AANR Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, June 10, 2003

¹

1525

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

¹

1535

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

The Chair

The Chair

Chief Perry Bellegarde (Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations)

¹

1545

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Perry Bellegarde

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Perry Bellegarde

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Perry Bellegarde

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

¹

1550

Chief Perry Bellegarde

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Perry Bellegarde

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Perry Bellegarde

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Perry Bellegarde

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Perry Bellegarde

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Perry Bellegarde

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Perry Bellegarde

¹

1555

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Perry Bellegarde

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Perry Bellegarde

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Perry Bellegarde

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ)

Chief Perry Bellegarde

º

1600

The Chair

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

Chief Perry Bellegarde

º

1605

Mr. John Godfrey

Chief Perry Bellegarde

Mr. John Godfrey

Chief Perry Bellegarde

Mr. John Godfrey

Chief Perry Bellegarde

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Perry Bellegarde

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Perry Bellegarde

The Chair

º

1610

Chief Perry Bellegarde

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Chief Perry Bellegarde

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Perry Bellegarde

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Chief Perry Bellegarde

The Chair

Ms. Pauline Picard

Chief Perry Bellegarde

Ms. Pauline Picard

º

1615

Chief Perry Bellegarde

º

1620

The Chair

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

Chief Perry Bellegarde

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Chief Perry Bellegarde

The Chair

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

º

1625

Chief Perry Bellegarde

The Chair

Chief Perry Bellegarde

The Chair

Mr. John Godfrey

Chief Perry Bellegarde

The Chair

Chief Perry Bellegarde

The Chair

Mr. John Godfrey

The Chair

Chief Perry Bellegarde

º

1630

The Chair

Chief Perry Bellegarde

The Chair

º

1635

Chief David Paul (Tobique First Nation)

º

1640

The Chair

Chief David Paul

º

1645

The Chair

Chief David Paul

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

---

NUMBER 082

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, June 10, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1525)  

[English]

    The Chair (Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): We will resume public hearings on 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.

    Before we start, I have been advised that there are two chiefs or representatives in the building or in the room. Mr. Hubbard, you mentioned that. Mr. Vellacott mentioned someone also.

    A voice: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

    The Chair: She's not a chief; she's an employee of AFN. We've spent the last month together; I know who's who. No, she won't be able to present. She's been in Ottawa for over a month. We will not accept a spontaneous presentation from her.

    A voice: I'm representing the Samson CreeNation, Chief--

    The Chair: Yes, you are in Ottawa. We're going to have two days of witnesses. We're trying to accommodate someone who is here from Nova Scotia, because the individual is here. That's all.

    A voice: My chief has made application to be heard, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Is it you or your chief?

    A voice: It is my chief, and I'm here to deliver the message.

    The Chair: Is he here?

    A voice: No, but he wants to be heard. He has made application to be heard.

    The Chair: We're not talking about that. We're talking about special witnesses today, this afternoon.

    A voice: Six Nations has made application also.

    The Chair: We're not talking about that.

    A voice: That's exactly what I'm talking about. We want to know when we're going to be heard.

    The Chair: Let's continue with our meeting.

    Mr. Vellacott, you mentioned that there was a person here who just happens to be in Ottawa, and we want that to be the special--

¹  (1535)  

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): No, I was in error.

    The Chair: So it's not the situation. There will be only one, and it will be the person who is from New Brunswick, David Paul.

    We will resume now.

    A voice: By the way, I do not live in Ottawa. I am from the Samson Cree Nation, and that's my place of residence. I'm sorry, but I'm here in your committee observing.

    The Chair: We're now hearing from the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, Chief--

    A voice: Mr. Bonin, you mean you don't have to hear me, who you called a bastard.

    The Chair: Call security.

    A voice: I came to be here, and also having no job--

    The Chair: We'll suspend until security is here.

¹  (1535)  

---

¹  (1540)  

    The Chair: Mr. Bellegarde, we have an hour together, and we invite you to make opening remarks, followed by questions from members, okay? Proceed.

    Chief Perry Bellegarde (Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations): All right. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

    [Witness speaks in his native language]

    My relatives in the back acknowledge you all, and to the committee members, I greet you all in a humble, respectful way from our federation.

    Our federation is composed of 74 Indian reserves, first nations reserves in Saskatchewan territory, and there are Cree people, there are Saulteaux, there are Dene, and there are Dakota, Lakota and Nakota tribes, 110,000 people in Saskatchewan, Treaty Numbers 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 10. That is the number of treaties.

    The presentation I'll make today won't be on the suite of legislation, because as you know, there are Bill C-6 and Bill C-7, but it'll be more particularly on Bill C-19 because that is your focus. That is the main point you want to get into.

    Let me begin by saying first that there is a diversity across Canada amongst the 633 first nations in Canada with regard to this piece of legislation, and diversity is okay. There has to be respect for that diversity. How we move ahead collectively to improve the quality of life is very key and very important for first nations leaders across this country.

    Now, I have two presentations here. I have one that was given to me by the Assembly of First Nations and the appropriate leadership there. You know, of course, that there are splits there as well in terms of some supporting this and some not supporting this, so I'll put that one here. I also have a presentation from my good friends from the B.C. territory, from some of the first nations there who are supporting this piece of legislation. I'll put that here, and I'll speak from that one and this one, okay? That's the way I want to do it.

    When we look at Bill C-19, the first thing we say is that we're not opposed to the developing of our own institutions, but our first point is that there's a drastic need for them to be under our own first nations control, first nations jurisdiction, and I will use the example in my territory: the Saskatchewan Indian Federated College. There is no piece of legislation to create that institution. That institution comes from our 74 chiefs working together in our legislative assembly. They have given direction to do that and have said, yes, create an educational institution. There is no legislation here.

    We say that's how we want to proceed. This Bill C-19 doesn't reflect that inherent right to self-determination. I'm going to say it that way, in a respectful way. If first nations in Canada wish to proceed, if they want to go that way, then we've always said that legislation should be mutually exclusive to them. List it. I know there are pros and cons to that, but in order to maintain some sort of semblance of moving forward for those first nations that desire that, then that legislation should be mutually beneficial or mutually exclusive to them, and we should not have it apply to Little Black Bear--because that's where I grew up, on the reserve. That's my home. So when we see these things happening in this big place called Ottawa, then we have to be careful. Our inherent right to self-determination, we say, is protected in section 35, so in anything that happens in Ottawa there's a consultation process that has to be followed, a lawful consultation process.

    Now, we say maybe it's not done so in a good way with this suite of legislation on certain aspects. On Bill C-19, we say if bands want to proceed to develop any kind of taxation regime.... The majority of first nations in Canada are poor. I'm going to say it that way. There's poverty. So who are you going to tax? If we ever get to that point, then we should do it under our own jurisdiction and our own laws, no question. From our federation on Bill C-19, we have a resolution to oppose it, no question, but it's the suite of legislation.

    Now, having said that, the only way we can see to make movement forward is again to accommodate the bands that wanted to list it. I use the example of the James Bay Quebec Cree self-government arrangement. It was strictly for the James Bay Cree in 1975, right? It was a piece of legislation for that. That is how we want to see this move forward, if at all. We have a resolution to say, kill the whole suite: Bill C-6, Bill C-7, Bill C-19. It hurts first nations jurisdiction, first nations inherent rights, and especially the inherent right to self-determination. When we look at it, that's our position from our territory.

    We know there's a heck of a diversity in Canada and it's difficult to have one piece of legislation affecting everybody, like that Indian Act. That Indian Act affects everybody. We don't like that act. We want to see a treaty implementation act at some point. We want to see a new process to implement section 35 at some point. So before we get to that point, these things should be held, as we say, in abeyance, but so as not to slow down the brothers and sisters who want it, then we say they should be listed. That's what we think, that's what I think, and that's what our first nations leaders would say: not to slow them down.

    I just wanted to come here for that, so it's publicly known, so it's on the record. If government wants to proceed, there is a smattering of support across Canada and also a smattering of opposition. It depends on how you define it, and a good example of that is in this room today. You have first nations people on one side opposing it and first nations people supporting it, and you're in a quandary. You're in a dilemma. How do you proceed? What's the majority?

    But there is no question that there will be impacts on inherent rights, if they're protected in section 35, so the simplest way may be the accommodation I suggest in terms of listing, if it's going to benefit people. That way, maybe there could be that unity, because we have to fight for our rights, especially if there is legislation that will impact in a negative way, and that's how we see it.

    If you say it's optional...? Because that's the cry: “It's optional. What are you Indians scared of? It's optional”. It may be optional in some people's eyes, but if we want to proceed down that road at some point, then instead of going our own way under inherent rights I have to do it this way, because it becomes the theme that it's the only game in town, so to speak. It does take away from that. It does take away from that. It limits it. That's why we're saying, in Cree, peyahtak, be careful. Be careful with that; that's how we see it. That's how I see it.

    We have the optionals, like the statistical institute. There's always a need for information, no question about it. My colleagues will say, well, hell, Bellegarde is the guy who moved it and seconded it at one point. No question. When you get lobbied in a room, you say, Chief Tom Bresette is my good friend. Sure, Tom will move it and we'll get this thing going, no problem. Here, I'll second you. Sometimes that's what happens in a room of political people. That's what happens.

    Sometimes when it goes down this road, we say it's to get things moving. No question, we want to get things started, but once you see the details, once you see the potential harm and impacts, you say, well, I supported it to get it going. Thank goodness. Yes, we got something going. Once we can see, once our people start to understand and realize what is really there, people say, hold on, let's take a second look at this thing. That's what we say. So that's also why I'm also here, because I know there will be questions.

    I'm on the executive. I wear two hats or, in our case, two feather bonnets. I'm FSIN and chief, but I'm also an AFN regional vice-chief for Saskatchewan region. All we're trying to foster is, what is our position? What is it from our 74 first nations? I have to echo what our leadership is saying, and we do that from formal motions from our executive council and from our FSIN chiefs legislative assembly. That's the direction, and if I don't echo that, then I go home and I get my butt kicked, so you have to take direction as well.

    Some would say you also have to provide leadership. That's why I'm offering to this committee, and to everybody who is listening in this room, that there might be some options there if you list those bands and let it apply to them if they want it. List it, because that way, it's fine. Then we're protected.

    There is that whole issue about the non-derogation clause as well. Where is that? If government was so keen on it, if government was so clear on things, then put that in there. There would be other safeguards for our people if that were there, but we don't see it there. That's why red flags come up as well.

    There is the other issue of federal fiduciary trust obligations. What is the impact on that from devolution? Once other organizations start taking on responsibility of government, where do we go if that federal fiduciary trust obligation is lessened or weakened in some way, shape or form? We say we have a bilateral relationship with the Crown already. It's bilateral, it's nation to nation, and that's what we want respected and honoured.

¹  (1545)  

    Any time there's a federal fiduciary trust obligation being devolved or diminished, that hurts future generations. We have to protect that. You always hear this. We're supposed to think seven generations down the road. In our treaties we always say peaceful coexistence and mutual respect, not domination, not assimilation, termination and integration, but mutual respect. Sometimes respect means for our governments and for our way of doing things and our legislative processes. When we see legislation being done for us, then we don't see that mutual respect.

    There's nothing there. That's why we have to say slow down and let's find a way. Okay?

    I'm going to leave it at that. That's putting these aside. I'm just speaking to how we see it in our territory.

    The Chair: Mr. Vellacott, for seven minutes.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Perry, I stand to be corrected, but I understand that with Bill C-19, section 83 under the Indian Act is gone. First nations wanting to pass tax laws from that point on have no option; they must be under Bill C-19. Is that your understanding in terms of the technical explanation?

    Chief Perry Bellegarde: We have technicians in the room to ask.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay, but section 83 of the Indian Act is gone, and if you want to pass tax laws, then you have no option and they must be under Bill C-19.

    Chief Perry Bellegarde: That again is a fear.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So it's coercive from that point of view. You have no other way to do it except under Bill C-19.

    Chief Perry Bellegarde: The other way we would do it is under inherent right. If we want to set up our own taxation laws, our own taxation regimes, if that inherent right was respected and enforced, that's what we would do. That's the preferred option. That's what we have to do. The feds and the provinces and everybody else would vacate the field and we'd occupy that field.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Anyhow, it is limiting and it seems to shunt you, as you've inferred to us in conversations earlier in the day here. You gave me the impression that you feel there's a domino effect, because these pieces of legislation are so integrally linked together there is the not-so-subtle pressure, but almost irresistible pressure to get involved and to move that way.

    In respect to comparing this to the First Nations Land Management Act, you have a listing on the schedule at the back thereof of the 14 initial first nations. Some have said to me that it is a very cumbersome process if you want in afterwards, that to get amendments through this House and so on is very difficult. I've seen amendments get through this place pretty quickly. Adding a few names on, one or two or three or four, I don't really think is an insurmountable thing.

    Chief Bellegarde, in respect of the First Nations Land Management Act,that by having a list and then adding on additional ones as they choose to come on or be part of it later, is that talked about in Indian country as a big, insurmountable obstacle? Is it a rather difficult thing? That's what they're saying in respect of the FNFA, that if you just list people in terms of a schedule, it's such a cumbersome thing to get additional ones on later when they do want in, by way of an amendment through Parliament.

    If there's a will, there's a way. We get stuff through pretty quickly if we choose. Bill C-24, the financing bill, is one of them, with closure today in the House and so on. It can be done.

¹  (1550)  

    Chief Perry Bellegarde: It can be done if there's a political will at the top end.

    For example, in the First Nations Land Management Act, we had two bands, Muskoday and Cowessess, that entered into their first one originally. Now we have two more that I know of, Chief Darcy Bear from the Whitecap Dakota First Nation, as well as Kinistin First Nation, and Donna Rennenberg is the chief. They're also part of that. It's possible.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: You don't see it as an onerous task or too high an obstacle to overcome?

    Chief Perry Bellegarde: It's not an onerous task, but even on the whole first nations, that's another issue.

    Could I make some comments on that one?

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Sure.

    Chief Perry Bellegarde: Quickly, it's not an onerous task. To me, I don't believe it's an onerous task.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: In other words, with the FNFA, we could go with a list and we could simply add to it.

    Chief Perry Bellegarde: Add on other bands. If they feel that it's a good thing, then great.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: You don't feel that that's a problematic thing from the comparison?

    Chief Perry Bellegarde: In my opinion, no. I'll get kicks from everybody supporting, but fine, I don't believe it's a problem. I don't believe it's a problem with political will.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: That's what I think we should do.

    Chief Perry Bellegarde: It can be done.

    On the First Nations Land Management Act, the biggest issue people have to resolve in this country is, Little Black Bear, my home reserve, is it sovereign territory? I believe it is. We're sharing everything else. I don't believe it's federal crown land set aside for the use and benefit of Indians. That's what it says now. Any lawyer will say that the reserves are federal crown lands. I don't believe that. It's sovereign territory. It's our territory.

    Everything else we're sharing, but that's our territory. This First Nations Land Management Act is because of treaty, and there's a collective ownership to that land. We can't even say we own it. It's for future generations, but because of treaty, we don't have individual land ownership, fee simple title. Everybody's supposed to benefit from that. We don't have collective ownership, so the fear any time you get into legalization or fee simple title or individual rights, it starts superseding the collective rights of the people to that land. That's very scary too. I'm going to say be careful because that land is linked to treaty. That's how it is in our territory. That's how it is. If that fee simple title is there, there is always the fear and potential that it could be lost. Then we would have no more homeland. Where's our homeland?

    I wanted to make those comments because that's what our elders say. That's what I believe as well.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Do you think that economic development cannot be done outside? Those proponents of Bill C-19 for first nations communities have said they don't believe the “economic development” can be done outside of a regime where you get the better rates and so on, as in Bill C-19. We need that bigger capital, that pool.

    Do you believe there are alternate ways of doing the economic development and so on? Never mind just the infrastructure, but can you do some of the other economic development that is supposedly possible under Bill C-19 in other ways?

    Chief Perry Bellegarde: The bigger issue is lands and resources. Do first nations people have access to the opportunities of developing the natural resources in their territories? Who's developing all the natural resources now? It's big companies. I can speak of Saskatchewan. It's potash, it's uranium, and now diamonds, right? We say it's still unfinished treaty business. We're sharing the depth of a plough with our white brothers and sisters. There's no talk about the trees and the water and all the natural resources, so who's developing those now? The first nations people are not directly involved.

    That's the bigger issue about promoting economic development. People will say we need our own institutions, we need to have our own systems. Economic development requires access to capital. It is problematic, no question, because on the reserve that's the biggest thing. You don't have access to capital because on the reserve there's the issue of collateral, there's the issue of bonding, there are all these types of things. There has to be a way around that. That can be looked at, but do you have to create legislation for that? Can you set up an economic development arm that can create that wealth?

¹  (1555)  

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: And you think you can?

    Chief Perry Bellegarde: It could be a bond investment company. Set up your own bank. Things can happen.

    The fear with this, Maurice--and again I go back; it's one size fits all. If the bands in British Columbia territory or in Ontario that have access to the people in their territories want to do that, then they should just be listed and go with that. That's the way around it. Others aren't at that same level. There has to be respect for that diversity.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: You can get in when you want at a point down the road, when the conditions are right.

    Chief Perry Bellegarde: Just respect that diversity.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Yes, and you would have no fear about those who want in at a later point. They can get in.

    Chief Perry Bellegarde: It's not going to be problematic. If you work the political system, it should happen. That's what I believe.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Yes.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Ms. Picard, for five minutes.

    Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Bellegarde, you said earlier that some bands were opposing Bill C-19 because they would be asked to collect taxes. Those who don't want to collect taxes will have a hard time doing it. There's also the whole issue of poverty. It's impossible to collect taxes because communities are poor and that's the reason why they can't opt in under Bill C-19.

    Wouldn't it be wise to list those communities to have an idea of who they are and what they want? Couldn't they negotiate agreements with the government to develop in the same way as the richer communities who will want to opt in under Bill C-19?

    Some communities, in James Bay, for example, as you've already mentioned, have improved their standard of living thanks to the agreements they have managed to sign with the provinces. Do you have an idea of the unemployment rate in those communities today? They're allowed more autonomy and they have the power to develop their resources in order to succeed. Is that true? Do you have an idea of the employment rate for the Innus or the James Bay communities?

[English]

    Chief Perry Bellegarde: Merci beaucoup, madame.

    To set up a taxation structure, what options do we have now? Out of the 633 reserves across Canada, you have the Indian Act, even if you wanted to do that. For example, let's just say for discussion purposes that we had a school and you were a teacher on my reserve. You pay income tax. Where do your taxation dollars go? Just as an example, they might go to the feds; they might go to the province. What about the first nations government? There is the tax.

    We have to be able to set up our own taxation regimes. The only option is that you could do it under your inherent right to self-government, just as an example. There are not many doing that right now under the inherent right, but at some point we want to be able to get there. Taxation is just a redistribution of wealth. Right now the majority of the bands are poverty stricken.

    You have your inherent right and the Indian Act. It's cumbersome. For example, in the White Bear First Nation in Saskatchewan, they have a taxation regime under the Indian Act because they have cottages on the reserve. There's a lake and cottage people come in. They've set up their own tax. It's very cumbersome, very problematic, no question. Instead of the Indian Act they should look at their own inherent right tax authority. They're looking at that. Those are the taxation systems that are there now, that I'm familiar with. You have two options, the Indian Act or something under inherent right. That's what we want to work down.

    The other question was whether other bands can develop agreements so that they can catch up. It's having the same opportunity to develop those natural resources. They have to have that opportunity. If you have that opportunity, that creates wealth, job opportunities, employment, economic development. They're linked together.

    You mentioned James Bay. They're in a territory and have a specific self-government agreement. They have a huge flow over there. They have a legislative process for that and they have a lot of people administering that agreement. They've just signed another agreement in terms of jointly developing their natural resources. That's a good example, a good model.

    There's still much unfinished treaty business to do in our territories. We still have not resolved the whole issue of the natural resources transfer agreement of 1930. The feds unilaterally passed them to the provinces with no consultation or consent in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. All the natural resources went to provincial government control. Of course, there was no consent from indigenous peoples. We say there's unfinished treaty business to resolve.

    We're looking at challenging that NRTA, but we call it resource benefit sharing so our white brothers and sisters can say they don't want to take it all back, they want to share. That's how we want to look at it, in terms of benefiting jointly through jobs and developing those resources together. If Weyerhaeuser is cutting trees, we have to be involved. If anybody is developing, such as the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan, we have to be involved. This goes on and on.

    On unemployment, I don't know the rates off the top of my head, but if you have access to developing those natural resources, they should come down.

º  (1600)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Chief.

    Mr. Godfrey.

    Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Thanks very much for your honesty about your concerns about this.

    What I'm trying to understand exactly is the difference between a list.... All of these institutions are collective, because you're trying to use the collective strength of the people who opt in to go out and borrow money at a lower rate or to develop a greater financial expertise or whatever else. It's a collective exercise. It's not a series of bilateral agreements between a first nation community and the federal government; it's a group of first nations communities that collectively wish to do this to get better financing rates.

    I guess the question is this. I'm having difficulty understanding the difference between the list, which I assume would vary as people take a look at it and say they want in or they want out.... What I think I'm hearing you say is that if we could find a mechanism or some way of expressing the opting-in principle as some kind of a listing, then you wouldn't have a problem. I don't know whether that's best. This is a technical matter that I would ask the researcher to think about. It would seem to me that there may be a strategy for having a regulation or something that allows that listing not to require a change to the legislation.

    What would be helpful is, if you think that and others think that, and that can be expressed in some kind of an amendment that clarifies the difference between opting in and the list in a way that you find satisfactory, that gives us something to chew on. I think we're all open to that. I don't think anybody is out to have a sneaky, compulsory regime. We think one of the strengths of this, potentially, is that you can voluntarily join the list, or opt in, or express it however you wish. I don't know whether that would meet some of your concerns if we could find a way of doing that through some regulatory mechanism or some amendment.

    Chief Perry Bellegarde: Again, I don't know how many bands want a collective exercise to raise capital by the bands. Maybe you know. That would be interesting to share with me. Listing them as part of the regulations might be an option, but again, why is there not a non-derogation clause in there? That would make a lot of people feel a lot better. If the Liberals were to put a non-derogation clause, for example, a clause that nothing in this legislation will impact inherent and treaty rights, there would be a greater comfort level.

º  (1605)  

    Mr. John Godfrey: Just to answer that, we heard that concern on Bill C-7 and we put one in. I suppose if we put one in there, why wouldn't we put one in here? I don't think there's anything magical about that. I guess that seems like a reasonable request, and we've met it in other pieces of legislation.

    Chief Perry Bellegarde: And the whole part about listing them is that those who really want it are willing to put their name and standing there. It has no impact on the other 500 or whatever amount, okay?

    Mr. John Godfrey: Sure.

    Chief Perry Bellegarde: And at some point those other 500 may say that they want to put Little Black Bear there. I meet with my people at Little Black Bear, and the chief comes and says, yes, we're ready for it; we want to go and lobby like hell in Ottawa and we want to be added to that list. What's wrong with that? It already happens in existing pieces of legislation, like the First Nations Land Management. Act It can happen.

    Mr. John Godfrey: I think that's something we need to look at, because it might be a solution to our problem.

    Chief Perry Bellegarde: It's also a way of keeping our circle strong here as best we can, because this divisiveness amongst first nations people--and I'm going to just speak off the top of my head--is not healthy for bringing about our further agendas. But we have to do what we have to do, no question. I guess everybody has to remember that one word, respect, and have that diversity, because one size ain't going to fit all in Canada, no way. You've got over 60 different nations, different languages, and everybody has a different way of doing business, especially in British Columbia and from Saskatchewan to the east coast. We know one thing, however; we are indigenous peoples with the inherent right to self-determination, and that's what we want eventually recognized, respected, honoured, and implemented.

    The Chair: Everyone agrees with you on that.

    Thank you, Mr. Godfrey.

    We'll do a five-minute round. Mr. Vellacott.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I appreciate the comments that have been made. I really do believe that's pretty key and crucial here in terms of getting this thing through, who knows, by the time we rise. But I think it's the issue, fundamentally, of a lot of the ones who say.... Now, I believe those from the B.C. bands may not be acceptable with this--our friend Manny and others here--but maybe they can help us get to that middle meeting of the minds on this whole thing. I think that would be a way--to have a schedule and then an easy way, by regulation. It may be too cumbersome to get it through committee and votes in the House, and through all the different readings it requires. If we just want to add names, it could be done through Parliament, not a problem, but if we want to do it by regulation, then maybe there's a way to do that too. However, we must alleviate the concerns of many who don't feel they need it now, and don't perceive it in a while, but at such time as they would then they could easily get in.

    I guess the other thing, Chief Bellegarde, you could respond on concerns the FNFA. The FNFA oversees building community infrastructure, such as sewers, roads, water, and so on, as well as other economic kinds of opportunities. Would there be a concern with you, and I've raised this before, that as a result of that you will be told by the minister to go to the FNFA? I'm not making a judgment as to whether it's good or bad, but it occurs to me that you're going to have to go to one or the other.

    Do you have any concerns about that? Is that being talked about by any of the other first nations chiefs and so on?

    Chief Perry Bellegarde: I can't comment, Maurice. I don't know if that's indeed how it's going to be set up. Of course, if that's the way it is, then of course it will, because of the whole federal fiduciary again. Do I come and see Manny for my road now? Is that what you're asking?

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Yes, that's what I'm asking.

    Chief Perry Bellegarde: If that's how it's going to work, then yes, a lot of bands will have problems with that, no question. I talk about that federal fiduciary trust obligation and devolution of responsibility. Is an Indian crown corporation going to take that over on behalf of the Crown? So it's going to have impacts on that fiduciary, and I don't know enough about it to comment. If that's how it's supposed to be set up, then some bands might have problems with that.

    Again, it hurts the inherent right, and I know Manny wants to speak.

    The Chair: There are people with an interest in this who worked on it and want it passed. They're in the room. The department is also in the room. The minister's staff must be somewhere in the room. It's up to everyone to put their heads together and try to solve the problem.

º  (1610)  

    Chief Perry Bellegarde: To find that common ground. And that's all we're trying to do. We don't want to slow down the bands that want it, but at the same time, we want to respect the people who don't want it. How do you find that solution? That's the challenge of the legislators, to accommodate.

    The Chair: I say what I usually say. The experts are in the room. Fix the problem or we're going to fix it. And we're not necessarily the experts.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Are you using my time, Mr. Chair?

    The Chair: No, it's all right. I'll give you all the time you need.

    Chief Perry Bellegarde: I always say, we'll go fast slowly.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: If I'm permitted, I had another quick follow-up question within my 10 minutes.

    The Chair: Yes. I'd never steal time from you.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Paragraph 72(b) provides that the FNFA may secure financing based on revenue other than property taxation revenue. It's somewhat unclear whether federal transfers to first nations would be included as other revenues. Then you get into a problem of shortfall, where you're robbing Peter to pay Paul, that kind of thing, and maybe you're going to have your health or education or whatever underfunded because these federal transfers are then used in terms of securing the financing and so on. Has that been an issue or a topic of discussion at all in respect to Bill C-19?

    Chief Perry Bellegarde: Maurice, are you talking about own-source revenue? Is that what you're referring to?

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: It says in paragraph 72(b) that the FNFA may secure financing based on revenue other than property taxation revenue. What would be that other revenue?

    Chief Perry Bellegarde: I don't know. What's the other revenue, Manny?

    There are other sources of raising moneys, yes, coming from government. The only point is--and I hear a lot from our people--that when you start talking about a new fiscal arrangement with the Crown, you are talking about fiscal transfers. We need new fiscal transfers and fiscal budgets, not program dollars, but budgets, just like the feds transfer to the provinces, right? Back in the 1960s a big bunch of money was handed over for education, health, and social services, and the provinces have control over that now. Well, where are our budgets? We don't have first nations governance budgets in place.

    But when you talk about own-source revenue, there is a fear that people will say, oh, we've become self-sufficient; we've just struck diamonds on the reserve and we're multi-billionaires now, a bunch of money coming in--own-source revenue. Does that mean that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development discontinues sending money out for the school? Does that mean that Indian affairs quits sending money out for housing, roads, and post-secondary education? If that's the case, then there's an obligation that's ongoing in terms of the treaty right and the federal fiduciary trust obligation, you know. There's a fear that people will say, whoa, we're independently wealthy now; we don't need federal government money. There's a fear of that amongst first nations people and treaty people, for sure. We've got to be careful in terms of how we develop our own revenues and our resources on the reserve, but at some point there's always that fear that the feds are trying to get out of that responsibility. And I always point this out.

    There are a lot of economists in the room, so they'll be familiar with the term “gross domestic product”, GDP. How many billions upon billions have been developed from developing all the natural resources in the country now called Canada? That's how we look at it as indigenous peoples. The GDP and how many billions? So we've really shared a lot.

    Getting back to this point about own-source revenue, in exchange for these treaty rights we have to make sure it is not impacted by own-source revenues, robbing Peter to pay Paul kind of thing.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Vellacott.

    Madame Picard, five minutes.

[Translation]

    Ms. Pauline Picard: I am not a permanent member of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources.

[English]

    Chief Perry Bellegarde: I disagree.

[Translation]

    Ms. Pauline Picard: I am replacing my colleague Yvan Loubier, who has done an excellent job.

    Of all the witnesses I've heard, you've been the only one to summarize as clearly the position taken by those who don't want to opt in and those who do because it's in their interests.

    Do you have anything to propose so that all first nations communities can eventually use their natural resources to get their autonomy as peoples? Do you think Bill C-19 is a step in the right direction? Of course, there are always negotiations.

    You said earlier that there were several communities speaking different languages. We're not here to divide people and create two clans. As far as I can see now, the British Columbia communities have managed to develop their natural resources and to improve their standard of living, whereas in other communities I visited, in Davis Inlet for example or in New Brunswick, I saw people living in conditions unthinkable for the year 2000.

    We don't want to create two classes either, one rich and one poor. We have to make sure that all communities control their own affairs and take their own responsibilities, that they develop and get their autonomy. I know the model will not be perfect, but do you have an idea about what could be included in that Bill C-19 to help everyone?

º  (1615)  

[English]

    Chief Perry Bellegarde: Good question, and thank you for your comments.

    You have to respect the diversity among all 633 reserves across Canada. We talk about a treaty commissioner by Parliament to implement treaty relationships, a bilateral relationship once and for all, a way out of that Indian Act. Heaven knows, we all want to get out of the Indian Act. It's archaic and it is outdated. It has been around since 1876, blah, blah, blah, but it's there and it governs every piece of our lives. We don't want the Indian Act.

    Because the Constitution was patriated in 1982, you've got section 35. This is existing aboriginal treaty rights recognized and affirmed. Where's the implementation process for that? Where's the new legislative framework process for that? You need to implement that. If you don't, you're going to have Supreme Court decisions like Corbiere. Under the Indian Act, every Indian on or off reserve gets to vote for chief and council. The next court case will be the portability of rights because, again, we're not just going to vote for chief and council and expect nothing to happen, when I live in Regina or Ottawa. You also have funding out to the communities based on their total membership and total population, not just on reserve. You have to deal with drawing some of those transfers to the provinces. As we say, when we establish our jurisdiction in education, health, social services, justice, or whatever, the federal problems vacate the field. It's almost like circles: feds, province, first nations. There's some overlap, but we have ours unto ourselves as well. So we'll be occupying the field in terms of our own legislation.

    You need to have that treaty commissioner and you need to have the Crown. Government has to be restructured. There has to be a federal trust centre, not just Indian Affairs. My treaty is not just with Minister Robert Nault, Indian Affairs and Northern Development, for God's sake. It's with the Crown, the whole damn Crown, and that means everybody: education, health, Indian Affairs, the whole gamut. But we deal with one minister. That's not the way to do it.

    That all needs to be restructured, and then, for sure, if you want to create economic development opportunities, actual access to the resources, we need to get first nations people involved in the development of the resources, no question.

    There also has to be a working together nationally. We don't want to see government departments fight for money among each other in the federal budget. I'll give one example. Indian Affairs gets money for special education. We lobbied for $300 million, we received $30 million. That's not enough, but, hey, it's a start. So Indian Affairs controls that, and it's for kids.

    First nations Inuit health branch, you know, MSB, gets money for FAS/FAE. There are impacts there, so one department gets that. Human Resources Development Canada gets money for early childhood development. Where's the communication connection nationally? There's none. But at the community, we make it happen. Then you have to sign agreements with this one, then another agreement with this one, and the reports don't go anywhere. You heard the Auditor General's report. So there has to be a streamlining and breaking down of those walls, which is why I talk about a federal trust centre. There are some ideas.

º  (1620)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Chief.

    Ms. Karetak-Lindell.

    Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Thank you very much.

    When we were touring across the country earlier this year, we stopped in Saskatchewan and we heard some very compelling witnesses talk about the different options that they had for Saskatchewan. I think I speak on behalf of the whole committee when I say that we were very impressed with some of the initiatives that were happening in Saskatchewan.

    If they choose to go their own way, what is stopping them now, even if this legislation went through? We were assured that it's an optional piece of legislation. What is stopping, say, the Saskatchewan first nations from going their own way and not going the route of this legislation? What's stopping them now, if this legislation goes through, from pursuing the option that they've chosen?

    Chief Perry Bellegarde: Lack of political will and support. I'm going to be very honest and blunt. Once first nations start taking a strong position against any kind of legislation that's proposed by one minister, then we're automatically penalized, both federally and provincially, through the regional director generals with whom we have to work. Then things aren't as easy, like arranging meetings. We don't have access so we can't bring about change. The doors are slammed shut and they are saying, oh, you guys are fighting Bill C-6, Bill C-7, and Bill C-19, so the hell with you guys. So, the lack of political will.

    We can always agree to disagree over issues. Don't take things personally. People have to respect and recognize that there's a bigger picture out there. People have their own personal agendas when it comes down to things. They have to get beyond that.

    We had an option as FSIN and we still have a way out of the Indian Act. I'm talking about a new fiscal arrangement with the Crown, a governance structure. We'd have a treaty table and a common table with the feds and FSIN, and even the provinces because they need to get their butts out when we establish our jurisdiction in certain areas. We have that option and we want to keep proceeding there, but it takes political will at the ministerial level and the whole damn cabinet level.

    Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: The point I'm trying to make is that if there are bands that choose to go the way of Bill C-19, under the legislation they have that option. I don't really see what the threat is to other bands that choose not to go the way of Bill C-19. What I'm trying to say is, why would a person who doesn't support Bill C-19 try to stop it for other people when all they have to do is not opt into it?

    Chief Perry Bellegarde: Because it does impact on that inherent right to self-determination. It limits it. It becomes the only game in town. Then we throw the reverse out; if you really want it so bad, then list your name on it. What's the harm in that? You get your legislation moved ahead and then we feel safer and safeguarded that it becomes not the only game in town, that we have our option and our inherent right to self-determination is respected, honoured, and not impacted in a negative way. We're not trying to stop it or slow it down, in the sense that if you want it, go ahead, but list Kamloops there, so it just applies to Kamloops. That's how we see it and it's safer that way. There's greater peace if it can happen that way, let me tell you.

    The Chair: You have another two minutes.

    Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: All the other witnesses we heard from on another piece of legislation, Bill C-7, kept talking about administrative overload, and to me, listing seems to be another administrative process that people have to go through instead of leaving it open for people who want to opt in or opt out. I find that anytime we're trying to list things we get too specific. One of the arguments given to us was that we were trying to, I guess through INAC, run people's affairs by telling them which route to go.

    I find those a little conflicting. In one way people are saying that we put too much of an administrative burden on first nations, and on the other hand, they want us to list them, which seems to me to be a little administrative overload.

º  (1625)  

    Chief Perry Bellegarde: A little bit, but it's the legislators' job to do that, so let them do that. They have all kinds of resources. To be safe and to be fair to everyone, I think that's a safe bet to do it that way. Within the Indian Act, it's true, there is so much administrative requirement.

    You know, if you want to talk about Bill C-7, we have a minute. Everybody in our territory is opposed to it because it tells us how to select our chiefs, it takes away from our hereditary system, it gives legal definition or status, which is very scary in terms of the bands; we'll have legal definition. It would be a headache and an administrative nightmare because they do not have the necessary human or financial resources at the community level to deal with those extra requirements. That's a fact; there's no question there.

    However, to have it done in this other piece, Bill C-19.... Your point is that on one hand we Indians say there's so much overload over here, yet now we are asking for more overload over here, so what is it? Well, we're not responsible for developing the legislation. It's government and cabinet, and there are tonnes of resources here to do that, so it would not be a big headache because they would have the resources over here. However, at the community level they do not have the necessary administrative and financial resources at all to properly develop any kind of system.

    You need to have the financial resources so you can get the human resources in place to develop the proper system that you want, and there's never ever enough need at the community level. There are no inflation factors, there's nothing. The biggest need is housing....

    Oh, oh, I have to shut up.

    The Chair: No, I'm just cutting her microphone. I'm letting you go, it's okay.

    Chief Perry Bellegarde: It's okay, I'm just respecting you, Chair.

    The Chair: I was telling the lady behind to cut her microphone, that's all.

    We have 12 minutes left. If we do a round, then we're taking time, and I'd like to allow ample time for the chief to make closing remarks.

    Would you allow two minutes to Mr. Godfrey, Madame Picard? Two minutes.

    Mr. John Godfrey: Let me just try something on you here. First, we're dealing with four different institutions and I'm looking at the First Nations Finance Authority. I have noticed that subclauses 74(1) and (2) in Bill C-19 read as follows:

74. (1) A first nation may apply to the Authority to become a borrowing member.

(2) The Authority shall accept a first nation...only if the First Nations Financial Management Board has issued the first nation a certificate...

    I assume that will be publicly known, because that information needs to be known by the people they then will go to and try to borrow money. I'm not really trying to make amendments on the hop here, but it would seem to me that a simple declaration somewhere in this clause of the bill saying “and there shall be published a list of all members who have applied and been accepted”, which wouldn't be secret anyway, would specify the list of specific folks who have asked to be members of this and have received certification.

    I think it would be a public matter anyway. So there should be a place to put that in so it comes out as a list, and the list would be quite explicit as to who's on the list and who isn't, and only the people who applied and were certified would be on the list.

    I mean, I'm just taking this as an example. Would that help?

    Chief Perry Bellegarde: I can't really comment, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: It will be debated or discussed.

    Chief Perry Bellegarde: It has a lot of detail, and I don't have it in front of me.

    The Chair: At clause-by-clause I'm sure this will come back.

    Mr. John Godfrey: Okay. I was just putting it out.

    The Chair: I know Maurice will bring it up, and we all have the opportunity either to find a solution or....

    Thank you very much for the excellent way in which you approached the questions and answered them. The whole day was really a great day. People who answer questions and get to the point--we admire you for that.

    You have 10 minutes now for closing remarks. They're yours, and you may do what you want with them.

    Chief Perry Bellegarde: Thanks, Mr. Chair, and again thanks to the committee members. You're an all-party committee, and it's always nice to see when people can come together. Something we always have to learn as first nations people is that the key word is respect and one size doesn't fit all. I just want to say that. We have to respect that there is diversity in Canada.

    Please do not take different sides here. There is no visioning among the first nations people that there is no unity. There is unity and we will come together when we really have to, when we have to fight for the rights of our people. Again, you just have to respect that in certain territories certain things progress at a certain speed.

    For me, from our federation, we've a structure in place. We've always stated that we're playing government. We have our legislative assembly, with 74 chiefs; we have our executive branch of government, with four vice-chiefs and me. We don't have a judicial branch of government. We say we have our own laws, and we do have our own laws. There are certain laws that we can't even write down. There's a sacredness to all these things. But we have to work on that judicial branch of government as first nations people.

    There are three branches to any government, and if we are to bring about a change, we need all three branches working, and we have to have respect from the federal government for another government, our government. We have to have respect from the provincial government as well. They've got to be prepared to vacate the field in certain areas, when we say that's our jurisdiction.

    I'm going to use the example of citizenship and membership. If we, as treaty people or even status Indians, stay under Bill C-31, the Indian Act, in 50 years there will be no more status Indians in Canada. We say we'll get out of that Indian Act for membership, because if you're familiar with the Indian Act and membership, Bill C-31—or whatever is was—in 1985 really hurt our people, in a sense. Sure, it dealt with the inequity of Indian women marrying white men and losing status. There was an equity that fixed that, but it also created a big problem for us. So we have to get out of that Indian Act, but under our jurisdiction, to look after our citizenship and membership. That's why we say it should be under our own laws and customs.

    For our federation, we have an option under the Indian Act and we're gong to keep pursuing that. I gave you some options about how we want to see government restructure, some ideas and thoughts, and it all comes down to sharing this land and having equal access to those opportunities.

    In our territory, 17 years of age is the average age of our population for Indian people in Saskatchewan. For our white brothers and sisters, it's 39--growing older. We're young. So we say for post-secondary, if we've 10,000 students on the wait list, there should be no such thing for post-secondary institutions. Get that funding. If we say we need $300 million for a national special education program, why is that not seen as an investment from government, invested properly? Education is a key thing for all of us. It becomes our buffalo of the year 2003. We've got to focus on that. We've got to focus on education.

    One of my last points is that there's going to be a change in November, I guess. We need a new relationship with the Crown, one that's not so adversarial all the time, a true partnership, but that requires mutual respect. That's how I see it.

    My last point, because it's near the end of the day, is that you have to respect and recognize all the contributions of first nations people to Canada. We have lots that we've shared. Even the word Kanata is a first nations word. Even the word “Manitoba”, Manitowabi, where the Creator sits, is a first nations word. Saskatchewan is the same thing, Kis-is-ski-tche-wan, fast-flowing water. All these things we've made are a contribution to Canada. Even the word Wanuskewin is a first nations word.

    Even “vegetarian” is a first nations word. Did you know that? It means terrible, terrible hunter.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Chief Perry Bellegarde: You can keep that with you.

    I wish you well in your deliberations and your debates, Mr. Chair, but just have respect for that diversity.

º  (1630)  

    The Chair: We thank you very much. We will say, chief, that you don't need anyone giving you speeches to present. When you speak from the heart, you're very effective.

    Chief Perry Bellegarde: Okay, see you.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    We now invite Chief David Paul to make a presentation. We've agreed to allocate 15 minutes for this presentation from the Tobique First Nation.

º  (1635)  

    Chief David Paul (Tobique First Nation): Good afternoon. I am pleased to be here, and I thank you very much for allowing me a moment.

    I've been listening for the last couple of days here, and I've been involved with this for a number of years, approximately 15 years. I've seen opposition in the past to attempts at advancing our communities and making life a little better place for the members of our communities. I'm from New Brunswick, Tobique First Nation. I'm Maliseet.

    Interestingly enough, I was giving a presentation awhile back in the east to the chiefs of the Union of New Brunswick Indian Chiefs, and one of the comments that came up was about poor reserves and why was that. We were talking about the legislation, and why was this of any interest to us. We're poor, we're small, we have no business, no development.

    I related to them a story about one of the greatest opponents from my neck of the woods, Chief Lawrence Paul, who can be very vocal and very successful in terms of conveying his interests one way or the other. Chief Lawrence was adamantly opposed to the work of the Indian Taxation Advisory Board and introducing property tax on reserves. Interestingly enough, after a few years, the first taxing first nation in the east was the Millbrook community under Chief Lawrence Paul's reign, and it continues to be one of the most progressive in terms of establishing a real and true economy on the reserves. They've thoroughly experienced an economic renaissance there that they haven't enjoyed since European contact. Millbrook was a poor reserve. They had nothing, but they were the first community to pass a property tax bylaw.

    In response to the chief who had asked the question, “What does this mean for my reserve?”, the question I posed back was, “Where do you see yourself in 10 years? Do you see yourself as a poor reserve with no resources, no ability to create prosperity or wealth?” And he said, “No, we've got plans. We want to do things”. And I said that at one time Millbrook was the same way; they had nothing, but they had ideas, they had plans, and they saw that through.

    At the end of the presentation, we did receive 100% support for the legislation in New Brunswick. One of the last holdouts was one main chief, who remained unnamed, but prior to that we had made presentation to the Atlantic Policy Congress, and there again, we had received support from all the chiefs at the Atlantic Policy Congress.

    I know that the honourable member who's here, Mr. Vellacott, is only relying on the information that's provided to him by probably the opponents to this legislation, that it isn't just a British Columbia bill. It isn't apparently a “one size fits all”. The interests of the Atlantic coast, of all the communities supporting this, tells me clearly that this is not the case, that the information you have received is wrong, sir.

    There have been interesting twists of fact or fiction either way, and I don't know, that's for you to decipher how that applies. But the legislation has been well thought out, with participation from every corner of this nation, and this came from our people, and it's for us. To delay this or try to tinker with creating a listing is wrong and will not work for us.

º  (1640)  

    I know that Chief Perry was a staunch supporter of listing those communities that support this. Well, that doesn't work for a number of reasons, and a number of those reasons you've heard. It just so happens I have a list of the number of reasons.

    The amendments are costly. A list of participating first nations was attached to the First Nation Lands Management Act. When the first nations wanted to use these powers, they had to participate in a costly and time-consuming exercise to have the legislation amended. That's taken about four years. Now, Chief Bellegarde had mentioned that if there was political will, amendments could go through rather quickly. But if there isn't, the process can be somewhat cumbersome.

    On greater federal control, attaching a schedule of participating first nations takes the decision power away from our communities to use those services of these institutions and gives it to the federal government. The federal government can amend the legislation according to their priorities and not ours. Such an approach is paternalistic and inconsistent with first nation values of choice and autonomy--

    The Chair: Excuse me, Chief, I'll give you a few more seconds. Don't go too fast, because the translators have difficulty with that.

    Chief David Paul: The defeat is optional. Attaching a schedule to optional legislation is not only redundant, but the first nations wishing to opt out of the legislation would have to seek an amendment to do so.

    There is no time for review. A number of first nations are currently engaged in community processes to determine whether this legislation will benefit them. If they decide it does not benefit them, then they will not be included on the original list and will be unable to utilize these institutions when they want to.

    There is a violation of equality. There are over 133 shared governance institutions in Canada. None of them has a list for those who can use them. Making the list would be an affront to the principle of equality in those instances.

    There are lost opportunities. The Kamloops amendment in 1988 was enabling legislation similar to the proposed FMSA. At that time, approximately 10 first nations showed an interest and could have been included on a schedule. Since that time, however, over 90 first nations have enacted property tax systems. These other 80 first nations would have lost over $140 million in tax revenues if they had to wait for an amendment, until now, to be added to the list.

    Business and economic opportunities do not wait for amendments to federal legislation. If the community has a chance to improve its economy through better infrastructure or any of the other services offered by these institutions, then a federal process should not hinder them.

    Those are some of the reasons. It's interesting to see the contradictions in terms of the previous speaker and his arguments about why it should be listed, although it can be easily said that there are also reasons why it shouldn't be.

    There is the question about inherent rights and whether they are optional. Well, it they're optional, they're optional. You opt in or you opt out.

    The previous speaker mentioned how this infringes on inherent rights. Well, it can't infringe on inherent rights. In his earlier statements, he mentioned that he is pursuing a separate system as an alternative when asked by the member here what their options are. “Well, I can opt into the inherent right process and pursue that. I don't need Canada or the courts”. Well, that's always open and we're not saying, for those who want to follow that path, to follow that path. What we're suggesting is that for those who want to follow this direction and want to do it immediately, this is an option for you. You can opt in or you can opt out. The door for inherent rights is always there. It doesn't go away.

    We can't afford to wait to be put on a list. The communities can't do that. Some of them haven't made their decisions yet. Plus, there will be processes to go through in order to participate. And these are communities that are already dealing with shortfalls, as stated by all speakers, both for and against these problems. There have been problems, and there's poverty and the solutions aren't there. We're not there yet. We don't want to have to wait for whatever it is that somebody wants to fix. We want to deal with these issues today. And it doesn't remove the responsibility from the federal government.

    One of the speakers mentioned they had just received drinkable, potable water within the last few years and, in some instances, new roads and what have you. I have a problem with the status quo to suggest that it's going to take away from the government's responsibility. If that's the case and this is the status quo, well, I haven't got 20 years for my community to wait for a school or to build a sewage treatment facility or to delivery potable water.

º  (1645)  

    There are very lengthy lists for housing on communities. Reserves cannot wait for the federal government to fix it. They have to take action themselves. These are the communities that are supportive of this legislation and want this. They want to do something today, not 20 years from now, when the federal government or the programs are designed to accommodate the needs on reserves. The populations are growing far too quickly. Access to lands and resources were brought up, suggesting they are the solution. We don't have those today. Those are lengthy, drawn-out discussions and negotiations with those who currently share or enjoy those lands and resources. We haven't got that. We can't afford to wait until those discussions and negotiations are completed and we have lands and resources to pursue.

    This legislation does not prevent those discussions from occurring. They can go on in parallel with the work these communities want to do. At the end of the day, all we want is to create a better life for ourselves. This legislation will assist a number of us in doing that. And yes, not all reserves will benefit from it immediately, but those reserves...it's the same argument I've heard with taxation. What do we do, tax ourselves? Well, no, but we've got people on our reserves. We have non-native interests on our reserves today. If you have a telephone, if you have cable, or if you have utilities, then you have taxable interests. And then they begin to look at it and say, okay, yes, you're right. And I say if somebody is collecting the taxes for you, for those interests on your reserves, it should be you. Then they start to understand that. In this instance here, it's the same way.

    Not all communities will benefit from this; however, they have aspirations. They don't want to forever be the experts at managing poverty. I think we owe them a responsibility to change that and to allow them an opportunity to change.

    With that, I thank you very much.

    The Chair: We thank you for your contribution. It's valuable to us. It will be very helpful. You've been at this for 12 years, you said?

    Chief David Paul: Fifteen years.

    The Chair: I want to thank Mr. Hubbard for bringing to our attention that you were prepared to present today. Thank you.

    The meeting is adjourned until 3:30 tomorrow afternoon.