastructure we required to engage in the economy.

I'd like to say, because our traditional territory stretches from downtown Vancouver to 40 miles north of Whistler to the Sunshine Coast, that we have both the blessing and the curse of being in the city core. The blessing is that we have lands--limited reserve lands--but they're very valuable. I'd like to say that had these institutions been in place in the 1960s when we began to develop our lands, instead of just being a landlord, the Squamish might very well have been an owner. The inability for Squamish to bring its lands to the market at competitive levels prohibited us from being able to engage in an ownership position.

I think many things need to be changed to give us access to the economy. We need to secure the confidence of investors and lenders through timely decision-making and demonstrating our financial accountability and responsibility. We need others, more importantly, to see that we are empowered to make our own decisions. We don't need anyone to tell us what our inherent rights are. We know what they are. But we live in a globalized world, and we need to have others understand and respect and to have confidence that we can do what we say we want to do.

We need to increase our expertise, develop capacity, and share with one another. We need the institutional framework that would put first nations on an equal footing with the rest of the country and encourage first nations economic development. Even those who have argued against legislation have acknowledged that first nations institutions and economic development are required to move first nations away from the poverty we now endure.

You have heard about, and will continue to hear about, the need for a new fiscal relationship between Canada and first nations. This relationship should provide for revenue-sharing with first nations and respond to the need for increased transfers for first nations who have limited economic development opportunity. We must remove the tired old argument that lack of accountability is the reason not to increase transfers to first nations.

In a new fiscal relationship, first nation revenues will come from different sources--transfers, revenue-sharing, and own-source revenue. In a new fiscal relationship, accountability and transparency will build the trust and confidence among all parties and stakeholders to maximize the benefits from these arrangements.

One of the reasons the Squamish became so heavily involved in the development of these institutions is that in 1992 we moved into the property taxation field.

À (1000)

I first went to the bank and said, well, I have this perpetual income stream now, and we want to build a gymnasium and do some infrastructure work within our communities. I thought we could borrow some multiple of that, as other governments can. I was told it was going to be considered a traditional accounts receivable and they would give me some percentage of the property tax base. So it really hindered our abilities to make the arrangements we wanted to make, to build gymnasiums and to do the things we wanted to do.

In recent years I have seen financial management and accountability expand significantly in its scope. In the last five or six years, up until recently, the reporting requirements for a first nation with Indian and Northern Affairs Canada has expanded to something significantly different from just financial accountability. Part of that rests with Parliament and the checks and balances that are required. But I think there is a significant difference between what I had to do 15 years ago and what I'm having to do today. I think in the future, first nations may and will likely choose to incur long-term debt to finance infrastructure. To access long-term debt, first nations will be required to verify their financial health through transparent, independent processes that instill confidence and sustain that confidence over a period of time. The financial management board will assist first nations in securing and sustaining investor confidence.

Partly these institutions have evolved as a result of an examination of what has worked out in the field, as you have heard. We have not sought to “municipalize” first nation government. We have sought to seek out and establish what has worked and what has worked well. As a consequence, we have examined the B.C. municipal financing model and accepted it. It has been very successful, with a triple-A bond rating and never a default. You're going to hear from Deanna Hamilton about that this afternoon.

Part of the reason for this is the oversight role played in British Columbia by the person termed the “inspector of municipalities”, who assists those municipalities that may find themselves challenged. The financial management board will undertake a similar role and assist all first nations in ensuring that the joint and several liability they have agreed to is never called upon and that investors and taxpayers alike can have some confidence in the systems we're going to put in place.

I think the first nations need to take on the accountability agenda and bring about an accountability regime that is transparent. Accountability is not just about first nations being accountable to the Department of Indian Affairs for the funding it receives. Accountability is also about other orders of government being accountable to first nations--other orders of government, which includes provincial, municipal, and regional districts.

The one thing we can't have in our future are the continued accusations that first nations communities should not be given additional resources to meet their needs because they cannot manage the resources they have today and can't be trusted. We know this is not true, but it's an image that's out there and it creates barriers for first nations. Many of the challenges we face in our communities are not the result of financial mismanagement; they are the result of needs exceeding resources.

Good financial management is not by itself a solution, but good financial management will contribute to every element of a broad-based solution. In Bill C-19 we are building an institutional framework that will allow us to implement our aboriginal rights and title and implement modern-day treaties and self-government arrangements. The tax commission will protect the jurisdictional authority of first nations. The statistics institute will support the interests of first nations to provide the appropriate information to be used by government in allocation of resources.

I spent the last couple of years in British Columbia dealing with the HRDC allocation process. While all accountants love numbers and formulas, it was a very stressful exercise. I think part of the solution we're going to find with the statistics institute is to have accurate statistics reflected in the funding allocation processes in this country.

À (1005)

The finance authority will develop standards and effective practices that will enable first nations to use their revenue streams to finance long-term public debt at wholesale, not retail, rates. I think this is probably one of the biggest barriers that first nations face, access to long-term public debt.

The financial management board will provide independent professional certification of financial capacity by monitoring the financial health of first nations that choose to borrow against their revenue streams. Through association with the major accounting organizations in this country and the Aboriginal Financial Officers Association, we can also support the development of capacity in our first nations and support the education components that are required.

Bill C-19 represents change. To embrace change takes vision and courage on everyone's part. It may cause concern to some because it is going to empower first nations. It may cause concern to some because it is considered a different approach to advancing our interests. We must move from the status quo in ways that respond to our needs.

There are some who look at these initiatives and see them as contradictory to our pursuit of our aboriginal rights and title. I strongly disagree. These institutions will support the capacity and assist first nations as we move along the aboriginal rights self-government continuum.

The first nations summit currently involved in trying to negotiate treaties in British Columbia has seen these institutions as necessary treaty implementation tools to take advantage of the assets secured in treaty settlement. This initiative has been led by first nations. Let there be no doubt: any initiative that places decision-making authority in first nations hands and away from government has never been initiated by anybody else. It is first-nations-led.

The future requires that we be more organized, be more proactive, be assertive where it's necessary, while engaging with other orders of government to advance our interests and meet the needs of our community. We live in a globalized economy. In order to develop and create jobs, we need a cooperative approach and institutional support.

We have to, and we can, compete. Regarding some of the statistics we hear about the workforce in this country and the requirement to import it, we have the largest untapped population of youth in this country. We don't need to look outside our boundaries. We can find it right in our own country.

As we move into the new world of doing things, we're not going to abandon our values or our traditions. We are in a race to develop the capacity to be able to respond to the challenges we face. As a counsellor and as someone who has worked in first nation communities for the last 16 or 17 years, the number of issues we have to face is growing exponentially.

Our administrations, our councils, and our governments are taxed to the limit in order to continue to respond to the kinds of issues that are confronting us today--the Delgamuukw decision is an example. The consultation that arises out of that has placed a significant requirement on first nations to be able to respond.

I think first nations need you, parliamentarians, to understand our issues and to provide assistance to us, to give us the tools to allow us to be successful and to develop our capacity. This bill provides important tools. It is a piece of the puzzle, but it is only one piece. Other pieces need to be created and put in place.

I think we can always find reasons not to do things. One of the easiest things to do, particularly as a politician--and I am one--is to find a reason not to make a decision. I think it's time for us to begin to move forward. There is support for this legislation.

Not everyone can take full advantage of these institutions today, but 50 years ago the Squamish Nation did not have one dollar of own-source revenue. Today, 75¢ out of every dollar we spend, we self-generate. Fifty years from now I would like to see every first nation in this country in that position. I know that had we had these tools 30 or 40 years ago we would be much further ahead than we are today.

À (1010)

I do not want to see other first nations in this country suffer the same disadvantages we have in the last 30 years in not being able to maximize the benefits of our opportunities.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you very much for another excellent presentation. This will be a memorable morning because we are learning a lot and it was very helpful to the committee.

Madame Picard, sept minutes.

[Translation]

Ms. Pauline Picard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Once again, I agree with the chairman. It's a very interesting presentation that answers many of our questions. I hope that you'll be able to ensure your economic and financial development as quickly as possible. I entirely support your demonstration. You said that you had to organize for the future and create jobs. I hope it will go faster than you think and that you will have those tools as soon as possible.

Let's imagine the bill is passed, that you can quickly get your hands on the tools you need and that the government gives you the go-ahead and tells you to develop and shoulder your responsibilities. However, you have told us that you will need us and certain tools. What are those tools that you will need to set those institutions up as quickly as possible? If you get the green light, will you be ready? Have you thought about this already? Are the structures already in place?

[English]

Mr. Harold Calla: She asks tough questions.

We have thought a lot about the kinds of things we need for the future. The national table on fiscal relations was a process that allowed us to engage in a bilateral way with Canada in multiple departments in looking at ways and means by which first nations could improve the poverty they live in. I think that process needs to continue.

One of the things I've learned in the last two years in the development of this legislation is what I call “the mystical body of central agencies”. Sometimes I have come home wondering where the power in this country lies. I don't care who the party is in power. I think we all must be vigilant in recognizing that we are in a position where governments and politicians can act, and that policy can be reviewed and considered. I think the success or the failure of the treaty process in British Columbia, and perhaps of other negotiations across the country, is going to be dependent upon the ability to engage in a policy discussion around the areas where policy needs to be open and be considered. The territorial protection of ourselves and of government and bureaucracy has to be contained.

First nations need to move beyond single-source transfers from the Department of Indian Affairs. We need to examine and open up ways in which first nations can get access to what I call revenue at source, through tax-sharing and resource-sharing arrangements, including not only the federal but also the provincial governments. We need the support of Canada in those discussions with the provinces, to ensure those things are opened up. You have influence with provincial governments, as they look for transfers as much as we do. I think that by opening those doors and supporting those kinds of discussions you will provide the tools and the sources of revenue that first nations can use to create the long-term public debt for infrastructure they need. I think those are important aspects of advancing and creating the opportunity for these institutions.

Having statistics to engage with Canada.... I understand there's a lot of fear in first nation communities, which I never really understood until it was explained to me by an elder. She said, “Do you realize that 60 years ago, if somebody from Canada came around and asked if you had a child, you did not want to tell them because it meant six years later they would take that child away and put them into a residential school?” So we have a fear.

As institutions, we are going to have to earn the respect of every first nation in this country through our performance. We know that, and we're up to that challenge and are willing to do it. We think it is the only game in town right now. If there is another one...I can recall one of the internal debates that took place in Squamish at a confederacy of the AFN, where one of our hereditary chiefs said to the assembly and those opposed to Bill C-19, “If you've got something better, show it to us.” The room was silent, and everybody left for the day.

We are all supportive of the attainment of our aboriginal rights and title, of justice, and of the settlement of land claims. We will continue to be vigilant on those, as Squamish has been in the past through its actions in the courts, which we will continue--though as a last resort and as I think the worst case alternative for all of us.

We need to work cooperatively, creating capacity and development to deal with the issues at hand--the poverty in our communities and a future for our youth. Those are the big issues we have to deal with. I think these institutions will provide needed resources to deal with some of the circumstances.

Once we moved into property taxation in our community, we were able to build gymnasiums and create programs and services, including a crisis and a youth centre.

À (1015)

As we built some of those facilities, some of our members who had not previously been able to look me in the face, as they had not had much opportunity to, having been on welfare for a long time, were able to hold their head up, smile, look me in the eye, and say, “Thank you”--because we had put them to work. On the last day, one of our members came up to me and thanked me for allowing him to have the opportunity to feed his family.

That's what this is about. That's why it cannot be delayed.

À (1020)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Hubbard.

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

You have given a very powerful presentation. I think all of us are certainly impressed with it, Mr. Calla.

The only disappointing thing in all of this, Mr. Chair, is that it is the 10th of June. We have a lot of things on our plate to try to deal with in a very short time.

But I'm sure the message you offered to us this morning is one that will challenge not only this committee but also people across this country, to offer an opportunity whereby people can enhance their communities and develop programs and initiatives that will improve their way of life.

In talking with chiefs back home, one of the biggest problems they have in terms of management is trying to have a vision they can realize, and to spend and obtain moneys for infrastructure and other purposes longer than one or two years in duration. I think a lot of the third-party management problems we see are from things often having to be fixed immediately. But if there were a plan and an opportunity to look to the future, then the problems of the present wouldn't really be as great. I think all of them who deal with that method of accounting certainly have great difficulties.

In terms of the legislation, Mr. Calla, are there points...? Chief Tom Bressette mentioned or suggested certain amendments. One that I am a bit concerned about in particular is the term of office of directors. The legislation talks about a one-year term. It is my understanding that the directors are part-time or that it's not a full-time position, but the legislation does talk about a one-year term.

Are there concerns with that, or what really is the reason for the term of office being so short? I'll have to go back to the section we're dealing with.

Mr. Harold Calla: It's my understanding that it is a five-year term in clause 38 of part 3 of the bill. Clause 39 also deals with the term of appointment.

We are looking at five-year terms.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Okay, five years. It was probably my mistake when I read about a one-year term, because it did seem to be very short.

Are there other points that might be of concern?

Mr. Harold Calla: I'm not going to repeat what Manny said about the non-derogation clause. When we put out the consultation draft, that was one of the comments that came back to us notwithstanding. Certainly, we would support that.

The minister spoke about assuring independence. We accept him at his word that it will be done, but it's a critical feature of this legislation. We must be independent, and we would look to the wisdom of the committee in ensuring that takes place.

I've always accepted that first nations generally don't get forced into doing very much. These institutions will stand on their own by virtue of the product they are able to produce and their value in the view of first nation communities. So I think certainly we would like to have many things that completely separate us from the government and Indian Affairs.

I appreciate there is a continuum we're following, and there are many things we will revisit over the next few years that would perhaps allow that to happen. I think one of your earlier comments was that it is June 10, but I have had experience dealing with provincial and federal governments, and I have seen when governments want to do things, they can and they do.

We don't intend to place an undue burden on anyone, but the reality is it takes a lot of effort to get to this point in time, and I've been to the altar...it took three times to get the land management act done, and we almost lost it the third time because of activities within the Senate. I think we have to move forward.

Legislators create legislation. You're charged with that responsibility. We as Canadians vote you in. This is not something that has come out of the blue. This thing has been in development for a long, long time and there's been a lot of quality work and due diligence done on it. We have gone outside to everybody to engage on this. We do not think it is a flawed piece of legislation technically, and it is not something that should cause any of you any apprehension.

À (1025)

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Chair, the witness was correct. I was referring to section 60, which talks about the first nations finance authority. The two terms were mixed up; you were correct, it's five years.

Mr. Bruce Campbell (Legal Counsel, First Nations Financial Management Advisory Board): If I may, legal counsel for this institute asked me to clarify that five-year term. They were not taking any exception to that at all. They were only speaking to their desire that there be more clarity that a majority of the members would be first nations persons.

The Chair: Are there other questions of our witnesses?

Madame Picard, quatre minutes.

[Translation]

Ms. Pauline Picard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Calla, many critics say that Bill C-19 is a way the federal government is using to get rid of its fiduciary responsibilities towards the first nations and thus force the first nations to use the institutions that C-19 will create in order to set up their economic development infrastructures. What do you think of those critics?

[English]

Mr. Harold Calla: The clear intention of Bill C-19 is to not reduce the fiduciary duty of Canada, the department and the minister.

Where does the fiduciary duty take you? Some of our need is to create economic development. You can't always wait for a parliamentary appropriation process to respond to the economic development need tomorrow. Opportunity comes and it goes, and we need to have the tools. What we will need to work on with the department--and it's an ongoing exercise that we may come and talk to you about again--is to ensure that doesn't happen, that you're not penalized.

I heard the same arguments when we moved into the property taxation field, that we would not get any more money. Well, in our case, that's not been true. We never benefit from a financial quantum. We are benefiting more today than we were when we moved into property taxation. I don't see that being a practice of the department.

[Translation]

Ms. Pauline Picard: One last question. Do you think the federal government should continue to invest in infrastructure development through subsidies or other programs after C-19 is passed?

[English]

Mr. Harold Calla: Absolutely. One of the opportunities that exists in a cooperative environment is to look at using the parliamentary appropriations, the budget within a department, and the funding that would be allocated in the long-term funding agreements to look at separate long-term debt issues and use that in a collective way.

Our gymnasium in Squamish burned down in 1972. It took us 20 years to accumulate the resources to rebuild it because we had no access to long-term public debt. Perhaps working in cooperation with the department, the finance authority might be able to create the leverage out of the capital appropriation moneys to bring about real change in those communities earlier.

We have since built two gymnasiums, and I can tell you we have changed the lives of some of our community members, the youth in particular. I can't quantify what that means; all I can tell you is that our children have a place to go now. It would be nice for other communities to have advantages like that and not have to wait to accumulate moneys in order to be able to achieve some of those interests.

One of the more fundamental changes that needs to take place in Canada is that first nations at this point are probably the only governments that are constrained in their financial management planning processes. We're either in one- or five-year agreements with Canada. That is not good enough in today's world. It needs to be much longer.

When we talk about opening up the policy doors, we need to explore alternative arrangements between Canada and first nations that permit long-term planning that allows first nation members to see how their goals and aspirations are going to be achieved, if not today, then five or six years from now.

À (1030)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Dromisky.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Just for clarification, first of all, regarding your role, I know you're in an advisory capacity for management of mostly financial situations. Is that true?

Mr. Harold Calla: Yes. The First Nations Financial Management Board Advisory Panel.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: How many are involved in the same task as you?

Mr. Harold Calla: At the moment we have an advisory panel of about eight from across the country.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Now, in light of the information we have regarding the bands that have financial problems, some of which are in very acute stages at the present time, with third parties having been introduced to manage some of their funds, have you been involved in all of those?

Mr. Harold Calla: No, we have not.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: When do you come into the picture?

Mr. Harold Calla: At the invitation of a first nation.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Oh, I see.

You made a statement that many of these so-called mismanagement problems were based on the fact that the needs exceed the resources. I agree with that. I'm from northwestern Ontario. I've been to many reserves and I know that is true, absolutely true.

At the same time, I don't want to jump to conclusions and think that many of the problems, or some of the problems--I have no idea how many, to tell you the truth--in these bands could be from pure mismanagement and it wouldn't make any difference how much we gave them. Is that true? Could that be the truth, what I'm saying, based on your knowledge and experience of the bookkeeping and everything else that goes on?

Mr. Harold Calla: It's not been my experience. In all of the first nation communities I've met with, dealt with, and talked to, there's never been a case of individual financial mismanagement. In many cases, first nation communities find themselves in a position of having to make very difficult and sometimes harsh decisions.

You have needs--health needs, education needs. Our demographic characteristics require unique programs and services that have an added cost to them. You just can't take the average cost to the Canadian, apply that to aboriginal people, and that will cover it. It doesn't work that way. We have unique circumstances that require funding levels that are quite different.

So I have not experienced that. Could it happen? I suppose so. My goodness, over the last two years, there have been many revelations about how things have been handled by various corporations around the world.

Is it possible? Yes. Have I ever seen it? Never.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: How long have you been at this?

Mr. Harold Calla: I've been at it 16 years.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Thank you very much for the information. I appreciate that.

The Chair: Does anyone else have any questions?

I should mention as a former municipal councillor that when municipalities mismanage, they just borrow money or raise taxes and nobody knows about it. So, really, it's sometimes unfair to address mismanagement by first nations, because they don't have that outlet. Doctors bury their mistakes. Engineers just get more money for their project, because once you start a tunnel you have to finish it.

Ms. Karetak-Lindell.

À (1035)

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: I have more of a technical question. I realize that you're probably covering more the financial management board section. But I look at the different headings for “Head office”, and they seem to be different for the four institutions.

How did they arrive at that? I know some of them say they should have their head office on reserve. One says “on the reserve lands of the Kamloops Band or at such other location as the Governor in Council may determine”. In another one, the finance authority “shall be on reserve lands”.

They all seem to have a different section saying the head office should be somewhere else. How was that arrived at, and if that's a difficulty, why are some of them on reserve lands, as dictated in the bill, and some are not?

Mr. Harold Calla: I'm glad you raised the question, because we've struggled with it. It's clearly our goal, our objective, and our desire to see these institutions be shown as first nations institutions through the membership of the boards and through the location of the head offices.

There are sensitivities that I find somewhat humorous, given the fact that we live in a country that has an Indian Act. I don't see the Irishmen Act or the Englishmen Act, but there is an Indian Act. So I guess there are some sensitivities that the lawyers can talk about better than I, about why we have captured some of these things in certain ways. There are some laws and processes in this country that seem to need to be respected. But clearly our interest is in responding to the criticisms or the fears that were expressed when we released the consultation draft. Then it was, well, show us where it says they're going to be first-nations-led.

We have experience through the Indian Taxation Advisory Board over the last 12 or 13 years that has demonstrated clearly that the operation through the department has ensured that they are first-nations-led and controlled. So we have placed our trust in that process to this point. If this committee chooses to consider the matter further, we would respect the due diligence of the committee in making changes to that.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Karetak-Lindell.

Ms. Neville.

Ms. Anita Neville: Thank you for a very splendid presentation.

I just want a little advice from you. You began your presentation by speaking to the length of time you've been at this project and expressing urgency that the committee deal with it in a timely manner. There has been some discussion in committee--and as you're undoubtedly aware, this committee has been together for a long time--but what difference will it make to you and to the activities of the communities you're involved in if this bill is dealt with this spring or in the fall?

Mr. Harold Calla: I think it's a question of confidence on all sides. We have been engaged in these discussions with first nations communities for a lot of years.

In my own community, we face the tremendous challenge of examining how we will utilize our lands. We need infrastructure in order to bring our property to market. Time doesn't wait for the opportunity to be realized. It doesn't work on the parliamentary calendar; we wish it did, but it doesn't. So we need to instill confidence that we can do this.

Too often--and I think Tom said it best--when do our issues become the priority? They become the priority, in my experience, when there are mutual gains.

There are clear mutual gains in this initiative, and I think it's important that we demonstrate that all parties have an interest. This is not a political issue. This is a technical bill that will allow first nations access to long-term public debt with the kind of oversight roles that will provide the certainty that the markets require that the money will be repaid, the interest will be paid, the taxpayers won't be disadvantaged, and it will promote economic development, create jobs, reduce the cost of the social net--I can go on for an hour about what the benefits are. So my question is, why do you want to wait?

À (1040)

Ms. Anita Neville: I don't.

Mr. Harold Calla: That's going to be a question, because we've waited. We've been waiting for 130 years, and it's time for us to move on. You have the opportunity. You will make a difference; you have made a difference in the past.

In 2002 we celebrated our tenth year of being in the property taxation field. In that period of time we've collected $45 million in property taxes and grants in lieu that would have otherwise gone to one of the highest per capita income municipalities in the country in the district of west Vancouver.

We were living in third world conditions, subsidizing a community. Since then, we've built two gymnasiums, an administrative centre, and a youth crisis centre. We support the teaching of our language in the local school system. We support adult home care, and we have been able to redirect our lease revenues to continue our treaty negotiations and clear identification of our aboriginal rights and titles through the courts if we have to.

It has made a huge difference, and every day you wait is a day that's lost that can never be recovered.

Ms. Anita Neville: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much for another excellent presentation. I can tell you, the dream of this chair is to table this bill this Friday. I've been led to believe by witnesses and by most people involved with this that there is an urgency, and if there is, I would like to see it out of the House before we adjourn for the summer.

I'm looking for witnesses who oppose this legislation, because if they have good reasons for us not to expedite, I'd like to hear those good reasons. I haven't heard them, and I can say it won't be my decision; it will be the members' decision. But I think this committee needs to hear today why we should not expedite this legislation this week. I will admit that I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): I was just meeting with the FSIN people, and there's a group of people who would be opposed to this piece of legislation--respectfully, Mr. Chair.

They wonder, as do most bands east of British Columbia, why there couldn't be just a simple--and I would ask that of our witnesses--appending of the names of Westbank and the various bands of British Columbia. Being that this is mostly a need of and driven by British Columbia, why can't there be just, as we've done with other bills, one exclusively for those bands that want to attach or affix their names to it, so that it's not the only game in town and it doesn't shunt all the other first nations communities across the country, that they have to be involved with this? There are implications. It's a domino effect.

So why can't it be done that way, and what would be the problem with amending this bill so that it's done in that manner?

Mr. Harold Calla: Thank you for asking the question. I was hoping somebody would.

Certainly, it's an option. It was an option under the Land Management Act, but it's failed miserably. We're here talking about empowering first nations to opt in to a piece of legislation. We're not here talking about giving the minister the authority and the jurisdiction to allow people in.

There were 14 first nations--Squamish Nation being one of them--as signatories to the Land Management Act. I'm sorry you weren't here in the beginning when I had to go through that exercise. We stood alone against the AFN and many other people. Since that piece of legislation has passed, the sun still comes up in the east and sets in the west. There are now 100 first nations wanting to get through the door. But there's a gatekeeper. That is not self-government.

These are opt-in...those first nations who choose to use these services can. I do not see a need for a listing. It's like Chief Bressette said when he was here--again, I don't believe you had the opportunity to hear him. At the time the Land Management Act was passed his community and his council listened to those who were saying it was a bad thing. They chose not to be a part of it and came to committees like this and opposed it. Three years later they're on the list to come under it.

Yes, there's going to be a period where the benefits of this and the proof that this is not going to impinge will become evident to everybody. They will then be able to make a choice to opt in or not.

I think we're interested in preserving the right of first nations to make the decision, not in empowering another government process to let them in or out. That's why I think it's not necessary and is something that does not advance first nations interests in the future.

À (1045)

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I guess I would ask you then, Mr. Calla, if you would say it's a problem if we just had this legislation set up in such a way that it listed all these specific bands and it applied only to them. There's no need for an opt-in, opt-out thing.

I know you painted it rather clearly--or supposedly so--but I don't think it necessarily stands. There is a domino effect, linked as it is with these other suites of legislation, as shared by the FSIN chief with us today. The fear is that if they want to do other creative things and go in other directions, there are pressures, if you will, by virtue of this particular bill, that there is no other game in town and they may be shunted in this direction. They have an objection to that.

I understand what you're saying. Later on they may want in. But is there a major problem, when they come to the point of realizing they want in, to let them in? I guess that means there needs to be a gatekeeper, as you say, but these are bands.... It's not just an issue of opt in or opt out. There are some pressures created by this suite of legislation for people to have to get into it. At least that's the way they feel.

You'll have to convince them otherwise. These are pretty articulate spokespersons for their first nations and for the many they represent--obviously in Saskatchewan or wherever it would be--across the country who are not persuaded that it's as simple as opt in or opt out. There is a domino effect created here.

Mr. Harold Calla: I think you will find there will be some leaders in their communities from Saskatchewan who will speak in favour of this bill, because we've spoken to them. I think there is a provincial position, but it's not unanimous. We are not in favour of listing, and we don't think it is in the interests of the first nations to do so, because it's not necessary. It is opt in; it's not something that's going to be required of them.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Wouldn't you agree that there are almost irresistible pressures by way of this suite of legislation that they have to be into it at some point in time?

Mr. Harold Calla: No, I would not. There are other options. There are options in self-government agreements--I think some of those were described earlier, again this morning. You don't have to do this. There is a benefit to collective borrowing, clearly, that we think everybody will welcome.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: We'll hear their testimony, frankly, and I'm sure they'll express it far more articulately than I can, the concerns they have about the so-called opt-in, opt-out nature of the legislation. They don't feel it's an opt-in, opt-out situation, but rather that irresistible pressures are then created to get into it or be left in the dust, so to speak.

Mr. Harold Calla: I think one of your comments earlier was a reference to British Columbia. Yes, I am from British Columbia, and, yes, there are 197 first nation communities in British Columbia, and nearly one-third of the first nations in this country are in British Columbia.

But this is not an initiative driven by B.C. alone. There are communities from coast to coast. Milbrook in Nova Scotia is an example. There is the Atlantic Policy Congress. There are many communities from coast to coast involved in this.

I appreciate that there are 197 communities in British Columbia and that there are a lot of communities in British Columbia who have expressed interest in this, but it's not an initiative directed by British Columbia first nations alone. There are many communities across the country, and I'd just ask you to keep that in mind.

À (1050)

The Chair: Mr. Vellacott, were you speaking with them in person? Are they in Ottawa today?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Yes.

The Chair: I'm willing to call a meeting for 3:30 p.m. if they wish to appear.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: You'll have to check that with them. I can't speak on their behalf.

The Chair: Do you know where we could reach them?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: They're over in room 300 in the Confederation building right now, actually.

The Chair: Colleagues, we'll call them, and if they agree to appear at 3:30 p.m, I'll call a meeting for that time this afternoon.

We thank you very much for an excellent presentation--and that's the third time I've said it today. We'll allow a couple of minutes for closing remarks, please.

Mr. Harold Calla: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the committee.

In the next few weeks, Canada may well gain the right to host the world at the 2010 Olympic Games, part of which will be hosted in our traditional territory. The eyes of the world will be focused on Canada for a short, brilliant but lasting moment.

Let us finish our work and show the world that Canada, as a leader among nations, is willing to recognize and affirm aboriginal and treaty rights, including the right to self-government, and to operationalize it in a practical way to bring an end to the poverty that exists in our communities.

I think Canada is a leader. It's been demonstrated through some of the work we've undertaken here. I think the eyes of the world are already on Canada in terms of how it's conducting itself with its aboriginal peoples. I think it's time we move on.

If we wait for 633 first nations to be in complete agreement, we'll never move anywhere. I think it's time to move.

We thank the committee for its time. We appreciate the opportunity to be here, and we appreciate the work you do.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

The bells are for a vote, which will occur about 25 minutes from now.

The video conferencing is scheduled to start in five minutes. I think we should maybe wait until we come back from the vote. Or do you want to do ten minutes, fifteen minutes, and then...?

[Translation]

Ms. Picard, would you like to add anything?

Ms. Pauline Picard: No, it was about Mr. Vellacott.

The Chair: We are done.

Ms. Pauline Picard: I would like to know if our witness this afternoon was in fact supposed to be a single person.

The Chair: No, it is the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations.

Mr. Gérard Binet: Mr. Chairman, we had sort of the same situation last week with the beef producers. Today, there are meetings set up and we want to hear the witnesses as quickly as possible. They are here and it will save time. Besides, travelling costs money.

The same number of people could be present at the videoconference, in other words two from the opposition and two from the government side and that would allow the others to go vote. We could move things along that way.

[English]

The Chair: We will suspend until right after the vote. Please come back immediately, and try to get a bite to eat because we didn't order food. In Ottawa, you have to give them 24 hours' notice and all that stuff. They have to form a committee before they can make sandwiches.

We will suspend until right after the vote.

À (1054)

Á (1155)

The Chair: Welcome, everyone. We will continue with our study of Bill C-19. We are pleased to welcome by video conference Grand Chief Charles Fox, the Ontario regional chief.

Grand Chief, we invite you to make a presentation. We have an hour together, and hopefully you will allow time for questions from the members.

Please proceed.

Grand Chief Charles Fox (Ontario Regional Chief, Chiefs of Ontario): Thank you very much.

Good afternoon. My name is Charles Fox. I'm from the Bearskin Lake First Nation of Treaty 9 territory in northern Ontario. I am the regional chief for Ontario.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the chairman and the committee members for allowing me to make this presentation to the parliamentary Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. The topic at hand, of course, is Bill C-19, the First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act.

Most first nations view this as companion legislation to Bill C-7, the First Nations Governance Act. The overwhelming majority of first nations in Canada are opposed to both pieces of legislation. My comments will be brief, given the relatively short notice received for this appearance. A more detailed written presentation will be submitted at a later date, depending on the timeframe for the review of Bill C-19.

There are 134 first nations in Ontario. These range from Six Nations near Brantford, the most populous first nation in Canada, to small communities in the remote north of Ontario with no year-round road access. Ontario has the largest status Indian population of any province.

Generally speaking, the political and other activities of first nations in Ontario are coordinated at the local level by tribal councils and at the sub-regional level by provincial-territorial organizations, or PTOs. Examples of these PTOs are the Nishnawbe Aski Nation and the Union of Ontario Indians. Just over 12 first nations are independent of the PTO structures.

All 134 first nations in Ontario are affiliated with the Chiefs of Ontario, which performs a secretariat or facilitation function. In particular, the Chiefs of Ontario office coordinates the annual all Ontario chiefs conference and special chiefs conferences.

The Chiefs of Ontario office supports some activities of the Ontario regional chief. The Ontario regional chief is elected every three years at an all Ontario chiefs conference. I was elected just under three years ago. At the all Ontario chiefs conference at Whitefish Lake First Nation later this June, there will an election conference. As the Ontario regional chief, I sit on the executive of the Assembly of First Nations, a national first nation organization.

As a general position, the overwhelming majority of first nations in Ontario are strongly opposed to Bill C-19. This opposition has been expressed in Chiefs of Ontario and national resolutions. Some of the reasons for this fundamental opposition are set out in my presentation. A few first nations do support the work of the Statistical Institute. I acknowledge and respect that position. However, as I have said, a great majority of first nations in Ontario are opposed to the bill in its entirety, and that is the message I have come to express and explain today.

Bill C-19 is irrelevant to the real priorities and needs of first nations. Bill C-19 is dedicated to the patently stupid proposition that first nations should tax and borrow their way to the promised land. It is all about taxing on-reserve property interests and borrowing on the security of that tax revenue stream. The bill contains a massive and complex amount of red tape, establishing and protecting this tax and borrow scheme.

The institutions established by the bill are largely devoted to the propagation of taxation and borrowing measures. The tax and borrow scheme of the bill is apparently attractive to a small minority of first nations, mostly in parts of British Columbia, although there is a smattering of support in other provinces.

The support group is probably more or less coincident with the first nations associated in one way or the other with the Indian Tax Advisory Board. The Indian Tax Advisory Board is a federal administrative body focused on property taxation bylaws under section 83 of the Indian Act. The core support group for the bill, mostly in B.C., may be generously estimated at about 100 communities, that is about 15% of the 600-plus communities affiliated with the chiefs organizations in Canada.

The tax and borrow scheme of the bill is completely irrelevant to the real priorities and needs of the overwhelming majority of first nations in Ontario and Canada as a whole. Most first nations are poor by Canadian standards and rely almost exclusively on federal transfers from Canada. Many first nations have serious debt problems as it is, largely because of federal cutbacks.

Â (1200)

Few first nations have a viable on-reserve business base that can be taxed to any measurable degree. In other words, for most first nations, the tax and borrow measures of Bill C-19 are beside the point.

The overwhelming majority of first nations require action in at least two areas. First, the level of fiscal transfers, which has been systematically scaled back by the federal government since 1995, must be increased on an immediate basis. That is one of the key recommendations of volume 5 of the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. The provinces have received additional billions of dollars from Canada in the last few years, mostly for health care. Why have first nations been systematically excluded?

The second real priority of most first nations relates to access to off-reserve traditional territory. This territory may be subject to aboriginal title or treaty, or some combination of the two. For most first nations, long-term sustainable economic growth cannot be premised only on the limited, on-reserve land base; it is critical to share the wealth of the off-reserve territory. Again, there are numerous recommendations from the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples that focus on this pressing need.

In summary, first nations need enriched federal fiscal transfers and fair access to traditional territory. These are the real needs and priorities. The tax and borrow nonsense of Bill C-19 completely misses the boat. At best, it will do absolutely nothing for 85% to 90% of first nations; at worst, it will do them real harm. The bill is a great deception that makes the federal government look good at little or no cost. It does nothing in terms of fiscal transfers and off-reserve resources. Instead, it encourages first nations to tax local businesses and to borrow based on that tax revenue. There is little or no investment by the federal government. It is obvious why the bill is attractive to the Government of Canada.

Bill C-19 is inconsistent with the inherent right to self-government. Like Bill C-7, its companion, Bill C-19 violates the inherent right to self-government. Federal policy acknowledges that the inherent right to self-government exists and is contained within section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982.

Bill C-19 imposes a federal scheme in some of the most intimate areas of local first nations self-government, including for example: property taxation; the spending of tax revenues; financial management systems; and the passage of local laws.

It is a matter of public record that this scheme is opposed by the overwhelming majority of first nations. The imposition of the scheme in these circumstances is an attack on the inherent right to self-government.

Many particular features of Bill C-19 violate the inherent right. Some examples are described here. The bill establishes a federally appointed tax commission that has a veto over first nations property taxation laws. The commission also has a veto over the spending of any tax revenues through annual budget laws. It is apparent from the bill that the commission will force first nations to spend tax revenues on particular infrastructure and service matters in order to reduce the liability of the federal government. There are obvious signs in the bill that the federally controlled commission will force first nations to make their property taxation systems compatible with surrounding municipal and provincial ones. Under this municipalization agenda, first nations will be discouraged, if not prevented, from offering relatively low property taxation returns to attract business on reserve. The bill establishes a federally appointed management board, which has a veto over all first nations financial management laws. This is a broad and undefined category of laws and a dramatic and negative power affecting all first nations in Canada. It is a contempt against the inherent right.

In a way, Bill C-7 and Bill C-19 create two tiers of first nation laws that are treated very differently. The first nation laws that do not matter very much to the federal government are grouped in Bill C-7 and can be passed at the local level without a federal veto. The first nation laws that matter to the federal government are grouped in Bill C-19. Not surprisingly, these laws deal with money, such as taxation, borrowing, and financial management. These important laws can only be passed with the consent of a federally controlled tax commission and management board. The entire scheme concocted by Bill C-19 and Bill C-7 violates our inherent rights.

Â (1205)

The bill recognizes a financial authority apparently dedicated to the philosophy that borrowing at a point or two below market rates is more important than life itself. A first nation that becomes embroiled with the authority becomes subject to draconian measures, which are obviously inconsistent with the inherent right. A first nation and the authority cannot live without the consent of all other members of that authority--something that is not likely to happen in practice. Incredibly, a first nation authority cannot do any long-term borrowing outside the authority. Long-term borrowing is defined as borrowing beyond one year. This monopolistic approach is likely to lead to higher-cost borrowing and defeats the very purpose of the authority.

There are many other examples in the bill that can be cited. The point is that the general scheme and the particular provisions of Bill C-19 are inconsistent with the inherent right to self-government, which is protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982. Bill C-19 is unconstitutional, and this should be a concern for the standing committee.

The consultation process on Bill C-19 is also unconstitutional. Given the prejudicial effect of the bill on the inherent right and other first nation rights and interests, Canadian constitutional law requires a fair and reasonable consultation process before the enactment of the bill. That is the legal standard. The record is clear that the federal consultation effort on this bill has been close to zero. A rough draft of the bill was made available at a press conference in August 2002. The actual bill was tabled in Parliament in December 2002. The bill has received little or no attention, as the focus of first nations and the federal government has been on Bill C-7. There have been no cross-country hearings. It is obvious that the bill is going through the committee like a night train.

The nearly complete absence of a consultation record from the federal government is particularly alarming given the complexity of the bill itself. It has 155 clauses and is longer than the Indian Act itself. It is a much, much more sophisticated product than Bill C-7. Many of the provisions, particularly those dealing with the finance authority, are very complicated and are difficult to understand without access to independent expertise. Needless to say, first nations opposed to the bill have not been given the opportunity and/or the resources to exercise due diligence.

If this bill passes, first nations will be stuck--something that only the clique of those promoting the bill can really understand.

In short, the federal government has no defensible record of consultation on a bill that clearly affects first nations rights and interests. This is in violation of the constitutional standards for consultation. It seems that the federal government is not relying on its own consultation record, which is essentially non-existent. Instead, the federal government claims that the bill has been developed by first nations and is supported by first nations. The last two recitals of the bill take this position: the federal government does not have to consult because the bill is supported by first nations. That is a lie; the bill is built on a lie.

Developmental work on fiscal relations and fiscal institutions was conducted by Canada and the assembly leading up to 2001. This work was supported in a conceptual sense by Assembly of First Nations resolutions. The developmental work was greatly accelerated in early 2001, when the federal government advised interested first nations that there might be a window for related legislation in the fall of 2001. This proved to be false.

At the Assembly of First Nations assembly in Halifax in 2001, a resolution was put forward supporting more detailed work on fiscal institutions, leading to possible legislation. The resolution was defeated because it did not garner 60% support in accordance with the Assembly of First Nations constitution. However, a political compromise was struck. Further work on the fiscal institutions was permitted as long as any draft bill was brought back to the assembly for approval, modification, or rejection. The Halifax understanding has not been honoured.

Â (1210)

At the AFN assembly in Montreal in July 2002, the supporters of the fiscal institutions package claimed there was no draft bill to look at. Debate was foreclosed. Oddly, a full draft of the bill was available in the context of a ministerial press conference a few weeks later. Subsequently, supporters of the bill have refused to acknowledge that the AFN assembly has any kind of final say.

The bill has been considered at special assemblies and AFN confederacies since August 2002. On every occasion the chiefs have voted to reject the bill in its entirety. There are copies of resolutions. If they have not already been made available to you by the AFN, they will be.

Key supporters of the bill have actually been removed from the AFN fiscal relations portfolio because their views are inconsistent with the overwhelming majority of first nations. Supporters of the bill have been reduced to having lawyers spin ridiculous technical arguments against the many resolutions condemning the bill.

The federal government has not conducted any kind of consultation on this bill, even though the bill clearly infringes on first nations rights and interests. The federal government explains away this prima facie violation of the constitution with the assertion that the first nations developed and support this bill. Unfortunately, that is a lie.

A small regional minority of first nations support the self-serving tax and borrow agenda of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The overwhelming majority of first nations have clearly and repeatedly expressed their opposition to the bill.

As the consultation record of the bill is a bald-faced lie, the bill must be unconstitutional. I trust this is a concern.

Bill C-19 is not optional; it affects all first nations. Canada and a small minority of first nations supporting the bill sometimes argue that the majority in opposition should hold their peace, because they allege the bill is optional in only affecting the first nations who have chosen to join the club. Like any skilful misrepresentation, this one contains a grain of truth--or, as they say, “plausible deniability”. At least for now, a first nation cannot be forced to pass a local taxation law and thereby become subject to the control of the tax commission. A good deal of the mandate of the management board is related to first nations that choose to pass property taxation laws and borrow through the finance authority. Membership in the finance authority cannot be forced, though once a first nation does become a member, it is almost impossible to get out.

So to be fair, there is an element of optionality to the bill, which unfortunately provides the basis for the misrepresentation that the bill as a whole is optional. The bill is not really optional; it affects the rights and interests of all first nations.

It is supported by a small regional minority of first nations, sympathetic for whatever reason to the tax and borrow mantra of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, being imposed on the unwilling majority of first nations in this country.

The bill concedes that no first nation can pass a property taxation law without the approval of a federal tax commission. No first nation can spend local taxation revenue without the approval of that same federal commission. This massive violation of the inherent right affects and diminishes all first nations.

The bill concedes that no first nation can pass a local financial management law without the approval of the federal management board. Again, this is a violation of the inherent right and affects all first nations.

On the hope and prayer of obtaining lower interest rates for borrowing, the bill imposes a devastating and intrusive set of restrictions on first nations. First nations finances and lawmaking can be taken over with little or no due process in order to maintain the credit rating of the finance authority.

The federal statistical institute is given the authority to produce statistical reports that will inevitably affect all first nations.

The institutions are not self-financing, but will be subsidized by the general revenues of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Therefore, all first nations will in effect be paying for the institutions, regardless of their extended involvement.

In short, the bill is not optional, but affects the rights and interests of all first nations. I would have no quarrel with the department and its first nation supporters if they were proposing a localized or specific tax and borrow arrangement. This might be codified in a contract or even a specific piece of legislation, like the Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act or the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act.

Â (1215)

I respect the right of any first nation to develop its own solutions for its own problems. However, the fundamental problem with Bill C-19 is that a scheme supported by a few is being imposed on the many. That is not right in traditional first nation law and it is unconstitutional in Canadian law.

I would like to say a few words about the First Nations Statistical Institute. It is something of an anomaly or a floater in the draft legislation. The tax commission, management board, and finance authority work together like a well-oiled machine. They are designed to promote the tax and borrow religion of the Department of Indian Affairs and a small minority of first nations associated with the current Indian Taxation Advisory Board, mostly from British Columbia.

Those three institutions have no necessary connection with the First Nations Statistical Institute and could operate without it. The statistical institute has the aura of a throw-in.

The statistical institute is not optional. It is controlled by the federal government and has the mandate to publish reports dealing with all first nations.

In practice, a federal control of the institute will reduce its credibility among first nations. No attempt is being made to earn the respect of first nations; a model is being imposed.

The institute appears to be based on the premise that the production of excellent technical reports will somehow better the social and economic circumstances of first nations. This is ridiculous. The research branch of Indian Affairs and other federal agencies already produce reams of reports that prove the obvious, that first nations are a kind of third world within Canada. They are a colonized people in their own land.

Recall the technical reports and final recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Dozens of existing statistical reports on the shelf have not moved the federal government to increase transfers to first nations, in spite of huge available surpluses since the late 1990s. If existing research has not moved the federal government, it is simply misleading to suggest that the reports of the statistical institute, years down the road, are likely to have a measurable effect.

The institute is typical of Bill C-19 in that it deliberately misleads on the issue of optionality. Clauses 103 and 104 create the misleading impression that first nation data will be shared with the institute based on agreements. However, the fine print contradicts that impression. Clause 105 effectively provides that all federal data on all first nations will be made available to the institute without the consent of first nations.

Given the extent of financial and other reporting imposed on first nations, this effectively means the institute will have non-consensual access to the most intimate data concerning every single first nation in Canada.

In summary, the institute is not a first nations institution. It is federally controlled and will have little credibility in the first nation community. If the institute had to rely on sharing agreements with first nations and did not have the crutch of clause 105, it probably wouldn't get off the ground. Its reports, even if technically excellent, will have a snowball's chance in hell of changing federal policy on fiscal transfers and the sharing of resources in the traditional off-reserve territories.

I respect the position of a small number of first nations that are interested in the institute. They should enter into a contract with the Department of Indian Affairs to establish a statistical project that affects only those first nations that sign on. With respect, it's against first nation law and the Canadian Constitution to impose a statistical regime on the majority of unwilling first nations.

In conclusion, Bill C-19 is not optional. It infringes on the rights of all first nations. In particular, it violates the inherent right to self-government. An example of this is the veto given to the financial management board over all first nation financial management laws. As the bill violates the inherent right contained within section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the bill is unconstitutional.

The consultation record for Bill C-19 is based on a lie. First, there is no federal consultation record. Secondly, contrary to the recitals of the bill, the overwhelming majority of first nations are opposed to the bill. This opposition has been expressed in a series of AFN assembly and confederacy resolutions going back to the Halifax assembly in 2001.

Â (1220)

The minority in support of the bill have been reduced to relying on lawyers who quibble about this resolution and that resolution.

The bill has nothing to do with a real first nations agenda. Federal transfers have to be increased and the resources of the traditional territory have to be shared. The tax and borrow religion of the bill misses the mark completely. It lets the federal government off the hook and only serves to deepen the problems of first nations in the long run.

I urge the committee to reject the bill in its entirety. Window-dressing amendments such as non-derogation clauses are beside the point. I urge the minority of first nations that support the bill to go back to the drawing board and develop local models. It is against first nation law to impose this model on the unwilling majority of first nations.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Grand Chief Fox.

We will have a five-minute round before the official opposition gets an extra minute.

Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Thank you for being with us, Grand Chief Fox.

Off the top, Charles, you indicated at the end that there was absolutely no way to remedy this or mitigate it, but I do need to ask you if in fact there was the possibility of having first nations--I guess specifically those B.C. bands, the scattering or smattering of other bands across the country that wanted to be part of this kind of a regime--listed, and then there's no opt in, opt out. There may be some kind of a process, like with the First Nations Land Management Act, where you could get in at a later point.

Would you be more comfortable with that? Would that seem to be a little less coercive to you, if you simply had a Bill C-19 with these bands listed in the preamble or in an appendix where it's applying to those bands only and it has no reference to anybody else at that point?

Grand Chief Charles Fox: The issue of optionality is one that I believe we have looked at.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: This would not be the issue of optionality, then, Charles. It would be the issue of just listing those bands, that this bill is only and specifically for them, and so it's not an opt in, opt out per se, therefore, in the bill--like you've done with the Land Management Act, where 14 bands were listed. Some are trying to get in subsequently, and I gather there's a process for that, but might it be better to do it that way, as with the Land Management Act, where you list those bands that specifically want to do this thing and there isn't the opt-in, opt-out kind of thing as in Bill C-19?

Grand Chief Charles Fox: It's an option that we would definitely look at. I think the way it's currently set up, with the authorities and the process that we see, there is no option right now for what your question is based on. It seems to impose that all first nations in Canada have to fall into that regime. So I think we can look at the option you're raising.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: The other thing, which you did kind of allude to here, was that, as I understand--and it's a little bit of word games and a bit of sleight of hand that's played here, and even with the minister here yesterday. They tell me things like there are no bonds issued and these types of things; there's something called FNFA Inc., or I think that's what the legal adviser indicated yesterday, and the proceeds of the bond issues are used by first nations to build community infrastructure such as sewer, roads, water, and so on.

Do you have a concern, then, that INAC currently funds local infrastructure projects on reserve in conjunction with Infrastructure Canada and the first nations? If a first nation is a borrowing member of this new FNFA, as proposed under Bill C-19, do you think they would still be eligible to enter these funding agreements with INAC, as in the current process with Infrastructure Canada, or if you're part of FNFA, would you have to get your funding for your infrastructure through them and you're cut out of this other?

The minister implied that you could do both. I think a lot of people are somewhat skeptical of that.

Â (1225)

Grand Chief Charles Fox: I'm not clear on the question itself, how the specifics are detailed--

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: If you're going to be a part of FNFA, if you opt in and you're part of the first nations financial authority here, it occurs to me that probably what will happen is that for your infrastructure, such as sewer, roads, and water, and so on, that's how you're going to do the borrowing, through the FNFA to get the infrastructure moneys. Right?

I'm rather dubious about the likelihood, then, of your getting moneys under the present infrastructure program. I think it's probably going to be either/or. There seems to be a bit of a denial of that, and others are rather skeptical of that.

Has that issue been raised with you? Are you even aware of that kind of a concern?

Grand Chief Charles Fox: I would be concerned about that. I think when you're looking at dollars that flow to the first nations from the government for infrastructure, we view those as transfers or as grants to deal with the infrastructure needs of the community. But if this new institution does become a reality and bands are forced to borrow from that institution to deal with their infrastructure costs, then you're removing that fiduciary duty of the federal government to provide those infrastructure needs of first nations in our communities. So I do have a concern.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: That was my point. You would not possibly be getting it through the present Infrastructure Canada program.

This is the last quick question.

You've made it plain here--and I just want it on the record again--that if you become part of the FNFA, the First Nations Financial Authority, unless every other first nation involved lets you out, you can't get out. That's my understanding, and it is a high threshold. But you're in and you're not getting out.

Is that the correct understanding?

Grand Chief Charles Fox: That's our reading of it.

Just going back to the optionality you raised, if you're going to impose this type of scheme on the majority, by virtue of...I guess, looking at the way it's set up currently, it is an imposition. There is no real option for us to opt in or out. We don't read it that way.

I think if there's an opting in and opting out process, one that's fair and justifiable, then by all means we'll look at it. We'll examine it. But we don't currently have that. I don't see it right now.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Is my time up?

The Chair: You have 10 seconds. You can say hello and ask him how the weather is, I guess.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: We're very grateful that you're on today, Chief. We'll enjoy the information you continue to provide.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Madame Picard.

[Translation]

Ms. Pauline Picard: Good afternoon. Thank you very much. I would like to know what you base yourself upon, legally speaking, when you say that Bill C-19 is anticonstitutional.

[English]

Grand Chief Charles Fox: I'm not a lawyer by trade, but when I look at Bill C-19 and its imposition on us...as first nations people, under section 35 we do have existing treaty and aboriginal rights. Based on those existing treaty and aboriginal rights, we should have that power to make decisions and create authorities.

When a first nation looks at a regime for taxation in their community.... I'm from Bear Skin Lake, a community of 600 people. We need access to off-reserve resources in order to be fully self-sustaining. There is no taxable income in our communities that can sustain our government or our economy.

So when I look at Bill C-19, what it's doing is creating a financial authority federally that will impose issues on us. If Bear Skin Lake First Nation wants to set up a taxation regime in their community, they have to go to this authority for approval. If this authority doesn't agree with some of the bylaws on taxation that we model ourselves and we pass, this board, this commission, can veto them. That's contrary to my inherent rights. I should be able to make the laws that are applicable to me and that would benefit the first nations people in the community I come from. This is contrary to that.

Â (1230)

[Translation]

Ms. Pauline Picard: You seem to be adamantly opposed to Bill C-19. Do you favour the status quo? Would it not be possible to amend Bill C-19 to deal with the problems you mentioned a little earlier?

[English]

Grand Chief Charles Fox: Coming from the communities I represent, I can say the overwhelming majority of communities in Ontario live in third world conditions.

I come from Bear Skin Lake, Ontario. It's a remote community. There's no road access. It's a fly-in community. Eighty to ninety percent of our people are unemployed. There is no foundation for taxation of our people. The reality for us is that we have all these offers of resources, but we have no access to those resources. That's a real priority for me. If we could have access to those resources in terms of timber, minerals, even tourism opportunities, forestry activities, that would begin to define and develop a viable tax base for our community. We don't currently have that.

So when I look at Bill C-19, the way it's being proposed, it seems to assume we can afford to tax our people, to set up these regimes, when in fact we can't. We're not ready for that. Until such time as the federal and provincial governments can sit down with us to give us that due access to the off-reserve resources, thereby creating that threshold where we can begin to look at taxation for our band members, we're not in a position to do that. Until that day comes, we won't be.

In terms of looking at the overall approach with Bill C-19 and how we can begin to develop a real process of self-determination, self-sustainability for our communities, we have to sit down as groups of people, whether it's the federal government with the first nations or the provincial government with first nations and the federal government, to lay out that blueprint. We haven't been given that opportunity.

[Translation]

Ms. Pauline Picard: Do you not think that Bill C-19 might be a step in the right direction and that under the legislation you could negotiate with the provincial governments?

You have been talking to me about wealth, amongst other things. I know that you need tools and infrastructure. However, I get the impression you are afraid that by providing you the tools for your development, the federal government will abandon you and at the same time put an end to the programs and subsidies that contribute to your development. Is that your fear?

[English]

Grand Chief Charles Fox: My concern is, when I look at the overall approach to developing a self-sustaining economic base for our communities, for our governments, we do need federal transfers. We need fiscal transfers, similar to transfer agreements that exist between the federal government and the provinces. We should be able to negotiate those.

If we're going to look at self-sustaining communities in the future, first nations have to have that ability to negotiate for accessibility to those local resources that are close at hand. We don't have that.

I don't see Bill C-19 giving us that hammer either, in terms of forcing the provincial governments to the table to strike up agreements for us to access off-reserve resources such as timber, mining, or others. I fail to see it within Bill C-19. Bill C-19 seems to me to indicate that we currently have that capability, and we don't.

The Chair: Merci, Madame Picard.

Mr. Dromisky, you have five minutes.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

How's the weather, Charles?

Grand Chief Charles Fox: The weather's fine, Stan. Where are you? I can't see you.

There you are, Stan. The weather's fine.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Say hello to Peter and Marvin for me, okay? I'm wishing them the best.

Let's take a look at the scenario, at what has happened since the year 2000. In January 2001 the national first nation advisory panels were created for the development of the proposed First Nations Financial Management Board and the First Nations Statistical Institute. Then in April 2001, the Chiefs Committee on Fiscal Relations launched a nation-wide campaign to visit first nations and explain the first nations fiscal institution's initiative.

Then in July of that very same year, National Chief Matthew Coon Come sent a letter to all the chiefs endorsing the first nations fiscal initiative. In July, the very same month, the AFN endorsed the first nations fiscal initiative and directed the Chiefs Committee on Fiscal Relations to develop federal legislation.

Then in August 2002, we find that National Chief Matthew Coon Come endorsed the announcement and sent all chiefs copies of the consultative draft and a community guide explaining the fiscal institutions.

Then comes November, and ka-boing, things change dramatically. Tell me what happened in that period of time.

Â (1235)

Grand Chief Charles Fox: If I recall correctly, Stan, the Halifax resolution was the key resolution. That resolution called for developmental work on the four fiscal institutions.

It didn't pass with the overwhelming majority as required by the AFN constitution. It required 60% support. I think it had about 55%. So as a political compromise, the two groups agreed there would be a process established with the chiefs in Canada to proceed with the work, but the leaders who were working on the development of these institutions had to report back to the chiefs subsequently.

From our perspective, there was failure to do that. There was failure to come back with a detailed report to the chiefs and assembly to say, “This is what we're doing and this is what the draft legislation will look like”. If I recall correctly, I think that was a specific direction that was also given to them. There was failure to do that.

Instead, what happened was that subsequently I believe the draft resolution was tabled by the minister himself before the chiefs and assembly could review it and propose amendments, or reject it, or just vote on it. It never happened.

The decision-making of the AFN assembly was removed from their hands. That's what happened.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: What would appear to be a very logical process that you people have created suddenly collapsed, it fell apart?

Grand Chief Charles Fox: Basically at the 11th hour it collapsed. From our perspective, that's the way I see it, if I recall correctly. That's unfortunate.

I think there's a need to develop these partnerships and to work cooperatively on important issues such as this; there's a need to finalize those arrangements. I think in this particular instance there was a failure to reach the finish line. It got sidelined without the AFN chiefs assembly approving the final product.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Thank you very much, Charles.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Dromisky.

Mr. Hubbard.

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

When we listened to the presentation...it is your opinion, Chief, that the legislation is not optional. If it were optional, would you accept it?

Grand Chief Charles Fox: I think for me, personally speaking, it's something that I would certainly sit back and look at. At the present moment it seems more of an imposition than anything else. But if there's that option given to first nations to opt in and out, I believe we can sit down and look at that.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: I don't want to put you on the spot with this because I suppose all of us have populations we serve. Personally, if it were optional, would you think it would be acceptable?

Grand Chief Charles Fox: Good question. It would be an issue that would have to be taken back to the chiefs in assembly in Ontario. But personally speaking, there's no reason why we couldn't sit down to review it. There's no reason why we couldn't look at the pros and cons.

Â (1240)

Mr. Charles Hubbard: You talk about 100 first nations that would favour this--maybe it's 100, maybe it's 200, maybe it's 300. But at what point would we have to say that it doesn't work because not enough people want it? Or do we have to have everybody approve it before it could be brought back in terms of our reporting back to the House with the bill?

Grand Chief Charles Fox: I think it's not so much a defining threshold in terms of the numbers that would find the bill palatable, although a majority would suffice. I think from my perspective the issue of cooperative ventures, partnerships, working together on projects--that for me is a priority.

If we can sit down as equal partners to chart the course in terms of where we should go with dealing with first nation or aboriginal issues in this country and work together all the way right to the final product, that would be the key. We can't have a unilateral imposition or one party pulling away at the 11th or 12th hour and moving ahead with work that both parties had engaged in.

If there's going to be a fair and equitable approach in terms of dealing with first nations issues in Canada, then it has to be one that's premised on true partnership, and true partnership right from the beginning to the end.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Chair, I'm not sure if the grand chief saw the presentations made early this morning. I don't think he did have that opportunity, but as a committee member, I certainly was very much enthused with some of the reports we had and indications that first nations were looking at opportunities and trying to become more self-reliant. Certainly, we appreciate your point of view in terms of fiscal transfers, which are very important, and also looking at other resources that could be arranged with the provincial and federal governments.

I think especially from the group from British Columbia, they saw opportunities at hand that should be addressed, and could be addressed, that would improve the financial relationships they had among the various areas they worked with. I would be disappointed, Mr. Chair, if we were to deny those people in those first nations the ability to have legislation that will enable a practice that they think is very important to their future.

So, Chief, we certainly appreciate--I know I do--your point of view, but I would hope that the opportunities others see would also be considered in terms of the position you would take.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Thank you, Grand Chief. We invite you now to make closing remarks.

Grand Chief Charles Fox: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me this opportunity to make our presentation on Bill C-19.

I think in relation to the comments from the previous speaker--I apologize, I can't remember your name, sir--as first nations in Ontario, certainly I think we look at opportunities that are given to us as first nations. Where I come from in Nishnawbe-Aski territory, Treaty No. 9, the majority of communities are remote. Out of 49, I believe 34 are classified remote with no road access. The issue of access to resources is non-existent.

If this venture, the fiscal relations institutions, is something that we can utilize for our purposes, certainly I think we could do that. But the way it's currently set up, I just don't see it. I don't see how communities in my area, or a community of 600 where I come from in Bearskin Lake, where we have 85% to 90% unemployment, with no access to resources, no real incentives to look at resource, economic, and business development, can benefit from these institutions.

I think from our perspective, when there is imposition on us with respect to these institutions applying to us with or without our consent, we find that very unsettling. I think if we're going to truly deal with the real equation of where we sit and where we find ourselves as first nations in that remote part of Ontario, and how we can begin to develop self-sustainability and self-determination, the ability or the willingness to sit down and talk in good faith leading toward solutions is something that certainly we want to look at.

At the present moment, with the fiscal relations institutions that I see, I don't see that opportunity. This is not to say that the opportunity will not present itself. I'm hoping that somewhere down the road that real opportunity in terms of true partnerships will evolve.

Thank you.

Â (1245)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Grand Chief.

I understand that Chief Bressette would like to clarify something. Is that correct? We could do that right now.

Chief Bressette, I understand you would like to clarify something from your presentation. We invite you to do that at this time.

Chief Tom Bressette: Yes, I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I wanted to raise a point of clarification. The amendments that are raised in my presentation may have given some of the members of this committee the wrong impression.

I want to make it clear. This bill is technically sound and I support it. The amendments I raised in my presentation were intended to address some of the concerns that may have been raised or expressed by the critics of this bill. I feel it's my responsibility to at least have those concerns read into the record.

For all intents and purposes, the bill is sound and I support it. I wanted to make that clear.

The Chair: There was no intention to delay the passing of the bill in those comments, I understand.

Chief Tom Bressette: That's right.

The Chair: I'm glad you clarified that because I was left with the impression that many amendments would really delay the passing. I'm not saying it shouldn't be delayed, but I appreciate you clearing that up for us. Thank you very much.

We will suspend for two minutes while we remove the equipment.

Â (1248)

Â (1250)

The Chair: We will resume proceedings.

We welcome, from the First Nations Finance Authority, Deanna Hamilton, president and chief executive officer, and Tim Raybould, senior policy adviser. We invite you to make a presentation, hopefully allowing time for questions from members.

I see you have a third colleague. Would you introduce him?

Ms. Deanna Hamilton (President and Chief Executive Officer, First Nations Finance Authority): Yes. This is Micha Menczer. He's working on this file.

The Chair: Thank you. You may proceed whenever you're ready.

Ms. Deanna Hamilton: Thank you. My name is Deanna Hamilton and I'm an Okanagan woman from Westbank First Nation, located in south central British Columbia. I am the CEO and president of the First Nations Finance Authority.

Recently, as part of a film festival in my home community in Westbank, I watched a movie, an Australian film that some of you may have seen. It's called Rabbit-Proof Fence. The film is a heart-wrenching story set in the 1930s about three young aboriginal girls who run away from residential school after having been forcibly removed from their mothers and their community by Australian authorities. What made this film difficult for me was that 50 years ago, and not more than 200 metres from the cinema, my mother protected me and my brothers and sisters from the Indian agent who would have removed us to residential school. Many of my peers were not so lucky. Most of them still suffer, I believe, from what has been a traumatic loss, a lost generation experience, never to fully heal.

As I left the cinema in Westbank I turned to my husband and made the comment, how different my life might have been if my mother had not hidden me. I doubt I would be sitting here in front of you today, and I do appreciate this opportunity.

As you know, first nations in Canada still struggle to free themselves from the effects of 127 years of being under the Indian Act. We're trying to break the debilitating cycle of dependency that has suppressed our social and economic development. We are trying to change the system of administration that sought to assimilate us, but instead not only alienated us from our own cultures but took away our ability to compete in the modern world, a system of administration that is a complete antithesis of what we are trying to achieve through Bill C-19, the First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act.

I am pleased to say that the Canada-wide first-nations-led fiscal institutions initiative embodied in Bill C-19 reflects a vision that sees the establishment of the national first nations institutions that will support and underpin our first nation governments. There's a real and practical effort by first nations ourselves to create a better future for our communities to stimulate economic growth on our reserves and to enable our people to enjoy the standard of living non-aboriginals take for granted--not an unreasonable goal in prosperous Canada in the 21st century.

As we all know, change is never easy. It is even more difficult for us as a colonized people who on the one hand know our rights but on the other hand are often fearful of taking control after being subjugated and oppressed for so many years. This important event occurred in 1990 when some first nations in Canada began collecting property tax. The system is working well. The taxes are used to provide local services, a basic and essential aspect of any government.

However, in the first nations world, this was seen as quite revolutionary by other first nations and especially by non-natives. But should we be surprised?

In 1989 I returned to my home community of Westbank to retire. This was about the same time as first nations across Canada gained the authority over property taxation. Retirement did not last long. I was asked to set up the first nations tax office, which I accepted. We had many interesting challenges because we were one of the first three to pass property tax and taxation bylaws in Canada. But that's another story.

Shortly after our property taxation systems were up and running, a group of first nations decided that we very much needed a way to use our newly found, predictable, stable tax dollars to borrow for public purposes, purposes such as building water and sewer infrastructure that our communities lack but that non-native communities take for granted, basic infrastructure that is needed to attract economic development and thereby increase our property tax revenues and enable our economies to grow.

Westbank First Nation led the initiative. At the time, Westbank was building a water system at great cost. We watched the adjacent non-native communities in Kelowna build similar infrastructures more efficiently and more cost-effectively. For us there were legislative barriers and legislative gaps. We clearly needed long-term public debt financing, we needed a regulatory framework, to make it work.

Westbank First Nation hosted two well-attended national conferences in 1992 and 1993 to consider options for first nations public debt financing. A number of models were looked at. In view of the fact that our communities are typically small and diversified, are generally underdeveloped, and have limited administrative capacities to undertake complex financial transactions, we looked at working together and pooling our resources.

The approach favoured was that of the exemplary and very successful Municipal Finance Authority of B.C., the MFA. We favoured this model not because we equate our governments to municipalities, but because the model favoured small governments working together. Now AAA rated, the MFA was set up under B.C. premier W.A.C. Bennett's conservative Social Credit government in 1970.

The authority raises all the capital needed by local governments in B.C. to build their infrastructure. It pools each government's borrowing requirement, issues bonds, and re-lends the proceeds back to its members. Through the economies of scale of working together, the authority has significantly reduced the cost of borrowing for local governments in B.C. Most importantly, it has provided all local governments within B.C., whether urban or rural, small or large, with access to affordable capital. As committee members will all agree, the availability of all such capital is the lifeblood of any community, no matter what size.

Under the MFA model, all of the local governments collectively secure each other's borrowing by pledging their property tax revenues. The cost of borrowing is a reflection of a collective credit. The primary reason the MFA is AAA rated by international credit rating agencies such as Moody's is the one for all and all for one, “three-musketeers” approach. It works; it's self-help on a viable communitarian basis.

In B.C. there are 212 non-native local governments sharing the benefit of a AAA credit rating. In all of the rest of Canada there are approximately only a dozen others. This is very significant and something that local governments here in Ontario are struggling to emulate.

In 1995, the FNFA was incorporated to begin the work of developing a national public financing institution for first nations along the same lines as the MFA and to establish the first aboriginal credit in the world. It would be a body owned and governed by first nations, where the benefits would be shared by those members.

The FNFA immediately began providing pooled investment funds for first nations. Basically, these are mutual funds with low management expenses, and they are managed in cooperation with the Municipal Finance Authority of B.C. About 50 first nations currently make use of these pooled investment opportunities, but many more are waiting for the bond program.

However, our preliminary purpose is to see the establishment of a regulatory framework for public debt financing for those first nations who opt to borrow through the authority. We began actively lobbying the Government of Canada to pass the necessary legislation to make it possible. To be clear, the FNFA has not as yet issued any debentures and requires a regulatory framework to do so.

The MFA is regulated through its own legislation, setting out how it is governed, administered, and the rules for issuing debt. This provides comfort to the borrowing members, who collectively stand behind the credit, as well as reassurance to the markets that the bonds issued are a sound investment.

The MFA legislation was ahead of its time in Canada. Internationally, the MFA is viewed as an important model for public debt financing. The model is particularly suited to first nation communities because we have no realistic opportunity to go to the markets one by one; if we did, the cost of our borrowing would be prohibitive.

While the FNFA is modelled on the MFA, there are, of course, differences in the legislative framework, given that first nations are not municipalities and have inherent law-making authority. Bill C-19 has been drafted accordingly.

In drafting Bill C-19, market considerations were critical.

Â (1255)

The FNFA will not control the interest rate on the bonds we will issue; rather, the rate will be set by the market based on the strength of our collective credit. The stronger the credit, the cheaper our money. It is important to remember that the debentures we will be issuing are not backed by hard assets and that no land is mortgaged; rather, it is the strength of the property tax system that supports the credit.

Based on our discussions with Moody's Investment Services, Standard and Poors, and RBC Dominion Securities, we have made sure that the international money markets will be comfortable with our structure and that the structure will support an investment grade credit rating for the First Nations Finance Authority. We expect an A credit rating at first and aspire to AAA in the future. The MFA started with an A rating.

The features of the legislation that support the strong credit rating include a clear process for establishing the eligibility of first nations for such financing, including: certification to meet financial management standards; first nations control of the system, with our boards all consisting of elected first nations people from elected bands; a stable, fair, well-regulated and certified property tax system in operation; a clear verification process to ensure that the projects built with bond revenues are viable, with significant first nations borrowing capacity; a debt reserve fund of 5% of moneys borrowed that will support the obligations of the FNFA and can be used, if needed, by the FNFA to meet its obligations; and the ability of the FNFA to replenish the debt reserve fund through the collection of property taxes in the unlikely event that the fund is ever drawn upon.

Once opting to borrow through the FNFA--and thus benefiting from the collective credit--the first nations will commit to using the FNFA for their infrastructure financing needs, where property taxes are used and where the debt is paid as a priority. To ensure the integrity of borrowing systems and the priority of payment, clear separation of the local revenue account, i.e. the property taxation, from the revenues of the first nation should be established.

In the early years we expect our bond issues to be relatively small. They will be approximately $20 million for years one through three, $30 million for years four and five, and $50 million a year thereafter. To be sure, the actual need is far greater, but we are being conservative.

We have a well-founded expectation that FNFA bonds will be purchased by institutional investors in Canada and abroad. However, we hope to have some of our bonds available to retail customers who wish to invest in first nations communities. Interest has already been shown in our bonds internationally, where investors see our bonds as ethical and therefore as very attractive in this day and age. It is our vision that Canadians will become as accustomed to buying or owning first nations bonds for their portfolios and pensions as they are accustomed to buying or owning federal, provincial, and municipal bonds in Canada. This is our goal in the long term.

While the activities of the FNFA will make a significant difference to the core infrastructure in our communities, it is of course only one step forward in our development. For the hundred-plus communities collecting property taxes, our services will be immediately available. Think of the benefit to qualifying first nations; what a dramatic new door will open for our peoples when Bill C-19 becomes law. First nations will collectively have a strong credit.

However, you and I must not lose sight of the fact that many of our communities are in a desperate situation. The collection of property tax and economic development is often the furthest thing from their minds. As numerous national and international bodies regularly report, many communities struggle with unacceptable suicide rates, desperate poverty, and social malaise of the worse kind. This situation is totally unacceptable in Canada in 2003.

The FNFA has never claimed to be the answer to all of our social woes and the debilitating effects of our sad colonial past. Of course, the FNFA is not a substitute for Canada's collective responsibility to all first nations and the national healing and reconciliation process that the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples urged take place.

Participation in the FNFA will not be a substitute for federal infrastructure commitments, where those dollars are most needed. Infrastructure to support economic development is not the same as basic infrastructure to save lives.

· (1300)

The FNFA is conceived as a united economic front and will be strictly non-political. To the FNFA, first nations will have an interlinked economy, more powerful and viable than their individual communities on their own.

I acknowledge with sadness that some first nation leaders stand opposed to our initiative, even though it is led by first nations and reasonable aboriginal leaders think we very much need it today. The Assembly of First Nations' politics aside, I think some oppose it because they fear that by focusing on economics, somehow the bigger picture and the greater need will be lost. They must be assured this is not the case. The scale or range of public policy issues facing Canada is great, and it is a challenge for all of us to resolve.

Those of us involved in this financing initiative hope that our example of creating our own solution to a specific problem we face demonstrates, at the very least, that there are small but important steps we can take in our communities to begin to break the shackles of colonialism so that we can once again be self-governing.

While it may be some time before some communities opt to use or qualify to belong to the FNFA, we will all be there at the end of the day.

The FNFA will operate in a purely economic and private arena, untouched by whatever claims our people may have against the Crown. The FNFA is not and cannot be seen as a threat to treaty or aboriginal rights. To be clear on this matter, I respectfully request that a non-derogation clause be added to Bill C-19. It would go a long way to alleviating some of the criticism and fears of the fiscal institutions initiative, most of which are seriously misplaced.

Institutions such as the FNFA have been created and led by first nations. They are created within the context of a united Canada; our first nations are part of an enduring Canadian mosaic. In developing these institutions, we effectively create a new entity in the Canadian machinery of government, a first nation institution to help safeguard our inalienable rights so that we can control our own destiny. Bill C-19 will empower us to do this.

In establishing national first nations institutions, there are obvious challenges. How do we create an independent first nation institution? While this is not an issue for the FNFA, which will be governed by an elected board of directors, the appointment of individuals to the other three institutions, the tax commission, the financial management board, and the statistical institution, has created some debate. How do we ensure first nation representation on these institutions where the Governor in Council makes the appointments? The institutions have been assured by the government that the appointments will be representatives of first nation communities.

In closing, we must not lose sight of the significance of this historical moment. A great many individuals have been involved in this initiative. Without such partnerships, progress could never have been made. In the final analysis, creating a better future for first nations requires leadership and vision. It requires a symbiotic approach that crosses cultural barriers, partisan politics, historical grievances, and the contemporary realities of life on reserve.

I ask the committee to move Bill C-19 ahead as quickly as possible so that it can be considered before the House rises.

When I think about my opening remarks and those three girls who ran away from the residential school because they knew that they did not belong in that place, I think how similar the histories of Canada and Australia are in impacting on indigenous people.

It is not without significance that the FNFA will be the first aboriginal credit or institution in the world to be rated by an international credit rating agency. As they say in the business, it will be “the first aboriginal credit”. We should all be very proud of that.

Together, Canada and first nations can lead by example and demonstrate the power of cooperation, as first nations move forward to establish our rightful place in Canada. Bill C-19 is an important step forward--and one taken together.

Thank you very much for listening to me.

· (1305)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Hamilton, for an excellent presentation.

We will now go to questions.

Mr. Vellacott for six minutes.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I don't mean to be unkind in this, but I guess I'm not at all persuaded. As we have witnesses present, it seems to me people from B.C. are driven by B.C.'s...and the history you recite here only confirms that for me.

I guess my question is simply why not carry on with the current federally incorporated FNFA, as modelled on the MFA, instead of this legislation, Bill C-19, which creates more pressure, forcing more bands...? That wording might be a little strong, or you might object to it, but why wouldn't you just stay with the present FNFA and go with that?

It seems to me it's more for the wealthier British Columbia bands. I don't think it applies to that many, and they object, then, as Chief Charles Fox did. They basically get in under the cover of this, and they're actually paying--by way of the moneys that have to come in from the transfers--whether they're going to take part in this or not.

So why didn't you just stay with the FNFA, the current federally incorporated body, and deal with it that way, instead of having this piece of legislation? What difference does it really make?

· (1310)

Ms. Deanna Hamilton: It makes a huge difference if you want to be able to borrow at wholesale rather than retail rates.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So by forcing more bands or creating the pressure on more bands to come in, you get the better rates? Is that your point?

Ms. Deanna Hamilton: I think we have to get away from forcing. There is no forcing of anybody into this.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Well, then, why don't we just leave it as is, with the 40-some bands being part of the FNFA, and they can come in as they choose to that federally incorporated body? I don't understand why we need a piece of legislation.

Ms. Deanna Hamilton: Because you need the security, not only for the people who decide to pool together for the common benefit of the lower rates, but also for the lenders to have the security that they're going to be repaid. As a result, we need to have the legislation.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay. So when you have Bill C-19 in place and the Government of Canada as the back-up.... Is that what you're...?

Ms. Deanna Hamilton: The Government of Canada does not underwrite these debts.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So where is the greater security then?

Ms. Deanna Hamilton: The security is in having the legislation so that everybody who is in this pool must work together by these rules and regulations, so we will be able to maintain that collective benefit.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: But with the FNFA, do you not already have rules you have to work by, for anybody coming into it? You have the rules in place already.

Ms. Deanna Hamilton: We have the ones for the investment pools, because the investment pools are up and operating. You can well imagine it's far easier to invest together than to borrow together. If I'm trusting you and you're trusting me that we're going to be good on our word and we go off to borrow together, then I want to make sure you're good on your word and you're going to honour your end of the debt. That's what this is doing.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: But you're also issuing bonds at present, not just--

Ms. Deanna Hamilton: No, we are not issuing bonds. We are waiting for this legislation. Currently under the Indian Act it is not possible to borrow.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Then somebody needs to check out your website, the First Nations Finance Authority, because it says, “The proceeds of the bond issues are used by First Nations to build community infrastructure such as sewer, roads and water.” I'm citing directly here. It also says “The investment grade bonds are backed by the property taxation”, and so on.

It gives the impression on your current website that you are actually doing that.

Ms. Deanna Hamilton: I apologize. It should say “will be”, because it's in anticipation of this going forward.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay. That's a major mistake, I guess. It describes it as a non-profit finance authority that serves first nations governments--this is all in the present tense. Then it goes on to say it's part of a suite of legislation for first-nations-led national institutions.

My other question is, in terms of securing the financing based on revenue other than property taxation, it's not really clear whether federal transfers to first nations would be included as other revenues. The Crown must agree, apparently, to the use of those transfer moneys.

Does this mean we are going to have shortfalls for health, education, and so on if we're having it backed by transfer moneys in addition to the property taxes?

Ms. Deanna Hamilton: There is actually a provision to be able to do that, but I would assume it would be for the infrastructure dollars, not for health, education, and other services. And the first nation would have to make an agreement with Canada before proceeding.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Does it say somewhere in the bill it's just the infrastructure dollars? It gives the impression here that other revenues...and it doesn't define what those other revenues are. Some are wondering whether in fact federal transfers would be included as other revenues. Is there any place where it specifically states that this is not intended or it's exempted?

Ms. Deanna Hamilton: The other revenues will be spelled out in the regulations, as suggested a little earlier by people who may want in future to leverage, say, resource revenues they may have.

But once again, that will be spelled out in the regulation.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I ask this other question, again with respect to the local infrastructure programs through Infrastructure Canada. Would this then suggest that if you're part of FNFA, you can't be getting funds from both sources? You'll be funded through the FNFA for your infrastructure, or through the other, but you won't be getting funding from both.

Ms. Deanna Hamilton: Not based on what the minister stated. He stated that one would not have an effect on the other.

I know, as a councillor for my band, we actually made an agreement whereby we not only took the infrastructure dollars from Canada, but we also put our tax revenue with it. We also received some grant money, etc., and we were able to make a small amount into a very large amount that really did impact our community for sewer services, which we went into an agreement with the regional district so we could further--

· (1315)

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I know what you're saying, Deanna.

The Chair: Sorry, your time is up.

Now it's Pauline Picard for five minutes.

[Translation]

Ms. Pauline Picard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon. I have listened to your presentation and I found it very interesting. In part of it, you address a principle that particularly touches me.

Before becoming an MP, 10 years ago, I worked at helping women who were social and financial have-nots, amongst other things, to develop their independence. Those women had gone through very hard times. After we had worked with them and gone through certain things and studied the question, we found out that for women to achieve independence they necessarily had to achieve financial independence.

Today, we need the money in order to be able to develop our infrastructure, to find housing, food and clothing to get health care and send our children to school. It is quite clear that we must set up institutions in order to be able to develop our wealth. As humans, we must develop our abilities and in order to do that, we need money.

I just wanted to give you that information which is just another way of telling you that I agree with your analysis.

Now, here is my question. Grand Chief Charles Fox told us earlier that, in his opinion, there had been no consultation with the native communities. He also seemed to say that only a small group was in favour of Bill C-19 and the only motivation was purely mercantile. Do you agree?

First of all, is it true there was no consultation?

[English]

Ms. Deanna Hamilton: There certainly were consultations. As stated earlier, the draft legislation, for instance, went out across the country three times--from the fiscal institutions, from the minister's office, as well as from.... The information was sent three times. As well, we had six supporting resolutions from the AFN when we presented it before the confederacies, etc. In fact, he stated, for instance, that it was not supported at the Halifax convention, but I actually have the resolution here before me, July 17 to 19, 2001, if anybody wants to see it. It certainly does say that it was supported and it did pass. I'll read it for you:

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; and

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:

I think an awful lot of information has gone out. I know from the First Nations Finance Authority's perspective alone, we have been putting out an annual report since 1995. Each year it is sent out to every first nation in Canada. We've also presented at many speaking engagements to let everyone know that this is before them. I think the consultation has been considerable.

· (1320)

The Chair: Merci, Madame Picard.

Had you asked for the floor, Mr. Dromisky?

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Yes, I did.

The Chair: I don't see your name on the list, Mr. Dromisky, but go ahead.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: I'm sorry. I have two questions and they're very brief.

First of all, I understand that what you're going through is dynamic. You have to be congratulated how you're all working together. It's very exciting.

I'm wondering about provincial regulations. Were provincial regulations in any way affecting, for instance, such things like taking your land and rezoning it to make an industrial park? Were provincial regulations in any way affecting any of those kinds of decisions? Or if you have an industrial park and you're taxing a tenant and you want to encourage industry to come into that industrial park and give them a special concession such as low taxes or no taxes...? Do you have complete freedom in those two areas?

Ms. Deanna Hamilton: This legislation doesn't address that. Basically, being part of a first nations community, I know this is something that is for the community to decide, and they're working on it.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: But I'm talking not about this legislation; I'm talking about what provincial regulations will affect any of those decisions you're going to make pertaining to taxes, zoning, and all this that I mentioned.

Ms. Deanna Hamilton: It doesn't apply on reserve.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: No provincial regulations apply or affect your decisions in this respect?

Ms. Deanna Hamilton: No.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Very good. That's interesting. However, my understanding is--I might be wrong, I'm often wrong--that in the province you're in there are over 130-some first nations communities.

Ms. Deanna Hamilton: No, there are 197.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: That's lots. My understanding is that you're the province without treaties, historically; that you don't have many treaties or you have none.

· (1325)

Ms. Deanna Hamilton: Few.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Very few. All right then. Maybe you're in a different kind of situation when it comes to development, doing the kind of developing you have done, versus the first nations people who are in provinces or other parts of Canada where there are treaties. So it's treaty versus non-treaty.

Would the first nations people who are under specific treaties be an impediment to the kind of development that has taken place in your province, in your areas, in your communities?

Ms. Deanna Hamilton: It shouldn't. It shouldn't affect the treaty rights, or the inherent right, or anything. This is purely a technical bill that supplies the tools that any other government has. This isn't a political bill.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: No, I understand that. In the last 10 years, did your community, because it was not covered by a treaty, have a distinct advantage versus the other parts of the country where treaties are applicable? Do you feel there is a distinct advantage?

Ms. Deanna Hamilton: No, I can't see how.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: It's just that it seems that once you cross the mountain and go over the hill, something happens, there's a change, a change in the weather. I'm wondering if maybe there is some kind of relationship to not only the Indian Act but the treaties that exist and the way people perceive the controls that might be there.

I find it very strange that once we cross the mountain ranges we get a different feeling pertaining to this bill.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Dromisky. We have a minute left for Ms. Karetak-Lindell.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: The last speaker, Grand Chief Charles, was talking about the bill not being really optional; he felt that once it was passed as legislation it would be forced upon the communities. I wondered if you had any comments to say about that.

Ms. Deanna Hamilton: It is optional. The reason it is optional is that nobody tells any community that they have to tax or that they should enter into the taxation field, etc. Of course, if you don't enter into the taxation field in this case, then the First Nations Finance Authority is optional, because, first of all, you wouldn't have the opportunity. However, even if you are in taxation you will have to go through qualifying processes to make sure your financial management is good, you have the borrowing room, and all the safeguards are in place so that you will have good-quality borrowing. That has to be in place before you can apply to use the First Nations Finance Authority services.

The Chair: Ms. Karetak-Lindell, thank you.

Mr. Vellacott, three minutes.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I want to get back to something you said before, Deanna. You're such a positive, gentle person, it's hard for me to be too severe in terms of my questions here. You really have a very good image in terms of how you present today.

I would say, and it reads right here:

The First Nations Finance Authority (FNFA) would allow First Nations to collectively issue bonds and raise long-term private capital at preferred rates for roads, water, sewer and other infrastructure projects.

I don't think we should be naive, and as long as people are aware of this.... I don't think we would want to be naive on this one, because it's pretty crucial. If this bill goes through and Bill C-19 is part of the law of the land, so a band is “part of the first nation, part of the FNFA”, the minister, when you come looking for infrastructure moneys under the regular Canada infrastructure programs through INAC, is going to say, “You're part of FNFA, you go to FNFA”, and you have to deal with them first and see if you can get the moneys and so on. If that doesn't work out, then I suppose you can come back to the Canada infrastructure program and so on.

I don't think we should be fooling ourselves here, and first nations should be aware of that. I think that will be the process and the scenario, whereby you go to FNFA and if you're turned down there, then maybe we'll consider you on this other side here. It's not going to make a whole lot of sense for a minister to say we'll do both. When you're part of the FNFA, that's where you have to go first.

Would you disagree with that? I'm not sure how you can actually.

Ms. Deanna Hamilton: I took the minister at his word yesterday when he stated that the two were not interlinked, that you would still have access to one even if you did take the other. The other thing is, I'm not sure that Canada wants to always be responsible for everything.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: No, I understand that, and in fact that would be the point the minister would make. You then have responsibilities of first nations; they're carrying more of the load, if you will.

But you have to be around this place a little. I heard the minister. In fact, I was the one who asked the question yesterday. You have to understand how things are parsed and nuanced, and there is a double entendre and sleight of hand in terms of words that are used here. I think people are simply deceived and deluded if they think that you can in fact have equal access. You will thereafter have to be going this way, and I think by your admission you just about acknowledged that. The minister will be saying you go that way, and you won't be getting access to both.

Ms. Deanna Hamilton: The other thing is--and I can speak from being a community member, a surveyor of taxes, and a past council member--that this was not the case at Westbank. At Westbank we were actually able to take the infrastructure dollars, and instead of just putting in that little tiny piece of infrastructure that was going to have to be torn out next year and made larger, and do the things that normally happen in first nation communities, we were actually able to take that and be able to leverage it into a lot more, because we had the stability of tax revenue as well.

So there was some tax revenue, our infrastructure dollars from Canada, as well as being able to get some grant programs, etc. I believe they stated it was one of the very first that had ever been put together like that. We were able to take a $1.3 million commitment on our part and make it into a $6.2 million project, which is immensely valuable to our community and will indeed do the things that this bill wants to be able to do--promote economic development--which then increases the ability to have jobs.

Also, first nations people are then able to take advantage of having the infrastructure that's in the ground and do their own kinds of businesses. In the past, that was certainly not possible, as Indian Affairs does not support anything to do with infrastructure, to do with economic development. They will only do it for housing or whatever those needs are.

So it actually worked in reverse for us. That's what I can speak from.

· (1330)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Vellacott.

Ms. Karetak-Lindell.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Thank you.

Just to carry on with my earlier intervention, one of the concerns is for smaller communities. I can identify with that because I represent a riding that has very isolated communities with sometimes very small populations, 300, 500, 600 people.

I'm wondering if you can give me an example of how small communities can work together. What would be the scenario? Would they have to be from one province? Could they be from across the country?

I think it's very interesting to hear that it will give opportunity for small communities, because we always know that larger communities can generally take care of themselves. It's the smaller ones that tend to get left behind quite a bit.

Also, because I have a very few minutes, I will be putting in an amendment on the non-derogation clause, because I think it's very important.

I'm very interested in hearing what examples you would have for smaller communities.

Ms. Deanna Hamilton: I think that's the real objective of this. The real objective, the reason we chose this model, is because, as you know, right across the whole country there are very small communities that also need to have infrastructure, etc., to be able to get a foothold, a start, and whatever it will take to get them going.

What's good about this is it takes the advantage the large communities have. I'll give you the B.C. example. In British Columbia, when the Municipal Finance Authority was formed it applied to everybody in B.C., with the exception of Vancouver because Vancouver thought they could go out on their own and do better than all these small communities, and why would they want the liability, etc.

As it's turned out this far down the road, Vancouver now borrows from the MFA, because the MFA, even though it has all those small communities, and medium-sized and large, and rural and urban, is still able to get an AAA rating consistently. That benefit then translates down to the smallest of communities. In no place else would you be able to take that small idea and make it so large and benefit everyone.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Karetak-Lindell.

We now invite you to make closing remarks.

Ms. Deanna Hamilton: Thank you.

The first thing to say, again, is that change is not easy. I can tell you that because I've spent 12 years of my life working on this bill, and it really is a great opportunity. It's something that when I started I thought it would take a couple of years. When something makes so much sense, you think, how could it possibly be that it could take more than two years? But 12 years later we're at this point.

I would like to say that we talked about the urgency of getting this completed. I think it is urgent to get it done. We do need to have this availability. It's been 12 years in the making. We have communities out there that need services, not only for themselves but also to promote economic development, etc., which then increases revenue, which allows for the development and the well-being of the communities.

We've been going to the bond rating agencies now for some time. We've given them our draft and asked, is there anything in here that needs to be improved, etc? I would hate to lose the opportunity to move forward and get the kind of rating that we have the inclination we're going to get, which is probably a single A. I think that is crucial.

We also have been very well supported by the Province of B.C. in that all the mayors, etc., belong to the Municipal Finance Authority of B.C. and they've been very supportive and have helped us along with this. It would be nice to see that finally it would come to fruition and their support could be acknowledged.

The other thing I would like to say--I'm referring back to you--is that tax in our community has been a very good thing to have, in that we've built a gym, baseball fields, soccer fields. We have supplied 38 services to residents on reserve, native and non-native. We have water lines, sewer lines. We have economic development that just happens when you have infrastructure. When infrastructure comes, it just comes. It makes life better.

The job opportunities for young people are great. We have a youth centre now. We also have a multi-purpose facility for the elders. It's really made such a difference in the community. The only missing link at the time was to be able to leverage that debt into something so that you would be able to put in the right capacity in your community. Rather than put in one-inch water lines, put in six inches, because you know you're going to need it. I was quite aghast when I realized we were taking out one inch to put in three, to take it out to put in five. It's just not the way things are done around reserves. Around reserves they take this approach. It works, and it lessens the burden and the cost.

While I really have a lot of empathy for the first nations that aren't there yet, I think it's shortsighted to think that what we should do is perhaps list these people so that only those who can do it now are able to do it in the future. You need to be able to leave the opportunity so that when other nations are able to they will be able to see that they can go and have this opportunity to be able to utilize these services.

Once again, I say thank you very much for listening to me. I hope for your support.

· (1335)

The Chair: Thank you very much for yet another excellent presentation. This was a very good morning session we had. I haven't consumed so much good information in such a short time. For this committee to have witnesses who speak to the issue is especially a treat. Some of you will know what I'm talking about.

So we thank you very much.

We will suspend for three minutes and then go in camera for a future business meeting.