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.
37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION
Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources
EVIDENCE
CONTENTS
Monday, September 22, 2003
| À | 1020 |
 |
The Chair (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)) |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.) |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ) |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Pauline Picard |
| À | 1025 |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Stuart Swanson (Director, Special Initiatives, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier (Senior Counsel, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) |
| À | 1035 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Pauline Picard |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
The Chair |
| À | 1040 |
|
Ms. Pauline Picard |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Pauline Picard |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Pauline Picard |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Pauline Picard |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Pauline Picard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Middlesex, PC) |
|
Ms. Mary Hurley (Committee Researcher) |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Pauline Picard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
| À | 1045 |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
Mr. Stuart Swanson |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
The Chair |
| À | 1050 |
|
Mr. Gary Schellenberger |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.) |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Pauline Picard |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Pauline Picard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
Mr. Stuart Swanson |
|
The Chair |
| Á | 1100 |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gary Schellenberger |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Ms. Pauline Picard |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Pauline Picard |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
| Á | 1110 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Stuart Swanson |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot) |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Ms. Sylvie Chatelain (Counsel, Lands and Trusts, Socio-Economic Policy and Programs and Corporate Services, Department of Justice) |
| Á | 1115 |
|
Mr. John Bryden |
|
Ms. Sylvie Chatelain |
|
Mr. John Bryden |
|
Ms. Sylvie Chatelain |
|
Mr. John Bryden |
|
Ms. Sylvie Chatelain |
|
Mr. John Bryden |
|
Ms. Sylvie Chatelain |
|
Mr. John Bryden |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Pauline Picard |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Pauline Picard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
| Á | 1120 |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Pauline Picard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Stuart Swanson |
| Á | 1125 |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. John Godfrey |
| Á | 1130 |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Pauline Picard |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Pauline Picard |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Pauline Picard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. John Godfrey |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
| Á | 1135 |
|
Mr. John Godfrey |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Pauline Picard |
|
The Chair |
CANADA
Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources |
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Monday, September 22, 2003
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
À 
(1020)
[English]
The Chair (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, February 25, 2003, Bill C-19, an act to provide for real property taxation powers of first nations, to create a First Nations Tax Commission, First Nations Financial Management Board, First Nations Finance Authority, and First Nations Statistical Institute, and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
Colleagues, we are at clause 27. I will note that whenever a clause carries, it is carried on division. That is the request of the opposition.
(Clauses 27 to 29 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 30--Restrictions)
The Chair: On clause 30, Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): There are a number of amendments before committee, and in view of the fact that with most clauses there is very little debate, I would suggest that we leave the amended clauses until the conclusion of the meeting.
The Chair: Do you move that we stand clause 30? That means we will put it aside, deal with the ones that have no amendments, and at the end come back to all the amendments.
Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Is Mr. Hubbard, in fact, suggesting that we stand all clauses? Is that what you are asking?
Mr. Charles Hubbard: I suggest that we stand all clauses for which we have amendments.
The Chair: Can we do this by consensus, that I will go through all the ones that have no amendments?
[Translation]
I'll now call the vote on all of the clauses for which no amendments have been moved, and we'll come back later to those for which amendments have been proposed.
[English]
It is agreed.
(Clause 30 allowed to stand)
(Clauses 32 and 33 agreed to on division)
(Clauses 35 to 50 inclusive agreed to on division)
(Clause 52 agreed to on division)
(Clauses 54 to 76 inclusive agreed to on division)
(Clauses 80 to 86 inclusive agreed to on division)
(Clauses 88 to 98 inclusive agreed to on division)
(Clauses 99 to 104 inclusive agreed to on division)
(Clauses 106 and 107 agreed to on division)
(Clauses 109 to 133 inclusive agreed to on division)
(Clauses 135 to 137 inclusive agreed to on division)
[Translation]
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Chairman, an amendment has been moved to clause 134.
The Chair: That's right. I started with clause 135 and neglected to mention clause 134. There's also a proposed clause 134.1.
Ms. Pauline Picard: Fine then. I'm sorry for the interruption.
À (1025)
[English]
The Chair: Okay, let's continue.
(Clauses 139 to 141 inclusive agreed to on division)
(Clauses 143 and 144 agreed to on division)
(Clause 146 agreed to on division)
(Clauses 148 and 149 agreed to on division)
(Clauses 151 to 153 agreed to on division)
(Clause 155 agreed to on division)
The Chair: Schedule 1 has amendments. The preamble has amendments. So we're on clause 30.
(On clause 30--Restrictions)
The Chair: We have amendment G-6 on page 44. Mr. Hubbard.
A voice: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. For the benefit of those at the back of the room, could you explain what just happened, please?
The Chair: You are out of order.
Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We have some changes in the wording of clause 30.
A voice: Am I to understand that all those changes went through without debate, without consideration by any of the parties? Especially given the limited hearings this committee had---
The Chair: Please sit down.
A voice: No. We did not hear from anyone on the clauses.
The Chair: You're not a member of the committee, you're here to observe and listen.
A voice: This is not democracy. Not only will you not hear from our people, you're not hearing from anyone on these clauses, and you're railroading this through. I want you to explain.
The Chair: Mr. Hubbard, excuse me. I must suspend proceedings.
À (1027)
À (1030)
The Chair: Order, please.
Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: In amendment G-6 to clause 30 there's quite a substantial change in the wording. In fact, it divides clause 30 into four parts. I could read it, Mr. Chair, but I'm not sure it's needed. If maybe our witnesses could briefly explain the reason for that, I think it would be a benefit to all members of the committee.
The Chair: G-6 is consequential to G-5, so maybe you can explain that.
Mr. Stuart Swanson (Director, Special Initiatives, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There are a number of related motions to amend in the package. These are related to clauses 3, 30, 77, 78, 79, and 87, new clause 138.1, and clauses 147 and 154.
This group of amendments is intended to make the bill flexible by considering types of revenues other than property tax revenues. The way the bill is structured now, it provides for the securitization or pledging of property tax revenues in order to go on the bond market and raise funds for development purposes.
During the development of the bill, it was suggested that first nations may wish to securitize types of revenues other than property tax. Therefore, it was suggested that we restructure the bill by moving a number of parts of it into regulations. Over time, that would allow coming back and looking at other types of revenues, and developing systems by which they may be securitized through the bond market.
For example, in the case of property tax revenues, the First Nations Tax Commission would have a role in all of the activities involved in developing a bond issue. The First Nations Tax Commission wouldn't have that role necessarily in any other types of revenues considered.
The Chair: And that passed when we passed amendment G-5.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 30 as amended agreed to on division)
(On clause 31--Review on request)
The Chair: Amendment G-7, Mr. Hubbard, on page 47 of your green book.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Chair, we're looking at some changes in the wording. Again, probably Mr. Swanson or Mr. Salembier could refer to this.
Mr. Paul Salembier (Senior Counsel, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Yes.
Clause 31 right now sets up a procedure by which a taxpayer resident of a reserve or a first nation member can bring a request to the commission to review an alleged breach of the act. What this does is narrow it down. It's not going to be just any breach of the act. These reviews will be limited to simply breaches of parts 1 and 2, part 1 being the law-making powers of the first nation and part 2 being the approval process for those laws. So it removes a reference to the other parts of the bill that are not properly subject to review by the commission.
It also removes a reference to the commission reviewing a failure to comply with standards, because in fact it is the commission itself, when looking at a law that's submitted for approval, that is in fact assessing that law against the standards that have been set. So it would not be appropriate for the commission to review its own actions in approving a law that didn't meet the standards, because the commission would be a judge in its own cause. This removes a reference to a review for a breach of standards from the scope of the review.
À (1035)
The Chair: Thank you.
Anyone else?
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 31 as amended agreed to on division)
(On clause 34--Regulations)
The Chair: We move to amendment G-8 on page 49. Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In clause 34 we find some changes in lines 15 and 16, and again in line 39 on page 18. In the same spirit of the exchanges being made here, perhaps Paul again would like to briefly outline to the committee the significance.
Mr. Paul Salembier: Sure. The first replacement simply adds a new cross-reference to a regulation-making power that was added to clause 4. The second provides that these kinds of regulations can vary from province to province, just in case there was an implication in the bill that there should be one regulation all across the country. Because first nations may choose to align their taxation systems with the same kinds of systems that exist outside the reserve lands in the province, it may very well be that regulations that are made are going to have to vary from province to province. The third change simply allows these regulations to authorize the commission to do various things they would not otherwise be entitled to do without an express power.
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: The government has another amendment that I will only accept if I have unanimous consent. I will ask the officials to explain to us the need for G-8a. It seems to be very technical, but if I don't get unanimous consent, we will not deal with it.
[Translation]
If I do not have unanimous consent, we will pass on amendment G-8a, which apparently involves a technical detail. We'll get the officials to explain it to us.
[English]
Mr. Paul Salembier: What this amendment does is simply align the French and English versions of the opening words in paragraph 34(1)(b). Right now the English version contemplates that the regulations would be directed to procedures to be followed by the commission in conducting a review, whereas the French talks about procedures to be followed, period, which would be both by the commission and by applicants coming before the commission. So this brings the English in alignment with the French, which gives a broader power, which is better for making complete rules of procedure that are more functional.
The Chair: Are there any questions?
Madame Picard.
[Translation]
Ms. Pauline Picard: Subclause 34(1)(b) reads as follows:
| (b) establishing the procedures to be followed by the Commission in reviewing laws submitted under section 6 and conducting reviews under section 31, including procedures |
I didn't understand your explanation of the English version.
[English]
Mr. Paul Salembier: In French we say
[Translation]
“establishing the procedures to be followed”. No mention is made of the commission. Therefore, the change in the English version consists solely of deleting the reference to the commission.
The Chair: If you have a problem with this amendment, don't agree to it.
À (1040)
Ms. Pauline Picard: It's just that his explanation isn't clear.
The Chair: I see that.
[English]
I would clearly understand if unanimous consent were not given. I think the government side spoke with Monsieur Loubier and Mr. Martin, and if we didn't, we shouldn't get unanimous consent, because it's not clear.
[Translation]
Ms. Pauline Picard: Did my colleagues agree to this change in procedure? No?
The Chair: I have no idea.
Ms. Pauline Picard: I have no problem whatsoever with the French version, but I can't say the same for the proposed English version. The English translation doesn't correspond at all to the French.
[English]
The Chair Is there anything we can do to clear it up?
[Translation]
Perhaps our research officer can clarify matters for us.
Ms. Pauline Picard: Perhaps.
The Chair: I realize that it can get complicated. Is everything clear now?
Ms. Pauline Picard: Yes.
[English]
The Chair: On the government side, I understand you have another one later. I hope you're going to explain it to the opposition.
You're not proceeding with G-23a? No? Okay.
[Translation]
Do I have unanimous consent to deal with G-8a?
Some hon. members:Yes.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: I would move G-8a, then.
The Chair: Okay.
Are we all clear on it? Do you need an explanation? If you do, don't feel bad.
Mr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Middlesex, PC): I would like an explanation.
The Chair: Okay. Mary, would you...?
Ms. Mary Hurley (Committee Researcher): My understanding of the amendment is simply that it removes from paragraph (b) in clause 34 the reference to “by the Commission” in order to render the English text consistent with the French text of paragraph (b), which, as the bill was introduced, did not make any reference to the commission. So it's to make both provisions consistent in both languages, Mr. Schellenberger.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall clause 34 as amended...?
[Translation]
One moment. Ms. Picard asks that all motions be deemed to have been agreed to on division.
Ms. Pauline Picard: That's correct.
[English]
The Chair: So it will be on division.
(Clause 34 as amended agreed to on division)
(On clause 51--Third-party management)
The Chair: Clause 51, amendment G-9, page 51. Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: With this we're now removing into part 3 of the bill, which is entitled the “First Nations Financial Management Board”. With that, looking at clause 51, there are some changes in wording: on page 24, replacing lines 33 and 34 with the following: “subject to subsection (2.1)...”, and so forth; and adding after line 7 on page 25 the following, under “Consent of council required”: “The Board shall...” and under “Prohibition”, “The council of the first nation shall...”.
I'm not sure it needs a great deal of explanation. Maybe Mr. Swanson or Mr. Salembier would like to briefly outline the need for the changes in wording.
Mr. Paul Salembier: Sure, I'll give a brief explanation.
What this does is it removes a reference. When the First Nations Financial Management Board is called in to do third-party management it can exercise a lot of powers of the council related to financial matters. What this does is it removes the power from the commission to actually delegate law-making power to any other body.
It's possible under paragraph 4(1)(g) of the bill for the first nation to delegate its power say to tribal council level. What this is saying is that when the board comes in, it cannot exercise that type of power and in fact it cannot repeal such a law without the consent of the council of the band.
The Chair: Thank you.
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 51 as amended agreed to on division)
(On clause 53--Standards)
The Chair: Clause 53, amendment G-10, page 53. Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: With that, again there is a very minor change. We're looking here at line 9, and it changes that line to read as follows: “approvals of the Board under part 1”, which we've referred to before.
Again, maybe our witnesses would like to mention the difference between section 3 and part 1.
À (1045)
Mr. Paul Salembier: Sure.
At the moment the board can approve laws under section 8, but after the consequential amendments come into force it will be making its approval under section 3 by a somewhat complicated process.
By changing the reference here to part 1, it just means that when the consequential amendments are made we will not have to rechange this section to change the reference from section 8 to section 3. Therefore this is just a more general reference; it makes the bill operate a little more flexibly.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hubbard, Mr. Salembier.
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 53 as amended agreed to on division)
(On clause 77--Limitations--infrastructure loans)
The Chair: Clause 77, amendment G-11, page 55. Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just going forward then to page 35, we're looking at lines 10 to 20 on that page. It will read now:
| member under paragraph 4(1)(d); and |
| (b) the loan is to be paid out of the property tax revenues of the borrowing member in priority to other creditors of the borrowing member. |
Again I'll call for a brief explanation.
Mr. Stuart Swanson: The effect is to take out paragraph 77(c), and clause 78.... I would mention that this is part of the amendments I listed earlier, which have to do with providing flexibility to securitize other types of revenues.
The Chair: Thank you.
(Amendment agreed to on division)
(Clause 77 as amended agreed to on division)
(On clause 78--Limitations--other long-term loans)
The Chair: Amendment G-12, page 57. Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The amendment seeks to replace lines 21 to 32 on page 35 with the following:
| Restriction on financing |
| 78. A borrowing member shall not obtain long-term financing secured by property tax revenues from any person other than the First Nations Finance Authority. |
This is in keeping with the spirit of the other changes we're making.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Anyone else?
(Amendment agreed to on division)
(Clause 78 as amended agreed to on division)
(On clause 79--Limitations--short-term loans)
The Chair: Amendment G-13, page 59. Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
For that clause we seek to replace lines 38 and 39 with the following:
| a law made under paragraph 4(1)(b) |
Again, that's going along the same vein as the other amendments.
The Chair: No one else?
(Amendment agreed to on division)
(Clause 79 as amended agreed to on division)
(On clause 87--Regulations)
The Chair: On page 61, amendment G-14. Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Looking at page 39 in the bill, we're making an amendment to replace lines 36 to 38 with the following:
| prescribed under subsection 80(1) and paragraphs 83(3)(c) |
Again, maybe we'll call for a brief explanation.
Mr. Paul Salembier: This clause makes reference to the clauses my colleague referred to earlier that were amended in order to grant greater flexibility to deal with securitization of other revenues. Therefore, this simply changes the cross-references to the clauses.
The Chair: Mr. Schellenberger.
À (1050)
Mr. Gary Schellenberger: Do we have quorum, Mr. Chair?
The Chair: Yes, thank you. When they're in the room, they're counted as quorum.
I would ask the officials, for the benefit of members who haven't been following other meetings closely, to explain that the amendments we're doing are all in line with the same subject. Could you explain so that they feel more comfortable? In other words, in terms of the relationship between most of the amendments we're dealing with, it all speaks to the same sequence of events. Could you explain this so that they feel comfortable that we're not making major changes on these amendments and sneaking them in?
Mr. Paul Salembier: This series of changes focuses the bill more clearly on property tax revenue as the source for which money would be borrowed on the bond markets. In the earlier version of the bill, prior to these amendments, there was a variety of revenue sources, which made the system much more complicated. What this does is more narrowly focus it on property tax revenues. At a later date, if it's decided that a broader revenue base is needed for the financial markets, then regulations will be developed. They will be quite long and complicated, but they will make the appropriate changes in order to expand the revenue base for the bond markets.
Right now, then, what this is doing is focusing the bill quite narrowly on property tax revenues. In fact, it makes it a little clearer to everyone how the bill will operate.
The Chair: Thank you.
(Amendment agreed to on division)
(Clause 87 as amended agreed to on division)
(On clause 105--Federal data)
The Chair: Amendment G-15, page 63. Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We've now moved into the part of the bill that deals with the First Nations Statistical Institute. If you follow along to pages 44 and 45 in the bill, we're looking to amend lines 40 to 44 on page 44, and line 1 on the next page.
Paul, perhaps you would like to explain that to the members.
Mr. Paul Salembier: Sure.
This amendment removes, in the opening words of clause 105, the reference to the Access to Information Act, because that reference is redundant in light of subclause 105(2), which permits departments to withhold any information they are entitled at law to withhold.
It also expands the reference to include not just other members of first nations but also members of other aboriginal groups, because there may be information on such groups that would be of value to the statistical institute.
A voice: Mr. Chair, I think in all fairness to this committee, the new members--
The Chair: Would you please sit down, sir. Please sit down.
A voice: I don't know how you can make a decision without having all the information--
The Chair: Order.
Suspend. Call security.
À (1053)
À (1055)
The Chair: Order.
Are we ready for the question on G-15, page 63?
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 105 as amended agreed to on division)
(On clause 108--Inconsistency with Statistics Act)
The Chair: Amendment G-16, page 65. Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Chair, this certainly shortens up clause 108. It replaces lines 6 to 10 on page 47 with:
| Nothing in this Act |
Paul, perhaps you could explain that. It certainly deletes part of that clause.
Mr. Paul Salembier: Certainly.
This amendment simply removes subclause 108(1) and removes the first three words from the existing subclause 108(2). That then becomes simply clause 108 in the bill, which starts, “Nothing in this Act”.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hubbard.
Ms. Neville.
Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Why are you recommending this?
Mr. Paul Salembier: After the bill was tabled and after discussions between members of the institute and Statistics Canada, it was no longer thought to be necessary to provide that if there's an inconsistency with the Statistics Act.... The conclusion was that there are no real inconsistencies between this bill and the Statistics Act, and therefore subclause 108(1) was no longer necessary.
The Chair: Other questions?
(Amendment agreed to on division)
(Clause 108 as amended agreed to on division)
(Clause 134 agreed to on division)
[Translation]
Ms. Pauline Picard: I'm not following you, Mr. Chairman. G-17 proposes to amend clause 134. Do we have that?
The Chair: Yes, it proposes the inclusion of a new clause, 134.1.
Ms. Pauline Picard: I see.
The Chair: We'll deal with it right now.
[English]
We're dealing now with G-17 on page 68, clause 134.1. Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This adds a new part to the bill after line 13 on page 57, a clause 134.1, which reads:
| No civil proceedings lie against a member of a council or employee of a first nation for anything done or omitted to be done during the course of the exercise or purported exercise in good faith of any power or the performance or purported performance in good faith of any duty of that member or employee in accordance with this act, regulations made under this act, or a law made by the council of a first nation under this act. |
This is a standard type of thing, I think, for most corporations. Maybe you'd like to emphasize the idea of good faith.
Mr. Stuart Swanson: This is a standard type of clause protecting officers who operate in good faith. Clause 134 now deals with the commissioners or employees of these new institutions. The new clause 134.1 would recognize that there are responsibilities of first national councils and first nation council employees under this particular legislation and provide them with the same limits of liability.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hubbard.
(Amendment agreed to on division)
The Chair:So that new clause is adopted.
(Clause 138 agreed to on division)
The Chair: Now we're on clause 138.1, G-18, page 69. Mr. Hubbard.
Á (1100)
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This adds another clause after clause 138, one dealing, of course, with regulations, that the Governor in Council may make regulations of types (a) and (b), prescribing, adapting, or restricting.
Mr. Paul Salembier: This is part of the same series of amendments that focuses the bill on property tax revenues as a basis for securitization. What this does is put in the appropriate regulation-making powers, as I mentioned, if at some further date it's decided that it would be advisable to expand the scope of securitization to other revenues. This gives the power to the Governor in Council to make the appropriate regulations that would effect that change.
The Chair: Mr. Schellenberger.
Mr. Gary Schellenberger: The Governor in Council, what position is that? Is that an aboriginal person?
Mr. Paul Salembier: No, that's the federal cabinet with the approval of the Governor General. It is the body that makes most federal regulations.
[Translation]
Ms. Pauline Picard: As I see it, this added clause confers even broader powers on the Governor in Council. Correct?
[English]
Mr. Paul Salembier: In fact, this is taking a lot of the provisions in this bill dealing with this subject that are quite complex and moving them into regulation. So in that sense, it is the Governor in Council that will be dealing with these fairly complex financial issues if there is a decision made at a later date to expand the types of revenues that can be used to secure borrowing on the bond market. Because it is so complex and because it's not certain at all at this date that it will ever be necessary, it was felt that rather than dealing with it in the bill, it would be best dealt with in a regulation.
The Chair: Thank you.
A voice: These are the uncertainties--
The Chair: Suspend. Call security.
Á (1103)
Á (1106)
The Chair: We will resume proceedings.
We are still on the new clause 138.1.
(Amendment agreed to on division)
The Chair: This has been voted as a consequence of G-7, and new clause 138.1 carries.
(On clause 142--Existing financial administration by-laws)
The Chair: We have an amendment from the Canadian Alliance. They are not here to move it. Does anyone wish to move it? If not, it is not accepted.
On page 72, we have G-19. Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you.
We're looking at replacing lines 12 to 17 of the new clause 142:
| 142. (1) Section 3 does not apply to a first nation that, immediately before the coming into force of that section, had in place a by-law made under section 83 of the Indian Act. |
We're adding:
| Borrowing member |
| (2) Despite subsection (1), section 3 applies to a borrowing member. |
Paul.
Mr. Paul Salembier: What this does is effectively remove from the end of existing clause 142 “respecting the administration of its finances”. This is a grandfathering clause, and it will basically exempt all first nations that have any laws made under section 83 of the Indian Act from the requirement to have their financial administration laws approved by the financial management board. But also, it says, notwithstanding that, borrowing members will be subject to much stricter financial scrutiny and will have their financial management laws subject to review and approval by the financial management board.
The Chair: Thank you. It needs to be clarified.
Madame Picard.
[Translation]
Ms. Pauline Picard: I'm sorry, but I'm not understanding anything. Could you explain it to me in layman's terms? It's all rather technical and I didn't understand anything.
[English]
Mr. Paul Salembier: I'll do my best.
As a starting point, clause 3 requires that a first nation that is going to enact taxation laws under this bill must first consult with the financial management board and must put in a financial administration law that sets out the framework under which they will manage their finances. What this clause does is exempt first nations that are already using their taxation powers under section 83 of the Indian Act from the requirement to have their financial management system approved by the financial management board, which of course this bill establishes.
Á (1110)
The Chair: So those that are already constituted are automatically accepted.
Mr. Swanson.
Mr. Stuart Swanson: The reason for this clause is to allow a smooth transition for those first nations that already have their real property tax laws in place and perhaps have been operating for 10 years or so. It anticipates that over the next year or so these first nations would bring financial management codes into place, but they wouldn't be required to have them in place the very same day this law comes into force.
The Chair: Thank you.
(Amendment agreed to on division)
(Clause 142 as amended agreed to on division)
(On clause 145)
The Chair: We have amendment G-20, page 74.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Of course I think everyone recognizes that we're dealing with part 8 of the bill, which deals with transitional provisions, consequential amendments, coordinating amendments, and coming into force.
Under clause 145, we're suggesting to replace line 10 on page 60 and substituting the following:
| that Act to “section 106”. |
Again, Paul, I don't think it requires explanation, but you might want to allude to that.
Mr. Paul Salembier: It simply changes a cross-reference to section 105 and changes it to 106, which is the correct reference.
An hon. member: That was just a mistake?
Mr. Paul Salembier: Yes.
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot): Mr. Chairman, I just wonder if I could ask the officials to give us a very brief summary of clauses 144 and 145 and their impact. The reason I'm interested is that I think it's very historic and very important that this is the first time, I believe, aboriginal institutions have come formally under the Access to Information Act. Perhaps the officials could give us a sense of what clauses 144 and 145 are doing in the context of schedule I and schedule II.
Mr. Paul Salembier: Certainly. For this purpose, with the permission of the chair, I would invite one of my colleagues from the Department of Justice, Ms. Sylvie Chatelain, who has worked extensively on this part, to offer an explanation to the committee.
Ms. Sylvie Chatelain (Counsel, Lands and Trusts, Socio-Economic Policy and Programs and Corporate Services, Department of Justice): On clause 144, the Department of Justice has reviewed.... There's a task force that sets criteria we have to look at to see if a new institution has to be added to the schedule II, Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act. Basically what Justice did is use all of those criteria, and it was determined that they should be added to the schedule list. For example, regarding the funding, they look at government control, and basically after an in-depth study it was determined that three of the four institutions should be added to the schedule list--not the FNFA, because there the government control is not the same as for the three others. So with an exception for the FNFA, it was determined that the three others should be added to the schedule list of the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.
For clause 145 there has also been an in-depth study. Before we can add an institution to that schedule, a study needs to be done. We're only amending that clause to make reference to section 106, because that's the section that should have been referred to.
Á (1115)
Mr. John Bryden: Then I take it that schedule I referenced in clause 144 brings the three institutions cited in that clause under the rules of transparency that we wish to see for all organizations that manage money in the interest of the public. Is that correct?
Ms. Sylvie Chatelain: Could you repeat that?
Mr. John Bryden: I take it that clause 144, bringing these three institutions under schedule I of the Access to Information Act, in effect brings them under the same level of transparency and accountability--
Ms. Sylvie Chatelain: Yes, as other financial institutions.
Mr. John Bryden: I just want to note in passing that--
Ms. Sylvie Chatelain: These were created not just for first nations institutions. They're like crown corporations as to their governance. We've looked at the task force report, which was published, and there is a list of criteria. But basically, because the government still has control over these institutions and a lot of funding will be given to them, it was determined that for accountability purposes they should be added to the schedule.
Mr. John Bryden: I'd like just a final clarification. First nations people can use this clause in this bill to get information from government that they are entitled to get. So it is a transparency clause that acts in the interest of all first nations people.
Ms. Sylvie Chatelain: Yes. They'll be able to do an access request. Then the institution will have to review it, as Parliament would do under the Access to Information Act, and determine whether it's protected or privileged information and whether they can give that information to the person who has made the request.
Mr. John Bryden: That's a very historic clause, if I may say so.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
(Amendment agreed to on division)
(Clause 145 as amended agreed to on division)
(On clause 147)
The Chair: We're on G-21 on page 76. This amendment removes clause 147. It's not acceptable to the chair to receive an amendment that removes a clause. Therefore, I'm not accepting the amendment. When I ask you whether clause 147 shall carry, if you want this clause removed, you vote against, that it not carry, and that means that clause will be removed.
Is that clear?
[Translation]
Do you understand now?
Ms. Pauline Picard: What happens if this clause is deleted?
The Chair: If there's unanimous consent, I'll get the officials to explain the consequences of deleting this provision.
[English]
Because I'm not accepting the amendment--
[Translation]
Ms. Pauline Picard: That's unacceptable to us.
[English]
The Chair: Do I have unanimous consent to ask them to explain what it will do to remove that clause?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Salembier.
Mr. Paul Salembier: This clause is consequential to amendments that this committee has already voted on in clause 3, and those amendments removed the jurisdiction of the financial management board over first nations that are already subject to the First Nations Land Management Act. This is a consequential amendment that is tied to the reference in the original clause 3 to the First Nations Land Management Act, and of course it would no longer be appropriate to make this amendment because on the earlier vote those particular portions of clause 3 have already been removed.
Á (1120)
The Chair: I'm not accepting G-21. Therefore I go directly to clause 147. If you want G-21 to take force, you would have to vote that it not carry. If you vote that it carries, what you are doing, in essence, is you are leaving in the bill a clause that is redundant.
Is that correct and clear?
(Clause 147 negatived)
(On clause 150)
The Chair: Clause 150, amendment G-22, page 78. Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Under amendment G-22, we'd like to point out that beginning, of course, with clause 148, we're dealing with the Indian Act. In clause 150, we're moving the following changes....
Paul, would you maybe explain to our committee members the significance of the changes we're making to section 83?
Mr. Paul Salembier: The effect of this amendment is to repeal all of section 83, except paragraphs 83(1)(b), 83(1)(c), and 83(1)(d) of subsection 83(1), because those deal with subject matters that are not in fact covered by this bill. So all of the amendment that you see before you has that simple effect of leaving those paragraphs in subsection 83(1) of the Indian Act.
The Chair: Okay. Are we ready for the question?
Madame Picard.
[Translation]
Ms. Pauline Picard: Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, it's all rather complicated. Your explanations haven't convinced me to agree to clause 150 and everything that implies. This provision is truly restrictive. I know that many people in this room are somewhat disappointed that we are agreeing to this clause so quickly, without further explanations.
The Chair: You can request additional explanations. This bill was referred to committee on February 25 and we've been considering it since June. This might all seem rather complex to people who have not taken part in the study, but this isn't news to the committee.
[English]
Could we make an attempt at clarifying clause 150, please, amendment G-22?
Mr. Stuart Swanson: Yes.
The way the bill is currently written, it would delete sections 83 and 84. Section 83 of the Indian Act is a section on what's called money bylaws. It deals with property tax, raising money through property tax, and a number of related functions. One of these related functions is business licensing and regulation. They use a different term in section 83, but that's the significant point. The way the bill is now would bring that business licensing and regulation function under Bill C-19 and the management regime that's been set up under Bill C-19.
In reviewing the bill, that was considered to be inappropriate and that it shouldn't be part of Bill C-19--it should be dealt with in other places. So this amendment wouldn't repeal that part of the Indian Act; it would leave that part in place, and that would be dealt with through other legislation.
Á (1125)
The Chair: Okay. Thank you.
(Amendment agreed to on division)
(Clause 150 as amended agreed to on division)
The Chair: Now we're on amendment G-23, which is a new clause, clause 150.1, page 80.
Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Paul Salembier: No. Unless anyone wants further explanation, I think that is accurate.
The Chair: Ready for the question?
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 154--Bill C-7)
The Chair: Amendment G-24, page 82, Mr. Hubbard.
Are we dealing with G-24, G-25, and G-26 together? Are they closely related, or will we only confuse things?
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Chair, with an opinion from you or the clerk, we would also ask for unanimous consent to consider as part of that another amendment dealing with subclause 154(5). I believe this was circulated to committee members last week.
The Chair: I asked if it was being tabled and I was told no. It's being withdrawn.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Okay.
The Chair: So that is withdrawn.
We're on G-24.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Chair, we're dealing with some very lengthy parts here in terms of pages 63 and 64.
Paul, would you mind going over those in terms of G-24 and G-25?
The Chair: Mr. Salembier, what I would like to know is if you deal with G-24 and G-25 together, will we only confuse everybody? Is it more convenient to deal with them together or separately?
Mr. Paul Salembier: I can give a general explanation. Government amendments 24, 25, and 26 all deal with what are called coordinating provisions. These are all provisions that you insert if there's another bill before Parliament at the same time that deals with the same subject matter. Then you have to ask, if our bill goes through and if the other bill goes through, what sorts of changes do we have to make to the other bill?
Bill C-19 was introduced after Bill C-7. In fact, there were various cross-references between the two bills. If Bill C-7 were to go through--and that's what this clause deals with--we would be adding into Bill C-7 references to the First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act. Those are the kinds of changes that these coordinating provisions would effect. These provisions will only take effect if Bill C-7 goes through Parliament and receives royal assent. That's a general explanation of what these changes will do.
The Chair: On all three, G-24, G-25, and G-26?
Mr. Paul Salembier: On all three.
The Chair: We'll continue the discussion whatever way you wish, individually or collectively, but we will vote on them separately.
[Translation]
We'll vote on each clause individually, even though the debate centres on all three clauses.
[English]
Mr. Godfrey, that's what you wanted to know?
Mr. John Godfrey: I just wanted to know what would happen if Bill C-7 didn't go through. It just becomes inoperative.
Á (1130)
The Chair: Ready for the question? Shall G-24, amending clause 154 on page 82, carry?
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Mr. Hubbard, are you moving G-25?
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Yes.
The Chair: You have the explanation on that.
Shall G-25, amending clause 154, page 85, carry?
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Are you moving G-26?
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Yes.
The Chair: G-26 is moved. We have the information.
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 154 as amended agreed to on division)
The Chair: We will go back to clause 2 at the very beginning, which we didn't deal with.There is amendment NDP-10, and they are not here to move it. Does anyone wish to move it for them? So it is not accepted. There are NDP-11 and NDP-12. Most of these were not to be accepted by the chair, by the way; they weren't admissible. NDP-13, same thing.
(Clause 2 agreed to on division)
The Chair: L-1 on page 14, tabled by Ms. Karetak-Lindell, is identical to BQ-1 on page 15. We will deal with BQ-1.
[Translation]
You'll find that on page 15, Ms. Picard. Alright? Clause 2.1 is new and concerns aboriginal rights.
Ms. Pauline Picard: I see. The mover of the proposed amendment is Mr. Loubier. I suppose an explanation of the proposed change has already been provided.
The Chair: No.
Ms. Pauline Picard: I'll simply move the motion on his behalf.
The Chair: That would be fine.
[English]
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: So new clause 2.1 is accepted.
We have on page 16 BQ-2. Madame Picard.
[Translation]
Ms. Pauline Picard: I'll proceed as I did earlier and move the amendment on behalf of my colleague Yvan Loubier.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Godfrey.
Mr. John Godfrey: I'd like to ask the officials whether they see any difficulty in passing this amendment.
Mr. Paul Salembier: The problem I believe this amendment poses is twofold. First, “independent” is somewhat vague in the context of legislation. It would be uncertain what was intended by that. It's certain that the boards of directors of these institutions make their decisions as boards of directors. However, for example, the statistical institute is a crown corporation, and all of these corporations make various reports at different times to both the minister and Parliament. Therefore, in another sense, these institutions are not technically independent, and this clause, if adopted, might work to contradict other aspects of the bill.
Á (1135)
Mr. John Godfrey: Thank you. I think that's very important to know.
The Chair: Can I ask the question?
[Translation]
Is there something you wish to say, Ms. Picard?
Ms. Pauline Picard: I'm truly sorry that my colleague couldn't be here. He was detained elsewhere on political business. I would imagine that he moved this amendment as a knowledgeable, experienced tax expert. I'm disappointed not to be able to put forward the necessary arguments. If it's simply a question of interpreting intentions in so far as independent institutions are concerned, then your argument does not hold much water, in my view. I'm sorry you object to the proposed amendment, because my colleague has worked hard to defend the rights of aboriginals and was surely hoping with this amendment to lend them even more support.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Picard.
[English]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendment CA-2 , which is the last page in your book, is not acceptable. It became redundant when the other amendment that was presented by them was not accepted by the chair because they were not present. This is consequential. So we will not deal with schedule I. There's no other schedule.
For the preamble, NDP-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are not accepted. No one is here to move them.
(Clause 1 agreed to on division)
The Chair: Shall the preamble carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Chair: Shall the bill as amended carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Chair: Shall the chair report the bill as amended to the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Chair: Shall the committee order a reprint of the bill as amended?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: I will do everything I can to table it tomorrow before the House leaders present their bill reassigning committees. Otherwise, we'll have to come back for another election before we table.
Thank you. This meeting is adjourned.