Mr. Speaker, I am committed to getting on the record some of the opposition to the bill so I will try to go through the amendments quickly so I will have time to do that.
Motion No. 3 regarding clause 30 clarifies that clause 30 would apply only to borrowing laws for long term loans. Clause 30 would establish a rigorous process for the review by the Tax Commission of first nation borrowing laws. This was put in place for the review of laws relating to individual long term borrowing projects. This rigorous process is required to protect the joint liability of the borrowing members of the finance authority in respect of a default on the repayment of a long term loan by an individual member.
Under the bill, the finance authority would also provide short term loans to borrowing members on the basis of a borrowing law which would merely establish global limits to the council's authority to enter into such borrowing. Furthermore, there is no joint liability associated with these short term loans. It was never intended that the more rigorous process outlined in clause 30 would apply to these short term loans.
The amendment would clarify that clause 30 would apply only to borrowing laws respecting long term loans for capital infrastructure for the provision of services on reserve.
Motion No. 4 relates to clause 31 and corrects a grammatical error in the French version of subclause (2). Clause 31 of the bill deals with the process by which individuals can request that the Tax Commission review a local revenue law to determine whether it complies with the requirements of the act or whether it is being applied properly and fairly. This amendment corrects a grammatical error in the French version of subclause 31(2).
Motion No. 5 would amend subclause 34(3) to permit the Tax Commission to delegate certain powers to individual commissioners. Subclause 34(3) of the bill is being proposed as an amendment in the report of the House committee.
Subsequent to that amendment, a further amendment is being sought to provide a means for the commission to delegate its powers to approve property tax laws and to adjudicate complaints to one or more commissioners. This will ensure that property tax laws are approved and hearings held in a timely manner. Without this amendment, if a large number of complaints were filed, the commission might find it impossible to adjudicate them within a reasonable time frame.
This amendment would also provide the commission with the ability to separate the commission's investigative and prosecutorial functions under subsection 31(2). This would avoid the possibility of bias in commission initiated hearings under that subclause.
Motion No. 6 clarifies that capital in the credit enhancement fund can be used to support the debt reserve fund or for a purpose prescribed by regulations.
Clause 83 of the bill deals with the establishment of a credit enhancement fund designed to provide extra support for the credit rating of the securities issued by the finance authority in its early days.
This amendment clarifies that the capital in the credit enhancement fund may be used to temporarily offset a shortfall in the debt reserve fund or for another purpose prescribed by regulations.
The debt reserve fund and the credit enhancement fund established by the finance authority are both required to support a marketable credit rating for securities issued by the authority. It is standard practice for both the capital and interest component of such funds to be available for bridge financing, as required.
The current wording of clause 83 is not sufficiently clear as to the use of the capital in the credit enhancement fund and this could result in first nation bonds attracting a lower credit rating than they otherwise might.
Motion No. 7 provides regulation authority to prescribe other purposes for the use of capital in the credit enhancement fund.
I have just discussed the proposed amendment to clause 83 which clarifies that the capital in the credit enhancement fund may be used to temporarily offset a shortfall in the debt reserve fund, also established by the finance authority or for any other purpose prescribed by regulations.
The purpose of this amendment to clause 87 is to the required regulation making authority.
Motion No. 8 amends French to match English in clause 103.
Clause 103 establishes the scope of data which will be collected, compiled, analysed and distributed by the Statistical Institute. In order to meet its mandate, the institute must deal not only with that data which is specifically tagged aboriginal, but also data which, though not specifically identified as aboriginal data, nonetheless relates to first nations and other aboriginal groups, their members and other Indians, their lands and the resident of their lands. While the English version is clear in respect of this intent, the French version appears to limit the scope of data to that specifically tagged aboriginal.
This amendment corrects the French version of subclause 103(2) so that it matches the English version.
Motion No. 9 relating to clause 105 amends French to match English.
Clause 105 establishes the scope of federal data to which the statistical institute would have access. As was the case for clause 103, in order to meet its mandate, the institute must deal not only with that data which is specifically tagged aboriginal but also data which, though not specifically identified as aboriginal data, nonetheless relates to first nations and other aboriginal groups, their members and other Indians, their lands and the residents of their lands. While the English version in clause 105 is clear with respect to this intent, the French version appears to limit the scope of the data specifically tagged aboriginal.
This amendment corrects the French version in subclause 105(1) so that it matches the English version.
Motion No. 10, amends the French to match the English in Clause 105.
Subclause 105(2) clarifies that the department is not required to provide the statistical institute with access to data which must or may be withheld under any federal law or under any privilege at law. The French version, however, states that the department can only provide access to such data as it is permitted to share under the federal law or privilege at law. As most federal laws deal with prohibitions on the sharing of data rather than permissions for the sharing of data, the French version of subclause 105(2) would be impossible to apply.
This amendment corrects the French version of subclause 105(2) so that it matches the English version.
Motion No. 17, which is the last motion, deals with clause 154. It would delete the coordinating amendments with first nation governance and would add new coordinating amendments with the Public Service Modernization Act. This amendment makes two changes to the bill. First, it deletes the current wording of clause 154 which contained provisions which coordinated the coming into effect of this bill and the proposed first nations governance act which will not be reintroduced. These provisions are no longer needed.
Second, it adds new provisions to clause 154 which provide for the coordination of coming into force of the bill and the Public Service Modernization Act which received royal assent last November.
The Public Service Modernization Act changed the term “public service” to “public administration”. The term “public service” is used in the English version of clauses 58 and 113 of the bill. The new provisions of clause 154 would amend this reference once the Public Service Modernization Act comes into effect.
The French version of clauses 58 and 113 do not require this change.
I would now like to discuss and put on the record some of the concerns people have had about the bill. I first wish to make sure that people know that land claims remain a priority. For me, land claims and self-government are the final and best result. We are working on two bills in the House of Commons right now and we are moving forward in those areas.
Some land claim agreements will take decades because of the various conditions. A number of first nations people have approached the government asking that it set up these institutions in order to help them while the process on self-government and land claims continues.
Therefore this is basically a tool they found out they needed in their financial management that would help them when they are approaching banks and financial institutions and to be able to buy bonds with lower interest rates.
During the discussions on the bill we heard a number of worries from people about having to be involved with this bill. However the amendments to the bill make it quite clear that it is totally optional. People can enter it if they want and they do not have to pay property taxes. They do not have to do anything with the bill unless they so choose. It is there because a group of first nations approached the government and ask to be involved.
A number of first nations want to use the bill and a number that already collect property taxes of course are in rural areas.
People wonder about other options. There are many other options. People do not have to be involved in the bill. They do not have to collect property taxes if they do not want to. They do not have to take loans if they do not want to. First nations can make institutions themselves. They can go ahead and make their own institutions but they found out that the ones they had made did not work in the financial sector to get them the loan rates that they wanted. Therefore they have asked to have this bill.
The following is Justice Lamer's decision:
--it is important that we not lose sight of Parliament's objective in creating the new Indian taxation powers. The regime which came into force in 1988 is intended to facilitate the development of Aboriginal self-government by allowing bands to exercise the inherently governmental power of taxation on their reserves.
It does not affect the Constitution. It does not affect self-government and in fact enhances it. Is my time up, Mr. Speaker? No? Okay.
Aboriginal people have been approaching us on this for years. We should not be holding them up for years and years when we have the ability to put into effect what they are suggesting.
I have one last final point in relation to the cost. I think the estimate was $25 million, which will eventually be self-sustaining, but we will guarantee that we will be putting in $400 million more, either into land claims negotiations or into helping those first nations that need water and basic services as opposed to these particular institutions, which only some first nations are asking for.