Bill C-23 (Historical)

First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act

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

Business of the House

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, the true miracle is the number of bills we have been able to pass, notwithstanding their opposition to them.

This afternoon, the House will continue with the opposition day motion. Tomorrow, we will return to Bill C-34, the migratory birds legislation. This will be followed by a motion to refer to committee before second reading Bill C-36, respecting communicable diseases. We will then return to Bill C-33, the Fisheries Act amendments, Bill C-10, respecting marijuana, and Bill C-23, respecting the first nations.

When the House returns on May 25, it will resume this list and take up bills that are introduced or reported from committee in the interim.

Thursday, May 27, shall be an allotted day, something that may not interest them.

Gasoline Prices

[R. John Efford, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, it is time to set the record straight about the members opposite on gasoline prices. Let us look at when Bill C-23 and Bill C-249 came before the committee. Those members opposed the bills to amend the Competition Act and to look into the increase of gas prices each and every time they came before the committee, every time. Why? Because they know that the federal taxes have not increased on gasoline prices. The prices were put up by the oil companies and by the international world price of oil, their friends in Calgary.

First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not question the passion of my colleague opposite, but I scratch my head a little. I reiterate that Bill C-23 provides those tools, after years of continuous consultation. What I understood from his comments is that he would rather see us come in with prescriptive legislation that would be forced on all bands.

Clearly the bill is not that. The bill is not an assumption that one size fits all. Whether we look at first nations or any legislation, I personally do not believe that one size fits all. If we provide the kinds of planning tools the municipalities have and the kinds of statistical information that is the bedrock of good planning, I believe first nations will take advantage of those tools which will lead to better housing, health care and a brighter tomorrow for all first nations people. However, I do not believe it needs to be prescriptive.

I believe first nations, given the partnership and the kind of tools provided in the bill, will find their way forward to a brighter future with the assistance of the government, not having it imposed on them, as sometimes has happened historically.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the motion of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot. I am convinced that Bill C-23 is supported by the majority of first nations. The bill is a direct result of efforts made by leaders of the first nation communities and organizations.

First nation leaders have worked for many years to find ways to remove the considerable barriers to economic development that are faced by first nation communities right across Canada. It is difficult for first nations to improve community infrastructure such as roads and sewers without access to long term capital instruments such as government debentures.

Infrastructure projects are prohibitively expensive. The lack of such infrastructure means that investors look to non-first nation communities with existing infrastructure for development opportunities. First nations find it very hard to compete under these conditions.

Also hampering development in first nation communities has been the lack of relevant and accurate information. For decades, various government departments and agencies have collected data about and from first nation communities, but it has been difficult for first nations to access the related statistical information and often what is available is incomplete.

A few years ago, the Auditor General estimated that each first nation community in Canada annually provided the government with information about more than 150 aspects of community life and data that concerns school enrolment and employment as well as population.

Collection agencies such as the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Health Canada and the Department of Justice used this information for a variety of purposes. Some information was incorporated into official records such as the Indian register, the nominal roll student census report and the health services Canada transfer agreements. Other data was used to track projects related to the aboriginal justice strategy, on reserve housing programs, and dozens of other initiatives.

Statistics were gathered for specific purposes and there was very little effort made to share them with other agencies. Even less effort was made to gather data together to make a complete and accurate statistical profile of first nations across Canada.

All planners know that access to accurate data is essential. Whether a plan involves renovating a building such as a community recreational facility or relates to delivering social services, access to comprehensive and reliable information is absolutely critical, yet the information collected from first nations communities has rarely been provided to band councils and first nation leaders. This impaired their ability to plan effectively. As a result, few first nations have developed the needed familiarity or the expertise to utilize statistical information in order to do their planning, make decisions and carry on negotiations.

The proposed statistical institute would collect existing data from a variety of sources to develop a complete, relevant and accurate statistical profile of first nations right across Canada. The institute would also support first nations who wish to build their capacity in understanding and utilizing statistical information for planning, decision making and negotiations. In this way, first nations would have the necessary statistical information management skills that would allow them to do long term planning and mapping for their communities.

A few determined first nations have managed to overcome some of the barriers to development by working with partners in both the private and the public sectors. Westbank First Nation, for instance, negotiates lease agreements and collects property taxes from non-members who live or operate businesses on its land. With the revenues generated, Westbank is now able to operate its own day care centre and a seniors' residence, along with developing educational and recreational facilities that benefit the entire community.

Leaders of first nations that collect property taxes have long recognized that tax revenues might also be valuable in other ways. Municipal and provincial governments, for instance, often use tax revenue as a form of collateral to secure long term financing for infrastructure projects. Some first nations wanted to do the same thing with their tax revenue.

Several years ago, aboriginal leaders established the First Nations Finance Authority Inc., an independent body that enabled member communities to undertake pooled investments. As the number of first nations participating in the authority grew, so did the desire to issue first nation pool debentures to access long term money at lower interest rates. These are sound business principles. This concept attracted the support of a key partner, the Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia, which had 30 years of experience and a triple A credit rating.

Bill C-23 will establish four distinct yet complementary institutions: a finance authority, a tax commission, a financial management board, and a statistical institute. Once these institutions are established, first nations will have many tools long enjoyed by other levels of government.

The concepts reflected in Bill C-23 have been refined through several years of continuous interaction with first nation governments, with taxpayer groups and technical experts such as the Royal Bank, Dominion Bond Rating Service, and Moody's Investors Service, all key players in Canada's financial markets.

Bill C-23 will establish the first nations finance authority. This will enable first nations to raise private capital at preferred rates to do such things as to build roads and undertake other infrastructure projects. Analysts estimate that within five years first nations will raise $125 million in debenture financing by pledging as security their real property tax revenues. An investment of this magnitude will impact first nation communities in a very significant way.

To ensure that first nations create and maintain tax regimes that are both fair and representative, Bill C-23 will establish the first nations tax commission. This commission will ensure that the interests of first nation communities and taxpayers are balanced.

For this environment to thrive over the long term, it is imperative that first nations have access to professional financial management advisory and review services. Lenders must have a clear and accurate picture of the fiscal health of borrowers, and independent assessments must be readily available. The first nations financial management board will help meet these important aspects of a good financially sound arrangement.

The management of the financial board will have two components. The first will focus on first nations that collect property tax and seek to borrow against these revenues. The board will certify that the financial management system, the practices, and the standards of these first nations are adhered to. They will also be able to intervene promptly when required. Under the second part of the mandate, there will be a provision for a range of technical services to first nations. They will assist in research, in advocacy, in financial management policy, as well as capacity development. These activities will help first nation communities make the most of their financial resources.

The fourth institution included in Bill C-23 will resolve problems related to the collection and the analysis of first nation data. The first nations statistic institute will create a common database of information that will be accessible by all first nations. The database will provide first nation leaders with the accurate statistical information that they need in order to make sound decisions. In short, it will enable first nations to become information users rather than merely information providers.

The first nations statistics institute will work directly with first nation governments and with organizations to help first nations identify as well as to meet their information needs. Communities seeking to design and implement housing and health initiatives, for example, will be able to access information about population growth and the effectiveness of the service delivery mechanisms. It is this kind of feedback that is so important to make sure that institutions we develop are relevant to the people for whom we are providing them.

Access to information will also enhance the ability of first nation governments and organizations to collaborate effectively with all levels of government. Vast amounts of information about first nations are currently held in dozens of separate databases. The information institute will see that this valuable information is put to use. This will make possible the more effective and efficient sharing of current, complete and relevant statistical information among first nations and other levels of government, as well as statistical agencies. This will also ensure that the Government of Canada has available the statistical information needed to develop and implement effective policies.

Bill C-23 also includes several safeguards to protect the security and privacy of the data that is held by the statistical institution. It will play a vital role in building the capacity of first nations to utilize statistical information. This institute will provide access to accurate information that will improve accountability and the decision making capacity of band councils and first nation governments.

Not all first nations are interested in statistics. Not all expect to participate in the opportunities created by Bill C-23 and there is no requirement--I repeat, no requirement--for them to do so. Any first nation that does not wish to provide information to the new institute will not be obligated to do so under Bill C-23. There is nothing in this legislation that limits the ability of first nations to collect property taxes and borrow money under the current provisions of the Indian Act.

Today it is our duty to ensure that this first nation led initiative takes the next step. We must ensure that Bill C-23, which now contains numerous improvements added during report stage, is given third reading. A great deal of consultation has gone into this very important piece of legislation and it is up to the House to act upon those wishes.

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise and speak in support of Bill C-23, the first nations fiscal and statistical management act. I have spoken on this bill before. In fact, I even had comment from people who are supportive, who are in the aboriginal community, and who want this bill and the tools that it offers. Not every aboriginal person has the same opinion, but that flexibility is introduced here.

The Prime Minister has talked about a new and strengthened relationship with aboriginal people, and a new approach to resolving the lingering and unacceptable disparity, the disparity described by members opposite and on this side that we are all trying to address. There is an unacceptable disparity between the quality of life of aboriginal people on the whole and other Canadians.

On April 19 we witnessed in the country an important milestone in our relationship with aboriginal people with the Canada aboriginal peoples round table. It was a gathering which was called by the Prime Minister. It brought together elders, the Prime Minister himself, aboriginal leaders, cabinet ministers from this government, and distinguished representatives from various aboriginal organizations in a forum to renew and strengthen our relationship with first nations people, Inuit and Métis. It laid the foundation for a new plan that would see, once and for all, aboriginal people enjoying a quality of life equal to that of their fellow Canadians.

The Prime Minister said at the time, and has said repeatedly, that Canada faces no greater challenges than those that confront aboriginal Canadians and that aboriginal people must participate fully in all that Canada has to offer, with greater self-reliance and an ever-increasing quality of life.

Bill C-23 is about fulfilling the government's commitment to aboriginal people. It is about working in partnership to remove obstacles to growth. It is about working to ensure that first nation people would have access to the tools for economic growth and prosperity, the same tools that my municipality would have that perhaps would not be taken up by the member for Churchill's municipality or your municipality, Mr. Speaker.

Different communities use different tools at their disposal, but they must have the range of tools to be considered truly equal to get the quality of life that is appropriate to all Canadians as well as the ability to select and not be prescribed to by any government. It is about respecting the ability of first nation people to find their own solutions and apply them in ways that make sense for their community.

Bill C-23 would offer to first nations many of the practical tools that are fundamental to fiscal growth, economic growth and self-reliance. It would offer investors the certainty they need to invest in first nation communities. The larger objective is to close the socio-economic gap. It makes sense to see that first nation people have the same potential to capture economic opportunities as other Canadians.

Overall, the bill would assist first nation communities to borrow on financial markets, facilitating access to low cost capital for investments in local infrastructure, and thereby attracting needed investment to first nation communities, the same kind of investment that my community has access to attracting and that competes with other communities.

The member from Scarborough is here. His community competes with other communities in Canada for investments. This ability to find the right tools and the right investment opportunities is something that is required by our communities and first nation communities.

Bill C-23 is part of a new approach which holds that first nations must be able to plan and direct their own economies for there to be real economic opportunity and lasting prosperity. The bill would establish four national institutions that would improve the quality of first nation government to address the social and economic well-being of their communities.

The first nations financial authority would provide the same access as non-aboriginal communities enjoy to sources of low cost capital such as through the bond market.

I would like to point out to hon. members that the proposal has been endorsed by major bond underwriters and credit raters. It is expected to allow first nation communities to raise $125 million in private capital over the first five years. In fact, it is based on the model that has been used in British Columbia whose debentures credit rating has surpassed even Canada's for some time now.

Gaining access to the bond markets would lower the cost of borrowing for first nations by 30% to 50% leaving more money in the community. More money, as the member for Churchill said, which is needed for the priorities of the community. It would leave more money in the community to pay for much needed capital infrastructure instead of paying higher interest rates.

The second institution, the first nations financial management board, would certify the credit worthiness of communities interested in gaining access to the investment pool. In fact, it would ensure and encourage adherence to sound financial management standards by participating first nations governments as would be expected by any other government.

The third institution is the first nations tax commission. This body would expand the role currently performed by the Indian taxation advisory board. It would allow first nations to strengthen their property tax systems.

Just as important, the bill would provide for greater input into rate setting and related issues for those who pay property taxes. Not everyone needs to pay property taxes. It would be a choice that communities would decide. Communities would make their own decisions. It would not be imposed by anyone. It would be a choice. Bill C-23 would offer options to communities.

Among the approximately 100 first nations that already have tax regimes in place throughout the country, we have seen how much can be accomplished with the development of a stable tax base.

Let us look at a few examples. The Millbrook first nation in New Brunswick has used its property tax powers to become one of the fastest growing economies in that province. The Squamish first nation used property tax revenues to build recreation facilities that are creating a very positive environment for children and youth. This is surely something that all of our communities desire. A new purification system at Westbank first nation is supporting both commercial and residential needs of first nation people and non-first nation people alike. Of course, there are many similar outstanding examples.

Moving on to the fourth institution, the first nation statistical institute, this institution would not only help improve the quality and relevance of information available to address aboriginal issues, it would also ensure that first nation decision makers could have access to the information. This would support decision making, make governments more accountable, and help ensure that resources go to where they are most needed.

I know my own community has talked about the importance of having accurate statistical information and ensuring that it is meeting the priorities of the community into the future.

Currently, first nations do not have at their disposal the basic statistical information available to the majority of Canadians, a situation which hinders their planning and the ability of first nations to make the most of economic opportunities. The statistical institute would collect existing data from a variety of sources to develop a complete, relevant and accurate statistical profile of first nations across Canada.

There is nothing in the bill that would oblige a first nation to participate in the new data collection activities. The institute would support first nations that wish to avail themselves of this service in building their capacity to understand and utilize the statistical information, in planning, decision making and negotiations. With that, first nations would have the necessary statistical information and management skills to help build a more certain future.

The four institutions established by Bill C-23 would offer first nations the tools they could use to attract investment, build infrastructure, create jobs and address social issues.

It is imperative that we address one extremely important issue. First nations would be accomplishing these goals on their own terms. The proposed legislation is a first nations' initiative. Its development has been led by first nations. The institutions that they would help create would ensure that first nations would play a lead role in long term development efforts.

Just as we see in the House different political parties that are supported by Canadians in my community and in communities right across this country, I am sure there are first nations people who disagree with the bill and disagree with the leadership that has worked to put it in place. That is the nature of Canada and the nature of democracy.

There will be first nation communities that choose not to use the institutions that are available because of the bill and that is okay; however, for the ones who wish to have these systems put in place, surely it is important that we allow them these tools.

The bill would mean that first nation communities would be able to develop partnerships with other governments and industry in order to strengthen their economies and to improve the quality of life for all of their members.

While the proposed legislation creates institutions, participation in them would be optional. Nobody is forcing any first nations to take part in something, for whatever reason, they may choose not to participate. This allows me to clarify other important principles behind the bill and to address legitimate concerns that have been raised in the House.

Bill C-23 does not in any way change the fundamental, historic relationship between the Government of Canada and first nation peoples. The intent of the bill is, first, to provide first nations with the opportunity to use the fiscal and statistical tools that are available to other governments in Canada in support of their efforts to improve the quality of life on reserve.

Second, the bill does not force first nations to tax or to borrow. First nations property tax powers have existed in the Indian Act since the 1988 amendments. Just as there are no directives to make taxing or borrowing mandatory now, there would be no directives issued in the future.

The development of the proposed statistical institute has been undertaken jointly with Statistics Canada. The institute would not duplicate or complement the excellent and world renowned work done by Statistics Canada. In fact, the institute would assist first nations with statistical information. First nations would be encouraged to participate more in the national statistical programs of Statistics Canada.

The Speech from the Throne identified the horrible conditions faced by many aboriginal communities as one of the most pressing issues facing our country today. The Prime Minister, in calling on April 19 the round table, reaffirmed the government's commitment to address those issues. The bill is about living up to our responsibilities, but responding with specific actions to match the expressions of common cause and goodwill that were expressed by many people at the round table.

We have a long road ahead, but we are confident that we are on the right path. The important thing is that we are on this path together with first nations, Inuit and Métis. We are mindful of the mistakes of the past but full of hope, goodwill, determination, and concrete action to arrive at a new destination and a better future for all.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very cautious in choosing my words. I have a tendency to sometimes get carried away.

I am appreciative of the amendment that has been brought forward. It gives an opportunity to reinforce the objections to Bill C-23.

I want to make a point of commenting on a number of aspects related to Bill C-23.

At first blush, when we look at what these institutions are, anyone would think that these would be great to have. With the statistical information, we would be able to properly fund first nation communities and perhaps do what we should have been doing all along. The bill would give first nations a chance to really look after their financial management. It would give first nations an opportunity to collect taxes. It would give first nations control over their finances. However, the reality is that is not what first nations want. They do not want Parliament in legislation telling them that they have to do these things.

That number one reason alone means the proposed legislation should not be before us. If first nations want to proceed with these institutions, I submit they can do it on their own.

I suggest it is purely the government. We can talk about the Crown in this relationship, but let us face it. We are dealing with the federal Liberal government. It is the federal Liberal government that wants this put in place. It is not the first nations and it is certainly not my colleagues in the New Democratic caucus.

I recognize there are some first nations that like some aspects of this. I believe they should be able to proceed if they so desire. However, the majority of first nations do not want it. As a result, we should not have the bill before us, and not if there is going to be a new relationship with first nations, as we have heard many times. It should not be in the House.

I am increasingly concerned that the bill will put first nations that are already in dire straits in even greater dire straits. There are numerous situations in my riding with huge levels of unemployment. I am talking 90% to 95%.

Go into a community. The school is funded through dollars that first nations get. Those dollars come from the federal government. That is how the government goes about getting the dollars to them. The treaties have a partnership relationship, but the federal government never lets first nations forget that they are getting taxpayer dollars. Somehow the government forgets the fact that it is a partnership in the treaties, that the land and resources will be shared. That part gets left out. They are reminded they are getting taxpayer dollars to fund their education, the school, the teachers and everyone else working there.

They have in most cases nursing stations or a health stations. The odd time they have a hospital or a clinic with doctors. Again, that is funded through Health Canada and through taxpayer dollars.

They might have a northern store or another store in the community and maybe another little store here and there, maybe even a gas station. In all my 31 first nation communities in my riding, very few have more than that. Most do not have other economic opportunities. There might be someone working at an airport which might be funded provincially. Because it is on the non-first nation side, there might be some dollars for funding. The reality is the majority of people in those communities want economic opportunities and income coming in, but nothing is there.

The opportunities that have been there in the past are constantly being stripped away from them; the opportunities for fishing and trapping. The fur trade now is under attack again within those communities. Those are some of their limited resources. I ask my colleagues in the House this. From where do they expect these tax dollars to come?

I find it hard to believe that first nations community members are out there saying that they want to pay taxes with the little bit of money they get to subsist on month after month; assistance dollars that are coming to the first nations through the governments. How on earth does anyone expect them to pay taxes?

It is beyond me where this is coming from. If they want to collect statistical information that is just information on how many people are in a family and those kinds of things, they can do it, but I am increasingly concerned about the financial side of it.

As my colleague from Winnipeg Centre indicated, if this is put into legislation and if they then do not buy into it, even for things such as improving their schools or the roads in their communities, they will have to take out a loan. Where will they get the money to pay the loan? Will they take out a 25 or 30 year loan to build a new school? I find it hard to believe that the loan will be interest free. It may be interest free but I find that hard to believe.

Where will the dollars come from? Either the first nation will have even fewer resources or there will be an increase in the tax dollars required. We will have first nations suffering the consequences of being beaten again over their use of taxpayer dollars when, under an agreement, they were assured of certain services. The government has failed to provide that.

We hear of third party management. A couple of years ago one of my first nations contacted me because it was having a problem with its third party manager. It was kind of interesting that in a short period of time, numerous first nations ended up in third party management. It was no surprise to me that the first nations in Manitoba had objected to the government's legislation en masse. As far as I was concerned this would be their punishment, so numerous ones were put into third party management.

In that case we had first nations that could not get information back from their third party manager. They did not sign the contract for the third party manager, INAC did. I have seen the contracts where $30,000 a month came out of their budgets that should have been paying for recreational facilities, infrastructure and fire prevention in the community which is sorely lacking in numerous instances. The money was taken out to pay third party managers and they could not even find out where the money was going.

I asked INAC where its policy was on third party management and where the tendering process was because I wanted to see how this was done. INAC did not have one. It was literally taking the food off the tables of the people in those communities and the government did not have a tendering policy. It was just being handed out to whomever it thought should get the plum contract. As a result, first nations throughout my riding and throughout this country have suffered.

The government has no conscience when it comes to its treatment of aboriginal people in Canada, and certainly with the first nations in regard to this legislation. If the Prime Minister really meant what he said at that meeting, this legislation should not be before us. I am at a loss to understand how any first nations can accept that the Prime Minister's word can be trusted when this legislation is still before us. It should be removed and removed today. We should not even be spending any more time talking about it if there is any truth in the Prime Minister's comments about a new relationship.

I mentioned the limited income opportunities. Often we go into communities, as persons who have not lived on a first nation reserve, and some of our first instincts are to wonder why the people do not move and find a job elsewhere if it is so bad on their reserve. A lot of people had those kinds of feelings. I would suggest that a lot of first nations people have left and gone into urban areas trying to make better lives for themselves and thinking things would be better only to find out that their conditions are worse. We have the situation where numerous native women have gone missing throughout the country and nothing is really happening to find them. Numerous native children go missing and it is no big deal.

First Nations people are searching for a different way of life but the reality is that when people have gone through decades of not being allowed the same educational opportunities it is a struggle to get things back on track.

In the course of righting those wrongs, we have to put the supports in place that give first nation communities the opportunities to make themselves self-sufficient. That does not mean that they need a huge industry or they need to tax properties because they were self-sufficient before they were put on the reserves. Native people were not starving to death before the reserve system. People lived off the land and had homes that provided the warmth they needed.

A fellow in a community in my riding, which is not actually a first nations community, lives alone in a small log cabin. His family has moved on. I would guess that he is in his late seventies or early eighties now but he still chops the wood he needs to keep his cabin warm. However things have changed. I expect all individuals living in first nation communities have the same amenities of indoor water and sewer. If they want to have a furnace in place instead of having to go out and chop wood, that should also be there.

However we have seen very limited resources going in, so it could never be a real effort to improve overall. I want to give people an idea of what it is like in some of these communities. Their water and sewer is a tank that sits out on the lawn. In the house there might be a furnace for people to keep warm. Even though hydro is available in some cases, people cannot afford hydro because they have limited incomes. They do not have the money to pay the taxes or the hydro so they try to keep things down to a minimum by using their ovens to keep the room warm and then they do not have to worry about everything else. For the government to suggest that there are dollars there for them to pay property taxes and it will make life all better, is just not real.

I suggest to the government that if the Prime Minister has any credibility left he would withdraw the legislation. Those first nations that want to proceed should be given the opportunity to proceed. Quite frankly, I think there is an absolute demand that the government account for the $20 million that it has already been spent on these institutions. Twenty million dollars would go a long way in first nations communities. The government has already implemented these institutions without the consent of the first nations and without the consent of the Parliament of Canada. I think it is time the government came clean with everyone.

[Rick Laliberte, Liberal, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, the Prime Minister and the government have an obligation to create new relationships. I think this kind of fiscal relationship could be well improved.

The provisions in Bill C-23 are not adequate. It is a whole new relationship of taxation on reserve, giving tools that are similar to school divisions and municipal power to borrow money. However, it limits it to band council recognition. What about the tribes and the nations?

The tribes and nations have responsibility for huge tracks of land. As per the vision in Treaty No. 6, the riches of the land were to take care of the needs of medicine, housing and health. That is a responsibility of provincial and federal powers. That kind of context is not in Bill C-23. It is only limited to on reserve and sometimes those on reserve resources are not enough to help it climb out of economic and social hardships. It should be revisited in a bigger and better picture.

In large part, it may not be a partisan thing. I think it is the relationship with the Crown. That is why we focus it on treaties. It should be based on the treaties and their obligations under section 35 of the Constitution.

[Rick Laliberte, Liberal, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have another opportunity to speak to Bill C-23, but more importantly I would like to speak on the subamendment that has been brought forward.

Being a partial author and seconder of the subamendment, I would like to give the House an opportunity and an understanding of why we should enter into consultation with the first nations leaders and the communities on the impacts and benefits of Bill C-23.

In large part, we would be following the leadership and the vision of our Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, just a few weeks ago, hosted the Canada aboriginal people's round table, and said:

Canada would not be Canada without the Aboriginal peoples.

What that means is that Canada entered into a treaty to create this country. The Crown ascertained these territories by a treaty negotiation, and that process is not finished. There are huge tracts of land in British Columbia and northern Canada that are under negotiation. In light of this, new relationships and opportunities have been negotiated in the interim, but on the understanding that these treaty negotiations will come to a conclusion at some point in time in the future.

However, the Prime Minister understands and recognizes that under section 35 of the Constitution there are the Indians, the first nations of this land, the Métis and the Inuit. At this round table there was full participation of that leadership right across the country. He also mentioned in his speech a premise to ensure success and he set out clear goals: health care, housing, education, business, economic development, accountability, transparency, and capacity building.

Those are very bold and clear goals. In order to succeed, he also said that there has to be a political will. The Prime Minister stated the commitment of his government. This is a new Prime Minister and a new government, with a new agenda, working on a new relationship with the aboriginal leaders. The aboriginal communities and the aboriginal leaders also have an obligation for this new commitment.

The Prime Minister went on to state:

From our vantage point, we will ensure a full seat at the table... No longer will we in Ottawa develop policies first and discuss them with you later.

That statement is probably the most profound reason why this subamendment is being debated in the House now. Bill C-23 is a new fiscal relationship. At no time in the history of Canada, when reserves were created and lands were set aside for Indians, for first nations people, was there taxation of that land. The Crown and the government never intended to put assessment of value on their lands. That was land set aside for Indians. This bill now revisits that fiscal relationship.

There was a fiduciary responsibility defined for the government's responsibility. A lot of it is fiscal responsibility but more importantly, in my studies of the treaty books and the letters of the treaty commissioners in their reports to the Crown and their officials, a fiduciary responsibility of the Crown meant to respect the sovereign nations with which these treaties were being entered into.

The aboriginal nations as nations have to be respected. There is no evidence in Bill C-23 that these nations would be represented or respected. None. It does not even refer to section 35 of the Constitution. In our Canadian Constitution those historic and treaty rights are recognized and respected. This bill does not even base its policies on section 35 of the Constitution.

Let me go back to this. I say that in January Bill C-23 was brought in. There was a throne speech and I want it recognized that in that throne speech, the House of Commons, this Parliament, said it would recognize a relationship with aboriginal people based on historic agreements. Those historic agreements are the treaties. If that happened in February, this bill came before that statement.

Also, on the round table took place in the past month of April, I say this bill should go back; it should go back in consultation with the first nation leaders of this land. They should look at what relationship it is creating, at what is happening here in relation to borrowing money, to borrowing capital.

Municipal governments and school boards know very well about these borrowing powers. They can borrow money for a new school. They can borrow money for a hospital. They can borrow money for water and sewers for new subdivisions. I dare say our government will also push the housing issue to this. If one wants to set up a whole new subdivision with new housing for development, the government will open up an opportunity for first nations to borrow from the financial institutions. These financial institutions are stated in this bill, but one thing that everyone will understand is that municipal governments and school boards they can borrow money: debentures, securities and bonds. They can go to international markets.

There are limitations in the bill: for Canadian and United States markets. Does that mean the Canadian and United States financial institutions are the lobby behind this? Why is the European financial market is not included in this? How come the Asian markets are not included in this? Some day maybe the United States economy will fall away, as it did in 1930. Maybe the European market will be the only one that is secure. Why was that not considered? Why were European and Asian markets not considered as part of this bill? Why limit this to only the Canadian and United States markets? Is it because that is where the lobby came from?

I want to raise this issue because there are a lot of issues and a lot of explaining to do to first nations. This opens up a whole new relationship, a whole new reality of ascertaining a better quality of life on reserve and also off reserve because some of these investments may well include off reserve development. However, this is very limited in the definition of what a financial institution can do and what a tax commission can do. What it is very clear is that the powers are well defined in this bill, and those powers are the powers of the band council.

The powers of the band council were never defined as clearly in the Indian Act or even in the former Bill C-7. Both were very vague on the powers of band councils and chiefs. However, this bill quickly highlights the powers of these chiefs and councils, because those powers will be delegated to the tax commission, to the finance institute and also, I guess, in large part to the tax collector, so to speak, to the financial institution one is going to borrow money from. There will be a delegation of these powers.

In large part, these powers will be creating a property taxation law. That is first and foremost. These are not independent institutions standing on their own. All of them are connected. Even for the statistical institute, it states the reason it is being contemplated is that “accurate, timely and credible” information is “a key element of sound financial planning, management and reporting”.

This all has to do with finances. I would say that statistical institutes should be for cultural knowledge, health knowledge, social knowledge, and education knowledge, so that we would be teaching kindergarten to grade 12 with a curriculum based on a statistical institution, an atlas of knowledge and a traditional land use knowledge. It should be that kind of statistical base.

No, this statistical institute is deemed designed for financial planning, financial management and financial reporting. Money talks. That is what scares me about this bill. Money is dictating the reason for Bill C-23 happening now. It is based on the premise that in regard to the socio-economic disparities of on reserve existence, those opportunities should be equal to other opportunities in other communities in Canada.

However, the municipal and school board structure of this country may not be the panacea for on reserve development. There may be other alternatives. Maybe the alternative is the borrowing powers that a province or a federal government has. Maybe those borrowing powers should be entrenched in this so that the recognition of the nations and the tribes can make the borrowing powers and the credibility to secure those amounts, whatever amount they decide to borrow.

We were told by a speaker earlier this morning that it costs five to six times more for on reserve development. A lot of these communities are isolated, fly-in communities. Hon. members who represent the north know the reality of living there regardless of being on reserve or off reserve. Let us look at the Inuit in Nunavut. Not one permanent all weather road connects that territory, and their costs are 20 times higher than the costs in downtown Ottawa. It costs 20 times more to buy a piece of two-by-four to build their homes, not because they are aboriginal but because of the geographic reality of this country.

As a country we have to address this issue, and not on the finance or the mortgaging of the future of aboriginal children. Why should aboriginal people be paid for the high cost of existence in a country for infrastructure when this country collectively should take that responsibility? This country should be fair and equitable for development in downtown Toronto and also way up in Old Crow, in Inuvik, in Black Lake, and in Ahtahkakoop, a reserve in Saskatchewan.

I want to raise another issue. When the treaty negotiations took place with Treaty No. 6, one of the provisions was a medicine chest. A lot of people say that Tommy Douglas was the father of medicare, but let us correct that. The grandfathers of medicare were the chiefs of Treaty No. 6. They saw a public policy: that the riches of the land would take care of the children of the future. When they secured their treaty by the sacred pipes, they prayed to all four directions and all four races of this country and the nations of this land.

They were not looking at only the children of the Crees, the Dene and the Lakota. They were looking at all the children of this land, and the newcomers' children as well, the children of the settlers. That medicine chest should be afforded to everybody, but in no way did Treaty No. 6 negotiate that there would be land assessment at Ahtahkakoop. At that reserve if we go back and try to push a tax revenue law, I swear that those challenges will take us to the Supreme Court.

I will warn the House that although in the bill there may be an opt-in clause, I know that the opt-in clause is a political ploy. A while back it was used on us as parliamentarians on the issue of pensions. Pensions were “opt in” for certain members, but if we take a measure now of all the members in the House who have full pensions, all of us have signed on, even the ones who resisted. They were challenged on the point that it was an opting in issue. That is what is going to happen to the first nations of this land.

They may not join in. They may resist because of their obligations by treaty or for other reasons, perhaps because of the value of the land or because of their leadership and their vision. But at some point in time, they will be dragged into Bill C-23 and the reference to Bill C-23.

The other issue I raised before was that of consultation. I say that consultation should be with first nation leaders and first nation communities of this land. Proposed section 143 states that a review and evaluation of the bill will take place in seven years. A seven year parliamentary review will come into play. Upon reviewing the bill, the Indian affairs minister will be in consultation with the tax commission, the finance management board, the finance authority, and the statistical institute. Bill C-23 does not provide for any consultation at all with first nations and their communities. So seven years from now when the bill is reviewed, that review will be just a self-analysis of the institutes it has created.

Also, some hon. members have said that substantial amendments have been made to the bill. One of the most substantial amendments brought in by the minister was the inclusion of other aboriginal organizations and aboriginal groups under the statistical institute and the records and data it would keep. Under section 35 of the Constitution, the Inuit and Métis are the only other organizations. There are first nations and then Métis and Inuit. If we are going to have statistical information about the Inuit and Métis included, then why are they not part of the consultation after seven years?

Why can we not consult with the aboriginal groups if we are going to be using this data about them? The data, as pointed out, will be used for financial planning and financial management and reporting. It will not be used for cultural preservation, curriculum development, social analysis or economic comparisons among different communities. It will be specifically for the use and benefit of the financial institutions.

The “national aboriginal institutions” that would be created by the bill “will assist first nations that choose to exercise real property taxation jurisdiction on reserve lands”. That is the bottom line. It is open only to people in first nations who want to exercise real property taxation. It means that they are the ones who will be able to borrow money. That taxation will be for the provision of services, and there will be taxation of business activities happening on reserve. It will also impose development costs happening on reserve and provide laws respecting outstanding taxes. A tax revolt is taking place in Saskatchewan with regard to outstanding taxes. Outstanding taxes are a big part of a school board or of the collectible taxes of a municipal council of a rural municipality. There is also enforcement of charges for outstanding taxes.

This will also create liens. A lien is something foreign on a reserve. Tax liens and property liens are incredible tools that are being provided. They did not exist on reserve before now. Also, there will be interest and penalties. If someone does not pay their taxes, interest and penalties will be added on.

There also will be the powers of “seizure, forfeiture and assignment of interests or rights”. Along with seizure is the sale of personal property. If someone cannot pay their taxes, powers are included in the bill that would give someone the power to seize personal property for taxes they owe.

These are all new financial relationships and new fiscal powers that do not necessarily exist on reserves right now. There is going to be disparity about the value of land on different first nations reserves from northern Quebec, southern Quebec, northern Canada, B.C., and isolated communities. There will be different classes of first nations based on the value of their land.

Today I submit my support for the subamendment and the amendment. We should not pass the bill at this third reading stage. We should be consulting with first nations leaders and communities. Bill C-23, through the standing committee or through the government, should go back for consultation to set up a fiscal relationship that is equal and fair for all on reserve development in this country. My time has come to a close, but I welcome any questions members may have.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Churchill River for a very relevant question.

Let me start my answer by saying that the unilateral nature of this newly created tax commission is made even more problematic by the many up front restrictions on first nations' property taxation as contained in Bill C-23. I do not think many people realize that first nations will not be free to spend their tax revenue as they please in accordance with the bill. In fact, they will be forced to spend their money on local infrastructure and the like, thereby lightening the burden and obligation on INAC.

Therefore, using the money to fund a land claim against Canada would be unlawful, for example. They will not be allowed to use their revenue for what they choose. They will only be allowed to use it for a very narrow prescribed list of things which take the burden off the federal government and lighten its fiduciary obligation.

If they want to build a sewage treatment, they could go ahead, sign on to Bill C-23 and fund it themselves. They can borrow the money and use as equity their tax revenue if they in fact have any, although in Shamattawa, Pukatawagan, Paungassi, and half of the reserves in God's Lake Narrows and the places that I have been to, there is no tax revenue in any event.

To answer the hon. member's question more specifically, once the tax commission is up and running, it is likely that INAC as a matter of fiscal policy will put more and more pressure on most if not all bands across Canada to develop property taxation regimes. Communities that resist will eventually see their federal contributions reduced based on tax based estimates.

In other words, as INAC is looking at its annual budget for a reserve, if there is an untapped tax base revenue possibility, INAC will simply reduce the annual funding based on what the reserve could have been making had it signed on to this program and generated those revenues in that way. In the end, most first nations will come under the federally appointed tax commission one way or the other. Once again, optionality is a myth.

Subclause 13(1) was an amendment tabled by the minister that may seem to suggest that current property tax provisions in the Indian Act will continue to be available to communities that do not jump on the tax commission band wagon. However, it is obvious that if Bill C-23 is passed into law, the only game in town will be the new provisions associated with the tax commission.

It is delusional to think that communities will be permitted to operate for any length time under the Indian Act regime in relation to property taxation. All first nations interested in taxation regimes will be obligated, we predict, to fall under this new tax commission. Again, the optionality aspect is an absolute myth.

[Rick Laliberte, Liberal, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I know that a lot of hon. members in the House have served not only in federal politics, in large part, but some have experienced provincial politics and some of us have experienced municipal local governments, and also school boards, health boards or library boards.

I raise this because I come from Saskatchewan which in large part is a have not province when we look at the transfer payments that come from the federal government. Equalization is a high priority for my province, but at present there is a huge debate on school taxes in the Province of Saskatchewan.

Farmers have huge tracts of land and it is assessed for local improvements in rural municipalities but a tax is also levied from school boards based on the assessments.

Basically, everybody knows that in the national debates of the sorry state of the agricultural community, that the family farm has been hit enormously by world trade, the price of fuel, energy and feed. There is now a tax revolt in the Province of Saskatchewan. It is based on school taxes. This is where Bill C-23 is heading.

I would like the hon. member to comment, perhaps share with the aboriginal leaders of the country, on the fact that the municipal type of tax collection on value of land may not be the perfect way of gaining social and economic certainty in the first nations. Perhaps there should be other models that should be investigated. That is why I think the amendment and subamendment would have Bill C-23 go through a consultation process with the first nation leaders and first nation communities equally.

Hon. members here who have school trustee experience will realize that certain communities are not assessed the same as other communities. In large part, a lot of our aboriginal communities are isolated. The property value of an isolated northern community is not the same as an urban reserve in southern Canada. This will create huge differences between definitions of reserves and the fiscal value of land of those reserves.

Could the hon. member speak about the issue of land taxes for local and school improvements, but also the huge disparity of the value of land all across the geographic regions of the country?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to join in the debate on the subamendment put forward by the member for Davenport. I am pleased that he moved it because he took the words right out of my mouth. This issue should be re-debated and a new round of genuine consultations should take place if we are to move forward with the so-called new fiscal relationship with first nations and aboriginal people.

The subamendment to the motion specifically speaks to full consultation with first nations leaders. I disagree with the parliamentary secretary who cited some examples. That consultation has not taken place.

The parliamentary secretary said that drafts of what the government was going to do had been sent out to all kinds of first nations leadership. Consultation, in its strictest definition, does not mean telling people what we are going to do to them. The word consultation in Webster's includes some accommodation of what we have heard. It requires an exchange. It would not meet the legal definition. To simply announce to people that this is what we are going to do to them as of April 1 or as of the new fiscal year and then ask them what they think about it would not meet the test of consultation. To be considered genuine consultation, there has to be accommodation of the other party's concerns.

My hon. colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis cited Sparrow, a recent Supreme Court ruling along those lines, that speaks about what full and reasonable consultation is. He also mentioned Delgamuukw, which was another recent precedent setting authority from the Supreme Court of Canada. I for one was very pleased to see the reference to full consultation in the subamendment from the member for Davenport.

To perhaps clarify what the chronology was in the lead up to the introduction of the bill, there seems to be some misunderstanding and I would go as far as to say some misinformation put out by the parliamentary secretary and those promoting the bill. Let us back up a bit and review the chronology. Then people can judge for themselves whether they really consider that true consultation has taken place.

The concept of enshrining these four fiscal and statistical institutions into federal legislation was first considered at the Assembly of First Nations annual assembly in Halifax in the summer of 2001. I was there as was the then leader of the New Democratic Party, the member for Halifax. The draft resolution supporting the concept was voted down at the convention. The idea was floated around and voted down at that assembly. It did not garner 60% of the vote at the time.

The small group of first nations who were in favour of the concept made various procedural threats, and I was there to witness this. They included the removal or the impeachment of the assembly chairperson. They were challenging the chair because they were disappointed that their initiative failed on the floor.

In the interests of good relations, some chiefs generously agreed to let the concept on the institutions carry on, but with a very strict proviso that consent was given subject to the explicit condition that any draft bill had to go back to the Assembly of First Nations assembly for acceptance, rejection or modification.

The idea was voted down. A small group of chiefs felt so strongly about it that other chiefs said that they would take the concept further on the condition that nothing would be put in place and no legislation would be approved until it came before the assembly again and was ratified and approved.

That is an accurate chronology of how it was introduced and how it came about at the Halifax assembly, and I was a personal eye witness to that. Sadly, there has been a marked reluctance to honour that commitment to bring the draft back to the assembly for an up or down vote.

Various procedural moves have been made since the summer of 2002 to prevent first nations from having their say on the bill. The supporters of the bill, who apparently have been financed very well by INAC to promote the bill, have embarked on a cross-country campaign to push the merits of the bill and to make it look like there is broad national support.

I am critical of that. I am critical of the fact that funding has been taken out of the core aid budget of INAC to create these four new financial institutions without the enabling legislation ever being passed. I am further critical of the fact that the employees of those four new fiscal institutions are being paid to travel the country to lobby MPs to support the bill. Talk about the cart in front of the horse in this case.

The enabling legislation was never passed to create these institutions. The Minister of Indian Affairs went ahead and created them anyway. Then he let the new staff of these institutions travel the country promoting the creation of the various institutions. It really is an insult to any kind of due process that one might expect.

Let me talk again about the level of support across the country. We have heard all kinds of statistics and figures about what percentage is in favour and what percentage is opposed. Let us be clear that the hard-core support for this bill is probably in the range of 30 first nations, virtually all from British Columbia.

I was at the Squamish assembly to which the parliamentary secretary made reference. The member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, the Bloc Québécois critic for aboriginal affairs, mon frère autochtone, as we call each other, and I went to Squamish and attended the assembly with the express request to the assembly to give us some direction. We told the chiefs assembled there to please give us some direction, yes or no, did they or did they not support Bill C-19, as it was called then, Bill C-23 as it is called now.

It came up for debate on the assembly floor. We sat in the observer section and watched a very passionate and fulsome debate. I wish we had that standard of debate in the House of Commons sometimes because there was a legitimate exchange of strongly held views. In the final analysis, for the third time the Assembly of First Nations voted down Bill C-19, which is now Bill C-23. We had our direction.

In October 2003 the Assembly of First Nations met and dealt specifically with this issue and once again rejected it on the basis as cited by my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis. I have the resolutions here. They are complex and I would be happy to table them to be entered into the record after the fact.

Basically the “whereas” clauses point out that the proposed bill is flawed and cannot be corrected by mere amendments. It is inconsistent with the previous mandates of the Assembly of First Nations resolutions 596 and 4998. These are making reference to previous years when there were efforts to revisit the fiscal relationship with the federal government. These resolutions were still in full force and effect. The bill does not recognize first nations' inherent right to self-government. If anything, it interferes with the unilateral right to self-government and imposes the will of the state on first nations in contrast, we believe, to the inherent right concept of section 35 of the Constitution. The provisions contained in the bill violate and infringe upon aboriginal and treaty rights and will worsen the status quo, in the opinion of the Assembly of First Nations. The proposed bill violates historic nation to nation, and Crown and first nation treaty relationships. Furthermore, it violates the core essence of this relationship, et cetera.

It is abundantly clear that the parliamentary secretary is either mistaken or misinformed about the level of support for this bill and the actual historical fact about how the bill was introduced, debated and rejected summarily, not once but three times, at legally constituted gatherings of the Assembly of First Nations.

Having said that, I can only speak to the subamendment in the context of this speech. Let me make it abundantly clear that there is such misinformation abounding about this bill that it is incumbent on us to send it back for further review and consultation.

There are very serious implications regarding the constitutionality of the bill. What would be the point in our moving forward with the bill if we thought it was going to be challenged and ultimately struck down on the basis of constitutionality?

One of the aspects of the bill that most offends first nations is the alleged optionality of the bill. My colleague from Churchill moved I believe it was no fewer than 72 amendments to the bill when it was Bill C-19. All but two of them were rejected by the House. There were efforts made to remedy and correct the bill by amendment at the committee stage and at third reading stage until the session ended and the bill had to be reintroduced in the new session.

The federal government, or INAC, the government side, made some amendments. One of them introduced a schedule at the back of the bill saying that those first nations who choose to avail themselves of the aspects of the bill may sign on to the schedule. The government thereby tried to imply that this was optional and it would only apply to those who signed on to the back of the bill.

The alleged optionality of these three institutions is completely misleading. In fact, they are statutory national bodies that will affect the rights and interests of all first nations in Canada whether or not they are added to the schedule. If anything, the schedule model makes things worse. It is important that we have a chance to revisit this because the schedule model perversely guarantees that these important national institutions will be perpetually controlled by the small number of first nations who are strongly in support of Bill C-23 and who sign on. It affects all first nations.

Let us not ignore the budgetary aspect of it. The financing of these institutions will come from the A-base budget of INAC. I believe it is $25 million a year to start with. This would come right from money that could have been spent meeting the basic needs of other first nations that are not signatories. Whether or not they are signatories, it is money that would have otherwise been spent, hopefully, improving the quality of life of first nations on these institutions.

Let us look at the tax commission. This federally appointed body would become the czar of all future on reserve property taxation bylaws or laws. In the future, if this bill is passed, all first nations in Canada that want to develop on reserve property taxation laws and systems will have to seek the approval of the federally appointed commissioner.

How can it be said that they are not affected by it? Even if they are not signatories to this bill, any move they make in terms of property taxation will have to be approved by the federally appointed commission. It is a myth to say that it is optional. Whether they choose to stipulate themselves to this specifically by signing the schedule or not, they are certainly affected by this new institution. All such first nations will have to submit their annual property tax budgets to the commission for approval, et cetera. There is no optionality at all. It affects the rights and interests of all first nations.

I hope we are making that clear. I hope the parliamentary secretary is listening and furthermore, that he understands. There seems to be a wilful blindness on the part of the government members to listen and to hear what they are being told not just by me, and I almost expect them to not listen to me, but they are not listening to what they are being told by the very people whose lives will be affected by this bill.

Earlier I said there are none so blind as those who will not see and none so deaf as those who will not hear. There seems to be a deliberate wilful blindness by those who are so determined to ram this bill through that they will not listen to reason, logic and compelling arguments to the contrary. They will not listen to the most compelling argument of all, that first nations people are vehemently opposed to this bill. The overwhelming majority of them are vehemently opposed to this bill.

I cannot express strongly enough how disappointed I am that in this day and age in the year 2004, the House of Commons of Canada is seized of a bill that seeks to impose our will on sovereign nations, or what we view as sovereign nations, independent nations, first nations. This is not the actions of an enlightened House of Commons in 2004. This smacks more of something of the last century and in fact, the century before that.

The most disturbing strong arm component of the amended Bill C-23 is directly linked to the financial management board. This component is found in clause 8 of the bill. Communities that do not voluntarily join the Bill C-23 schedule are not permitted to pass bylaws or laws dealing with the critical area of financial administration.

Again, how is this optional? This is the analogy we used about a driver's licence. A driver's licence is optional until a person wants to drive a car and then it is not optional any more. This bill is optional unless a community wants to pass bylaws and laws dealing with the critical area of financial administration.

Non-believer communities, those that do not sing hallelujah and sign on to this will be restricted to the narrow list of bylaw topics that are currently under section 81 of the Indian Act, which list does not include financial administration.

If a first nation wants to exercise what we believe is a sovereign right as an independent first nation in matters regarding financial administration, it has to join the club. It has to sign on. It has to put its name on the schedule. Where is the optionality in that?

Local financial administration is a matter of intimate local government. We believe it has to be customized from community to community. Communities should have the right to have that local government authority. Yet the effect of clause 8 of the amended Bill C-23 is clear: only opt in or scheduled first nations can pass financial administration laws. These scheduled first nations then become perpetually subject to the federally appointed opt in institutions. First nations that do not opt in effectively forfeit a key area of local jurisdiction, that is, their financial administration. Again, where is the optionality?

One of the fears that has been brought to our attention is we have all been critical of this new burgeoning industry of third party management where Liberal friendly accounting firms get the contracts to handle the affairs of first nations that overspend by as little as 8%. We heard examples today of the gun registry that overspent by 50,000%. Yet, if a first nation overspends its budget, if it runs into financial difficulties by 8% in the deficit, the federal government can swoop in and put it under trusteeship under what we call third party management.

One of the fears now with the establishment of this management board is that the government will assign the third party management duties to the appointed board. A federal government institution appointed by the minister will now be in control of all of those communities that are under third party management. We might as well go back to the days of the Indian agent because the minister of Indian affairs will be the ultimate Indian agent as more and more communities fall into third party management because they cannot meet the basic needs of their constituents with the paltry budgets they get. They overspend. They rob Peter to pay Paul because they are tired of saying no to everyone who comes to them with a legitimate concern for new housing or to send their children to university.

Some chiefs and council do overspend their budget by 8% and boom, down comes the heavy hammer of the government to put them under third party management. Now that third party management can and may be directed to the newly constituted management board, an instrument of the minister.

How fair is that? It is a catch-22 for first nations who will swallow their pride and join the Bill C-23 schedule in order to obtain from Canada the rare privilege of being able to pass their own financial laws.

It is an extension of the Indian Act. It is an extension of the colonialism that we find so offensive to begin with. The acquired jurisdiction will be very restricted. They will still be limited as to what financial administration laws they will be permitted to institute.

All financial administration laws will be subject to the unappealable veto of the federally appointed management board. There is no appeal process. If the federally appointed management board says that it does not think a certain type of financial administration bylaw should be introduced, there is no avenue of recourse. There would be no appeal. It is fascist.

Some of the most draconian measures of Bill C-23 are designed to prop up the credit worthiness of the authority, apparently at almost any cost.

In closing, from a legal point of view, Bill C-23 has fundamental constitutional flaws. From a policy point of view, the tax and borrow obsession of the bill is unresponsive to the fiscal and program reality of all but a handful of first nations. That is why there are only a small number of first nations who wish to avail themselves of these institutions.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I support the subamendment by my colleague from Davenport and I want to stress that the government should enter into meaningful consultations with the first nations regarding Bill C-23.

Our first hope, which was the original motion by my colleague from Churchill River, was that the bill would be sent back to committee for further consultation and re-examination on the basis that it is a conviction that consultations have been inadequate and that the bill remains as an imposed solution to a problem that would have far better been addressed by other means, such as going back to the drawing board, going back into a true sense of negotiation, of conciliation and based on sharing of resources, that the first nations own and which have been recognized by treaties that have been enshrined in the Constitution under section 35.

Our feeling is that if we were to pass the bill by using our majority and then send it to the Senate as it stands, in the context in which we find ourselves today, with a great majority of first nations totally opposed to it, we would, yes, obtain legislation, but it would be legislation enacted without consent.

In effect, the bill, if passed, will remain an imposition on first nations. History has shown that first nations are persistent and they will not cede ground regarding their inherent rights under the Constitution. They will continue to oppose the legislation, regardless of whether it is in the short term or the long term, if they truly believe there has been no meaningful consultation on the institutions under Bill C-23. They are in a position to continue in the short term, the medium term and certainly in the long term to oppose the legislation.

Have we progressed that way? Is that what we want or do we seek an avenue of consensus, of conciliation, of listening to the legitimate grievances and opposition by saying that we have heard them? That is our task as parliamentarians. We need to get together with them to frame legislation that will take into account what they seek in respect of their integrity as first peoples and with respect to their right to self-government and self-management of their own affairs. That is really what many of us on both sides of the House want.

I want to quote some of the resolutions passed by the chiefs of the Assembly of First Nations at different points. I think it states very clearly why they are opposed to Bill C-23 in its present form.

One of the resolutions states:

Whereas the Chiefs-in-Assembly have acknowledged that the First Nations-Federal bilateral relationship and formation of institutions must be based upon:

1. a pro-active implementation strategy towards a bilateral fiscal relationship; a Nation-to-Nation relationship which shall maintain and protect the collective (Treaty and Aboriginal) rights of First Nations; and the AFN resolution 5/96 and 49/98 and related recommendations of the Penner Report and Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples relating to fiscal relationships including lands and natural resource revenue sharing recommendations; and...

In another resolution passed at Kahnawake, Quebec in July 2002, the preamble starts:

Whereas First Nations have received from the Creator the Inherent Right to Self-determination, which right is recognized by International law and s. 35 of the Canadian Constitution Act, 1982; and

Whereas First Nations have condemned the consultation process leading to the First Nations Governance Act as unlawful based on the constitutional standard set by the Supreme Court of Canada in cases such as Delgumuukw and Sparrow; and

Whereas in spite of the opposition by an overwhelming majority of First Nations in Canada, the Government of Canada has proceeded with the FNGA by tabling Bill C-61 (FNGA) in Parliament on June 14, 2002, and has referred it to Committee after first reading; and

Further be it resolved that we call upon the Government of Canada to engage First Nations in a respectful bilateral process focusing on the implementation of our Rights, based on the principles of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) report and the Penner Report; and

Another resolution states:

Whereas the legal instruments such as the Royal Proclamation 1763, the historic First Nations and Crown Treaties, International Law including recent Supreme Court decisions protect and acknowledge the Inherent Rights of First Nations, and furthermore, section 35 of the Constitution Act 1982 recognizes and affirms Aboriginal and Treaty Rights; and

When I intervened this morning I pointed out that in effect it was a matter of trust and mutual understanding. This is what is at the core of it. The fact is that I have spoken with many Indian people, and I know many of them, Mohawks, Ojibwas, Algonquins and others, and they have all told me, whether they were chiefs or non-chiefs, that Bill C-23, in their eyes, is an encroachment on their inherent rights, that they have not been consulted appropriately and adequately and that they have been imposed upon by this legislation.

My colleague from Glengarry—Prescott—Russell made the point this morning that maybe, if is not 60%, we would accept 50% plus one as a majority. That is not the point. The point is that in a negotiation as between what they consider as sovereign nations and our federal government, which have signed treaties to recognize each other's right to govern themselves, just as we do here, to manage our own affairs on each side, surely then our duty is to respect that right by listening to the genuine concerns of the great majority of these people, regardless of whether it is 60% or 70%. What I hear is that the majority opinion is overwhelming against Bill C-23.

We should ask ourselves if we want a bill, which, in the eyes of the people who would be impacted by the bill, is totally flawed. Do we push it through regardless or do we want to listen, open our eyes and ears and tell the first nations that we have listened to them, that we realize they see a problem in the bill and that we will delay the bill for whatever time it takes in order to enter into meaningful consultation, as was suggested in the subamendment moved by my colleague from Davenport, to produce a bill that respects first nation opinions, rights and concerns and, as a measure of conciliation and fairness, go forward in a new spirit, as our Prime Minister has spoken about?

This is really why I support the subamendment of my colleague from Davenport. I hope the House will give it full support as well and that we will enshrine a new spirit of conciliation, fairness and mutual understanding with our first nations.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I never suggested that the number was that which the hon. member said. I only suggested that the basis for the argument in the previous speaker's comments was not applicable. The hon. member can always review what I said. He does not have to believe it. He only has to read Hansard , which presumably he will do later.

The hon. member was asking implicitly, why are we advancing with this bill given that some first nations are not supportive of it? The answer is that delays in approving this bill will be at a significant cost for those communities that are anxious to use it to advance the development of their communities. They have prepared for this; they have been working for this. It places quite a burden on them.

Given that it is elective, the hon. member is not, in my view, correct in his failure to support the legislation. But of course, he is entitled to his opinion, as I am entitled to mine. I will recognize that. Additionally, the government is honouring its commitment to first nations, which have worked long and hard to remove the barriers of development in their communities.

In addition, I want to say to the hon. member that it is not an either/or proposition because it does not preclude the government from working cooperatively with different groups of first nations in order to advance other initiatives.

I want to get back to the resolutions of the AFN in respect of the proposed first nations fiscal and statistical management act since its introduction. There has only been one resolution in which Bill C-23 has been mentioned since introduction in December 2002, and that is the vote that took place on October 8, 2003--perhaps that is the one the hon. member was referring to--at the Special Chiefs Assembly at the Squamish Nation.

He referred to the fact that it had been held in B.C., so presumably that is what he was referring to. It was an omnibus resolution meant to deal with Bills C-6, C-7 and C-19, now modified as Bill C-23.

The resolution called for the Chiefs and Special Assembly to, first, reject Bill C-6. In other words, they themselves produced a motion to reject Bill C-6, reject Bill C-7, and support Bill C-19. The three elements combined were in the same motion.The results of the vote were: 109 opposed; 65 for; two abstained; and 52 did not vote. But that had to do with rejecting two items and supporting one, in the same motion.

For the hon. member to state that all this is somehow equated with Bill C-19, now Bill C-23, is not totally factual. Neither he nor I can speculate as to the exact quantity of votes that there were for each item that we have here.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to speak in support of Bill C-23, the first nations fiscal and statistical management act, and against the motion that was introduced by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

Before going any further, I would like to say that I was listening to the speech by the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis a few minutes ago and I enjoyed the considerable eloquence for which he is so well known. I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate him and thank him for his years of service to the public, his riding and of course all Canadians, here in the House of Commons.

I remember when this man—who today is the member for Lac-Saint-Louis—ran in a byelection in Chambly, I believe. I had the opportunity to go to his riding to listen to him during his nomination meeting. Unfortunately for us, the hon. member was not elected, but he ran again another time and has been with us ever since.

Nonetheless, unfortunately for us—perhaps not for him since he will undoubtedly have a very nice retirement—we will no longer hear his well-chosen words in the House of Commons once the election is called.

Once again, I would like to commend the hon. member and former provincial minister for his great speeches, which we will remember for a very long time; speeches that always come to mind when we are talking about individual rights. Hats off to the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

Now that I have taken a few minutes to pay tribute to the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis, albeit inadequately since we could speak at length about his work, I will take a few minutes to discuss the substance of the bill now before the House.

Having praised the member for Lac-Saint-Louis, and rightly so, I am going to take a different point of view on this. Nonetheless, it says a lot about the greatness of the man and the respect he inspires that, even though we are not of the same opinion, we recognize today, just like every other day, the magnitude of his achievements, and of course of his commitment in general to all those he represented and will continue to represent for a little while longer here in the House of Commons.

I intend to vote in favour of the bill at third reading when it comes to a vote. We do not know when the vote will be because I understand a number of people on both sides intend to speak to the bill, some for and some against, but that is fair too.

I believe the parliamentary secretary, on countless occasions, has referred to the bill as being first nations-led. It perhaps is not with the agreement of everybody in that community but it is the genesis of it. I believe that is proof of the government's seriousness in fulfilling its commitment to first nations and aboriginal people.

Mr. Speaker, you and I will recall that in the Speech from the Throne the government restated its commitment to begin the difficult but essential work of renewing its relations with first nations. The government vowed to undertake a new and collaborative approach when working with aboriginal leaders. It pledged to rekindle the relationship based on trust and mutual respect.

The government also indicated clearly that fostering economic development in first nation communities and narrowing the gap in living standards between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people is a foremost priority, as it should be for everyone in this room. I think it is and I think it is for Canadians generally. I think every right minded Canadian wants a better life for the first citizens, their brothers and sisters of the first nations community in this country.

A number of significant steps have taken place to begin building a strong foundation for first nations economic progress. Let me give hon. members a few examples. Land claims have been negotiated. Self-government agreements have been signed. Together, first nations leaders and the federal government have taken action to support first nations entrepreneurs to attract investments and to create jobs in first nation communities.

When I was a minister of state and the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, there was a period during which almost a majority of bills before the House dealt with Canada's aboriginal communities. Some very heated debates took place.

For example, I remember that a small group of parliamentarians from the other side submitted hundreds of amendments to the bill recognizing the Nisga'a community, in British Columbia. There were such ridiculous amendments as to change semicolons to commas, or change implementation dates. There have been hundreds of such examples. The purpose of this was to force parliamentarians to vote needlessly throughout the night in the House, thus delaying the implementation of an agreement signed by the Nisga'a community in British Columbia, the provincial government of British Columbia and the Government of Canada. Naturally, we held our own and the bill was passed.

I remember the bill on governance in the Yukon. The same people across the floor delayed the process. There was a large number of initiatives sponsored by aboriginal communities, or at least supported by a large number of people from that community. Again, the parliamentary process was slowed down for a while by those who were attempting to prevent this legislation from moving forward in the House.

I recall the bill on Nunavut. Nunavut, as we are all aware, is ably represented in this House by our colleague. I recall how greatly disappointed she was when certain members over there voted against that bill concerning the community she represents in this House. That bill was another recognition of the important role played by the aboriginal communities in that part of our big beautiful country. Considerable effort had to be made to counteract these attempts to slow down certain bills by filibustering.

As for the one before us today, similar attempts have been made to hold it up. Some of those responsible are seated in the House today. They tried to hold back a bill although it had considerable aboriginal support. Some may react by saying that perhaps it did not have the required 60% support. I wonder whether the member opposite would consider that a bill he supported, which had 51% of the member of the House on side, was of no value whatsoever. Of course not.

Just because this bill does not have 60% support does not mean it does not have the value of law in this House. I do, of course, acknowledge that this 60% criterion does exist under the regulations of the council of first nations for matters on which they will hold a vote. But that does not mean that we need to claim that same percentage applies in this House.

In recent years, the first nation economy has undergone a remarkable transformation in some parts of the country. Businesses owned by first nations now operate in a number of sectors of the Canadian economy. That is quite good, and we only hope that it will increase.

Although physical factors such as improved transportation links and communications technologies have contributed to this shift, I believe that one of the differences has been a change in attitude. Over the past years, a spirit of cooperation has grown among aboriginal and non-aboriginal citizens in public and private sectors alike.

I had an opportunity on a plane coming back from Quebec City one day. A couple on the plane was dressed in somewhat traditional attire that made it obvious they were of a first nations community. I engaged in an interesting conversation about how this couple had started a computer company and was enjoying quite a level of success. I could detect only a kind of optimism that was so obvious in these nice people, whom I have had the opportunity of meeting on a few occasions since, by the way. It was so refreshing. The only thought that came to my mind at that point was that I hope their success somehow can multiply itself thousands and thousands of times throughout the country so that many others can prosper where prosperity regrettably has not been there previously.

Having said this, though, it is also true that not all first nations have benefited from the increased cooperation that exists. Despite many positive strides forward, the economic and social conditions of obviously too many aboriginal communities remain extremely unwell, and I even would say unacceptable. C.T. (Manny) Jules, one of the principal architects of the legislation, articulated the root causes of this and said:

Today, a wall surrounds First Nation economies. It is a wall built by past legislation and policies. It is a wall of mistrust and dependency that traps us in our own poverty. Each additional year of dependency is another brick in this wall. This wall has not served Canada well. It has prevented us from participating in the economy.

To the members of this House who say that the bill is being rushed through, I must say I disagree with that analysis, because the bill has been under consideration for years; therefore, it is not being rushed through. In fact, some might say that the bill has been delayed, not hurried along.

Returning to Mr. Jules' idea, if we delay this bill any further, this additional delay, added to the previous one, will only serve to perpetuate even longer the conditions that are unacceptable to everyone, both those who are in favour of this bill and those who are opposed.

There are many who believe that Bill C-23 will help to dismantle that wall to which Mr. Jules referred. Bill C-23 is vitally important legislation that will help first nations to travel further on the road to prosperity and self-sufficiency, providing a way for first nation peoples to participate more actively in the Canadian economy and foster business-friendly environments while meeting the needs of their communities.

It is important to note that Bill C-23 was developed by first nations for first nations, recognizing, of course, that not everyone is in favour of it. The four institutions at the heart of the bill are the finance authority, the tax commission, the statistical institute, and the financial management board. They provide a foundation that will enable first nations to realize economic development according to their needs, their unique needs, because of course these kinds of structures are not replicated elsewhere in the economy. They have considerable differences.

This is a foundation which will ensure that first nation communities can become full partners in the Canadian federation. The practical tools at the heart of this legislation will help first nations to more easily acquire the funds they need to engage in capital infrastructure and of course we all know that is very badly needed in many of our communities.

Bill C-23 will also lead to greater and more effective decision making, enabling first nations to capitalize on existing business relationships as well as build new ones. Today, many first nations face economic disadvantages that must be corrected.

It is often said that the financial institutions are prepared to loan people money to set up a business, as long as they do not need it. That means, of course, that the financial institutions are looking for very solvent businesses in order to minimize their risks.

And if these businesses are that solvent, they will not likely need much help from the financial institutions. If they needed it, they would not be in that position, and they would have problems getting loans.

Research indicates that the cost of doing business on first nation land can be six times higher than in the rest of Canada, perhaps not everywhere, but I suppose it depends. I am using a law of averages. If the community is located in southern Canada perhaps that ratio is somewhat lower, but it is still expensive. This is because first nations communities lack the systems and public institutions that other local governments in Canada take for granted.

I could speak for a longer period, but my time is coming to an end.

Needless to say, when someone sets up a business, if there is no infrastructure or no sewers—if there are none of the things usually found in a village but rarely found in aboriginal communities—that is a very serious disadvantage.

Of course, that is only one example. Dozens more could be found, from urban planning and all the other elements that help develop the connections that can make businesses more successful.

I shall end my comments by congratulating the person temporarily in the chair, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis, for the quality of his comments, especially in the last few minutes. Usually he sits behind me. I want to thank him for the excellent work he has done here, in the House of Commons, and I wish him many good things for the future.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to address some of the specific concerns with respect to the bill. To begin, it would appear, in terms of our analysis, that Bill C-23 is hardly different from Bill C-19, around which we had some discussion and considerable input. It was recommended that some drastic changes had to be made to that bill to make it acceptable in terms of the first nations community and what constituted good public policy.

I would also point out to the member that, as I far as I understand it, the concept of enshrining the four fiscal and statistical institutions in federal legislation was considered by the AFN at its annual assembly in Halifax in 2001. There was good discussion and debate, but it did not garner the 60% of support required by the AFN charter. We are still a long way from having the first nations community as a whole on-board with the legislation.

I will not have time to go into all the specifics, but let me reference just a few of the major concerns. This is from documents from the chiefs in Ontario, with which I think the member may be familiar. It is indicated that the most disturbing strong-arm component of the amended Bill C-23 is directly linked to the management board. As the member knows, this component is found in clause 8 of the bill.

Communities that do not voluntarily join the Bill C-23 schedule are not permitted to pass bylaws or laws dealing with the critical area of financial administration. Non-believer communities are restricted to the narrow list of bylaw topics under subsection 81(1) of the Indian Act. The list does not include financial administration. That is one point. Another is that some of the most draconian measures in Bill C-23 are designed to prop up the credit worthiness of the authority, apparently at almost any cost.

I will quote from the document that was provided to the chiefs in Ontario where it states, “There is a gross surrender of sovereignty by first nations that get caught up in the scheme. A single missed payment can trigger the takeover of local financial affairs by the management board”.

Those are a couple of the major concerns. The most fundamental constitutional problem with Bill C-23, even as it has been amended by the schedule attachment, is its broadside attack on the inherent right of all first nations to self-government.

I come back to the first point I made which is when we try to correct historical wrongs or address our failures of the past, we must do so with full cooperation and partnership of the first nations community. If there is any sense to the inherent right of self-government being bypassed, if there is any refusal to deal nation to nation with first nations, then we will have failed and only made the situation more difficult than it already is.

I truly hope that the member for Yukon, who is genuine in his pursuit of justice in this regard, listens to those in his house who have made strong appeals, and they are not just dumping all over the bill, to hold off and get it back to committee in the new Parliament. That is the message of the member for Lac-Saint-Louis. He has said that we should give it more thoughtful consideration, that we should involve the first nations in a true dialogue and come up with a financial statistical management package that is truly reflective of the needs of everyone in our country today.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

As my colleague from Winnipeg Centre has just said, it is the only right thing to do. He ought to know. As the aboriginal affairs critic for the New Democratic Party, he has been working tirelessly on this and other matters pertaining to our first nations communities.

He has consulted and spoken with first nations communities right across the country. He has sought their advice and input, and has come back to our caucus and this Parliament with a message from the vast majority of the first nations communities to say: “For goodness sake, don't rush into this bill. It is flawed. It will harm our relationship. It will set us back at the very time when we need to be coming together and dealing once and for all with a historically embarrassing situation vis-à-vis first nations communities in this, one of the wealthiest countries in the world.

Whether talking about the democratic deficit here in this place or disillusionment among Canadians with the parliamentary process, the Prime Minister has only one option. The bill should be pulled to allow for further study, not to concede defeat and say it was all wrong, but to say it has serious problems. The first nations communities have raised concerns that have to be taken into account.

That is absolutely critical. If we are going to build the kind of partnerships we need with our first nations communities, it is absolutely the kind of response that is necessary if we are going to once and for all deal with and find solutions for deep rooted, systemic economic and social inequality.

It is the kind of response that is absolutely necessary if we are going to take seriously the well documented and impartial observations by UN observers that Canada's first nations communities live in third world conditions. If we are concerned about leaving a legacy of finally addressing the deplorable living and working conditions of our first nations communities, then surely the Prime Minister will do the right thing and send the bill back to committee in the new Parliament.

Why would we rush the bill through the House in the few days left before we rise for a break or before this Parliament adjourns because of an election call? Why do we want to saddle the new Parliament with less than perfect legislation? Why would we want to hand to the new Parliament a breakdown in relationships between Parliament and first nations communities? Why would we not hold this in abeyance, do further studies, build something that would reflect those concerns and take into account the needs of all those involved in this important partnership?

The member for Lac-Saint-Louis, my colleague from Winnipeg Centre and others have documented clearly just how much opposition this is from first nations communities to the bill. It is clear that Bill C-23 is vehemently opposed by the overwhelming majority of the more than 600 first nations communities in Canada. Is that not enough to make the government have second thoughts? Why proceed if more than 50% of those involved have deep concerns about the actual legislation?

The governing organization of our first nations communities, the Assembly of First Nations, has called for the bill to be withdrawn in favour of legislation that would apply only to those specific first nations that want to participate in the institutions. The AFN has said that the bill needs clear and concise non-derogation, which would guarantee that it would not affect aboriginal and treaty rights. The bill needs much more clear provision around the ability of a first nation to opt in or out of the legislation.

Members in this place know how tenuous the relationship is between government and first nations communities. We know how first nations communities bear a tremendous sense of betrayal by governments through the ages. We have an opportunity today to change that. We have an opportunity to make a difference by listening to their voices. We have an opportunity to do it better. Let us listen to the concerns of first nations communities.

I could go on at length about problems with the bill and about what each first nations community has said with respect to different aspects of the bill, but that job has been done by my colleague from Winnipeg Centre, the member for Lac-Saint-Louis and others.

In the few minutes I have left, I want to simply repeat a plea that has been heard in this chamber often. There is no mileage in terms of forcing Bill C-23 through. Changing the whole question of first nations fiscal and statistical management will only work if there is cooperation. Cooperation is built through partnership and by listening to one another's voices. We do that by respecting the right of first nations to self-government. We do that by addressing and working with first nations communities on a nation to nation basis.

Something that is top down, handed to first nations communities is a complete violation of that partnership. It is a complete denial of the nation to nation relationship. Pushing through this bill at this time will do more harm than good. It will set us back further in terms of the work that has to be done.

Let me just conclude by saying that I and all my colleagues in the New Democratic Party and a growing number of members of Parliament on the Liberal's side believe that Bill C-23 is a flawed and misguided piece of legislation. It places too much discretionary power in the hands of the minister and it denies the need to develop a relationship of consulting and listening to first nations communities.

The government should not be trying to railroad this bill through in the last few days before the end of this Parliament and before an imminent election call. It only makes sense that we hold it, that we send it back to members of Parliament on the new aboriginal affairs committee of the House once a new Parliament has been reconvened and once some time has been allowed to lapse between the introduction of this bill and concerns about it. It is only fair to regroup again and this time take into account fully the needs and concerns of our first nations.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-23 and honoured to follow the comments by the member for Lac-Saint-Louis who has put on record an impassioned, compassionate, and cogent argument for why this piece of legislation ought to be reviewed further.

I want to add my congratulations and thanks to the member for Lac-Saint-Louis for his years of service in this place. He leaves a legacy to be followed by all of us and I wish him well in his future pursuits.

The member for Lac-Saint-Louis gave us a strong and clearly articulated argument about pausing, taking a moment to reflect, and giving further consideration to the bill before us. That is very wise advice in the case of this particular legislation which deals directly with our relations to first nations communities.

I sense from the comments across the way that there are a good number of Liberals who are uneasy about Bill C-23. I would hope that the views of members from the Liberal backbenches are taken into serious consideration before the government makes the final decision to advance this bill through all of its stages.

It seems to me that this is a perfect example of how we deal with the democratic deficit in this place. If the Prime Minister is serious about giving more power to backbenchers and increasing the role of parliamentarians, and about ensuring that decisions are made in this place based on the best advice possible that takes into account external factors,--in this case, relations with our first nations communities--then we have all of the ingredients that we need today for the Prime Minister to say that he agrees that we should pull back on this piece of legislation.

My question to the Prime Minister is, is he listening to his backbenchers or does he have a three line whip on this bill? Is it a three line whip or a two line whip? How is the Prime Minister responding to concerns on Liberal benches about this piece of legislation? If he were true to his words about addressing the democratic deficit, we should see a response shortly vis-à-vis this bill and a decision to pull it off the agenda and send it back to committee.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the least we can say about the bill is that from its very inception it has been subject to constant controversy as well as a consistent and profound opposition by the majority of first nations. This is why I strongly endorse the substance of the motion proposed by my colleague from Churchill River to refer Bill C-23 back to committee for re-examination and new hearings. I realize that you have ruled, Mr. Speaker, that the motion as it is framed is not receivable. You have also opened the way for some other procedure to be adopted that would come to the same result, in other words, to refer the bill to committee for new hearings and consultation.

It is clear to me that the systematic opposition that the bill has faced on the part of a large majority of first nations has been compounded by what first nations rightfully contend as inadequate consultation.

I listened to the debate on the bill. I am happy to recognize the broadmindedness of my colleague from the Yukon who backed the bill, naturally as he is the parliamentary secretary. At the same time he expressed a degree of fairness and openness and is ready to listen to arguments on both sides. This is why my colleague from Churchill River and I are speaking from a different viewpoint.

Perhaps we could find it in ourselves to express this feeling of openness and conciliation, that we should listen and hear the voices in opposition that have been expressed on the bill and send it back to the committee for review and re-examination. Nothing would be lost in doing what is proper, right and fair.

The Supreme Court of Canada in such leading cases as Sparrow and Delgamuukw has been clear that the first nations are entitled to full and reasonable consultation when there is a proposed measure likely to affect their rights. Certainly this measure is there to affect their rights. In special cases first nations' consent may be required and if the consultation record is insufficient, the legislative measure may be deemed invalid. This is what the Assembly of First Nations in several resolutions and many first nations acting on their own have contended right from the start.

I am convinced that if the bill is passed into law, it will surely be challenged in the courts. There is a strong likelihood that the statute would be held unconstitutional because of the failure to follow the consultation standard laid down by the Supreme Court of Canada in numerous landmark decisions.

Recent initiatives by the Prime Minister and our government have given fresh hope that a new climate of mutual trust and understanding may be pointing itself on the horizon as between government and our first nations.

Sadly, Bill C-23 conflicts with this new spirit of hope and of a true dialogue and understanding with our first nations. It stands out as an important irritant in a context of what was just yesterday and the day before renewed hope by our first nations spirited by the recent, and I would say courageous, statements and initiatives by our Prime Minister.

When the bill was briefly before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources in 2003, the committee heard from Mr. Fred Lazar, an economist with the Schulich School of Business at York University in Toronto. Dr. Lazar said that he was “adamantly opposed to Bill C-19”, which is now Bill C-23. He said:

So we have taxation, devolution, and control, which is the essence of this proposed bill, all wrapped up in the federal government's limited and historically and legally incorrect view of aboriginal self-government.

Dr. Lazar pointed out that if first nations received their fair share of revenues from resources, the situation would greatly improve.

For several years I have been acting as a volunteer, as a friend, and for two years as a special representative of an Algonquin band not far from here. In 1991, 13 years ago, the band signed a trilateral agreement with the federal government and the Quebec government about the integrated management of the resources on the band's land.

The trilateral agreement happened because suddenly, one day, forestry companies, acting on a management mandate from the Quebec government, started to cut trees on a vast scale on the band's land, which its people have occupied for thousands of years. They rebelled. They blocked the roads and forced the advent of the trilateral agreement, expressing the view that under the Brundtland report, sustainable development was endorsed by all our governments.

The trilateral agreement is viewed by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, by the United Nations itself, as a landmark agreement of its kind. It has been 13 years since its inception and we are still arguing whether or not resources should be shared. We are still arguing about where this first nation will find the resources through grants and subsidies to repair its schools, to build adequate housing, which it badly needs, to find revenues with respect, without having to beg from any governments to have what we take for granted in our lives: that every person has a right to a decent living, to quality of life, to education and to proper health care.

Where do they find these resources? If they are on their own territories, they are not allowed a share of these resources, which they own and which treaties recognize as their own. This is really what the bill is about.

Dr. Lazar rightly said:

The first nations view of the verbal commitments made by both sides was that the lands were to be shared so that both groups could live and prosper together.

This implies at a minimum that the first nations should have received at least half of the revenues and wealth generated by the land and the resources on or below the land. They have not even asked for 50%; they have asked for a share. In the case of the people I know well, the Algonquins of Barriere Lake, they would be satisfied with any share of the revenues on their land. They would be satisfied with control of some of their resources so that people would not abuse them, both ecologically and in regard to their long term sustainability.

Dr. Lazar asked whether the bill would provide first nations with the access to capital markets that is available to other governments.

The federal government sees securitization of tax and other long term revenues as a means for the first nations to build up their infrastructure on reserves. Undoubtedly, there is a need for significant investments to upgrade the infrastructure on reserves, but the onus remains on the federal government to fully underwrite these costs. What we ask is not for the federal government to give grants forever, but to give to the people a share of their own resources which belong to them by treaty.

The proposed bill highlights the potential for control over almost all financial affairs on reserves. It appears to be the Trojan horse, enabling the eventual takeover of all spending decisions on reserves by the independent institutions to be created by the bill.

I would like to quote one of the chiefs. Chief Stewart Phillip is president of the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs. He told the committee that 60 first nations who belong to that organization are opposed to the bill. He is the chief of the Penticton Indian Band which is a member community of the Okanagan nation.

The Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs is the oldest political organization in B.C. Chief Phillip told the committee that Bill C-23 fails to meet the conditions set out in various AFN resolutions--and which have been successively carried out--saying the bill is flawed. I have a set of these resolutions passed over a whole year, time after time in Ottawa, in B.C., and in various parts of the country, repeating again and again that the bill is flawed, that it has not been subjected to adequate consultation and that it should be re-examined or it should fail.

Indeed, a special AFN assembly was convened in Ottawa in November of 2002, two years ago now, for the chiefs in the assembly to make a decision on the first nations financial and statistical management act. It rejected Bill C-23 in its entirety. I will again quote Chief Phillip, who said:

As for the contents of Bill C-19, it is our submission that legislation, especially national legislation, is not necessary for these four institutions to function.

The Indian Taxation Advisory Board and the other boards are already in existence and operating, as far as we know.

I strongly believe that Chief Phillip and his organization express the views of a substantial majority of first nations and that his recommendation is reflected in the very justified motion of my colleague from Churchill River. I hope that somehow I will find a way to implement the substance of his motion.

Let me now review certain of the modifications of the bills which proponents tout as justifying support for it. The new schedule of the bill conveys the impression that three of the institutions in the bill, all but the statistical institute in part 5, are optional and therefore do not prejudice the first nations that choose not to join.

In addition to the deceptive information that the bill has the support of first nations, the so-called opting in feature is touted as another important measure favouring the bill. The implicit message is that even if most first nations do not like it, they should not interfere with the opportunities of those who choose to opt in.

This is clearly misleading.

First, the so-called opting in provision introduced by the schedule amendment does not apply in the case of the statistical institute under part 5. This part is imposed on all first nations or bands in Canada whether or not they are added to the schedule. This is clearly unfair to the overwhelming majority of first nations who oppose the bill. It should be noted that under clause 105 of the bill the federally appointed institute can indefinitely collect and use the most sensitive data about all bands in Canada without their consent.

What about the other three institutions: the tax commission, the management board, and the financial authority? Again the alleged opting in regarding these three institutions is very misleading. In fact, these statutory national bodies will affect the rights and interests of all first nations in Canada whether or not they are added to the schedule. Indeed, these important national institutions will be controlled for the long term, and in fact forever, by a small number of first nations strongly in support of Bill C-23 and aligned with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

The tax commission, which is a federally appointed body, will become the overseer of all future on reserve property taxation bylaws or laws. If the bill is passed, all first nations in Canada that want to develop on reserve property taxation laws and systems will have to seek the approval of this federally appointed commission. All such first nations will have to submit their annual property tax budgets to the commission for approval under clause 9. Surely this affects the rights and interests of all first nations, which belies the argument about the opting in feature.

Clause 13.1, an amendment to Bill C-23 tabled by the minister, may seem to suggest that current property tax provisions in the Indian Act--namely, sections 83 and 84--will continue to be available to communities that do not enlist in the tax commission. However, I question whether, if Bill C-23 is passed into law, two parallel systems will be maintained into the long term.

It is very improbable to think that communities will be permitted to operate for any length of time under the Indian Act regime whilst a new tax commission operates the new, chosen instrument adopted by the federal government.

Perhaps the provision which most significantly disturbs those first nations that oppose Bill C-23 is that of the management board. According to clause 8 of the bill, communities that do not join Bill C-23 are not permitted to pass bylaws or laws dealing with the critical area of financial administration.

Thus, non-opting in communities are restricted to the narrow list of bylaw topics under section 81(1) of the Indian Act, which list does not include financial administration, the very core of local government. In other words, first nations that do not opt in effectively forfeit a key area of local jurisdiction: financial administration.

I referred earlier to the constitutional aspects of the bill which are likely to lead to legal challenges. No doubt the most fundamental problem in this connection is its conflict with the inherent right of first nations to self-government as protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982. Surely the powers granted to the tax commission and to the management board under Bill C-23 are a direct interference with an inherent right of self-government protected by the Constitution and cherished by all first nations as a centrepiece of their fundamental rights as our first citizens.

Supporters of the bill will argue that the recent introduction of a non-derogation clause relating to section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982 will fully protect all constitutional rights of first nations. However, there still remains the serious risk that the bill might still infringe the fiduciary duty of Canada to appropriately consult under section 35, which the majority of first nations contends has not taken place, as well as the protection against discrimination under section 15 of the charter, and, most important, the inherent right of self-government of all first nations protected under the Constitution.

I consider that the motion by my colleague from Churchill River--or a substitute for it that he is now negotiating with the Table--is fair and makes eminent sense in the circumstances. It seeks to replace controversy and consistent opposition with consultation, fairness and conciliation. I would like to support its substance most convincingly.

In the time that I am allowed I would like to appeal to all sides of the House for fairness and for conciliation. Surely all these first nations that oppose Bill C-23--and there are hundreds of them reflected in those resolutions that I have read, a great majority of them--represent a voice that cannot be ignored. Surely they have a right to express their position, and surely also they must feel in their heart that something is wrong with the bill.

Who are we here to decide for them as to measures that they themselves do not accept or agree with? Who are we here to say that we know best what is good for them when they tell us that it is not good enough for them? Who are we here to dictate and legislate when such a position is there?

I strongly recommend that we support very actively the substance of the motion of my colleague from Churchill River and send this bill back to committee. We must take time to produce a better bill, one that is acceptable to the people most concerned, the first nations of Canada.

[Rick Laliberte, Liberal, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I cannot answer the question about where the financial obligations are. Maybe it is in the estimates. Perhaps people in the department could answer that question.

The member is right. There is an existing commission. Advisory boards have been created over the years. The preamble of the legislation recognizes that these boards have already been created.

In 1995 the First Nations Finance Authority was created. In 1999 the first nations and the government recognized the benefits of establishing statutory institutes and the fiscal statistical management system. The Indian Taxation Advisory Board was created in 1988.

There is a grandfathering clause in Bill C-23 as well. The existing organizations and institutes will retain their commissioners, boards of directors and employees until the renewal process takes place.

With regard to the opt-in situation, the bill provides for a seven year review. After royal assent and after consultation, not with first nations members or leaders, but after consultation with the tax commission, the management board, the finance authority, and the statistical institute, the minister will make amendments, including any changes the minister recommends relating to the evolution of this mandate and the operation of the institutions.

That is why Bill C-23 should be sent back to committee. Amendments should be made so that after seven years, the minister, when making changes, should not only consult with the financial institutions created by the bill but also with first nations and first nations leaders.

I would ask the government, under the fiduciary responsibility of the Crown, to please respect the tribes and first nations under royal proclamation that have been identified. There are nations in this country that need that respect.

[Rick Laliberte, Liberal, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in large part, the other reason I recommended that this be considered for consultation was that last year, Bill C-6, Bill C-19 and Bill C-7 were considered as a suite of bills in the standing committee that went through public consultation. However, the focus of that consultation was Bill C-7, the governance bill. Bill C-19, now Bill C-23 moved in the shadow of the consultation of Bill C-7. A lot of the consultation took place in Parliament.

Bill C-19 was not taken to community consultation. In the Bill C-7 hearings, some people wanted to talk about Bill C-23, or Bill C-19 as it was, but were not allowed to because the mandate of the standing committee in the community hearings was limited to Bill C-7 only. If we are so proud of this bill and it stands the test of community consultation and first nations leadership consideration, it is time to take it to the communities. Let us make sure that everybody thoroughly understands that this search of fiscal relationship deals with a domestic market. There is an opportunity for borrowing members, and there is a definition of borrowing members among the first nations band councils.

There are also definitions of taxpayers. I find them very amusing because there are different categories of taxpayers. There are commercial taxpayers, residential taxpayers and utility taxpayers. I do not know of any other act, federally or provincially, where these different definitions and categories of taxpayers exist.

There is also an issue of a different type of first nation, a first nation member. First nations members are the Indians of Canada, as defined in the Indian Act. However, there is this other category of first nation member and that is a member who agrees with taxation of land. A first nation member who agrees with taxation can sit on the tax commission and on the fiscal institution.

It defines different types of first nations as well. If we are going to define different types of first nations and different types of taxpayers, why can we not define the different nations and tribes of Canada and allow these first nations, as orders of government, to be part of the security of a first nation? Lets say a first nation member wants to borrow money, say a Cree community in northern Saskatchewan in my riding. However, because of fiscal relationships, member does not pay taxes and cannot pay the debt. Why can the Cree nation, or the Prairie Cree or the Woodland Cree not come in and help the member, instead of the third party management or the co-management provisions in the bill?

That co-management and third party management is delegated to the different institutions: the financial management board, the tax commission, and the finance authority. These authorities will be created because of the risk management when dealing with market realities of borrowing money. Why can we not recognize the nations, the tribal councils that have been created across the country, in the bill as having a significant role in this new fiscal relationship?

Also, I cannot miss the opportunity to say that this is a bold vision by our Prime Minister, who wants to have a relationship with the first nations of this land. Allow that relationship to exist first before we define these in stone, in legislation. Once a first nation opts in, it will be difficult to opt out of the fiscal institution. It will be hard for first nations to redefine themselves as a non-borrowing member because the consensus of the borrowing members will be required before they do that.

There are many strong measures that need to be carefully looked at. Proper consultation and understanding by the first nations and their leaders needs to take place. The government should recognize true aboriginal governance first as nations and tribes. Then this legislation will provide them with security for the future. It is the wrong sequence of events.

[Rick Laliberte, Liberal, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker,

It is an honour to speak again on behalf of the many first nations and the aboriginal people who have created this beautiful country that we call Canada through a treaty relationship. This bill would impact on their lives, the development of their communities, the assessment of their lands and the risk management that would take place within the borrowing limitations that are being afforded through the new fiscal relationship in Bill C-23.

I have studied the bill extensively to figure out where it is coming from and why. In large part, the government's explanation is that this is for socio-economic development of the first nations' members on the band list who come under the Indian Act definition of who is an Indian and first nation member. I tried to get to the bottom line of what the department was thinking.

I went through a document from the estimates of Indians affairs from 2003. It says that without a new fiscal model, increasing budgetary needs by first nations may erode public support, including public support for self-government.

That one little sentence says a lot. It means that Indian affairs understands that the first nations of this country are an exploding population. In recent history our young people in these communities on reserves and off reserves have never grown to this number before.

We have communities of about 5,000, 6,000, 10,000 or 15,000 people living on a reserve. Pressure builds on the band councils to develop and finance the housing needs and the social and economic needs of these communities.

That sentence means that Indian affairs recognizes that there will be increased budgetary needs. However, Indian affairs and our government seem to be more concerned about public political opinion on this greater need. The government is trying to give a new fiscal relationship to the band councils to alleviate this budgetary pressure that is building.

There is more need for housing, water and sewer. More health clinics, schools and more classrooms are required. The population is growing. The population in Canada is growing and it is growing not only on first nations reserves but off the reserves as well.

I want to raise another concern I have with Bill C-23 and put it on the record. My concern comes from the royal commission. Within the past 10 years the United Nations designated this an international decade to deal with the issues of indigenous people. Within those 10 years, Canada instituted the royal commission on aboriginal peoples, which made the following recommendation concerning section 35 of the Constitution Act, “the Canadian Constitution in section 35 identifies the first nations, the Indians, the Métis and the Inuit. Section 35 provides the basis for an aboriginal order of government that co-exists with the framework of Canada, along with federal and provincial orders of government”.

We have the federal and provincial orders of government. The Constitution gives Parliament all the powers. Through the evolution of this country, the federal government has given its powers to create provincial governments. In turn, the provincial governments turn around and give its powers to the municipal governments.

In our history, Parliament created an Indian Act which identified 630 to 650 band councils across the country. Bill C-23 would give the first nations, as defined under this bill, the band councils the same powers as a municipal government. They would have borrowing powers and the power to tax real property, assess land and assess buildings, so they can be used for taxation and local revenue making.

However the royal commission recommended that the Government of Canada recognize an aboriginal order of government equal within the framework of Canada and within the realm of federal and provincial governments.

I bring back to the House a history of this country. There was an intention of a treaty called a two-row wampum. A two-row wampum treaty signified that the newcomers, which was the British parliamentary system, the British North American Act, Britain, France, all the Europeans who were looking for colonies, the Spanish, Portuguese and the Dutch, who were a big part of the agreement, would have their own vessel for their laws, their languages and their religion. In these treaties the original peoples and their nations would have their governments, their languages, their religions, and that the two vessels would journey together in this river of life.

That statement from the royal commission challenged Canada to recognize an aboriginal order of government. I offer to the House today that the aboriginal orders of government be recognized first as nations, as tribes and as communities, what the Indian Act defines as bands, those camps and communities that engage with treaty, the Indian Act does not recognize the nations and tribes.

For the record of the House, I will read the official names of the nations and tribes of this country, which I have researched, and maybe people will recognize these names. They are: the Beothuk, the Mi'kmaw, the Maliseet, the Naskapi, the Montagnais, the Innu, the Huron, the Petun, the Neutral, the Algonquin, the Odawa, the Cayuga, the Tuscarora, the Seneca, the Onondaga, the Oneida, the Mohawk, the Ojibwa, the Plains Cree, the Woodland Cree, the Swampy Cree, the Assiniboine, the Saulteaux, the Blackfoot, the Dene, the Gwich'in, the Tahltan, the Hare, the Sarcee, the Tlicho, the Slavey, the Carrier, the Chippewyan, the Tutchone, the Beaver, the Sioux, the Dakota, the Nakota, the Lakota, the Kutenai, the Okanagan, the Shuswap, the Comox, the Lillooet, the Nuu-chah-nulth, the Kwakiutl, the Nuxalk, the Heiltsuk, the Haisla, the Wakashan, the Haida, the Tsimshian, the Nisga'a, the Salish, the Sechelt, the Squamish, the Halkomelem and the Tlingit.

Canada will be making a grave mistake if it does not organize, recognize and respect these nations. I have studied the treaty creation of this country through the books and the history of the people.

I have studied how that relationship of the co-existence that symbolized and was reflected in treaty. The Crown made an obligation called a fiduciary responsibility. It was not only a fiscal relationship. The fiduciary responsibility was that the Crown would respect the original sovereignty of the nations. I do not think we should go head strong into creating a municipal type of borrowing and fiscal relationship with the band councils, which fall under the Indian Act under the Indian agent, acting like a warden.

The Indians have been treated like wards of the state, which is how they entered into residential schools. How could the government take five year old children away from their families and place them in institutions to teach them French and English, and Roman Catholic and Protestant religions? These children were forced out of their communities by a government that considered them to be wards of the state.

Now is the time to give aboriginals proper respect and allow them to play a significant role in the governance of this country. The royal commission also challenged the country to reconstruct the structure of the governance of Canada, not only the self-government structures of a band council, of a Métis community or an Inuit village, it challenged us to restructure the very parliamentary structure of our country. Part of that is the recommendation that an aboriginal order of government be recognized.

I have recommended through many of my speeches in the House that we look at a third House of Parliament. The House of Commons is a House. The Senate is a House. They are of the British parliamentary system where two sides argue in order to correct human nature. There is the opposition and government. There is no symbol of unity here. It is all square. It is designed because the king in England could not convene the commoners except in a cathedral, which was square. That is why this is a square room. However there is one building on Parliament Hill, called the parliamentary library, that resembles a teepee. A very sacred symbol of the medicine wheel is imbedded on the floor plan of the building. It is being renovated now and will be ready in 2006.

This is a challenge for all my brothers and sisters of all the nations and tribes of Canada to organize themselves as a council to help guide this country. There is no greater time and no greater threat to our aboriginal nations than now.

This bill has an opt-in clause which is the only significant measure that allows the government to say that this is a safe bill for first nations to consider right now. It is not. There was another opt-in clause that was thrown in for political purpose in the House. It dealt with members' pensions. There were certain people in certain parties in the House who took exception to the pension plan. The government used a political ploy and made the pension an opt-in program. Certain members hung on without a pension for many years but they finally gave in. If we were to check the records of the House, a majority of the members are now under the pension plan that certain people had opposed.

This is the same political strategy that is being used in this bill. Band councils can choose not to enter into this but in 10 years or 15 years, or whatever time it takes, eventually all band councils will be squeezed to find a financial institution to borrow money from for their clinic. If they want more classrooms because of the growing population of children, they will be pointed to the fiscal relationship to borrow money to build the school.

On the issue of water and sewer, the quality of their water might diminish to a point where they will be forced, because of medical and critical reasons for the mere survival of a community, to borrow money to upgrade their water and sewer systems.

This is a dangerous precedent without the proper recognition of the original tribes and nations. That is where the security blanket of our people will be taken care of and secured. There are sacred responsibilities within the nations. Our language is an example.

I speak Cree fluently, thanks to the aboriginal nations, my ancestors, who held that language as a God given gift. The creator give us the gift of language. I carry it today in a proud and noble way. There is knowledge and wisdom locked in that language as well. It is the responsibility of a nation to take care of that language. It is not a band council. A community cannot uphold one responsibility for one language. A whole nation is required to carry the language responsibility.

There are also sacred responsibilities for land, for traditional knowledge and for intellectual property rights of medicines. Pharmaceutical companies are rampant in finding medicines from different plants, beans and minerals in this land. Some of those medicines were taken care of within the knowledge of nationhood, within the knowledge of these tribes. There is a great responsibility there.

The intention of the fiscal and statistical management bill is great and it is appreciated, but it is in the wrong sequence. Organize the proper aboriginal governments of the nations first, the nations, the tribes and band councils. There are three orders of government. We have a federal, provincial and municipal order within our parliamentary system. There are three orders as well in the aboriginal order of government: nation, tribes and band councils. The Government of Canada is making a grave mistake by only recognizing the band councils. In the bill the first nation definition is a band council identified under the Indian Act.

Study the English language dictionary. First means original, number one, the ones who were here first. Nation means nation. Nation does not mean band council. The original nations of Canada are the nations that I read off. There are 50 up to 60 nations. If we look at the documents of the government and the department, they look at the Assembly of First Nations as a lobby group that represents the chiefs and band councils of the country.

It is time, my brothers and sisters, that we gather as nations and tribes, and respect each other. Let us gather ourselves in a circle and help guide the country. Otherwise the country will lose its way. Canada is such a beautiful country.

We cannot carry our responsibilities, as the clan mothers, who are sitting here in the chamber today, have. In their history there was a gift of peace. The creator gave a gift of peace to the original people of this land. We will be making a great mistake if we do not nurture that peace in a respectful and responsible way.

I would like to introduce the following amendment: That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “that” and substituting the following:Bill C-23, an act to provide for real property taxation for first nations to create a first nations tax commission, first nations management board, first nations finance authority and first nations statistical institute and to make consequential amendments to other acts related, be not now read a third time but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources for the purpose of reconsidering the bill to ensure that full consultation with the first nations leaders and their communities on the benefits and impacts of this new fiscal relationship.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to congratulate the member for his speech. As he pointed out, it is not easy to pick up where one left off after an interruption. However, it is sometimes a matter of time.

I would like to ask him if he generally feels that the current Prime Minister, who says that he wants to establish a new, more harmonious relationship with the first nations, effectively gives the signal of a new relation by introducing Bill C-23.

We know that he met with first nations chiefs during a Canada-wide forum just a few weeks ago. At this forum, everyone seemed to show some goodwill. I was very surprised that, in the Attikamek community of Manouane—which will be in my riding after the election, which should come soon—two projects that the community really wanted and in which it had invested a lot—one on telehealth and the other on high speed Internet—were rejected, either by the Department of Industry or by the Secrétariat aux affaires autochtones, in the days following the meeting between the Prime Minister and the first nations chiefs.

I would like to know whether the member feels that, with Bill C-23, we are heading towards a renewed relationship with the first nations and a true acknowledgement of their self-government; or are we simply taking the same approach Jean Chrétien did with Bill C-7?

[Rick Laliberte, Liberal, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member to maybe enlighten the House on the parliamentary process that the bill has taken. It is now Bill C-23, but in the previous sitting of Parliament it was Bill C-19.

Bill C-19 was taken into consideration by the Standing Committee of Aboriginal Affairs. Could he maybe enlighten the House, myself and maybe Canadians and first nations who may be listening, on the extent of that review of clause by clause and on the level of witnesses? Did the standing committee travel extensively to economically diverse communities, some of which may have been economically progressive, or geographically or economically challenged, in the far north geographical regions? I just wanted to know what level of activity took place during the standing committee's study of Bill C-19.

With regard to optionality, the member used the example of a driver's licence. I would refer him to something that is more near and dear to us as members, and that is the option program for us to get into our pension funds. A certain group in a certain party opted out of the MP pension plan.

Maybe the member can explain and enlighten the House a little bit more on why all members here are now part of the pension fund. There was a point in our history when members could consider opting into this pension fund as members of Parliament. I think that is a better example of this opting in program for first nations to buy into Bill C-23.

Maybe the hon. member could enlighten us on the Bill C-19 parliamentary process and on the option program that we have experienced as members of Parliament in this House.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe I have four minutes remaining and then the customary 10 minute question and answer period. I was looking forward to finishing my thoughts on this speech.

When I left off at the end of the day, I was about to say that some of the most draconian measures of Bill C-23 are designed to prop up the credit worthiness of the authority that is created by the bill, apparently almost at any cost.

One of the things that I caution is a gross surrender of sovereignty by first nations that get attracted to and caught up by this scheme. This was the whole point in my speech. For instance, a single missed payment can trigger the takeover of the local financial affairs of this newly created management board. I refer the House to clause 84, for anyone who finds fault with that thought. Once involved in this newly created financial authority, this borrowing club, the first nation can never leave without the consent of all the other borrowing members of the authority. It is locked in.

One elected band chief and council may decide to sign on to this new financial authority, but then they can never get out without the unanimous consent of all the other signatories to the authority. They have forfeited their sovereignty or their sovereign right to set up a different system perhaps or join some other alliance with other bands that may wish to join forces to get a better bond rating or borrowing and lending rates.

This is the caution that we bring to the debate on this subject. A first nation member of this newly created authority can never obtain any long term financing secured by property tax revenue except from the authority. Therefore, they forfeit their right to look at other options.

I am not sure that those who are the boosters of this bill are even aware of these cautionary notes that we bring to the table today. These unfortunate first nations that get seduced into this deal will be cut off from access to normal commercial financing available to all other Canadians because they are now bound by this very narrow prescriptive model.

This monopolistic practice we argue will stifle competition for financing and perversely may even lend to higher lending costs. If the original idea was uniting together as a group to share liability and thus get preferable lending rates, this may have the perverse effect, the opposite effect.

I have pointed out a number of issues. It is very difficult when I am interrupted in my flow of thought to jump back into where we were. The principal constitutional inherent right problem with the bill is the sweeping authority over local first nations laws delegated by federal statute to the federally appointed tax commission and management board.

Bill C-23 stands for the offensive proposition that in the year 2004 the constitutionally protected inherent right of self-government does not include jurisdiction to pass local laws on property taxation and financial management. In fact Bill C-23 asserts that such intimate local laws can only be approved by these federally appointed institutions. It speaks to the inherent right to self-government. We either support that concept as contemplated in the Canadian Constitution Act, 1982 or we do not.

The bill tells me that the government does not embrace the concept of the inherent right to self-government. Incrementally, bit by bit, it is stripping that away even before the courts have finished ruling on the subject and even before Parliament has given true meaning and definition to section 35 of the Constitution.

This prehistoric conception of the inherent right, which has been enshrined in federal statute now, prejudices all first nations whether they are scheduled or unscheduled. This has been our point all along. This is not a bill that will affect only those first nations that choose to put their names on some schedule. The bill will impact all first nations whether they sign on or not.

The optionality of the bill is a myth. I pointed out the last time I spoke on the this that the bill is optional in the same way a driver's licence is optional. It is optional until we want to drive a car and then all of a sudden we need one.

Therefore, if any first nation applicant goes to the government and says that it wants to exercise its right to fiduciary obligations, et cetera, the government would be able to simply tell the applicant to go sign on to the new fiscal institutions because that is the avenue of recourse. The government will be able to tell the applicant not to look for money from the government but to borrow the money on the open market by signing on to the agreement.

There is no optionality at all. I challenge that argument and I challenge anyone who says that it is.

[The Deputy Speaker]

As I understand it, the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre has approximately four minutes left on Bill C-23.

Business of the House

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we shall continue with the opposition day motion.

Tomorrow we shall debate the motion to refer to committee before second reading Bill C-34, the bill introduced earlier today respecting dumping of toxic waste by ships. We shall then return to third reading of Bill C-23, the first nations fiscal legislation, Bill C-12, the child protection, and Bill C-10, the cannabis legislation.

Next week, we will continue this business where it has been left on Friday. We will add to the list a motion to refer to committee before second reading a bill to be introduced tomorrow concerning the DNA data bank.

Tuesday and Thursday shall be allotted days.

Hopefully, by the end of the week, we will begin to have some of the legislation now in committee reported back, so that we can get a good start on finishing the work we have to do before the summer adjournment.

Question No. 81

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Yesterday in the debate on Bill C-23, when I listed a number of first nations that were in support of the bill, I listed the Union of Ontario Indians which has 43 first nations.

I received a phone call from Grand Chief Commanda this morning saying this was not true, there was no such resolution supporting Bill C-23.

I want to apologize to the House. I had no intention of misleading the House. I want to set the record straight that there was no resolution as far as I have now been informed by Chief Commanda, and I apologize for any misinformation I might have provided.

First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-23 and even more pleased to speak to the amendment put forward by my hon. colleague from the Bloc, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. To be clear, I understand the debate is on the amendment at this time.

I agree with my colleague. I have long admired his particular sensitivity to this issue. I think perhaps part of that comes from his own background as a sovereignist. He can identify with the right to self-government of aboriginal people perhaps with a sensitivity that others only aspire to.

Bill C-23 is vehemently opposed by the overwhelming majority of more than 600 first nations across Canada. There are over 633 first nations who are affiliated with the Assembly of First Nations. The overwhelming majority are opposed to Bill C-23, just as they were opposed to Bill C-19.

Frankly, that is where the debate should properly stop. That should put an end to this debate because that is all we really need to know. This bill has not been developed with the cooperation and input from the 633 first nations of the Assembly of First Nations, the parliament of the first nations community. It was resoundingly rejected.

Let me begin with a bit of history. In Halifax in the summer of 2001, I was at the Assembly of First Nations gathering where the first draft resolution in support of this concept was voted down. The people were upset. A great deal of work took place at that assembly. With a fair amount of generosity, the chiefs at that assembly, even though they voted down the original resolution, agreed to allow it to carry on under the explicit condition that any draft bill had to come back to the Assembly of First Nations to be reviewed, accepted or rejected. That never happened.

In classic, unilateral, arrogant, and colonial fashion, the government, even after having heard from the legitimately elected leadership of first nations across the country, went ahead in complete opposition to the directives given, that the Assembly of First Nations would cooperate in the development of this bill if the draft was brought back to them for their review, input and cooperation. That never happened. We have to begin from that basic premise.

Let me also state another fact which is somewhat at odds with the presentation by the parliamentary secretary. The hard core support for this bill is probably in the range of 30 first nations, mostly from British Columbia. These first nations seem closely aligned both philosophically and otherwise to INAC.

Let me raise another point. It seems that those who are in favour of this bill, those who are promoting these four fiscal institutions, have unlimited money and funding to fly around the country and promote this bill, and the formation of these four institutions. I raise that as a concern right from the beginning because it seems to me, first of all, those four institutions are up and running.

We are debating here the enabling legislation to create those institutions and they exist. They have offices, staff, CEOs, high priced help and seem to have an unlimited amount of money to fly around the country and lobby me to support this bill. Many of us in the House have had personal visits from people who identify themselves through their business cards as the salaried officers of these institutions. I know the money to create them comes from the aid-based budget of INAC, money that could have and should be more properly directed toward meeting the basic needs of aboriginal people, I would think, rather than fly around the country as high priced lobbyists to convince me that I should vote for this bill. I raise that as a concern, but let us be honest about this.

The parliamentary secretary said that about 100 first nations support the bill. There are about 30 first nations that actively support the bill and another 70 first nations that have expressed some interest in availing themselves of the services that the institutions would provide at some later date, for a total of 100 first nations.

It is an exaggeration and, in fact, it is misleading and disingenuous to say that a full 100 first nations support the bill.

Bill C-23 as it stands is national legislation that negatively affects the rights and interests of all first nations across the country. Even though there are only 30-some first nations that vehemently support the bill, it adversely affects all first nations. Let me elaborate and explain somewhat because I think it warrants an explanation.

The bill is being promoted as a first nations driven piece of legislation, which is utterly misleading. If first nations driven is meant to imply that the bill is supported by most first nations across Canada, let me say again that it is vehemently opposed by most first nations across Canada.

The national fiscal and statistical institutions created by Bill C-23 affect the rights of all 600-plus first nations, even though it is supported by only a few. The institutions would be funded on an indefinite basis from the federal envelope that is allowed for all first nations. In other words, even those first nations that do not support these institutions would be inadvertently paying for them by money that would have otherwise been spent in their communities, possibly meeting basic needs. Yet these institutions are actively opposed by the majority.

At this very early point in my remarks let me say that this is not only bad public policy but it is bad law if it is overwhelmingly opposed and those who oppose it are forced to pay for it. How unfair can that be? It offends doubly, in a sense.

It is true that there are a handful of first nations, mostly in B.C., that are driving the legislation forward. However it is also true that the overwhelming majority that are opposed to the bill are opposed in both principle and text.

Quite apart from the disrespect to Parliament that this misinformation serves, the misstatement of the level of first nations support raises a constitutional issue as to the very validity of the bill. Bill C-23 affects the rights and interests of all first nations, not just those that sign on to the optional schedule.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in leading cases such as Sparrow and Delgamuukw, has been clear that first nations are entitled to full and reasonable consultation when there is proposed legislation that is likely to affect their rights. In some special cases the consent of first nations may be mandated.

Therefore, if the consultation record is insufficient, as I argue it has been given the level of opposition and the failure of the government to bring back a draft to the Assembly of First Nations for ratification or approval prior to coming to Parliament, I argue that the consultation obligation has not been met. The most basic, fundamental test put to us by the Supreme Court in terms of legislation that may affect inherent aboriginal and treaty rights has not been met in this case again. This is a pattern that we have seen since I have been here as a member of Parliament, a disturbing pattern, a deliberate pattern, a colonial imperialist pattern.

It is not overstating it to say that because of the government's unwillingness to give meaning and definition to section 35 of the Constitution, it has allowed the courts to interpret time and time again what inherent and treaty rights mean. Time and time again the government loses at the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court is now telling us that if we are going to introduce any future legislation that may affect inherent and treaty rights, consultation is required. Again, the government has chosen not to consult because consultation means more than just informing people what will be done to them. Consultation requires a meaningful exchange and accommodation of the points put forward by the other party. True consultation means bringing the issue forward, putting it on the table, getting the other person's point of view and accommodating some of the points raised, not imposing one's will on someone else. That is a basic, fundamental principle and the government has ignored it.

If passed into law, Bill C-23 will surely be challenged in the courts. There is a strong likelihood that the statute will be held unconstitutional because of the failure once again of INAC to follow the consultation standard laid down by the Supreme Court of Canada in numerous landmark decisions, numerous court rulings that actually took place during this 37th Parliament and during the 36th Parliament.

The duty to properly consult first nations is a key aspect of federal fiduciary obligation. It is protected by section 35 of the Constitution but we would never know that from the government's attitude and approach to it.

I want to raise the issue of optionality again. All the government can think of to try to allay the concerns brought forward by the majority of first nations is to say that it will make it optional; that it will only apply to those people who choose to avail themselves of it. That is a lie, or to put it another way, that is misleading. This new schedule mechanism is a parlour trick.

I made the point earlier and I will say it again. For the government to say that the bill is optional is like saying a driver's licence is optional. It is optional unless one wants to drive a car. As soon as one wants to drive a car, a licence becomes mandatory. Smaller first nations will find themselves in that trap because if they do not sign on and become one of the member nations on the schedule, they will not be allowed to set up any other type of financial bylaws within their own first nations unless they meet the approval of this new institution.

If they are not on the schedule and they want to seek outside financing for some project in their community, instead of the government meeting its fiduciary obligation to that first nation, it will simply say that if the first nation needs the development in its community it should go join the new fiscal institutions and join the pooled effort of financial activity.

Those are some of the fears put in a very simplistic way. This new schedule mechanism is a carnival trick. It is meant to deceive. It conveys the impression that three of the institutions in the bill, all but the statistical institute, are optional and therefore not prejudicial to first nations that choose not to join.

I note in passing that once on the schedule it seems that a first nation becomes subject to those institutions and getting out is in fact more difficult than getting in because once on the schedule the first nation cannot get off the schedule without the approval of all those other first nations that are on the schedule.

That may seem like a fine point but any time we have rules and conditions under which we can join something, at the same time we have to factor in rules and conditions by which we can leave. In other words, it is more difficult to leave than it is to join and we get pulled in.

The pretence of optionality fostered by the schedule amendment is not maintained in the case of the statistical institute. This part is imposed on all first nations and bands in Canada, whether or not they add their names to the schedule. There is nothing optional at all about the statistical institute. In fact, it can gather sensitive, private information on all first nations in the country, no matter whether they want that information gathered or not. There is a serious privacy issue associated with this question. This should be alarming to the overwhelming majority of first nations that are voting against the bill.

I ask all members to take note that under clause 105 the federally appointed institute can indefinitely collect and use the most sensitive data about all bands in Canada without their consent. Where is the optionality there?

The alleged optionality of these three institutions is completely misleading. In fact, they are statutory national bodies that will affect the rights and interests of all first nations in Canada, whether or not they are added to the schedule.

If anything, the schedule model, I would argue, actually makes things worse. This is because the schedule model perversely guarantees that these important national institutions will be perpetually controlled by the small number of first nations that are strongly in support and which have aligned themselves with INAC. If anything, this schedule would have a perversely negative effect on people. I do not think the minister and his INAC officials have thought this through.

The tax commission, which is really the Indian tax advisory board on steroids, is one of the institutions said to be optional. Again, nothing could be further from the truth. The tax commission is a federally appointed body and it will become the czar of all future on reserve property taxation bylaws or laws. This is what I was getting at, and I hope people will listen to this carefully.

If this law is passed, in the future all first nations in Canada that want to develop on reserve property taxation laws and systems will have to seek the approval of this federally appointed commission, whether they signed on to it or not. All such first nations will have to submit their annual property tax budgets to the commission for approval. That is in clause 9. People can check that if they do not believe me. I do not make up this stuff. There is no optionality here. This affects the rights and interests of all first nations therefore, whether they are on the schedule or not.

The unilateral nature of the tax commission is made even more problematic by the many upfront restrictions on first nations property taxations contained in Bill C-23. First nations will not be free to spend their tax revenue as they please. Instead, they will be forced to spend their money on local infrastructure and the like, and therefore lightening the burden on INAC. I get back to one of my basic problems here, which is that the bill is more about the desire of the federal government to offload its fiduciary obligations, its financial obligations.

First nations cannot just use their tax revenue for any purpose they see fit. No matter what the need and demand is in their community, they have to use it for things that the federal government approves.

Unfortunately, I cannot make all the points I would like to make because my time is running out. However, again, the impression of optionality, stoked by the tricky schedule amendment, is misleading. People saw through that right from day one. The first nations that read the bill saw that. Many of us are only just beginning to see that.

The most disturbing, strong armed component to Bill C-23 is directly linked to the management board, clause 8 of the bill. I urge people to refer to that. Communities that do not voluntarily join the bill are not permitted to pass bylaws or laws dealing with the critical area of financial administration. Even if they are not on the schedule, the management board, they are not allowed to pass comparable bylaws and financial bylaws. This is contrary to the inherent right of self-government, plain and simple.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am particularly interested in the intervention by my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. I know he has demonstrated an exceptional interest in this issue for not just this incarnation of the bill but, in fact, when the bill was called Bill C-19.

For those of us who have been involved in this bill since the very beginning, we see Bill C-23 as a fraud, an illusion, that there is no appreciable difference in tone or in content from the basic flaws that we pointed out in Bill C-19.

My hon. colleague cited a number of problems that he had with this bill and, I think in great detail, tried to share with the House what his reservations were as to what might be really motivating the government in introducing this bill.

One of the key things he pointed out, and what I would ask him to expand on, is the whole issue of optionality.

The federal government seems to mitigate the downside of the bill by saying that people should not worry, that it is only optional and that they do not have to use it if they do not want to. However we have had first nations come to our caucus and tell us that the bill is optional in the same way that a driver's licence is optional. A driver's licence is optional unless we want to drive a car and then we must have one.

Would the member agree that the same logic applies to the bill? People do not have to avail themselves of the details of the bill unless they want to institute some financial bylaws in their community, or build a sewage treatment plant and go outside for financing, or they want to actually implement their right to self-government. If they want to do any of those things, then they have to join. Would he agree with me?

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-23. Earlier, I listened carefully to the reply by the parliamentary secretary to my questions on where exactly in the bill it was clearly set out that all these parameters, all these institutions, and the framework of this legislation, were truly optional, in the following context.

If the federal government wants to slough off its fiduciary responsibilities, can it do so by the back door, using this bill? The answer is yes. Why so? I will demonstrate, if I may, and then will get back to some other essential information.

When I met the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development a few weeks ago, he assured me beyond any doubt that, with the government's amendments, the new provisions in the bill would protect those first nations that did not wish to take advantage of the new framework imposed by Bill C-23.

He told me, “It will be beyond any doubt, and departmental staff will not have the right to use the means at their disposal, even intimidation, as has sometimes been the case in past files. That will be made clear”.

Looking at the amendments introduced by the government, however, we see there is no assurance that, once Bill C-23 is passed, there will be no government directives to the effect that, for example, any first nation's application for funding, or its ability to benefit from established programs, will not be subject to a directive indicating to the recalcitrant nations, “If you want to benefit from the program, or if you want to continue to get the funding to which you were entitled in the past, you absolutely must implement the provisions of Bill C-23”. There is no assurance whatsoever.

My references just now were not to isolated cases. This is, in my opinion, the best tool to relieve the federal government of any fiduciary responsibilities. That will be easy for the federal government, once the bill is passed. I am not saying that it will not benefit certain first nations, but they are the richest ones, the ones with the possibility of levying property taxes and borrowing from financial institutions.

As for the others, I believe we must have confidence in the aboriginal leaders. These are intelligent and thoughtful people. My colleague from Churchill mentioned that 61% of the chiefs of Canada's first nations have come out against this bill. The parliamentary secretary has just told us that, even if there were only one first nation that would benefit, he would fight for it.

That is the best way to divide and conquer, to arrange it so that, among the first nations, where there is usually great agreement on the defence of the basic rights of the aboriginal peoples, in comes a bill of this sort. The first nations are divided; two classes of members of the first nations are created; and they say, “Even if it is only of benefit to a few, we will pass it, despite fierce opposition by the 61% that do not want it”.

It would have been interesting, especially yesterday during the vote at report stage, to see the Prime Minister take a different approach. He brags about wanting to establish a new relationship and harmony between the first nations and the federal government, which has been sorely lacking over the past few years with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, whose mind was made up, who wanted nothing to do with aboriginal claims, who took a hard line and disregarded the unanimous opposition to Bill C-7, for example. Relations between us and the aboriginal people have suffered incredibly as a result of the former minister's attitude to the governance bill, or Bill C-7.

The Prime Minister tells us he wants to establish a new relationship. He even held a first nations summit—quite recently, just a few days ago—where he talked about new directions and self-government and so forth. He stood up yesterday, all smiles and fervour, and gave his unconditional support to Bill C-23, completely disregarding the fact that the majority of these first nations oppose this bill.

Before leaving, he actually greeted first nations members who were sitting in the gallery and who were extremely upset about what was happening. Yesterday, they found out that the new framework for harmonious relations between Ottawa and the first nations was just a smokescreen. The current Prime Minister will do exactly as his predecessor did; he will try to impose his views on the majority of first nations.

This is no way to act. When Bill C-7 was introduced in the House, we argued strenuously against it. Even on an initial cursory examination—we looked into it more closely later on—we realized that what the government wanted to propose was as shameful as the Indian Act that has been in effect for 130 years.

We spoke out against this legislation and we fought it, because the first nations have unanimously asked us to do so on their behalf. Unfortunately, the first nations were not at the table of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources.

When we are discussing the future of the first nations and redefining relations, it seems to me that first nations officials should be at the table to be part of these discussions. In this regard, the treaties that were signed decades if not centuries ago, were not agreements reached by Europeans, by pioneers who subordinated first nations and looked condescendingly on them. These agreements were reached through a negotiation process.

The first nations never gave up any authority over their lands. They never gave away any part of their lands either. Over time, over the past 130 years, with the Indian Act, we have violated the rights of first nations, we have parked them in reserves and told them “Do not worry, we will give you something to drink and eat”. We deprived them of their resources, of their traditional activities and of their hunting and fishing grounds. We also trampled on their institutions.

What are we doing today? We are proceeding more slowly, in a more polished manner, but we are doing the same thing. The large majority of first nations keep telling us that they are not satisfied with this bill, just as they unanimously told us that they disagreed with Bill C-7. We fought on their behalf against that legislation. We won because Bill C-7 was set aside.

However, have we actually won? This government has more or less the same attitude as the previous government. In fact, this government is the continuation of its predecessor.

It might be interesting to stop imposing things on first nations. It might be interesting to negotiate as equal partners. Such was the spirit of the initial treaties. There was a wampum belt, which was a kind of symbolic but no less real contract in terms of provisions. These treaties talked about two peoples making their way in parallel, each looking after its own affairs, in harmony, sharing the land, not transferring it from the first nations to the first Europeans.

Has our attitude changed? Yes it has. As a Parliament, we feel it is our mission to keep first nations in line. We do not care about harmony. We could have kept on working on this bill until things were perfectly clear and truly optional. For example, it is out of the question for ancestral lands to be used as collateral, or one day become the property of large financial institutions instead of belonging to first nations.

We could have agreed on a way to ensure the development of all first nations in order to do something about their desperate lack of wealth.

We could have agreed to fast track self-government negotiations while at the same time moving to adopt institutions which would have been optional and used only by those first nations ready and willing to do so. First nations that were forced by the government through the back door, against their will, to accept certain parameters of Bill C-23 should have been provided avenues of redress. This could have been done. Why was it not?

How can we allow ourselves to say that, if 40% of first nations agree, we can disregard the other 60%? Those who see this as the path to harmony should realize that they do not have the right attitude.

At a recent meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources, I put a question to the deputy minister in charge of negotiations regarding the expression “inherent right of first nations to self-government”, which is to say outright self-government. I asked him what was the status of these negotiations at present and what timeframe he envisaged to reach a settlement, to make agreements. These agreements would allow first nations to benefit from development tools such as government, community-based decision-making related to their identity, their culture, and even to aboriginal institutions which were scoffed at in the past.

I asked him when he thought the negotiations on self-government would end. He could not say. He only said that a lot of resources were needed to finalize the talks. That should be a government priority. We should not put the cart before the horse. We should not create institutions that are not suited to the vast majority of first nations.

My colleague from Churchill was quite clear on that when she asked what wealth the majority of first nations will be able to apply the provisions of the bill to or to benefit from. There is a high level of poverty in the majority of first nations communities. Basic needs are not even being met.

With respect to housing, for example, this year, 450 units will be built in Quebec, when it is 8,700 that are needed. Most of the existing housing stock has problems. There are chronic mould problems.

Where in this bill is there a possibility for these first nations to escape the poverty cycle? There are also socio-economic problems. What have we to offer for the young except a dead end? Does the bill deal with that? No.

The only possible answer is to speed up the implementation of self-government and give back to the first nations the ability to pursue their inherent right to self-government, which is entrenched in our Constitution. First nations need the tools to bring about their own development. Only after that should we consider the use of institutions that will gradually become major tools for the pursuit of that development.

What is our response to the problem of multiple substance abuse among first nations youth? What does a bill like this do about the lack of safe drinking water in many areas? Something is wrong. We are setting up ultra-modern institutions that can meet the needs of the rich, but not the real needs and circumstances of native peoples.

When we consider the situation now, two things should be done, as I said several times. First, we should provide adequate resources. And by adequate, I mean resources that are urgently needed to speed up the conclusion of self-government agreements so that we can eventually leave the first nations alone. They should become equal partners. Let us stop patronizing them and trying to impose things the overwhelming majority does not want. That is the first thing we should do.

Then, we should adopt a contingency plan. As I was saying earlier, there are urgent problems on first nations lands, serious socio-economic problems. Members of the first nations are left to their own devices.

What is happening in Lac Barrière with the unsanitary homes, is nothing new. I have seen the same thing in many aboriginal communities across the country. These people are being left to their own devices. Sometimes there is not enough money to hire a teacher, for example, to keep the school open in September.

We have to fight here, as we did in Winneway for example, for Chief Mathias. We asked for supplementary funds to prevent the school from closing in his community for lack of a teacher. There was a two month delay.

Now, chief Mathias has to deal with forestry companies that want to cut trees on his land. This Algonquin community does not get any royalties. What kind of world do we live in? We are in 2004, and we still have the old colonizing attitudes that existed a few hundred years ago.

We must accelerate self-government and introduce emergency plans to force the communities with the most problems to solve their dramatic social and economic situation.

I wish that the new Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the new Prime Minister had more consideration for first nations. I know that, with my speech, I will disappoint some of the first nations that would like to see this bill passed quickly.

However, we would have liked a renewal. As I mentioned earlier, the government could have reached out to all first nations in Quebec and in Canada and said, “Listen, we will take a few more weeks, but the outcome will be approved unanimously, or with a very wide consensus”. If this project had been proposed at the Assembly of First Nations' convention, the attitude would have been totally different.

I sensed some openness on the part of the new Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I also sensed some openness on the part of the new Prime Minister. However, in view of the facts so far, as of yesterday at least, when we voted on the report stage of this bill, my opinion has changed. The Prime Minister and all the members of the government, including the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, have missed a unique opportunity to demonstrate that perhaps now was not the right time to pass this bill, and that they should review the whole bill so as to reach a consensus.

In addition, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development could have announced—before continuing debate on this bill—that he intended to put more resources into negotiations about self-government. He did not do so. There is nothing there but words and speeches; the attitude and actions are not there; it is just not enough.

A few weeks ago, as I mentioned earlier, the deputy minister responsible for the negotiations admitted it, but not in so many words, by not providing a target date for the conclusion of the negotiations for the 80 self-government and claims tables. He sounded the alarm. Since the Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, the Erasmus-Dussault report, was published there has not been any real acceleration in these negotiations.

The Erasmus-Dussault commission, as hon. members will recall, talked about 20 years for a wide range of things to be put in place so all negotiations on self-government could be concluded and the first nations would finally be able to take charge of their own destiny and develop their communities in terms of what they are and what they want to become.

At this rate, in 50 years, nothing will have changed. In 50 years, our successors will say, “Listen, many negotiations still have to be concluded. There are still first nations living below the poverty line with unemployment rates as high as 75% in some communities; there are substance abuse problems”.

The Erasmus-Dussault commission provided a golden opportunity to change things. Ever since the report was tabled, it is as though it never existed. The attitude seems to be, “Since we have given ourselves 20 years, we can take our time”.

We cannot take our time anymore. It has now become a national emergency. We absolutely have to redefine a number of things. We have even been criticized by organizations like the United Nations. That is incredible. And we are turning a deaf ear.

With the support of my colleague, the hon. member for Sherbrooke, I would like to move the following motion in amendment:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“Bill C-23, 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, be not now read a third time because it fails to meet the needs of most first nations.”

[John Duncan, Canadian Alliance, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak once again to Bill C-23, the first nations fiscal and statistical management act, which has been before Parliament for a long time under other monikers. It was previously Bill C-19. This was a bill that was tied very closely to Bill C-7, the first nations governance act. The government tied those two together so tightly that when Bill C-7 was finally buried by the minister, Bill C-19, now C-23, wore a lot of that.

There was a great attempt by the government to try to address concerns that were brought forward in terms of making C-19, now C-23, more palatable. There were a series of amendments tabled and discussed with the opposition critics. The opposition critics, including myself, agreed that tabling could occur.

One of the difficulties that all of the opposition parties are having is that those amendments were amendments that improved the bill. However, for all of us, those amendments did not improve the bill to the point where we are willing to support the bill.

My single biggest complaint with the bill, which I discussed with the previous minister, was the fact that the statistical institute was not decoupled from the fiscal institutes. Everyone agrees that the statistical institute is not essential to the workings of the other three institutes or boards that are enabled by this legislation.

I was expecting those amendments that would decouple the statistical side to be tabled. It did not happen. What we now have is a contradiction in the legislation. I do not see how a statistical institute for first nations can operate on an optional basis. I do not really want it to either because all of this is basically duplicating what Statistics Canada already does.

We already have a report from the Auditor General from December 2002 which clearly states that the amount of paperwork that the federal government demands of first nations at the administrative level far exceeds what is realistic or reasonable. Most of that information is never used by the federal government in any case. Therefore, it seems to me we are piling a problem on top of a problem for no rational purpose.

Even the president of the first nations finance authority agreed with the statement that the statistical institute is not essential to the workings of the other three institutions.

There has never been any attempt on the part of the non-government proponents to say that this is essential or necessary, yet the government, for whatever reason, has made a conscious decision that it is going to keep this in an omnibus fashion within the bill rather than let that other institution stand or fail on its own merits. I fail to understand that. I empathize very much with the criticisms that here is an institution to collect first nations statistics, but if it is not being done on anything more than an optional basis, the statistics are going to be meaningless in any case. This seems like some kind of swamp country that we just as well might avoid. That is my single biggest criticism of the bill.

This has brought a great deal of polarization to the first nations community, and a lot of it is unnecessary. A great deal of it relates to the fact that it was tied so closely to the first nations governance act. We do have about 25% subscription within the province of British Columbia to taxation by the bands in British Columbia and they have endorsed this. However, many of the other groups certainly have not, in a very strong sense of the word.

The parliamentary secretary talked at great length about the endeavours within the House of Commons since the aboriginal summit that was held in Ottawa not too long ago. That hastily prepared $350,000 summit excluded some native leadership. It certainly excluded the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and I am sure it excluded others.

The parliamentary secretary was putting great focus on the amount of aboriginal legislation that has been in the House since that moment. I have quite a different point of view in that really there has been almost no agenda from the government in this place on any subject.

The aboriginal agenda included Westbank, which the government side ended up filibustering, and there is Bill C-23, and not much else has happened in this place. I think one of the reasons even these two bills have progressed along the path to the extent that they have is that the government does not have any other legislation on the agenda that it wishes to pursue.

We can look at this many ways, but the way the government is choosing to look at it is certainly very constructed. It is certainly not the way those of us who have been in this place for many years are viewing the current goings on in the House of Commons.

Unfortunately, some of the difficulties that are inherent in this legislation, and I have given the background, ended up being worn by the proponents of, for example, the Westbank legislation. The Westbank legislation creates the strongest individual property rights on reserve anywhere in Canada, yet it took a lot of heavy criticism. I think a lot of that criticism would have been avoidable had it not been for the baggage that was brought forward as a consequence of the first nations governance act, this bill, and other goings on with the government.

Westbank is a band with significant taxation revenues, revenues that it has been collecting since the early 1990s. It has a strong record on taxation and it has a legitimate ability to use this suite of legislation in a very constructive and productive way.

We know that the bands that are in a good financial situation or have the ability to be there quite readily are very supportive of this legislation. I think it is unfortunate that the government delivered a package that was not much more straightforward and clear right from the beginning. The major criticisms it hastily tried to address after the fact could have been addressed months earlier, but they were not. To this date, all of the criticisms have not been addressed.

I think that covers most of my points. The parliamentary secretary is busy looking through his notes. I will give him the opportunity to ask me questions or to make comments.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, it is too bad that the members from the NDP and the Bloc know so little about this bill. First, in relation to the Assembly of First Nations, if the member were listening, she would have heard that we took those concerns and placed them in the amendments. Now the bill is totally optional, and the eligible items are still in the Indian Act. I will read a passage from the website of the Assembly of First Nations. It states:

We also raised with the Minister our concerns about Bill C-23 (formerly Bill C-19), the First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Institutions Act, which was re-introduced on March 10, 2004. Our preference was that the Bill not be re-introduced until the concerns of First Nations were addressed.

The indications I received were to the effect that the government will introduce amendments to the Bill--

We have done that.

--to clarify that the legislation will be optional. Once the information is received it will be shared with First Nations as soon as it is available. We will keep First Nations informed on this and any and all developments related to Bill C-23. We also recognize that some First Nation communities are interested in participating in one or more of the institutions created under the Act.

If the proposed amendments achieve optionality, in accordance with the principles of the AFN Charter, the AFN should not stand in the way.

In relation to the number of first nations, she suggested 50 or 60. First, even if we were only helping one first nation of people, I would be pushing for this bill, just like I did for Westbank, just like I did for Tlicho. If I talk--

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Madam Speaker, drin queesy shilakat .

I am delighted to speak to Bill C-23 today. There are different views on different aspects of this legislation and there is some lack of clarity in regard to some areas. I hope to quickly get through my speech and then try to add some light to some of the issues that have been brought up, and make sure that people totally understand them and understand why we see, putting all of those issues together, that this bill would be of benefit to first nations people.

I will begin by saying that the bill was started by a group of first nations people. After working with the financial system's institutions, they approached us years ago because they felt they needed these new institutions. We have been working for a long time to bring this issue forward.

My only interest in any of the initiatives that I support here as parliamentary secretary is that of trying to help in conditions for first nations people. If I can be convinced that an initiative will do that, then I will support it. I look forward to listening to the various views on this issue.

I rise to support Bill C-23, the first nations fiscal and statistical management act. The legislation would provide first nations with access to the financing tools they need to promote investment in their communities. This investment will no doubt lead to improvements in the quality of life for residents of these communities.

I believe my hon. colleagues all agree on the clear and pressing need to bridge the economic and social gaps that exist between Canada's aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities. Nowhere are these gaps more apparent than in the lack of capital infrastructure. Many first nation communities lack adequate water and sewage treatment facilities. Other components of basic capital infrastructure, such as roads and power lines, are crumbling or non-existent.

Capital infrastructure is expensive to build and maintain. That is why most municipal and provincial governments finance their infrastructure projects with special measures such as long term bonds and securities. While these bonds may pay low rates of interest, they offer a level of certainty that investors find attractive and, as a result, they will invest in these projects.

First nation communities, however, do not have ready access to the bond markets. As a result, first nations are forced to raised money locally, usually through short term loans that can be relatively expensive. This results in each dollar generated by first nations buying less.

Due to the higher interest rates and transaction and negotiating fees, these communities pay up to 50% more than municipalities or provinces to finance their capital works projects. Consequently, infrastructure projects are either delayed or dropped. Plans for economic and social development stall, and first nations struggle to move ahead.

Bill C-23 aims to breathe new life into these communities. Simply put, this legislation would enable first nations to access capital needed to finance major infrastructure projects by allowing them to issue investment-grade securities, financial instruments similar to government bonds. The first nations that approached us of course found out after years of trying that they just could not do this under the existing financial systems in place in Canada.

The first nations finance authority will play a central role in this venture by pooling the capital requirements of participating first nation communities. By combining the assets and liabilities of all participants, the authority will be able to issue bonds with a credit rating that will attract investors. Discussions with representatives of bond raters and underwriters have indicated that there is every reason to expect that the authority will earn a single A credit rating, which would yield an attractive return for investors, with minimal risk. That is the advantage of combining first nations together in the system: investors will see that their risk is more secure. This is a commonplace activity in financial markets.

Advice on the structure and operations of the authority has been provided by the Royal Bank, the Dominion Bond Rating Services and Moody's Investors Service of New York, key players in both Canadian and international financial institutions. The Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia has operated effectively for nearly a decade, enabling numerous smaller communities in British Columbia to access debt capital at affordable rates. The Municipal Finance Authority of B.C. has offered to help the finance authority build on this success and minimize investor risk.

As an independent institution, the authority would pool the capital requirements of member first nations and then issue bonds on their behalf so that the persons holding the bond would have less risk because there would be a number of projects involved. Moneys raised would go back to the participating first nations in the form of loans. This process would be strictly controlled through a series of checks and balances.

To become a member of the finance authority, the first nation must have a property tax regime established under this bill and approved by the first nations tax commission. It must also have in place a sound and effective management system certified by the financial management board. Participating first nations must have unutilized borrowing capacity and have a capital infrastructure project approved by the band council and reviewed by the tax commission.

Of course, there is a purpose for all these checks. If we are to convince these Canadian and international investors to invest in these projects, they need to be assured that these checks have taken place, and of course it is great that they would be done by a first nation institution.

I would like to be clear. Bonds issued by the finance authority are based on property tax revenues. There are no provisions in Bill C-23 that would require first nations to use reserve lands as collateral. This is an exciting part of the bill, because anywhere else, including the banks and the financial institutions, they usually would be required to place their land forward. This system is set up very wisely by the first nations, so that it is based only on their future property taxes. They do not have to, under any circumstances, give up their land.

Further, to ensure even greater protection for investors, a minimum of 5% of the value of each bond issue will be kept in a debt reserve fund established by the finance authority. That is just another way of securing things for the investors and it would have a minimum impact on any one first nation that decided to use this mechanism to borrow funds.

In addition, the Government of Canada is committed to contribute up to $10 million to a separate credit enhancement fund, the same fund that was the subject of one of the report stage motions previously before Parliament. The combination of these funds will further support the achievement of the desired single A rating. So once again the federal government will help backstop it, the deposit will help backstop it and, in the long run, the tax regime will help backstop it so that there is no other draw on any first nations assets or land.

All of these measures address only one aspect of the problems facing first nations: that of limited access to capital. To improve the quality of life in first nation communities, aboriginal leaders must also have access to the tools they need to be able to plan effectively. This brings me to the importance of the first nations statistical institute.

Sound planning decisions are always informed by accurate, current statistics. Information on population growth, income levels and property values helps establish government plans and priorities. At present, the quality of first nations social and economic statistics is inadequate. Even such basic statistics as population counts for communities are not reliable. Currently first nations do not have access to the kinds of statistical information available to the majority of Canadians: information on housing, justice, natural resource management, culture, education, employment rates, and health.

The lack of reliable and comprehensive data on first nation communities hinders planning and access to essential economic and social tools. Without reliable comparative material, making accurate assessments of the relative health of any first nation community becomes extremely difficult. Of course these statistics will help first nations when they are applying for program funding. They will have a much better case to make with the availability of these statistics, and we would not be able to say, “no, that is not true”, because the statistics would then be available.

To address this issue, Bill C-23 would establish the first nations statistical institute. The institute would provide first nations with the statistical information needed to plan successfully. It would work directly with aboriginal organizations and government agencies to help first nations identify and meet their information needs. The institute would also play a vital role in assisting first nations to build their capacity to understand and utilize statistics. Thus, first nations would be able to improve their accountability and decision making capacity.

It is important to note the valuable contributions that the statistical institute would make to the property tax and borrowing regimes established by this bill. First nations would benefit from statistics on residents and commercial enterprises on reserve in determining whether to proceed with the implementation of a property tax regime, which of course is totally optional. No one has to get into property taxes if they do not want to. I think there are about 98 first nations to date that have chosen to have a property tax regime and another 14 or so are waiting for this bill. No one has to if they are not interested in doing so. The statistical institute will certainly help those who choose to do it.

First nations would benefit from stats on residents and commercial enterprises on reserve in determining how to proceed with this property tax system. Further statistical information is a required element in the development of the capital projects which underlie the issuing of first nations bonds by the finance authority.

By encouraging first nations to use and thus understand the value of stats, the institute will also encourage first nations to participate more fully in national statistics programs. This will help ensure that the Government of Canada has the statistical information needed to develop and implement efficient policies. In this way the statistical institute will complement the role of Statistics Canada. For me it will be very helpful in lobbying for first nations programs and the resources required if I have these more detailed statistics.

I am convinced that Bill C-23 contains the checks and balances needed to protect the investors, to convince them to invest in first nations and to ensure that first nations can develop their economies. By establishing effective statistical and fiscal institutions, Bill C-23 will lead to significant improvements in the quality of life of residents of first nations communities. I am speaking of the ones that have asked for this bill. Of course other first nations communities are working on other initiatives in other areas and lots of other work is being done by the department in those areas. By providing the community leaders with the tools they need, the legislation will draw more first nation communities into the economic mainstream and clearly all Canadians stand to benefit.

As I said at the beginning, I have tried to dialogue with people to understand some of the concerns they might have had about this and I want to speak informally to try to address some of those concerns.

First, as we know, the Prime Minister held a summit a couple of weeks ago to talk about a new way of doing business. In particular he emphasized the fact that first nations ideas were not just coming from the various parties in Ottawa, but from first nations people. That is what is very exciting about this bill.

We were approached by certain first nations people. Lots of others do not have an interest in this and it is of course totally optional. This idea has come from first nations people. When the first nations people presented the major concerns, as per the Prime Minister's relationship with them, he has taken those concerns and put them in the amendments.

There are two major concerns. First, some people suggested that they are collecting property taxes now and they do not want to change that. They want to keep the Indian Act the way it is. They do not want to be forced into the new regime and some of the elements about which I have talked today. Those provisions were left in the Indian Act. People who want to continue collecting property taxes under the Indian Act may continue to do so. It is staying the same. The new first nations that decide they want to collect property taxes can do so under the Indian Act, if they so choose. As I have said, it is totally voluntary.

The other thing we did in response to the feedback from some first nations was made it totally optional. First nations do not have to participate in this under any circumstances if they do not want. It is not a requirement. Some first nations came to a spot where certain financial institutions in the modern world economy of financing would help them. They asked us to put institutions in place that they could use and anyone who wanted to could use.

Under a new relationship, when first nations people bring something forward, and many first nations have supported this, it is hard to tell them no, we cannot give them this tool, if it is totally optional.

I want to clarify that the $10 million, which I spoke of earlier, from the Government of Canada is not a guarantee. It is a one time contribution. The government does not backstop this institution. I explained in my speech the number of items it would backstop.

This is just one of many bills we have brought forward since the summit. As the House knows, from my perspective land claims and self-government are ultimate goals. They are very successful in my area. We have tremendous efforts going on in that area to complete those as quickly as possible. There is $226 million of extra money in this year's estimates so we can keep moving ahead as quickly as we can on land claims and self-government and the ultimate goal for those first nations that want to move ahead in that manner.

The estimate is that this could take many decades to cover everyone. Some first nations have chosen to have these institutes so they can move ahead in this area. That is why the bill goes along with all the others. We have just passed the Westbank self-government and we are in the process of debating the Tlicho self-government and land claim, which of course is a high priority.

For other first nations, property taxes may be the last of their problems at the moment. They want clean water, sewers and food. They need economic development. They want to get the governing and basic needs in their community taken care of.

There are many programs in the department for those first nations. In the estimates there is an increase of $400 million for other programs to provide for those basic services. That is obviously not forgotten. It is a very big need for which I will continue to push.

There is some suggestion that there are no other options. People have to get their lands assessed if they want to get loans. Nothing could be farther from the truth. This is totally voluntary. First nations have different ways to get loans. They can go to the bank. First nations can set up their own institutions. They can do what everyone else does to get loans. They would not have to do anything under the bill because it is totally optional.

However, the first nations that have come forward have financial institutions, have property tax bases and want to move ahead in managing them themselves. They want institutions governed by first nations people. Those first nations found that they could not get the type of bonding they wanted at a certain level. Therefore, they asked the government to put this process in place. That is why we are proceeding this way today.

The last thing is this is not only for a select few. It is not just for big cities. There are many first nations in rural areas with very little assets. They would like to or are participating in tax collection. If there is any way we could improve it, we would, but we have had improvements since the 1990s in development with advisory boards. These institutions are not in place now, but there are advisory boards of first nations people to help advise on each institution.

That is why there has been so many years of work on this. In my opinion this is why it would be great if we could proceed at this time. Massi cho ;

Gunalchese

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

moved that Bill C-23, 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, be read the third time and passed.

[The Speaker]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion for concurrence at report stage of Bill C-23.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

moved that Bill C-23, 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, as amended, be concurred in.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place between all parties and there is an agreement. If you were to seek it, I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion I move:

That Motions Nos 3, 4 and 5 of Bill C-23 be deemed agreed to on division, and that the motion for concurrence at report stage be deemed put and a recorded division deemed deferred until Tuesday, May 4, 2004, at the expiry of Question Period.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we oppose most of the amendments proposed by the government because they add nothing to the issue and improve the bill not one bit.

As far as concordance of the French and English is concerned, of course we support that. For the rest, however, the amendments do not include those that the minister had promised to ensure that the provisions of Bill C-23 would not have to apply to all the first nations.

The minister, and the minister before him, have told us “Well now, if a first nation does not want to take advantage of the provisions of the new first nation fiscal and statistical management act, it will not have to”.

I admit to some doubts on this statement by both the former and present ministers of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. When we travelled the country in connection with the bill on first nations governance and specific land claims, we came to realize that DIAND employees in a number of communities acted as if they were the lord and master, and made decisions on the future of aboriginal communities that were often contrary to what the band councils had decided. We heard about a few such cases.

I have doubts about the good will of those who will have to apply this new legislation on the financial and statistical administration of the first nations.

When I spoke just now on the first group of amendments, the last point was the most urgent problems being faced by the first nations, those not dealt with in this bill, in the amendments, or in any other bills introduced so far by the government.

It seems that this government does not understand that there are a number of communities in Quebec and in Canada having to cope every day with problems that would cause us to immediately declare a state of emergency if they occurred in our communities.

The housing problem is probably the most urgent one at this time. For the benefit of those listening to us, I will take a few minutes to document the severity of this housing crisis in our first nations communities.

We are told that Indian reserves have slightly more than 93,000 housing units. There are 113,000 households for 93,000 units. Therefore, we have a 20,000 unit deficit, and 20,000 households are left without a home or are forced to share one with another household. In several first nations communities, we have seen occurrences where 12 to 15 people share two bedrooms. In certain communities, it defies imagination.

A few months ago, my colleague from Champlain and I went to Weymontachie, in my riding. This is an Attikamek community where housing needs are critical. Housing is inadequate, but that is not the only problem. All the houses in this reserve have a chronic problem of mould and mildew. They have to be torn down and rebuilt.

The situation is similar in many communities, but I am taking Weymontachie as an example because we went there a few months ago. To tear down these houses and build new ones, all they have is $35,000.

Just try to do that today: tear down a house, dispose of the rubble and build a new house for the modest sum of $35,000. It does not make sense. Just buying the materials and using the house building expertise of first nation people in this community to put up a new house would cost at least $85,000. And the house would be bought at cost. What can you do with $35,000?

These are buildings that will not stand the test of time. They are basic buildings made of materials that are often of very poor quality. Because they have to save money somewhere, the design is quite basic. The result is that a few years later the same problems resurface, because they could not get an adequate ventilation system or adequate windows to prevent mould and mildew.

It becomes a dead end. When we ask questions, departmental officials tell us that there is no budget for contingencies, there is no plan to make up for the time lost and deal with the shortage of 20,000 housing units in the short term, and there is no additional money earmarked to deal with problems such as mildew or inadequate water and sewage systems.

This is Canada, this is the 21st century and there are communities that are living like people did in the previous century. The government, which acts as a trustee for these communities, is not tackling the issues. It would rather introduce bills that are far from being unanimously supported by first nations, and it does not even think about helping them deal with glaring needs such as housing.

Earlier, I mentioned some figures that apply to Canada. The Quebec and Labrador chapter of the Assembly of First Nations also conducted a study recently. In fact, that study had to be adjusted with Statistics Canada as regards the methodology used, because there were discrepancies of up to 75% between the figures provided by Statistics Canada and those of the first nations. After consulting with Statistics Canada, it was determined that the first nations were right.

Why should this come as a surprise? Who is in a better position than a first nation member to explain what is going on among first nations? It is not Statistics Canada, here in downtown Ottawa, that is in a position to know what is going on in Weymontachie, in Winneway, in Mashteuiatsh, among the Six Nations or others across Quebec and Canada.

In Quebec and Labrador, it would take 8,700 housing units this year to meet the needs of first nations. However, only 450 units will be built this year. This does not make sense. There is no contingency plan. There is nothing. The government would rather not bother with such things. It is trying to impose legislation that is opposed by 61% of first nations communities, instead of trying to achieve a consensus and come up with a bill that will truly help first nations develop and settle issues such as the crying need for housing units.

They seem to be incapable of identifying the real needs. And yet, the first nations lobby and carry out studies. You have no idea how many studies they do, for free, to help the government. They have been doing them for decades in order to explain their situation. Despite everything, even after the Penner commission and the Erasmus-Dussault commission, the one element that would speed up implementation of measures to solve these problems has not been found.

Once again, I am disappointed, because I thought the new Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was more open and more flexible on this, and that he was not like the former minister, whose mind was made up and who was not even aware of the needs of the communities. I am astonished to see that there is no amendment to satisfy the wishes of the majority—not a minority, but a large majority—of the first nations who do not want this bill.

It is not because it would have been impossible. It would have been possible to say that since some first nations, especially in British Columbia, wanted this bill, it would apply to them, correcting the point we mentioned about the fiduciary duties of the federal government. Arrangements could have been made. But instead there was nothing—no exceptions.

We know how things work at Indian Affairs. They use intimidation. If first nations do not want to come on side then they are intimidated, funding for their schools is delayed, for example. That is what happened in Winneway last year. We should have made interventions here in this House for the Winneway budget to be completed so that this Algonquin community could hire the teacher it needed to keep its school open.

It is inconceivable. Communities cannot be run like this. That is why I was saying, during the debate on the amendments in Group No. 1, that it is vital that we move more quickly toward self-government. It is the only solution.

We will, of course, vote against this bill.

[John Duncan, Canadian Alliance, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention that I have already spoken to the Group No. 1 amendments. I am supporting all the amendments that have been tabled, those in Group No. 1 and in Group No. 2.

I would like to take this moment while we are talking about the first nations financial authority. Yesterday in my constituency a young woman was found dead in the community of Zeballos. She was a very popular 13 year old girl. The community of Zeballos is obviously in great shock. It is a very tight-knit community of about 200 people. The Ehattesaht band and the community of Zeballos are essentially one community, Zeballos being the smallest incorporated municipality in the province of British Columbia.

A lot of things have become apparent with twenty-twenty hindsight. I was in the community on December 16 with RCMP representatives from Vancouver, Victoria, Nanaimo and Port McNeill. We met with community advocates and the mayor. What has become very apparent is that the rule of law, the whole enforcement of laws and the policing presence are all very difficult questions now in some of our communities that have been hard hit, those small communities with a financial situation that is not as good as it was.

I know that everyone at home feels very bad about this. No one is pointing fingers, but on the other hand I think it is important that we in this House all recognize some sensitivity to the fact that resource allocation for these kinds of issues for those smaller communities is something that should be receiving some real priority. They are sometimes overlooked when we look at dislocations from softwood restructuring and other things. In actual fact, it may not be infrastructure that is our crucial need. It may very well be a continued presence of the traditional medical, police and other government institutions that are so very important.

I thought I would take the opportunity to talk about that and now I will also of course address Bill C-23.

In my view, the group of amendments we are discussing deals with some fairly straightforward items. Obviously there are some motions to correct errors in French. How long can we talk about that? That is very straightforward.

There is a decoupling from the first nations governance act, which now has been killed and buried by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. That was an essential move. There were some clarification amendments dealing with borrowing laws, the debt reserve fund and the credit enhancement fund. They are all quite supportable.

The last time I spoke, on the first grouping of amendments, I chose to spend some of my time dealing with the whole issue of property rights. I did that in the context of this bill, because the bill tries to take us from a situation where band level governance cannot effectively be master of its own house as long as it is operating under the Indian Act. This is one more of those measures that attempts to change all of that.

Last time, I pointed out a publication produced by the Skeena Native Development Society and called Masters In Our Own House , which makes it very clear that its analysis comes to this very same conclusion. “Economic mastery” is simply not available under the Indian Act. The society has come to some very clear conclusions, which I happen to share and which I think are essential in the development of what many would probably call civil society.

Civil society requires entrepreneurship, individual freedoms and good governance, and it requires the ability to develop long term plans that are deliverable from the status of owned revenues as opposed to dependency on the federal or other authority, whose priorities can change from month to month or year to year. We are all quite aware of that.

It has been a breath of fresh air to realize that there actually are source materials, literature and analyses that have come to these kinds of conclusions and have done some very good research background material. And it is coming from within the native community itself. I have found this material to be a very strong bit of background material that I enjoy quoting at some length.

I have talked about certificates of possession, the closest thing to fee simple on reserve lands in Canada. Even the traditional certificate of possession, which is in current wide use, is not even formulated under the Indian Act. It is left to ministerial discretion. Therefore, the certificates are changed by the changing policies of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, policies that in turn are affected by changing judicial interpretations.

These are not sufficient property rights to facilitate entrepreneurship. That is why there has been a move to go beyond that. That is what was so important about the private property precedent set within Bill C-11, the Westbank agreement, which received third reading approval in the House this week.

That is something that was anticipated but not clear at the time of the publication of this document, which was last May, 11 months ago. These are very powerful things when individual property rights can be acquired on Indian lands outside the Indian Act. There are actually five ways in which that is occurring in this country right now.

One is through these customary holdings on reserve, the COP, certificates of possession. The second is the Sechelt agreement in British Columbia, in which fee simple title was transferred for the entire reserve land base in 1986. Another is the Westbank first nation agreement, which creates the strongest individual property rights regime in Canada under a certificate of possession, completely managed by self-government as opposed to the minister. Under the Nisga'a treaty there is a very strong, small land component in that category as well. Those are the main categories that I wanted to address.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, for Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-23, in Clause 30, be amended

(a) by replacing lines 19 to 31 on page 16 with the following:

“30. (1) The Commission shall not approve a law made under paragraph 4(1)(d) for financing capital infrastructure for the provision of local services on reserve lands unless

(a) the first nation has obtained and fowarded to the Commission a certificate of the First Nations Financial Management Board under subsection 48(3); and

(b) the first nation has unutilized borrowing capacity.

(2) On approving a law made by a first nation under paragraph 4(1)(d) for financing capital infrastructure for the provision of local services on reserve lands, the Commis-”

(b) by replacing line 7 on page 17 with the following:

“under paragraph 4(1)(d) for financing capital infrastructure for the provision of local services on reserve lands, the Commission”

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-23, in Clause 31, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 32 on page 17 with the following:

“parties ou des articles 138 ou 138.1 ou qu'un”

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-23, in Clause 34, be amended

(a) by replacing line 38 on page 19 with the following:

“for in those regulations;”

(b) by replacing line 2 on page 20 with the following:

“plaint; and

(d) delegate any of the powers of the Commission under section 29 or 31 to one or more commissioners.”

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-23, in Clause 83, be amended by adding after line 8 on page 39 the following:

“(4) The capital of the credit enhancement fund may be used

(a) to temporarily offset any shortfalls in the debt reserve fund; and

(b) for any other purpose prescribed by regulation.”

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-23, in Clause 87, be amended by replacing line 7 on page 41 with the following:

“graphs 83(3)(c) and (4)(b) and 85(2)(f);”

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-23, in Clause 103, be amended by replacing, in the French version, lines 37 to 44 on page 44 with the following:

“statistiques pouvant porter sur tout ou partie des sujets ci-après en ce qui a trait aux premières nations, aux terres de réserve, aux Indiens, aux autres membres des premières nations, aux membres d'autres groupes autochtones, ainsi qu'aux autres personnes qui résident sur les terres de réserve et les terres d'autres groupes autochtones:”

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-23, in Clause 105, be amended by replacing, in the French version, lines 11 to 13 on page 46 with the following:

“documents ou archives relatifs aux premières nations, aux Indiens ou autres membres des premières nations ou aux membres d'autres”

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-23, in Clause 105, be amended by replacing, in the French version, lines 24 to 27 on page 46 with the following:

“ne morale mentionnés au paragraphe (1) ne sont toutefois pas tenus de communiquer un renseignement dont ils peuvent ou doivent refuser la communication en vertu d'une loi fédérale ou qui est”

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-23, in Clause 154, be amended by replacing line 29 on page 63 and lines 1 to 4 on page 70 with the following:

“154. (1) On the later of the coming into force of section 8 of the Public Service Modernization Act and subsection 58(1) of this Act, subsection 58(1) of the English version of this Act is replaced by the following:

1. (1) The Authority is not an agent of Her Majesty or a Crown corporation within the meaning of the Financial Administration Act, and its officers and employees are not part of the federal public administration.

(2) On the later of the coming into force of section 8 of the Public Service Modernization Act and subsection 113(1) of this Act, subsection 113(1) of the English version of this Act is replaced by the following:

1. (1) The officers and employees of an institution are not part of the federal public administration.”

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to debate the amendments in Group No. 1 proposed by the government in connection with Bill C-23.

I was extremely disappointed by the government's amendments, not just Group No. 1, but also Group No. 2, which we will also likely deal with this afternoon. The main reason for this is that, when we met with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development a few weeks ago, he assured us there would be one amendment among those he was planning to propose to the House of Commons on Bill C-23 to the effect that the provisions of the bill would not be applied to the first nations of Quebec and Canada that did not want to take advantage of them.

Now, looking at the series of amendments in Groups No. 1 and No. 2, we do not see such an amendment. Yet the minister told us it would be among the government's amendments.

This results is an uncomfortable feeling toward the bill. I remember that the general assembly of the Assembly of First Nations was held in British Columbia a few months ago. Most of the chiefs from across Canada and Quebec were in attendance. The new chief of the Assembly of First Nations asked the assembly to express its opinion of Bill C-23, which at the time was C-19. There were some lively discussions on the scope of the bill, and finally there was a vote. A strong majority, 61% of the chiefs of Canada's first nations, voted against the bill.

Why? Because this bill does not meet the needs of the vast majority of Quebec's and Canada's first nations. It may be worthwhile for the most wealthy ones, the ones that are highly developed and might be able to take advantage of institutions and loan opportunities, particularly for investment in infrastructures.

Basically, however, for the vast majority of first nations, this bill does not live up to their expectations. In particular, it does not solve the many problems they face every day. These are the problems of safe drinking water, infrastructure, lack of or shortfalls in federal funding and housing. I believe I will have the opportunity to return to this important issue a little later.

Another thing this bill does is to arouse fears among the first nations. I believed that it would be different with a new minister who appears more open than the previous one. The previous minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was completely obtuse and impervious to all criticisms made by the first nations and the opposition parties. So much so that for Bill C-7 on governance, my NDP from Winnipeg Centre and I had to keep the government in suspense for 55 days with a filibuster in the committee, to make the point that the first nations did not want that bill.

And now here we are with a Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development who takes exactly the same stance with respect to Bill C-23. He had promised substantial amendments to allay the fears surrounding this bill. These fears arise primarily from the fact that the government may, under certain provisions of Bill C-23, make a clean slate of all its fiduciary obligations and arrange it so the first nations would have to assume, by themselves, all the debt they might enter into, and use their ancestral lands as collateral for such loans needed for infrastructure and other things.

It is a fear that has not yet been allayed. Despite the minister's promises, there is no amendment to reassure the first nations.

If 61% of the aboriginal communities in Canada do not want this bill, the minister's attitude or reaction should have been to say that they would sit down together and rewrite the parts of the bill on first nations financial institutions so as to reach a consensus and not please just 39% of the first nations.

It is quite sad to see that a government is dividing to conquer. Even the new Prime Minister, who met the chiefs of the first nations in a special assembly not so long ago, perhaps one and a half weeks ago, had promised greater openness and flexibility. He held out his hand and all the hopes were there. Once again, these hopes began with the series of amendments in Group No. 1 and Group No. 2.

It is unacceptable that the majority of first nations be served to this extent by legislation. If it had been clear legislation, with no room for confusion, and the assurance that the first nations that do not want to live with the provisions in Bill C-23 can opt out of this obligation, perhaps we would have supported more indepth consideration and our position would have been more carefully stated.

However, it is clear that no assurances are being given to the vast majority of first nations. So, we are unable to support such legislation.

The first nations communities have urgent needs. The fundamental need is for the self-government process to be accelerated. Helping the first nations achieve their inherent right to self-government is the only clear route we should use to guide our relationship with them.

In 1996, the Royal Commission of Inquiry tabled a report. It was preceded by the Penner report. Our time was spent writing reports and quasi-anthropological studies of the first nations before taking decisive action.

In 1996, the royal commission clearly said that this route was the only one possible, the only one that would generate results and ensure that the first nations could take responsibility for themselves. They must do so with their own tools for development and their own institutions. The early Europeans trampled on those institutions when they arrived in America. The first nations must take responsibility for themselves, with their own culture and languages too, their own way of managing their affairs and with the resources they are entitled to.

There have been too many cases, over the past 130 years under the Indian Act, where the aboriginal communities and first nations were put on reserves, on limited land with no possibility for development.

From all we hear, we criticized the first nations for not wanting to engage in their own development. But we took away all their means for development. Often, when land was discovered to have interesting forestry potential, we would displace aboriginal communities and let the major forestry companies exploit this resource. The term exploit has many meanings.

This exploitation by the forestry companies produced catastrophic results. Clear cutting occurred in many regions in Quebec and Canada. This activity violated the first nations ancestral lands where they could have practised their traditional activities, developed their communities and engaged in a reasoned, rational and sustainable exploitation of the forests. However, we often preferred to give concessions to U.S. companies to come devastate their lands. We took the first nations and put them on adjacent reserves and told them we would provide for their basic needs, and that was it.

That has been our relationship with the first nations in 130 years of applying the worst legislation ever created in the West: the Indian Act.

The only course to take is to recognize the inherent right to self-government. This has already been done in the Constitution; now we have to make it happen.

Currently too few discussions are accelerated for achieving self-government and giving first nations the land and resources they need for their own development in order to provide a promising future for their children. There are 80 negotiation tables right now and that is not enough.

I asked questions to the minister responsible for the negotiations. I asked him if, by the deadline established by the royal commission, which is 2018, we might expect that most of the cases will be settled, that the negotiations will be over, that we might be able to live in harmony with our different nations. This is uncertain.

Financial and human resources to expedite the process are lacking, and we are wasting time on bills. For example, last year, on Bill C-7, it was horrible to see the financial and human resources that were invested in a bill that no one wanted.

Group No. 1 of amendments to Bill C-23 is not satisfactory to us, and we will have the opportunity to go back to Group No. 2 a little later.

However, that being said, we must tackle the issue of self-government and speed up negotiations, but, in the meantime, we must also deal with urgent problems.

I mentioned housing at the beginning of my speech. There is a housing crisis in the first nations. There is an incredible lack of housing. Constructions that are done annually do not even represent a quarter of what would be needed, given the demographic growth in the first nations.

There are a number of other very urgent problems that must be solved in several communities, particularly the chronic mould problem. I have visited several aboriginal territories and realized that the problem was quite widespread.

Consequently, we must immediately allocate resources to deal with this problem. We must have an emergency plan, which is appallingly lacking at this time. Even the Deputy Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development told me there was no emergency housing plan. If there is no emergency plan, if we let entire aboriginal families live in substandard conditions, as is the case in Lac-Barrière, Winneway and elsewhere, we will not fulfill our duty as fiduciary of the first nations.

[Rick Laliberte, Liberal, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is truly an historic time to be discussing legislation that is going to deal with tax collection and real property assessment of value of land.

In large part, the whole reason this country was created was the premise that the Crown, negotiating by treaty with the original nations of this land, would co-exist and co-administer this country. In light of that, the understanding is that the Crown has taken the affairs of the defined Indians, the first nations of this land, in its power, and now is making adjustments in legislation and subsequent amendments that flow through the creation of the Indian Act.

The Indian Act created band councils. In this country we have up to 650 band councils that want to be recognized. This bill defines a first nation as a band council of an Indian Act.

I want to raise this for the attention of the House and the government. Why not define the first nations for who they really are? The first nations are the nations of this land, the original nations. We should define them as who they are, because Bill C-23 even defines “taxpayer”, and taxpayer interests and responsibilities are going to be protected and represented in the bill.

So I say, why can we not discuss the interests of the original nations: the Nehiyawuk, the Oneida, the Mohawk, the Okanagan, the Tlingit, the Tlicho, the Blackfoot, the Lakota, the Mi'kmaw, the Innu. These are the original nations of this land. Why can we not create legislation or provide a means in legislation to respect and protect the interests and representation of those original nations? Why can we not do that?

Instead, this bill protects the interests of taxpayers who will reside on first nations. It will protect the interests of borrowing agents that will be lending moneys to first nations that deem they will need those moneys.

The bill is a signal to us, and not only to us as a government, as a Parliament, but also a signal to our people, the original nations, that we are misguided. This bill, this kind of financial relationship that the first nations and the band councils are seeking, the investment opportunities they need, should be based on the certainty that the original nations are respected, recognized and represented appropriately in this Government of Canada. Why are there not representations of our nations in this Parliament?

I have spoken many times suggesting that there maybe should be a third house of Parliament. A Senate and a House of Commons are created in these square chambers, but there is a round room in this building. It is called the Library of Parliament. It is a round room shaped like a teepee, a medicine wheel, a symbol of unity. Why can we not take our place in there as an aboriginal first nation house? Then, that place, a governing house, respected by this Parliament and the legislatures of the provinces and territories and the municipal governments, would be recognized as a house and government, not as a lobbying group that is being recognized by ministers at the whim of cabinet or a governor in council. It would be a thoroughly recognized house of government representing our nations.

Our nations have many responsibilities. They assess taxation on the value of land. They look at the services required for utilities. They are responsible for fire protection, police services, housing needs, protecting the quality of water and ensuring sewer retention and treatment. Those are all major responsibilities.

We are responsible in our relations to all living things on the planet and the medicines that grow on this Mother Earth. These are major responsibilities that the original nations carry and there are the relationships that they have with their language.

The Mohawk language, as an example, is a responsibility of the Mohawk Nation. The Cree language is a responsibility of the Cree Nation, of which I am a part, and the Métis. I am a half-breed of the Cree Nation.

[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Cree]

[English]

I know my first nation brothers and sisters. They are of Cree descent. I know my language. It is based on the Cree culture and language. Even Cree is the wrong word for us, as is Indian the wrong word for the first nations of the land.

It is for the purview of the original people that they be given proper respect. I am telling the House that Bill C-23 is in the wrong sequence of events. It should be the last of the arrangements. The first arrangement should be the proper relationships that our Prime Minister was discussing at the aboriginal summit one week ago. At that aboriginal summit a proper relationship should have been established with the first nations, the Inuit and the Métis nations of the land. That relationship should have been founded first before we enter into financial arrangements like this.

A tax commission would be established and somehow, by the minister or the government's will, the head office would be located in Kamloops. Why could it not be discussed by the first nations of the land? Why could they not gather in council as nations so that they would decide where the headquarters of these commissions, boards, authorities and institutes would be located? Why should it be the minister? Why should it be the governor in council making the final decisions on who will be appointed? The bill calls for up to 52 appointments which is a sacred number because that is the number of recognized nations in the land.

Why could the government and minister not recognize the 52 nations and create 52 seats representing all the nations of the land, one seat each for the Mohawks, one seat for the Oneidas, one seat for the Tuscaroras, one seat for the Senecas and one seat for the Cayugas? Why were these nations not thoroughly recognized?

Why are we presenting a financial institution bill before we create the proper relationship that was based on the peace and friendship treaties that created this country? We are making a grave mistake. The will and intent of the bill, of creating financial opportunities to provide services and infrastructure development on first nations reserves, is well-intentioned but there is also fiduciary responsibility that the government has, and it has not defined that.

The government has no obligation to recognize what those obligations are under treaty. The treaty obligations are not described in the bill and we dismiss those obligations by saying that it is an option for a first nation to enter into these provisions and commitments if they so decide.

It is the first nations' decision but I ask members of the government, of the House of Commons and of the Senate to search within themselves and ask why, in the year 2004, the original nations of this land are not properly recognized in legislation, in definition, as original nations.

Why can this statistical institute not describe who the first nations are? It is going to describe our languages and our culture but it will not describe who the nations are. It is time.

[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Cree]

[English]

--all the children's children to come. There is a means for us to live together in this land but the wisdom and the responsibility of the original nations is locked in with the original nation in its embodiment and that nation has to be recognized.

I call upon my colleagues in the House to give us the proper respect as the first nations, the original nations of this land, to guide members in governing this country as well.

The bill would pre-empt that relationship because it would start carving out ways of assessing and putting value on land, a value that never existed before on first nations properties. How can we put value on land where the land, a secluded reserve in northern Saskatchewan as an example, is to be assessed at the same value of land on an urban reserve in Vancouver? That value of land is unequal and this bill would start doing that.

Mr. Speaker, if you would allow me another day of debate I would explain to you a vision of a country because it is time. The year is 2004 and Canada would be remiss not to officially recognize and respect the original nations as nations.

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Northumberland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to debate Bill C-23, the first nations fiscal and statistical management act.

What we have before us is truly unique. The proposed legislation is first nation initiated; its development was first nation led; and the institutions it would create are first nation controlled.

I believe that all members will agree that we want to improve the quality of life in first nations communities. A number of steps have been taken over the past few years to begin removing barriers to first nation economic progress, self-reliance and self-government, but much more is needed and is needed now. The status quo is not acceptable.

Rather than wait for government, certain visionary first nation leaders took it upon themselves to address the gaps in fiscal powers and institutional support. They have devoted an enormous amount of time and energy to developing this initiative. Many months ago, they turned to the government for support in establishing its legal foundation, a particularly important aspect of the initiative as first nations seek to attract investors and business development. This is the purpose of Bill C-23.

Bill C-23 is a lengthy and technically complex bill, and I cannot hope to address all of its provisions in the time I have been allotted today. However I would like to quickly review the key elements in the bill.

As a first step, Bill C-23 defines first nation property taxation powers in much more detail than does the Indian Act. The bill also features provisions for property assessment, rate setting and budget based expenditure systems that continue first nation provincial property tax harmony while reconciling the interests of first nation governments and those of their taxpayers.

Bill C-23 provides for the evolution of the existing Indian Taxation Advisory Board into the first nations tax commission. This commission will build on the work of the Indian Taxation Advisory Board which has helped 98 first nations enter the field of property taxation since 1989. I should note that those first nations are now collectively raising more than $40 million annually in tax revenue.

Under Bill C-23, ratepayers will be assured a role in policy development and an improved system for hearing appeals and resolving disputes than is the case under the present Indian Act.

The proposed legislation will also clarify certain borrowing powers of first nations and create a first nations finance authority. Through the work of this institution, first nations, like other local governments in Canada, will have access to bond markets to raise long term private capital to finance the construction of roads, sewers, water and other types of infrastructure. This will be a first for aboriginal people in the world.

Assisting first nations to access the bond market will help them participate in the economic mainstream, better balance taxpayer costs and benefits, and realize a better return on tax dollars. The cost of borrowing will be reduced 30% to 50% compared to the current situation.

The first nations finance authority is modelled on the Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia, which has 30 years of experience and a triple A credit rating. The proposal has been endorsed by major underwriters and credit raters and is expected to raise $125 million in private capital over its first five years of operation.

There is yet another gap that needs to be addressed, a gap in the financial management capacity of first nations. To this end, Bill C-23 will create a completely new institution, the first nations financial management board, which will offer a full range of services to support first nations financial management and accountability. This will be accomplished through the establishment of financial standards, promotion of capacity development, and ensuring that the rigorous systems and assessment services are in place to maintain the confidence of the markets.

Finally, Bill C-23 provides for the establishment of first nations statistics to fill the current gap in reliable data and well targeted analysis on first nations populations, economic growth and other matters. Good quality information is needed to support first nations decision making both at the national level and locally. To this end the statistical institute may work with the first nations, federal departments, Statistics Canada and provincial statistical agencies to help the first nations meet their information needs while at the same time building the shared data required to support effective Canada first nations developmental activities.

Many first nations, particularly the 98 that already have a tax system in place, will be quick to opt into the borrowing regime and other services provided through the bill. Other first nations may take more time to take up these opportunities and still others may decline them outright. Participation in this new initiative will be completely optional, a very key part of the bill.

First nations choosing not to proceed with property taxation or borrowing under the bill may still benefit from the specialized advisory and support services regarding financial and statistical management.

As we can see, each of these institutions, the tax commission, the financial authority, the financial management board and the statistical institute has a unique independent and professional role.

This is important legislation for first nations. Together, these institutions will provide first nations with the right tools needed to foster a business friendly environment, investor confidence, economic growth and sound governance. Bill C-23 will help participating first nations advance into the economic mainstream by giving them the practical tools already used by other governments. It will help them to ensure that the first nation real property tax financing, financial management and statistical systems are harmonized in a way that facilitates shared efforts with other governments. It will provide better representation and more certainty for on reserve taxpayers and a better return to the community as a whole from the tax dollars raised.

As I noted at the outset, the proposed first nations fiscal and statistical management act is a first nations solution. It was developed through the National Table on Fiscal Relations, a body established some five years ago as a consultative forum between the Assembly of First Nations and the Government of Canada.

Key players in Canada's financial markets, such as the Royal Bank of Canada, Dominion Bond Rating Services and Moody's Investor Services, have provided valuable input on the structure and operations of these institutions.

I want to conclude my remarks with this thought: Economic development is the road ahead. This is the path sought by first nations to improve their quality of life. Many first nations have begun this journey but have encountered obstacles which we can help them remove.

In order to seize control of their own economic future, first nations do not need to have their hands held, but they cannot succeed with their hands tied. These initiatives in the area of fiscal management are aimed at untying those hands. Let us support the bill.

[Gilbert Barrette, Liberal, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wold like to speak to Bill C-23, the FIrst Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act in the debate at report stage.

The last time this assembly discussed the FIrst Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, some people wondered whether the first nations in fact supported the bill. Not only do many of them support it, they have worked long and hard to move it forward. These first nations deserve our support.

Bill C-23 is an extension of a series of measures initiated some fifteen years ago. In 1988, the House of Commons passed an amendment to the Indian Act which had been proposed by a first nation, a historical first.

This amendment, commonly referred to as the Kamloops amendment, in honour of the Kamloops first nation, had to do with the economic development of first nations. The amendment clarified the authority of first nations to collect property taxes on reserve lands, Before this amendment, taxes paid by non-aboriginals on property located on reserves often went to nearby municipalities.

As a result, many first nations did not have access to a revenue source they absolutely needed to provide services to their community and improve their local economy. Consequently, this deprived them of opportunities for economic development, job creation and improved quality of life for residents of the reserves.

All parties in the House gave their support to the 1988 amendment. Those who voted in favour will all be pleased to learn that it did indeed generate new possibilities for the first nations. Bill C-23, inspired by the lessons learned since 1988, should have that same unanimous support.

The 1988 amendment created new conditions. In 1989, the first nations headed the creation of the Indian taxation advisory board, the purpose of which was to help the first nations establish a property tax system. In 1995, they set up the first nations property tax commission. SInce then, this administration has helped first nations to raise private capital mainly via the bond market, using tax revenues in order to finance the infrastructures needed for their economic growth.

Bill C-23 is largely based on the research done and the experience gained by these two first nations bodies. Over the years, these organizations have consulted the first nations that were collecting property taxes, including the taxpayers and the financial and commercial sectors. These efforts proved very successful.

This budding tax system has allowed for the construction of public facilities on reserves, including drinking water supply and sewage treatment systems to support commercial development. Indeed, this tax system has allowed for the construction of public facilities that benefit all residents and that facilitate the delivery of public services to which these people are entitled, in return for the property taxes that they pay.

The current first nations property tax system provides greater financial leeway to local decision-makers. This has allowed them to improve public services for their community and to build their local economy. However, like any new system, experience tells us what improvements need to be made. This is why Bill C-23 is based on some 15 years of experience and seeks to strengthen the tax system to make it a real tool for sustainable economic development.

Bill C-23 will improve benefits for participating first nations. It will build a more comprehensive and more transparent tax system that will provide greater certainty to taxpayers, commercial partners and potential investors. These conditions are necessary to ensure thriving economies.

The bill also establishes the legal and constitutional framework that first nations need to set up a bond financing system.

This system will be available to all first nations that meet the eligibility criteria, and will reduce their borrowing costs by 30% to 50%. It will provide a better return on taxpayer dollars and a better balance between costs and benefits.

Although a growing number of first nations have adopted property tax bylaws in accordance with federal legislation, others have opted out of these provisions.

Each community can decide whether or not to exercise its taxation authority. Bill C-23 simply makes the necessary tools available to them. Each nation can choose to start imposing property taxes, using the provisions in the federal legislation. To do so, each nation must adopt its own bylaws. To date, 98 first nations have imposed property taxes in accordance with the provisions in the Indian Act, and 30 other nations are preparing to do so.

Agencies established under Bill C-23 will provide first nations with the professional support they have until now not had, which limited their potential for economic development in the Indian Act taxation system.

The first nations who choose not to levy property taxes or issue bonds will nevertheless benefit from the provisions of Bill C-23, which sets up dynamic statistical and financial management systems. These systems will be of interest to a number of nations trying to successfully complete their transition to self-government.

The bill makes it possible for individual first nations to choose the laws and services they need. It is a kind of menu perfectly suited to the first nations of Canada, whose interests and perspectives vary considerably.

Bill C-23 offers opportunities to the first nations—they can choose to take them or not. The experience of 1999 with the First Nations Land Management Act has shown the wisdom of this approach.

When that legislation was introduced, only a few first nations saw the advantage of establishing a legal framework that would give them greater mastery of their lands. These first nations called for changes and put their energy into achieving them. Today, more than 100 first nations want to use the tools in the First Nations Land Management Act to meet their needs.

The Auditor General of Canada consulted 13 first nations and 4 tribal councils and governments in 5 provinces. Her 2003 report describes the three main obstacles to economic development for the first nations, namely, barriers to accessing economic development resources, barriers to accessing federal business support programs, and barriers resulting from federal management and institutional development approaches.

Bill C-23 illustrates the work of a group of first nations who came together to overcome some of these barriers to their development. They did so for a good reason: they knew their members were suffering everyday because of the presence of these barriers causing lost opportunities and reducing their quality of life.

These first nations deserve our full support for this bill.

The time has come to go ahead with Bill C-23. The time has come to support the first nations who will take advantage of these provisions in order to attract and maintain investments in their communities. The time has come as well to give them the tools that non-aboriginal communities have taken for granted for a very long time.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to speak in support of Bill C-23, the first nations fiscal and statistical management act. I intend to support this legislation at report stage. This bill was introduced last year as Bill C-19 and its passage has been long awaited by many first nations leaders. The bill is clear proof that the government is serious about fulfilling its commitment to first nations and aboriginal peoples.

The House will recall that in the recent Speech from the Throne the government committed to address the difficult but essential work of renewing its relations with Canada's first nations. The government vowed to undertake a new, collaborative approach in working with aboriginal leaders. The government also pledged to rekindle this relationship based on equality, trust and mutual respect. The government clearly indicated that fostering economic development in first nations communities and narrowing the gap in living standards between aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples was a foremost priority and a measure of what we are as a country.

A number of significant steps have been taken to begin removing barriers to economic progress for first nations. Land claims have been negotiated, self-government agreements have been signed, and modern governance regimes have been developed and implemented.

Together, first nations leaders and the federal government have taken much action to encourage first nations entrepreneurs, attract investment, and create jobs in first nations communities. These measures are creating genuine hope and opportunity in first nations communities, thereby enabling first nations families to share in the prosperity that many other Canadians take for granted.

In recent years aboriginal economic development has undergone a truly remarkable transformation. Indeed, aboriginal owned businesses now operate in virtually every sector of the economy. Although factors such as improved transportation links and communications technologies have certainly contributed to the shift, I believe the principal difference has been a significant change in attitude.

I believe that in the past few years a spirit of collaboration has grown among aboriginals and non-aboriginals in both public and private sectors alike. Regrettably, not all aboriginal peoples have fully shared in this country's wealth and good fortune. Despite many positive strides forward, the economic condition of many aboriginal communities are simply unacceptable.

Bill C-23 is a vitally important measure to help bring first nations people into the economic mainstream of this country and to help first nations raise the living standards of their members. This legislation, led by first nations able and eager to wield increasing fiscal and administrative authority, would create four innovative institutions. These institutions are designed to support the sound fiscal management and encourage robust economic development in communities.

First, is the first nations finance authority, which would enable participating first nations to issue bonds and raise long term private capital at preferred rates to construct roads, water treatment plants, sewage systems and other crucial capital infrastructure. The first nations tax commission, which would evolve from the Indian Taxation Advisory Board, for those first nations who choose to participate would streamline the real property tax law approval process and help to reconcile community and ratepayer interests.

The first nations financial management board would provide professional advice and guidance in the development of financial management capacity on reserve, and the independent and professional assessment services required for entry into borrowing pools. Finally, the first nations statistical institute would assist first nations to meet their own statistical needs while encouraging participation in and use of the integrated national system of Statistics Canada.

Together, these four institutions would provide first nations with vital tools to foster economic development. These institutions are an essential means to help first nations access and manage the capital they require to grow and prosper. They are crucial levers for first nations people to raise living standards in their own communities.

It is important to note that much of the credit for this legislation lies with visionary first nations leaders. Rather than wait for the government to act, they took it upon themselves to address the absence in their communities of fiscal powers and institutional support, and to respond. These forward thinking men and women devoted an enormous amount of time and energy to develop the principles behind the bill. Many months ago they turned to the government for support in placing this fiscal, administrative and statistical framework on a strong legal foundation of fundamental requirements in seeking to attract investors and cultivate business development.

The result of these efforts is this pioneering piece of legislation. Bill C-23 would help first nations foster a business friendly environment, investor confidence and economic growth. The legislation would enable participating first nations to enter the economic mainstream by giving them the practical tools already used by many other governments. In fact, Bill C-23 would help first nations communities to be on the same level as other local governments. It is this fact that makes this truly a ground breaking piece of legislation.

The institutions created by the bill would provide first nations with access to capital markets already available to other governments. It made me ask, why is this so important? As hon. members may know, community infrastructure is fundamental to the quality of any community's life and economic growth. However, first nations seeking to borrow funds for such infrastructure currently face prohibitive transaction costs, processing times and interest rates. In fact, due to a lack of applicable legislative and institutional framework, a dollar of first nations tax revenue buys 30% to 50% less in capital works than revenue of other governments.

By making it possible for first nations to pool their borrowing requirements, Bill C-23 would enable many first nations, like other local governments, to raise long term private capital at preferred rates and it would provide first nations with institutional support to ensure they operate within their debt carrying capacity.

Bill C-23 is not a panacea for the challenges facing first nations. The legislation however is an important step forward for first nations people. The institutions created by Bill C-23 would lead to practical and long lasting benefits for communities. These institutions would improve the ability of first nations governments to address the social and economic well-being of their communities. The legislation would provide participating first nations with tools that other levels of government take for granted, essential tools needed by first nations to build their economies and to improve the quality of life on reserve communities.

It is important that all members support Bill C-23.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie—Lincoln, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the suggestion has been made that Bill C-23, the first nations fiscal and statistical management act, does not address the real priorities of first nations in the areas of basic services, health, education, and social services. Indeed, it has been suggested that it is a waste to be investing in strengthening first nations governance and institutional capacity.

First, let me remind the House that Bill C-23 stems from a vision of certain first nations leaders who chose not to delay their opportunities for brighter futures by waiting for the Government of Canada. Instead, they exercised their control and created a pact that would include working to develop this legislation, making certain that it would bring greater certainty to their people in giving back greater control over their futures with better opportunities, especially for their children.

In many respects, Bill C-23 complements the positive action taken by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada in line with the first nations' priorities, among them social programs, education and employment opportunities.

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada is working to ensure that social services reach those in greatest need, with a focus on first nation children on reserve. This focus on children recognizes that positive impacts made in the early years of life have a direct bearing on a child's healthy, long term development and well-being, which is a key to accessing longer term opportunities.

INAC's work emphasizes ongoing collaboration with federal and other partners to deliver important initiatives, such as the aboriginal head start program which helps prepare young first nation children for their school years by meeting their emotional, social, health, nutritional and psychological needs. Other programs and services cater to the needs of lower income families and the immediate community. As well, there have been improvements in the areas of child care, child nutrition, community and cultural enrichment, family violence shelters and prevention programs, all of which are culturally sensitive.

INAC is also working to provide first nations with the tools to improve quality of education from early childhood development to preparation for access to the workforce. A national working group of first nation education, for example, was created in partnership with first nations to look at ways to foster excellence in first nation education and help narrow gaps in economic results.

In consultations with first nations and the Assembly of First Nations, INAC has adopted a case management approach which guides income assistance recipients through a continuum of training and support services, enabling participants to benefit from and remain in federal-provincial welfare to work initiatives.

Aboriginal employment programs and services are also part of INAC's strategic priorities. Improved employment opportunities for first nations people have also come about from programs like the aboriginal workforce participation initiative, which partners governments with business to fill human resource needs with a trained, qualified aboriginal workforce to INAC's own commitment to a 50% aboriginal-external hiring strategy.

First nations people do not want to continue the status quo. They want greater control over their own affairs and an improved quality of life. As well, they seek more opportunities for themselves and for their children. To this end, they want to ensure that their programs are effectively delivered, opportunities for economic growth are created, and they are engaged in the discussion of a new fiscal relationship between first nations and Canada as a way to sustain their programs and services.

Bill C-23 would provide first nations with the tools needed to help meet these three objectives, and therefore should be viewed as an investment in a brighter future for first nations.

With respect to the first objective of ensuring effective program delivery, first nations look to build the tools they need as they assume greater control over their own affairs. They look to strengthen financial management and accounting practices, the facility to demonstrate transparency and accountability, and the capacity to effectively manage scarce resources.

The work of the financial management board would be valuable in this area. The board would provide leadership and support to strengthen the financial operations of participating first nations. The board would coordinate its efforts with those of the Aboriginal Financial Officers Association of Canada which is affiliated with the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada.

Through its work as a centre of excellence, the board would help first nations and their enterprises elevate standards, establish and maintain sound financial management, and ultimately to adopt financial systems based on national standards comparable to other governments.

The second objective that I mentioned was that first nations were seeking to participate more fully in the Canadian economy in order to improve the quality of life for their people. To help meet this objective, a strengthened first nations tax regime, managed by the Tax Commission, would help first nations to build predictable tax revenue streams which the financial authority would apply to secure long term debt financing for major capital projects.

This integrated system is optional in all respects. It would give first nation governments that wish to participate their first access to the bond markets. It would unlock real and significant opportunities for sustained economic growth and, ultimately, a better future for first nations.

It is true that not every first nation is interested in or able to build a tax system. First nations are diverse in nature. However, this does not diminish the importance of the bill to a number of first nations now poised to bring its benefits to their people.

Today, all first nations enter into many different borrowing arrangements with banks and suppliers. This option will remain open with Bill C-23. However, the creation of the first nations finance authority will make it possible for first nation governments to borrow money through the bond market and at lower interest rates than otherwise available.

The use of lower cost capital would increase the construction of in-ground infrastructure that is ready for commercial use, and give prospective private developers a favourable view in their decisions about establishing businesses on reserve lands. In the same way, and without a waste of first nations financial resources, new recreational facilities or community centres could be built at lower costs. I could see communities that would benefit from access roads and upgraded water and sewer lines which support economic ventures, such as a gas bar or a strip mall.

In time and with experience, new financing options may even be developed to increase the construction of houses and help deal with a backlog in housing units in first nation communities. The potential benefits to first nations people would be significant in terms of increased employment, income, self-reliance, control over their own futures and community growth.

Finally, the third objective I mentioned was that first nations could look to build a new fiscal relationship with Canada. They are looking to break the cycle of dependency by realizing legitimate opportunities for themselves and for their children. With that objective in mind, first nation proponents of this legislation have pushed for and have actively engaged in dialogue with the Government of Canada on a broad range of issues.

As a result of their consultations on enhanced statistical capacity, for example, first nations people are now poised to become more self-reliant by using the tools offered by Bill C-23 to engage in the joint policy discussions required to unlock critical social, educational and economic opportunities.

That is why the first nations statistical institute will focus on bringing timely, relevant and credible information to bear on policy development and program management. The institute would assist first nations in developing the systems that chiefs and council would require to meet their leadership responsibilities.

Statistics Canada and first nations statistics would have separate but complementary roles. For example, with proposed cooperative data sharing regimes, first nations statistics would draw data from many reliable sources, including Statistics Canada, giving first nation decision makers the essential access to reliable statistical information which they have lacked. As most Canadians can appreciate, the social benefits of reliable and timely statistics seem well worth the cost.

As well, both the financial management board and first nations statistics will offer professional research and policy development services on behalf of all first nations and thus strengthen their capacity to participate at intergovernmental discussions on building new fiscal relations.

Allow me to summarize the advantages that can be garnered under Bill C-23.

I have mentioned the importance to first nations that their programs are delivered effectively. Under the legislation, the financial management board could assist individual first nations to better manage their program costs, more effectively deliver their programs and thereby improve the results for first nation people.

As well, I have mentioned the importance to first nations of creating opportunities for themselves and their children. Under Bill C-23, the first nations tax commission would help to strengthen first nation real property tax regimes. First nations may use their tax powers and work with private developers to establish the infrastructure needed to trigger sustainable business development and to help build a better future.

I have mentioned the importance to first nations of discussing a new fiscal relationship with the Government of Canada. Under the legislation, the first nations finance authority would offer mechanisms necessary for first nation governments to participate in the complex world of bond markets and capital financing similar to other governments.

Discussion of fiscal matters would then take place on a more equal footing. The work of first nations statistics would bring more reliable and timely statistical information to inform discussions between first nations and the federal government.

The proposed first nations-led legislation was developed through the investment of many visionary cooperative efforts over a number of years, which bodes well for its acceptance and implementation. It will help them meet important objectives.

Let us lend our support to their vision by passing this legislation so that first nations people will be able to access real opportunities which will improve their lives.

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House at the report stage of Bill C-23, the first nations fiscal and statistical management act.

It is well known that many first nations support this bill, while there are indeed others who oppose it. While previously passing many resolutions in support for development of the institutions, the Assembly of First Nations voted last fall to withdraw its support. More recently, however, National Chief Phil Fontaine expressed a preference that the bill be optional so that legislation does not prevent other first nations from pursuing alternative approaches to economic development, sole source revenue and resource revenue sharing.

This government remains respectful of the democratic process within the AFN. We value the still considerable support for the bill among a large number of first nations and we remain steadfast in our belief that Bill C-23 is a valuable financial tool for those first nations who choose to benefit from its opportunities. We continue to support Bill C-23 on behalf of those many first nations who have worked long and hard toward its development.

Bill C-23 was led by first nations for interested first nations. Furthermore, Bill C-23, like all federal legislation, is developed in the context of the Constitution. Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, provides substantial protection for aboriginal and treaty rights. Legislation, including Bill C-23, cannot lessen that protection.

We equally support the optional nature of the bill on behalf of those first nations who oppose it. Indeed, even in its opposition to the bill, the Assembly of First Nations does not deny the options under the bill that are open to those first nations that wish to exercise them.

First nations both for and against the bill continue to look toward the negotiation of claims and self-government agreements with Canada and, from these, new fiscal relationships. We must continue to work on those broader issues.

Bill C-23 flows from many years of work that began with Bill C-115, the 1988 amendment to the Indian Act. A first nation led amendment, Bill C-115, set out first nations authority to collect real property taxes on first nation lands. In fact, it corrected a situation whereby property tax revenues were flowing to neighbouring communities and no services were flowing back. Development funds were being lost.

Over the past 15 years, 98 first nations have exercised their property tax powers and more are developing laws to do so. More than $43 million is now generated annually, which is being used to deliver quality local services, support economic growth and improve the quality of life in first nation communities.

Since its creation in 1989, the Indian tax advisory board, a first nations board, has looked toward securing a legislative base by which to better advance first nation interests. Bill C-23 would do exactly that.

It would also address many of the issues first nations have faced in building their property tax systems and in working effectively with taxpayers, potential business partners and also investors.

Bill C-23 would also realize a dream of the First Nations Finance Authority Incorporated, known as FNFA Inc., which was incorporated in 1995. Its all first nation board has led the work to see first nations gain access for the first time to the bond market in order to secure affordable capital through Bill C-23.

Today first nations pay 30% to 50% more to finance capital works because they lack the legal and institutional framework by which to issue securities on the bond markets. The extraordinary transaction costs and time, and the crippling interest rates they must pay, are major barriers to economic, social and cultural development.

To remove these barriers, FNFA Inc. has lobbied the Government of Canada for many years for a legislated basis. Bill C-23 would allow first nations to issue investment grade securities. There is much interest in these securities on the part of the investment community, including the ethical funds.

The bill would provide first nations with modern tools of government already enjoyed by other governments in Canada. While the proposed financing authority would be fully independent from the Government of Canada, the other institutions, the proposed tax commission, financial management board and statistical institute would operate at arm's length.

This structure recognizes the continuing relationship between first nations and the Government of Canada and the need to work cooperatively on complex questions such as building a new fiscal relationship. The institutions would help interested first nations develop a more effective voice in these long term development issues.

The Prime Minister hosted an aboriginal round table on April 19 of this year, looking to speak to aboriginal leaders and discuss their concerns and formulate solutions. Assembly of First Nations National Chief Phil Fontaine, spoke to the press after this round table and laid out the critical elements of successful nation building and economic development, as cited in a study from Harvard University, including:

Capable governing institutions that exercise power effectively, responsibly, and reliably;

and Cultural Match, which means creating institutions that reflect First Nations values.

Leadership and strategic direction underlie all these principles...This means we must work out arrangements for resource-sharing and power-sharing.

Bill C-23 meets these guidelines and in fact epitomizes them.

Over the course of the bill's legislative history, we have heard first nations people speak both for and against the proposed first nations fiscal and statistical management act.

Many of those speaking against the bill also acknowledge that first nations are diverse in nature and do not seek to deny access to those first nations who see opportunity in Bill C-23. Some even have noted that their community might have an interest in Bill C-23 at some time in the future, particularly if their economic situation were to change through future negotiations or developmental activity.

First nations do indeed have diverse views. Bill C-23 would honour this diversity. Bill C-23 would allow each first nation to decide if and when it would make a law in order to exercise a power pursuant to the bill or would request a service from an institution. It would give first nations the choice to access a valuable tool, and the choice to realize their unique visions for developing their communities on a level playing field.

I support Bill C-23 and I hope to see my fellow members do the same thing.

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too rise today in support of Bill C-23, the first nations fiscal and statistical management act.

This important legislation will provide first nation peoples with access to the tools they need to increase their participation in our economy. Under the provisions of Bill C-23, as I think my colleague has mentioned, first nations will gain access to the financial instruments and mechanisms used by municipal governments to raise capital and secure investment. With this capacity, first nations will be able to realize their dreams of self-sufficiency and prosperity.

The impetus for this legislation originates with first nation leaders from across the country. For many years, residents of aboriginal and first nation communities have had difficulty accessing the mainstream economy. First nation communities have struggled to raise capital needed to develop on-reserve infrastructure.

To address these issues, Bill C-23 will establish four distinct yet complementary institutions: a financial authority, a tax commission, a financial management board, and a statistical institute.

Once these institutions are in place, first nations will have many of the practical tools long enjoyed by other governments, such as the ability to borrow money at competitive rates, to develop effective real property tax systems, and to ensure that the interests of taxpayers are adequately represented. First nations that choose to participate in these institutions will also be able to increase financial management capacity and improve long term planning through greater use of accurate and current statistical information, the very things that my municipality and other municipalities have. In short, first nation communities will exercise greater control over their economic and social destinies. Real choices will exist.

Solid infrastructure is fundamental to the health and sustainability of every community in Canada. It is the reason why we have invested so heavily over the past seven years in municipal infrastructure. This government has had successive waves of, in my case, Canada-Ontario infrastructure programs, which have made a real difference in my community and in other communities across the country. Transportation links, water and sewage treatment facilities and other components of modern infrastructure are absolutely essential to economic growth. Local governments across Canada have long funded infrastructure projects through low interest, long term loans. Lenders were keen on these investments because of the legal, political and social stability of such governments.

However, and sadly, first nation band councils do not enjoy the same legal status as local governments. As a result, these councils are often charged prohibitively expensive transaction costs and interest rates. Administrative burdens and lengthy approval processes often delay the start of projects, leading to additional costs. The combined effort of these impediments is that few first nations can afford to undertake capital projects, the capital projects that, I will state again, are important to the health and social services of communities.

Several years ago, thanks to the leadership of Westbank First Nation, one of the most progressive and prosperous aboriginal communities in Canada, a new financial instrument was created. The First Nations Finance Authority Incorporated, or FNFA Inc., enabled member communities to pool their resources.

As the number of first nations participating in FNFA Inc. grew, so did the feasibility of issuing debentures to access longer term money at lower interest rates. The concept attracted the support of a key partner, the Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia. That authority has 30 years' experience and a triple-A credit rating.

Bill C-23 provides the legal framework for first nations to fully participate in the bond markets. The legislation establishes the First Nations Finance Authority, FNFA. The FNFA will enable first nations to raise private capital at preferred rates to build roads and undertake other capital infrastructure projects such as roads, bridges, sewers and water systems. In a process similar to the one used by local governments, a participating first nation can scrutinize a portion of its long term revenues such as those generated by real property taxes.

Analysts estimate that by scrutinizing the real property tax revenues of interested first nations, approximately $125 million in debt financing could be raised within just five years. An investment of this magnitude in this specific time period would have a significant impact on the communities of participating first nations, communities that are ready to go and want to offer important opportunities to their constituent members.

The ability to generate property tax revenue is a crucial part of a community's financial stability. A growing number of first nations have collected these taxes since the Indian Act was amended in the 1980s. Tax revenues have enabled band councils to provide services, build infrastructure and create jobs and businesses.

Bill C-23 will establish the first nations tax commission, or FNTC, to facilitate the establishment of property tax regimes by band councils who choose to do so under this bill.

The FNTC will develop the standards which underlie the first nations property tax system and which are needed to effectively balance community and ratepayer interests. Dispute resolution and law approval processes will be established. The net result of these actions will be a secure and stable fiscal environment, something that all of us need in each of our municipalities, in each of our communities.

As the Prime Minister has said so many times, strong communities develop a strong nation. That is what we are achieving with Bill C-23.

For this environment to thrive over the long term, it is imperative that first nations have adequate financial management standards and procedures in place. Lenders must have a clear and accurate picture of the fiscal health of borrowers. Independent assessments must be readily available.

The first nations financial management board, or FMB, will help to meet these requirements. There are two components of the FMB's mandate. The first focuses on first nations that collect property tax and seek to borrow against these revenues. The FMB will certify financial management systems, practices and standards and monitor the performance of these first nations. The FMB will be able to intervene promptly and decisively when needed.

Under the second part of the mandate, the FMB will provide a range of professional services to first nations. The FMB will assist with research in advocacy, policy and capacity development, along with financial management, reporting and standards. These activities will help first nation communities to make the very most of their financial resources.

As part of building to a better future, first nations need to have accurate and current statistical information as a basis for informed decision making. Unfortunately, to date, the quality, consistency and accuracy of statistical systems in first nation communities are very inconsistent. There is a very great lack of accurate and current statistical information.

The fourth institution included in Bill C-23 will address this specific issue. The first nations statistical institute, or FNSI, will create a common database of information accessible by all first nations. The database will provide first nation leaders with the accurate information they need to make sound decisions; predictability, accountability and transparency.

I believe that the tools available through Bill C-23 will help to close the considerable gaps that exist between aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities across this country. By providing institutional support and embedding rigorous standards, the legislation prescribes a balanced approach to long term financial health for first nations. Clearly, all Canadians stand to benefit, particularly our first nation peoples, who are ready to go and are tired of seeing economic opportunities pass them by.

I urge all hon. colleagues to lend their support to this bill. This is a set of four very important tools for first nation communities. These tools will make sure that they can participate fully in our Canadian economy. They will make sure that first nations have the opportunity to be who they want to be in terms of economic progress and opportunity so that kids do have a real future and better economic success.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I stand today in support of Bill C-23, a bill that I believe is good for all first nations and also for Canada.

I particularly wanted to mention Chief Tom Bressette who is in southwestern Ontario, the area of the country in which I live. I know he has worked very hard, as have other distinguished people working on this bill. I think the bill is a tribute to the hard work of these individuals who gave their input so that we could be in this chamber today discussing the bill.

The four institutions that are central to the legislation will provide a means for aboriginal peoples to participate more actively in the Canadian economy and foster business friendly environments while meeting the specific needs of their communities.

Just a few short decades ago the economic prospects for first nations and Inuit communities were extremely limited. Government policies restricted the ability of these communities to exploit natural resources on their ancestral lands. Many communities, already geographically remote, were further isolated by undeveloped communications and transportation links.

Today it is different. Aboriginal businesses operate in every sector of the economy: in primary industries, such as mining; in secondary industries, such as manufacturing; and in tertiary industries, such as telecommunications. More and more aboriginal businesses export their goods and services abroad and aboriginal trade associations help fledgling entrepreneurs grow their businesses.

Despite these improvements, first nations still face many barriers to sustainable growth and economic development. These obstacles include the challenge faced by aboriginal entrepreneurs and communities in acquiring sufficient equity and debt capital to undertake development initiatives.

Many first nations have already demonstrated that once they gain access to capital they can invest wisely. In the western oil patch, for example, the Dene Tha' and the Saddle Lake First Nations have acquired stakes in a total of five oil rigs that operate under contract to petrochemical companies. Squamish First Nation, as another example, is participating in a $17 million hydro-generation project on Furry Creek.

These investments create employment and training opportunities for band members. The projects also generate profits that can be reinvested in the local community: in social services, in health care and in education.

I believe the first nations fiscal and statistical management act, a first nations-led initiative, would offer first nation communities access to tools that will enable greater economic development and growth and improve the quality of life in the communities.

While the benefits of the act would be many, I believe its potential to unlock economic development opportunities for first nations deserves some very special attention.

The legislation, the result of more than a decade of work by first nation leaders and other partners, would establish four institutions that will be operated by and for first nations. These institutions would improve the ability of first nation governments to provide services, build infrastructure and, most important, create employment.

For example, one of the institutions, the first nations finance authority, would enable a band council, just like any other local government, to raise long term private capital at preferred rates. Currently, first nations seeking to borrow funds for community infrastructure face prohibitive transaction costs, processing times and interest rates. Due to the lack of an appropriate legislative and institutional framework, $1 of first nations' tax revenue buys 30% to 50% less in capital works than the revenue of other governments. I think this has to be changed.

Improving first nation access to affordable capital would help pay for much needed economic infrastructure, infrastructure that would not only make a difference to the lives of the people in first nation communities but would also increase first nation participation in the economy, make first nation communities better able to draw investors and enable first nation entrepreneurs to launch successful businesses and attract partners.

Aboriginal entrepreneurship represents a tremendous opportunity for all Canadians. Indeed, I am convinced that fostering aboriginal entrepreneurship is vital to Canada's long term prosperity.

Let us consider for a moment Canada's changing population. We are currently experiencing an aboriginal baby boom, particularly in the western provinces and in the northern territories. The aboriginal population, already significantly younger than the rest of the Canadian population, is also growing much more quickly.

Furthermore, aboriginal young people are twice as likely as other Canadian youth to start businesses. I think that is an important statistic. I believe these trends represent significant opportunities for economic growth.

To make the most of these opportunities though, aboriginal communities must be able to participate more readily in the economy. To do this they must have clear access to their resources and to affordable capital for economic development. Entrepreneurs require business partners.

With the practical fiscal management tools that are at the heart of the legislation, first nations would be able to better manage their land and could more easily acquire the funds that they need to engage in community building projects.

Bill C-23 would also lead to greater and more immediate decision making powers, enabling the first nations themselves to capitalize on existing business relationships and build new ones.

As first nation economic development expands, the range of work experience available to first nation peoples will continue to broaden. It is precisely that breadth of experience that will foster ongoing innovations and stimulate Canada's economy.

A new generation of aboriginal entrepreneurs, bursting with ideas, energy and confidence, is keen to make a mark on the business world. Canada, the major exporter in an increasingly competitive business world, cannot afford to waste any of that talent nor that energy.

A second of the four institutions that would be created by the act is the first nations management board. The board would certify financial management systems, practices and standards of first nations that choose to participate and would also ensure financial performance remains constant. Certifying the credit worthiness of first nation communities will strengthen their ability to gain access to low cost capital.

As well, the institution would promote financial management capacity development and encourage adherence to sound financial management practices. This is being done already in a lot of the communities and I encourage this practice.

I believe the first nation communities and businesses that are built on solid financial management foundations will attract more investors and a greater number of business partners from private sector and public sector alike.

As the House will recall, the government made a pledge in the Speech from the Throne to see real economic opportunities for aboriginal individuals and communities.

Over the last 10 or 11 years I have had the pleasure of chairing the aboriginal committee and the finance committee. In my capacity as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, I now get to travel the width and the breadth of this nation. I have met with many of the aboriginal people and leadership across the country and I see that we can be moving forward. Sometimes it will be in partnership and sometimes it will be the entrepreneurs but the talent and the expertise is there.

We are getting the education in place for the younger people. I think we have to be facilitative, encouraging and be champions for the things that can better the lives of our aboriginal Canadians. The bill goes in that direction.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it was one week ago today that the Prime Minister, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and others held an aboriginal summit just down the street from this place. They brought in aboriginal leaders from around the country and told them that from now on the government was going to do things differently, and that there was going to be a whole new fiscal relationship between first nations and the federal government.

Yet, exactly seven days later we are in the House of Commons and the first nations people are faced with the government ramming legislation down people's throats that they have expressly stated they do not want and are not interested in. I wanted to point out this glaring contradiction. This bill of goods has been sold to aboriginal people across the country that things are going to be different. As a cautionary note, we have with us today dramatic evidence that things are no different. Things are exactly the same.

Having said that, let me say that it is the height of Eurocentric arrogance, a European model of paternalism that imposes governance rules and systems of governance on people such as first nations without their full participation and opting into that sort of process. What we have today is the tail end of the first nations governance act suite of legislation that was introduced by the last minister of Indian affairs. This is the rump of that initiative.

We managed to stop Bill C-7 with great effort in the House of Commons and with aboriginal people around the country mobilizing to put the brakes on this ill-conceived first nations governance act. What we have today is an aspect of the FNGA. It is an integral part of that suite of legislation that was so soundly rejected by aboriginal people across the country.

All we really need to know in the House today, as we debate these amendments to a flawed bill, is that the governing councils of first nations in this country, the Assembly of First Nations, have looked at this bill and rejected it. They have done so on a number of occasions.

In November 2002 there was a resolution. The Assembly of First Nations, at a meeting held in Ottawa on November 19 and 20, 2002, looked at the fiscal and statistical management act, and the proposed first nations fiscal institutions bill. I am holding the resolution here. I do not need to read all of the “whereas” and “therefore be it resolved” paragraphs, but members can take my word for it that they overwhelmingly voted down this bill. They reconvened again on February 20 and 21, 2003. In fact, this time it was the AFN's fiscal relations committee. It reconsidered this particular bill and again voted it down.

We either have respect for the legitimately elected leadership of first nations in the form of the Assembly of First Nations or we do not. The Prime Minister cannot on one day, Monday of last week, say that he has respect for the leaders that he brought to the table and then one week later act in a way that clearly shows that he does not have any respect for these particular resolutions, democratically asked at the legislative Assembly of First Nations.

Even more recently, in October 2003, I actually went to the Squamish first nation where it had called a meeting of the Assembly of First Nations to deal with this very bill at that time. The B.C. chiefs, who are actually interested in this bill, felt they had enough interest from the other chiefs to vote in favour of what was in Bill C-19 at the time. When the two day meeting was convened, even the chiefs in B.C., of whom there are over 200, could not carry the day and again it was voted down.

The only thing members of the House of Commons need to know is that the Assembly of First Nations met three times in the last year and half, looked at Bill C-19, now Bill C-23, and categorically rejected it. They were not interested. They go to the basic core of the issue in their objections. They are looking at this from the point of view of section 35 of the Constitution, inherent and aboriginal treaty rights, the inherent right of aboriginal people to govern themselves. This is not in that vein. This misses the boat.

Even if there were elements of the bill that would be helpful and useful, and some first nations may in fact wish to avail themselves of elements of this bill in terms of pooling their borrowing capabilities, even their ability to issue bonds, et cetera, those are things that can be done and are being done even outside of the legislative framework.

What we find here is a growing mobilization across the country to bury the bill altogether. In keeping with the promises and the sentiments of the meeting of last Monday, aboriginal people and first nations across the country are mobilizing to kill Bill C-23.

People from around the country are on their way to Ottawa right now, busloads of people mobilizing to come forward to tell you and to tell members of Parliament through you, Mr. Speaker, that they do not want Bill C-23. Who are we then to dictate to them what they should have and what we think their system of government should look like? We are a bunch of white guys and a couple of white women in suits who are going to once again, in a Eurocentric, colonial style, dictate to them what we think their way of life should look like.

I have a fax here which says “red alert”. Right across the country there is a red alert going out stating that Bill C-23 will be coming up for debate in the House of Commons on Monday and that people should mobilize, come together and defeat the bill. People will be coming to Ottawa and they will tell the Liberal government in no uncertain terms that this is not in keeping with any kind of new fiscal relationship between first nations and the federal government.

The bill is a disappointment. Some hope and optimism was dangled under the noses of aboriginal people just a week ago today. I think it is a cynical gesture on the part of the House leader of the Liberal Party to table this bill today and have us debate the bill at all in the context of those promises made just one week ago. It is not lost on the leadership of aboriginal communities across the country. In fact, people are taking note that we are having this debate today.

The amendments put forward would have members believe that these first nations' fiscal institutions will be optional. Those who are pushing this bill are saying that they do not know what the aboriginal peoples are concerned about because this is an option for which they can avail themselves.

The bill is optional in the same way that a driver's licence is optional. People do not have to go out and get a driver's licence but if they ever want to drive a car they do. That is the same logic that applies to these pieces of legislation.

First nations do not have to avail themselves of the new fiscal institutions and the tax commission but if hey go to the federal government under their formal relationship that they have today, the fiduciary obligation with the federal government, and ask for help for economic development, the federal government will say, “Your options lay over in the first nations fiscal institution. Sign on your community to this new package of four financial institutions and you can borrow money on the open market to build your own sewage treatment plant. Do not come running to me.” That is the fear that small communities have that will happen. This is what the predictable consequences of the bill will be.

Even though the parliamentary secretary has dutifully put forward amendments, we cannot accept them and we cannot accept the bill. We think the bill flies in face and is in direct contrast to the commitments made to aboriginal people last Monday. It is a load of hooey.

[John Duncan, Canadian Alliance, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the public is perhaps wondering what we are talking about here. Bill C-23 is designed to strengthen first nations real property tax regimes, create a first nations bond financing arrangement and in the process would create four institutions: the first nations tax commission, which would replace the Indian Taxation Advisory Board; a first nations financial management board; a first nations finance authority; and a first nations statistical institute.

There were 18 amendments tabled by the minister. We are speaking to one grouping of the two groupings that were created by the Speaker.

They accomplished several things. One thing they did not accomplish was that they did not separate the statistical institute from the rest of the bill. That was a significant request that had been made by a broad range of interests, including the Conservative Party. I find that somewhat unfortunate.

We will be supporting Group No. 1 amendments because there was widespread concern and desire to have this act ascertained as an optional exercise for the band level governments and this clearly specifies that. We are in pretty good shape that way.

I have been speaking about private property and have been looking at quite a bit of literature in relation to private property on reserves in Canada. There has been some very good literature produced recently. I will specifically make reference to a publication called Masters In Our Own House , published by the Skeena Native Development Society in May of last year.

The book talks about three cornerstones that are required in the way of bringing success and prosperity to first nations. We are making great progress on this front from the standpoint that there is some real leadership that is starting to be exhibited. Sometimes this cannot be one gigantic step but a series of smaller steps.

It is worth referencing that we have had taxation power available to bands across the country for about a dozen years or so. Today, 25% of the bands in British Columbia are exercising the authority and about 10% nationally. When we include the fact that British Columbia has almost a third of the bands in Canada, we can see that very few of those bands that are taxing are outside British Columbia. It is something that has led us to things like the bill we are discussing today.

The authority has been delegated to the bands under section 83 of the Indian Act and it would allow them to carry out this taxation scheme.

There are three cornerstones of successful governance; first, the market system must be allowed to function, it must be enabled; second, there must be an ability for the people to control the use and development of their lands to enable capital formation; and third, entrepreneurial thinking needs to be enabled for effective entrepreneurship to flourish.

I found this publication, produced by the Skeena Native Development Society, to be pragmatic and practical in terms of pursuing those three cornerstones within the context of the Indian Act and the other sort of albatrosses that have pre-empted that from occurring. The Indian bands are trying to go somewhere important, and I think we went somewhere important last week when we talked about Bill C-11 in the House, the Westbank first nation self-government agreement. This publication talks quite a bit about that and I want to shed a little light to that whole subject at this time.

When this group looked at the problems inherent in developing the first nations, they actually talked about going from a command economy to a market-based economy. The Indian Act has created a command economy where the Government of Canada, through the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, has been the one that was entrusted with all of the decision-making in almost every way. One can view that, as they did, through the lens of communist China. I will quote right from the document which states:

They were struck by the parallels between the economic development problems experienced during theChinese transition to a market-based economy, and those presently confronting native communities.

This brought them to some not startling but pretty important conclusions because they were coming to those conclusions themselves. They were not conclusions that some academic or someone else in some other community was imposing upon them. These were conclusions they arrived at themselves and it was leading to major progress that would have major economic consequences downstream. They went so far as to quote from Hernando de Soto that:

The single most important source of funds for new businesses in the United States is a mortgage on the entrepreneur's house.

They went on to say:

Without this fundamental capability, will the financial institutions continue to avoid providing mortgage funds to First Nation entrepreneurs? In many ways, the ability to mortgage is the litmus test of property rights.

The irony is that in Canada we now have many native individuals with the earning power to afford to carry a mortgage and build a home off reserve, but they cannot get the banks to lend them funds because they cannot collateralize the loan on the reserve because of the lack of simple title. There is a clear recognition about the concern about clear and enforceable property rights, which is compromising transactions both on and off reserve.

I would like to conclude by saying that this concern has been addressed partially by the first nations land management act, more wholly by the Sechelt agreement in British Columbia, more wholly again by one small part of the land allocation to the Nisga'a, and almost completely by the Westbank agreement, Bill C-11, before the House.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from the Conservative Party for his generosity.

As I was saying before we ran into a procedural problem, I am coming back to my first love. I had the honour of being the Indian affairs critic for seven years and, I must admit, it warms my heart to talk about aboriginal matters again. It is an area where there are always marvellous new developments.

I have made a lot of aboriginal friends across Canada. I recall the debate about the Nisga'a, the debates about land claims and self-government. This is an area that I greatly enjoyed. Since my colleagues were unable to attend today's debate on the bill before us, I was delighted to stand in for them.

There was something else I noticed when I was the critic for this area. Whenever a series of bills about aboriginal peoples was introduced in the House, it was often because there was nothing left on the legislative agenda. I always deplored this. When talking about aboriginal peoples, if we recognize that they are nations, I believe they must be accorded a little more importance, rather than simply using them to fill in the gaps when the government has no bills left.

That is what is going on right now. We are about to debate a bill concerning the financial administration of the first nations because the government has nothing left to introduce. This is what happened in 1993, the year I was first elected, and I see that it is much the same thing today.

I must also admit that a bill on financial administration, if these people are recognized as nations and peoples, should ordinarily be between equals. We in Quebec are rather sensitive to this issue because we are in somewhat the same situation as the first nations. We recognize ourselves as a people; we recognize ourselves as a nation.

When the federal government shows its intentions to control the first nations with a bill such as we have before us today, we are quickly inclined to take the side of those who are to be controlled.

We must show them some respect. My vast experience in this field tells me that these people are perfectly able to govern themselves. Of course, government money is involved and such money should be monitored, but not to the extent suggested in Bill C-23; we think that is going too far. That is why we have objected to this bill from the beginning.

Thus, we can empathize with a nation that the central government is trying to control. I am not saying that it does not have the right to control it, because the Indian Act is quite clear. The aboriginal peoples have very little to say about the way they are governed. We see it otherwise. Until they attain self-government and until the land claims are settled, it will be difficult for them to catch up. They are reliant on the Indian Act and the sums of money given to them each year.

To this end, I think that the balance has not been attained between the respect we should have for the fact that they are self-governed and the fact that they are also accountable to Parliament, which determines the funds they receive.

These bills are not new. Piecemeal legislation is constantly being introduced. However, important commissions considered this issue, such as the Penner commission, which examined the new relationship and how it could be changed since there was still a relationship of dependency. People wanted to change all that. Now, what we are seeing is the same old pattern along the lines of the philosophy in the Indian Act, which has been condemned by many people.

The Erasmus-Dussault commission did a great deal on work on this. I can only remind the House of its efforts. It cost taxpayers $70 million and today, the report is collecting dust on a shelf somewhere in the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. However, the report made several extremely important points. At the time, there was a desire to totally change the relationship and ensure greater respect for aboriginals.

In fact, much effort was made and a great deal of emphasis was placed on self-government and land claims. There can be no self-government without sufficient resources and an adequate land base.

I think that the Erasmus-Dussault commission did an excellent job on this. It is too bad that its work is not reflected in the legislation now before Parliament.

This bill is along the lines of the philosophy behind the Indian Act. The Bloc Quebecois considers that keeping aboriginals dependent is taking a step in the wrong direction. This bill is, in our opinion, also a step in the wrong direction.

Consultation with the aboriginal nations is highly debatable, because the Assembly of First Nations spoke out about this. Yes, consultations were held, but the vast majority of those consulted voiced their objections.

Why is the federal government stubbornly introducing legislation on the first nations nonetheless? If we want to respect these nations and give them some measure of autonomy, we should not tell them that the Canadian Parliament will make all their decisions, as the Indian Act has done for over 100 years now, nor should we tell that we will now enforce legislation on financial administration that they must respect.

First nations have objected, and now we are talking about methods they will have to use without taking into account their self-governance and land claims, ignoring the treaties signed at the time, and imposing something new, somewhat as we did when we imposed the Indian Act. In my opinion, the federal government is headed in the wrong direction with this.

The government should have taken this consultation into account. Aboriginals have said that the bill is so terrible that even amending it would do no good. Today 18 amendments are being put forward. To us that is not enough because the fundamental philosophy underlying this bill is flawed.

We must recognize the autonomy of the aboriginal peoples and talk with them equal to equal. We should be able to tell such a nation how we could administer with them the money they are sent and how it would be acceptable to them. Unfortunately, this was not done, and that is why we are saying that this discussion between equals does not exist and has not existed. The concept of nation to nation does not exist either.

As I was saying, and I will conclude with this, as Quebeckers we consider ourselves to be a people and we would not want the same thing done to us, which is why we resist every time the federal government tries. Accordingly, we understand perfectly why the first nations are again resisting intrusion and a lack of respect toward them. Discussions are not being held equal to equal or nation to nation. They are having a bill imposed on them that they do not want. The Bloc Quebecois is on the side of aboriginals. We will vote against this bill.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak to the first group of amendments to Bill C-23 at report stage. Although I will be talking just about technicalities in my speech, I know there will be a number of more passionate speeches given later on with regard to the benefits of the bill.

In the previous stages of the bill, a couple of concerns were raised either by committee members or by people not involved in the committee. These amendments basically remove the most strenuous of those concerns. The amendments make the bill optional and they make it quite clear that it is optional. For first nations and aboriginal people who want to buy into the bill, who want to use the institutions, it is totally optional. The bill does not place an onus on first nations that have no desire to collect property taxes to do so. It does not force any first nation to go into debt.

No first nation has to use the institutions created by the bill, but these institutions have been developed over the years by first nations people themselves to help them in the financial area after their experience with section 83 of the Indian Act relating to property tax and their difficulties in getting large loans to build infrastructure at reasonable rates. They were also developed to provide first nations with a financial institution to provide them with financial consulting, and there was as well a lack of sufficient statistics to help them in their work.

Certain first nations have been working for years to develop these institutions that would perform these functions. They would be managed by first nations people. Once again, let me say that they are totally optional. No one has to use them or buy into them or be involved with them in any way. In fact, sections 83 and 84 of the Indian Act are being left in because a number of first nations are now quite successfully collecting property tax through these sections. They are welcome to keep using them as opposed to this new, more transparent method.

I will now talk about the technical points of the amendments.

Motion No. 1 relating to clause 2 is one of a series of motions to amend the bill to limit its application to just those first nations whose councils have requested that the governor in council include the name of their band on the schedule attached to the bill.

This amendment does two things. First, it limits the application of the term first nation in all parts of the bill, except part 5, to just those first nations who appear on the schedule attached to the bill.

Part 5 of the bill outlines the scope of the work of the statistical institute in the collection, analysis and dissemination of data relating to first nations and other aboriginal groups. Had the term first nation as applied to this part been limited to only those first nations on the schedule, the statistical institute would have been prevented from working with data pertaining to any first nation not on the schedule. This would have seriously limited the effectiveness of the institute.

Second, the amendment provides authority for the governor in council, upon the request of a council or first nation, to add the name of the first nation to the schedule, to delete its name from the schedule, or to change the name as it appears on the schedule. Any first nation can buy in at any time or can leave at any time. It is through an order in council that they would be added to the list, so it would be transparent for everyone to see.

Motion No. 2 in relation to clause 13.1 is one of a series of motions to amend the bill to limit its application to just those first nations whose councils request the governor in council to include the name of their band on the schedule attached to the bill. It is also proposed that the provisions of section 83 of the Indian Act, which deal with real property taxation, be retained in order to provide first nations with a choice to undertake property taxation under Bill C-23 or under the Indian Act. This amendment is required to clarify that should a first nation opt to tax under the bill, the property tax provisions of sections 83 and 84 of the Indian Act would not apply to that particular first nation.

Motion No. 11 amending clause 141 is one of a series of motions to amend the bill to limit its application to just those first nations whose councils have requested the governor in council to include the name of their band on a schedule attached to the bill.

It is also proposed that those provisions of section 83 of the Indian Act which deal with property taxation be retained to provide first nations with a choice to undertake property taxation under the bill or under the Indian Act.

This amendment modifies the current wording of clause 141 so that the property tax bylaws of a first nation made under section 83 of the Indian Act would be deemed to be laws made under clause 4 of this bill on the day the name of the first nation is added to the schedule of the bill. This supports the smooth transition of first nation property tax bylaws from one act to another.

The next amendment is Motion No. 12 on clause 148. This is one of a series of motions to amend the bill to limit its application to just those first nations whose councils have requested the governor in council to include the name of the band on a schedule attached to the bill.

It is also proposed that those provisions of section 83 of the Indian Act which deal with real property taxation be retained to provide first nations with the choice to undertake property taxation under this bill or under the Indian Act.

The current wording of clause 148 of the bill removes the reference to section 84 of the Indian Act from section 4.1 of that act. This amendment deletes clause 148 of the bill, thereby ensuring that the reference to section 84 is retained.

Next is Motion No. 13 on clause 149. This again is one of a series of motions to amend the bill to limit its application to just those first nations whose councils have requested the governor in council to include the name of their band on a schedule attached the bill.

It is also proposed that those provisions of section 83 of the Indian Act which deal with real property taxation be retained to provide the first nations with a choice to undertake property taxation under this bill or under the Indian Act.

This amendment would delete clause 149, which would otherwise have repealed the authority for the governor in council to make regulations for empowering and authorizing the council or the band to borrow money for band projects under paragraph 73(1)(m) of the Indian Act.

Next is Motion No. 14 on clause 150. It is one of a series of motions to amend the bill to limit its application to just those first nations whose councils have requested the governor in council to include their name of their band on a schedule attached to the bill.

It is also proposed that those provisions of section 83 of the Indian Act which deal with real property taxation be retained to provide the first nations with a choice to undertake property taxation under this bill or under the Indian Act.

This amendment would delete clause 150, which otherwise would have repealed those provisions of section 83 of the Indian Act concerning the making of first nations property tax bylaws.

Motion No. 15 relates to clause 150.1. It also is one of a series of motions to amend the bill to limit its application to just those first nations whose councils have requested the governor in council to include the name of their band on a schedule attached to the bill.

It is also proposed that those provisions of section 83 of the Indian Act which deal with real property taxation be retained to provide the first nations with a choice to undertake property taxation under this bill or under the Indian Act.

This amendment would delete clause 150.1, which would otherwise have repealed section 84 of the Indian Act, which deals with the recovery of property taxes pursuant to a bylaw under section 83.

Motion No. 16, the second last one in the group, is on clause 151. This is one of a series of motions to amend the bill to limit its application to just those first nations whose councils have requested the governor in council to include the name of their band on a schedule attached to the bill.

It is also proposed that those provisions of section 83 of the Indian Act which deal with real property taxation be retained to provide the first nations with a choice to undertake property taxation under this bill or under the Indian Act.

This motion would amend clause 151 to clarify that provisions of section 87 of the Indian Act dealing with tax exemptions would not apply both in the case of laws made under clause 4 of the bill and in the case of bylaws made under section 83 of the Indian Act.

The last amendment, Motion No. 18, is about the schedule. This is the last of a series of motions to amend the bill to limit its application to just those first nations whose councils have requested the governor in council to include the name of their band on a schedule attached to the bill. This motion would add the schedule to the bill.

In summary, we have ensured that the Indian Act provisions related to property tax in sections 83 and 84 can carry on, but if people want this new system to help them obtain loan financing at lower rates, to have management, and to have a transparent property tax system, they can utilize this bill.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-23, in Clause 2, be amended

(a) by replacing lines 1 and 2 on page 3 with the following:

““first nation” means

(a) in any provision of Part 5, a band; and

(b) in any other provision, a band named in the schedule.”

(b) by adding after line 4 on page 4 the following:

“(3) At the request of the council of a band, the Governor in Council may, by order, amend the schedule by adding, deleting or changing the name of the band.”

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-23 be amended by adding after line 34 on page 11 the following new clause:

“13.1 Paragraphs 83(1)(a) and (d) to (g) and section 84 of the Indian Act and any regulations made under paragraph 73(1)(m) of that Act do not apply to a first nation.”

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-23, in Clause 141, be amended by replacing lines 21 to 23 on page 60 with the following:

“141. (1) By-laws made by a first nation under paragraph 83(1)(a), or any of paragraphs 83(1)(d) to (g), of the Indian Act that are in force on the day on which the name of the first nation is added to the schedule are”

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 148.

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 149.

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 150.

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 150.1.

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-23, in Clause 151, be amended

(a) by replacing line 35 on page 62 with the following:

“the Indian Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by”

(b) by replacing line 39 on page 62 with the following:

“province, but subject to section 83 and”

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-23, in Schedule, be amended by adding after line 8 on page 70 the following:

“SCHEDULE

(Subsections 2(1) and (3))”

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Here are the rulings, by groups.

There are 18 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-23. The Chair has been asked to use its discretionary power to select all the motions in amendment under the name of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

I am informed that there has been an understanding between the Minister for Indian Affairs and Northern Development and opposition critics concerning the selection of these amendments. Notwithstanding any reservation the Chair may have, I agree that the motions in the name of the minister should be all selected. The motions will be grouped for debate as follows: Group No. 1, Motions Nos. 1, 2, 11 to 16 and 18; and Group No. 2, Motions Nos. 3 to 10 and 17.

The voting patterns for the motions within each group are available at the table. The Chair will remind the House of each pattern at the time of voting.

I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1, 2, 11 to 16, and 18 in Group No. 1 to the House.

International Transfer of Offenders Act

[John Duncan, Canadian Alliance, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have had one opposition member and nine government members speak to a bill at third reading that has no amendments. I have been expecting, for over three hours now, to speak to Bill C-23, which I hope is coming up very soon. I can go back to last week where the government was filibustering bills also. This is going back to more than Friday. I can go back to last Thursday.

I would like to get on with the government agenda, which last week was that aboriginal bills would be upcoming, and that was what it wanted to serve up, and Bill C-23 is an aboriginal bill.

First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-23, 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.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the special order made previously, I would like to inform the House that this bill is in the same form as Bill C-19 was at the time of prorogation of the previous session.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Criminal Code

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development (Social Economy)]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to take part in the debate on private member's Bill C-471 introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for Crowfoot. As has been previously mentioned, the purpose of this bill is to protect children from repeat sex offenders. This protection is to be enhanced by amending the sentencing provisions in the Criminal Code.

Obviously, our government is just as concerned as the Canadian public about protecting our children from sexual predators. But as for the arguments that the courts of this country are too soft on these offenders, that their current sentences are not severe enough, that sex offenders ought to have their basic rights withdrawn, that these predators get released without any concerns about children's safety, I have been hearing them for years from the other side of this House. They may get great press coverage, but they do nothing for public safety, as I have already said.

The Criminal Code states that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is “to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society”. The objectives of sentencing in the Criminal Code include denouncing unlawful conduct, deterring those who would commit offences and promoting a sense of responsibility in offenders in acknowledging the harm they have done to victims and to the community. The most vulnerable victims in our society are our children, as has already been said.

Canada is totally opposed to the use of draconian measures like the death penalty or the various forms of “three strikes and you're out” legislation, which would call for life sentences with no chance for parole. Our legal system has always respected the discretionary power of judges to adapt their sentences to the severity of the offence, the offender's behaviour, and the risk that offender poses to society.

A judge who has taken into consideration all the facts and all the testimony on the circumstances of the offence and the situation of the offender is in a better position than the members of the opposition to bring down a sentence that is appropriate to each case.

The recent Speech from the Throne confirmed that the protection of children continues to be a key priority for the Government of Canada. As a part of this renewed commitment to protect children from sexual predators, the government has reinstated the former Bill C-20, now Bill C-12, regarding the protection of children and other vulnerable persons.

This legislation proposes criminal law reforms that would provide increased protection to be given to children against abuse, neglect and sexual exploitation. It would strengthen the child pornography provisions by broadening the definition of written child pornography and narrowing the existing defences to one defence of public good.

Bill C-12 would also create a new prohibited category of sexual exploitation of young persons resulting from the existence of such factors as the age of the young person, the difference in age and the degree of control or influence exerted over the young person.

Bill C-12 would increase the maximum penalties for offences against children and would make the commission of an offence against any child an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes. It would also facilitate testimony by a child and other vulnerable victims and witnesses.

These changes would build upon amendments that have been in force since July 2002 for protecting children from sexual exploitation through the use of new technologies. These amendments addressed the communication of child pornography through the Internet and created a new offence of luring that made it illegal to communicate with a child on the Internet for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a sexual offence against the child. The changes also simplified the procedure to prosecute Canadians who sexually exploit children in other countries.

Another example of our focus on the protection of Canadians from sexual predators is the reinstatement in the House of Commons of former Bill C-23, now Bill C-16, the sexual offender information registration act, as was mentioned by my hon. colleague who first presented it in the House. That proposal seeks to establish a national sex offender registry requiring sexual predators to report to police agencies on an annual basis, which will allow rapid police investigation through an address searchable database. Under the proposal, failure to register would be a Criminal Code offence with serious penal consequences.

The February 2 Speech from the Throne also indicated a new commitment by the government to do more to ensure the safety of children through a strategy to counter sexual exploitation of children on the Internet. Under the lead of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we are working with our federal, provincial and territorial, private sector and international partners in the development of a strategy to coordinate and enhance our efforts to counter child sexual exploitation on the Internet.

Certainly I would be remiss if I did not point out that in 1997, when I was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, the dangerous offender provisions of the Criminal Code were amended to toughen up the provisions against the most violent sexual predators.

The private member's bill before us today seeks to amend these provisions to go after repeat sexual offenders against children. Really, that is exactly what the 1997 amendments did. Individuals who are declared dangerous offenders by the courts are now subject to a mandatory indeterminate sentence. The 1997 amendments also included a provision that permits judges to impose a long term offender designation resulting in up to 10 years of community supervision after serving a penitentiary term.

Moreover, in 1997, we also toughened up the conditions for recognizance under section 810, particularly by adding section 810.2, a new category dealing with serious personal injury offences. Section 810 has been very useful to the police in protecting vulnerable persons—even when there was no conviction, or even charges against a potential sexual predator likely to attack children.

I would also like to say a word about the 1993 Criminal Code amendments that created a potentially life-long order of prohibition, prohibiting convicted sexual offenders from frequenting daycare centres, schoolyards, playgrounds, public parks and swimming places where children are likely to be seen.

The order also prohibits these offenders from seeking or continuing any employment, whether remunerated or volunteer, in a capacity that involves being in a position of trust or authority. Another provision was added to permit an individual to obtain a peace bond—a protective order lasting up to a year—if he or she fears that another person will commit a sexual offence against a child.

In closing, I want to insist that all efforts have been made in order to protect Canada's children.

While recognizing the validity of the concerns of the hon. member for Crowfoot with respect to sexual predators on children, I simply do not believe that his proposal would improve the existing provisions.

Moreover, the latest reforms now before Parliament will translate into changes in our laws to give our children even better protection.

We also are doing everything we can for the safety of Canada's children. It is for the sake of our children that we have to stop scaring them with the worst, most heinous crimes cited in the House. In fact, sexual predators are not the majority of criminals but the minority, and thank God that is the case.

Reinstatement of Government Bills

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the motion seeks to reinstate bills that died on the Order Paper when the previous session of Parliament ended.

As all of us know, the goal of the motion is a simple one: to spare members the burden of having to repeat work on bills that got as far as the committee stage in the last session.

This is especially commendable given the numerous pressures MPs are under and the limited resources available to us.

What features are contained in the motion? Simply put, under the motion a minister would be able to request during 30 sitting days after the motion's adoption the reinstatement of a bill that had reached at least the committee stage when the last session ended. Should the Speaker be satisfied that the bill is the same as in the previous session, the bill would be reinstated at the same stage as before.

Thus during this session we can skip all the stages of debate that have been completed so far. The work of the committees that are considering the bills would consequently be preserved. In short, this is a very appealing option.

Parliament relies heavily upon precedents which means we are constantly looking over our shoulder to ensure new measures are consistent with past practices. Is this motion in keeping with the longstanding practices of the House? It is in fact a practice we have had for over three decades.

On a number of occasions reinstatement motions have been adopted by consent and without debate. It is clear that today's motion is well within the bounds of accepted parliamentary practice. This is supported by Marleau and Montpetit's authoritative guide to parliamentary procedure which discusses this issue in some detail. While they recognize that as a general principle prorogation of a session means that all bills that have not yet received royal assent die on the Order Paper and must be reintroduced in the new session, they also recognize that “bills have been reinstated by motion at the start of a new session at the same stage they had reached at the end of the previous session; committee work has similarly been revived”.

One point that needs clarification is that this motion allows the government the flexibility to reintroduce certain bills. It does not require the government to reintroduce all bills that were on the Order Paper at a certain stage when Parliament prorogued. Let me give an example of some bills which the government would have the flexibility to reinstate if it so chose.

One is Bill C-7 on the administration and accountability of Indian bands. The new government has indicated it would like to revisit that whole question of governance but nonetheless, this motion would give the government the flexibility to reintroduce that bill should it so choose.

Another one is Bill C-10B on cruelty to animals which has received a lot of attention in my riding. Bill C-13, assisted human reproduction, as an example had passed third reading and had been sent to the Senate and a great deal of the work that had been done here in the House of Commons would have to be redone. Bill C-17 on public safety was another bill that had passed third reading and had been sent to the Senate.

Bill C-18, an act respecting Canadian citizenship, is another bill that the government if this motion passes will be able to reintroduce if it so chooses. Bill C-19, first nations fiscal management, was at report stage. Bill C-20, protection of children, was at report stage. Bill C-22, the Divorce Act, was in committee. Bill C-23, registration of information relating to sex offenders, had passed third reading and had been sent to the Senate. Bill C-26, the Railway Safety Act, was in committee. Bill C-27 on airport authorities was at second reading when the House prorogued.

Bill C-32, Criminal Code amendments, had passed third reading and had been sent to the Senate. Bill C-33, international transfer of persons found guilty of criminal offences, was at report stage when we prorogued. Bill C-34, ethics, had passed third reading and had been sent to the Senate where it had been amended.

These are bills that have gone through a lengthy debate and process within the House of Commons and some already within the Senate.

Bill C-35, remuneration of military judges, had passed third reading and had been sent to the Senate. Bill C-36, Archives of Canada, had passed third reading and had been sent to the Senate. Bill C-38, the marijuana bill, was at report stage and second reading. Bill C-40, Corrections and Conditional Release Act, was at first reading when the House prorogued. Bill C-43, the fisheries act, was at first reading when the House prorogued.

Bill C-46, the capital markets fraud bill, had passed third reading and had been sent to the Senate. This is a bill that will help the government deal with the kind of corporate fraud that we have seen with Enron and many other examples. We want to make sure that our government has the ability to deal with these types of issues so that investors are protected from the fraudulent activities of the management of various companies and their directors.

Bill C-49, the electoral boundaries act had passed third reading and was in the Senate.

Bill C-51, the Canada Elections Act, and Bill C-52, the Radiocommunication Act, were at second reading when the House prorogued. Bill C-53, the riding name changes, had passed third reading and was sent to the Senate. Bill C-54, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act was in committee as was Bill C-56, the Food and Drugs Act, when the House prorogued. Bill C-57, the westbank first nation self-government act was also in committee.

There was a lot of work involved in getting these bills to this stage. The government is not necessarily committing to reintroducing all these bills, but we want the flexibility to reintroduce those bills which we support and not have to reinvent the wheel.

The amendment put forward by the member for Yorkton--Melville indicates that there are a number of bills that, given the government's flexibility, he would not like to have reinstated. That includes Bill C-7, the bill dealing with the administration and accountability of Indian bands. Our government may want to revisit that bill.

The member for Yorkton--Melville has said that Bill C-13, the assisted human reproduction bill, should be left alone as well. He names a number of other bills such as Bill C-19, Bill C-20, Bill C-22, Bill C-26, Bill C-34, Bill C-35, Bill C-36, Bill C-38.

I should point out that a number of these bills, Bill C-13 for example, passed third reading and was in the Senate.The member for Yorkton--Melville wants us to start all over with that bill.

He said that Bill C-34, the ethics legislation, should not be reinstated, yet that bill had passed third reading and was sent to the Senate where it had been amended. We all know about that bill.

He said that we should start all over again with regard to Bill C-35, remuneration for military judges legislation. That bill had passed third reading and was in the Senate,.

I do not know what is so contentious with regard to Bill C-36, the archives of Canada legislation, but the member for Yorkton--Melville wants us to start all over again with that bill. Bill C-38, the marijuana bill, was at report stage.

A lot of work has already been done in this chamber and in the other place on bills that, without the passage of this motion, would have to be started all over again. There is a long list of precedents for reinstating government bills and reviving committee work.

For example, in 1970, 1972, 1974 and 1986, the members of this House gave their unanimous consent to a motion to reinstate bills from a previous session.

In 1977 and 1982 members amended the Standing Orders to allow Parliament to carry over legislation to the next session. All of which testifies to the longstanding practice of the House of allowing the reinstatement of bills at the same stage as was the case in the previous session, which is precisely what the motion calls for.

It is interesting to note, and I have some personal interaction with this particular idea, that the procedure proposed in the motion is similar, in fact it is identical, to that which exists in the Standing Orders for private members' bills which the House adopted in 1998.

I have a private member's bill, Bill C-212, an act respecting user fees, that unanimously passed all stages in the House, was in the Senate, had passed first reading in the Senate and had been referred to the Senate Standing Committee on National Finance. Then we prorogued. Without this particular feature, I would have had to start all over again in the House of Commons after two to three years of work and a bill that had passed unanimously at all stages in the House of Commons.

With this particular Standing Order, the bill is already on the floor of the Senate. We did not have to reinvent the wheel here in the House of Commons. I am hopeful that it will be passed to the Standing Committee on National Finance shortly and then onwards from there.

We say that those rules are good for private member's bills, in fact they have the support of the House because they are now part of the Standing Orders. We say, on the one hand for private members' business, it is all right to reinstate these bills, but for the government's business it is not, this is a whole new thing.

The member opposite said that if we have a new government then why do we not have new ideas. I can assure the member that if he read the throne speech, and if he looked at the new democratic deficit paper, this is just the start. He will see that the government will be operated very differently.

However, having said that, there is no problem in my judgment to reintroduce those bills that make sense. There has been a lot of work done already. With this motion, the government would have the flexibility to deal with these bills that have been passed, where there is consent of the House, and send them to the Senate.

It is interesting to note that in 1977, a private member's bill was reinstated after Parliament was dissolved.

All of which inevitably leads us to the conclusion, as I said earlier, that if it is reasonable to reinstate private members' bills at the same stage, surely we have the common sense in this chamber to say that it is reasonable to follow the same procedure with respect to government bills.

What would be different about government bills? If we have adopted the procedure in the House for private members' business, why would we want different rules for government business, unless we are out to score political points or be partisan in our debate?

I should point out that this practice of reinstating bills is also practised in other mature democracies that have ruled in favour of bringing legislation forward from one session to another.

I think of the parliament in the United Kingdom from which many of our own parliamentary practices originally came. It has reinstatement motions to allow government bills to carry over from one session to the next.

The official opposition has told the media that it would oppose the motion for the sole purpose of delaying bills from the last session. This is patently unfair and contrary to House practices. The attitude shows it has little regard for the work of the House and for Canadian taxpayers. Opposition members will ask members of the House, at great cost to the public treasury, to come back and re-debate bills that have already passed this chamber and are in the Senate in many cases.

The bills that will be reinstated would include the legislation to accelerate the coming into force of the new electoral boundaries which was passed by the House of Commons and sent to the Senate.

We talk about dealing with western alienation. This particular legislation would allow more seats for British Columbia and Alberta. This is the way to proceed. Why would we want to delay that bill? Why would we want to have the debate all over again on something that is patently obvious.

We take the census and figure it all out, and draw the boundaries. This is not rocket science. This is done by Elections Canada. It redefines the boundaries. It recognizes that Canada is a growing country, that different areas are growing more quickly than others, and it redefines the boundaries.

If we have that bill when the next election is called, Alberta and British Columbia will have a bigger voice. I think Ontario would receive more seats as well. I am sure that there could be an amendment that could be put forward to deal with Nova Scotia perhaps.

There is the legislation to create an independent ethics commissioner and a Senate ethics officer, something that the members opposite have argued for vociferously for months, perhaps years. This bill could be reinstated very simply by agreeing and adopting this motion. We could have an independent ethics commissioner for the House and a Senate ethics officer.

The motion should have the support of the House. It is the practice in most mature democratic countries.

In conclusion, we need to be clear that adoption of the motion does not mean that all the bills that were on the Order Paper when we prorogued would automatically come back. It means that the government would have the flexibility to pick those bills that, in its wisdom and judgment, it sees fit to bring back. That would allow us not to have to reinvent the wheel and re-debate those bills that have the support of the chamber. Many of them also have the support of the Senate, at least at first reading stage.

The motion before us today does not represent a break with our parliamentary traditions. In fact, it is very much a part of our parliamentary traditions and it is entirely consistent with the practice of the House dating back to 1970.

Moreover, the measures described in the motion would greatly contribute to freeing up the members so that they can focus on the important task of developing new initiatives for promoting the well-being of Canadians.

With this in mind, I certainly intend to support this motion. I would urge other members to support it so we can get on with the business of the House, the important business and legislation that can be brought forward and reinstated and not have to be re-debated.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will understand why it is difficult for me to resist the temptation to take part in this afternoon's debate. We have just heard a version of the truth that strikes me as very odd. It does not match at all what I understand to be the question at issue.

First, let us consider whether a precedent is being set today. In my opinion, that would be a good place to start. In fact, believe it or not, Mr. Speaker—you must know this, because you are so objective and non-partisan—the House has been adopting similar motions for 30 years. It has been 30 years; that is a long time. I know, because I have been here a long time as well.

In 1970, 1972 and 1986, not only did we have similar motions but they were unanimously passed by the House of Commons. Unanimously.

I am sure that my hon. colleagues opposite who have spoken against the motion had not considered what I have just said, and that, in the light of these facts, they might want to change their minds and vote in favour of the motion proposed by the hon. government House leader.

Moreover, in 1991, 1996 and 1999, and even as recently as 2002, the House adopted motions absolutely identical to the one proposed today. I know something about those, because in 1996, 1999 and 2002, I was the government House leader, and so I remember it well. We already know it is not without precedent.

I should add, because some hon. members spoke about what they see as a democratic deficit, that in fact the democratic deficit is on the other side of the House, and we see what has happened.

The hon. members opposite wanted a motion that would reinstate private members' bills—not government bills but private members' bills. The House, in its wisdom, passed the motion. That means that now, an hon. member—more often than not someone from the opposition—can rise in the House and revive a private member's bill, at the stage already completed. At the same time, they say, “No, this rule is good for us, but it is not good for you, over on the government side”.

There is a democratic deficit on the other side of the House. I will come back to that later. The hon. government House leader has moved a motion, and we have just established that it is exactly identical to, the same as, those in past sessions, many of which passed unanimously.

Yet, what does the opposition do? The hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River, who was an excellent parliamentary secretary and is a known expert on the matter, told us earlier, and rightfully so, that in fact the motion does not reinstate any bill. It simply authorizes the government to bring back a bill from the previous session at the stage already debated and approved by this House. That is all it does.

Then we are left to ask the question, if the House has already voted on a piece of legislation, the hon. member across who has said there is a democratic deficit, why is he against our accepting the fact that the House has already voted on it? Is it not the basic concept of respecting the democratic principles to accept the fact that we have already voted regardless of whether we voted in favour or against?

Surely the House has voted and that should be respected. However, the hon. member said that it does not count. He wants a second kick at the can.

Mr. Speaker, in the unlikely event that I have not convinced you, let me tell you what other scheme the opposition is up to.

The government moved a motion, the one introduced by the hon. leader of the government in the House of Commons. The opposition introduced an amendment. Some would say fair game; any motion can be amended. However the opposition does not want the House to vote on its amendment. Why do I say that? It is simple. I know a few procedural tricks myself.

The opposition introduced a subamendment. For the benefit of all colleagues and perhaps anyone who is listening to this debate, when we are dealing with a motion as opposed to a bill, an amendment can be introduced and then a subamendment can be introduced. When the subamendment is dealt with, a new subamendment can be introduced so that we never get back to the original motion so that the government cannot move the previous question. If the government cannot move the previous question, that means the debate will go on forever and the motion will never be voted on. That is exactly what it means and I challenge any member across the way to tell me it means anything else. It means that the first motion cannot be voted on.

The opposition has created a situation where the only way to resolve the impasse is for the hon. minister to invoke closure. There is no other way, otherwise the democratic principle of voting on the motion can never be achieved. It can only be achieved by putting a motion that the debate end at some time because otherwise it will not end. If the hon. member says that is not true, then let him remove the subamendment and let him remove the amendment and let us debate the main motion.

Obviously the opposition does not intend to do that because it has created the two scenarios to force the government to move closure and then the opposition members stand here and sanctimoniously claim that the government is otherwise undemocratic because it has moved closure. They are the ones who provoked it. Did they not think we would see through that? Did they think that Canadians would not understand what I have just said? It is crystal clear. I am sure all Canadians understand how Parliament works. I am sure they understand that what the opposition is doing here is not democracy but the denial of it. That is what we have before us today.

I look forward to the exchange with the hon. member in questions and comments later when he explains to us how he was pretending with crocodile tears that there was some sort of democratic deficit, as he referred to it, because the hon. minister moved closure.

The hon. minister proposed a motion which we recognize has already been voted on democratically by the House of Commons, a debatable motion, a votable motion. Not only did members across not want to vote to accept that which the House had already voted on, which they should, they did not want to accept the principle that the motion in question be debated because they introduced an amendment and then a subamendment to stop us from getting back to the main motion. That is crystal clear. It would take only a few minutes for anyone who understands anything about how this place works to determine that is the case.

Why is the hon. member across afraid of voting on the motion? Is it, as the hon. member for Scarborough--Rouge River astutely pointed to earlier today, that the opposition does not know whether it is in favour of the reinstatement motion or against it ? Does the opposition simply want to amend it and subamend it so that it can be debated for eternity and thereby force the government to use closure so that in fact we vote on the closure motion?

In the end this will be quite interesting. I do not know when the closure vote will take place but presumably it will be very soon. After we vote on the subamendment and the amendment, I will be curious to see how the hon. member votes on the main motion. If he votes against the main motion, that means he fails to respect the fact that members have already voted on that issue. If he votes for the main motion, then I am forced to ask the question, why did he bother to put the amendment and the subamendment if he was in favour of the original proposition unamended?

Canadians will have to ask themselves these questions about the behaviour of the hon. member across and all of his colleagues who have proposed the amendment and the subamendment.

I would be very curious to know where the Conservatives opposite get their facts. May I also remind this House, since the member has now declared himself a Conservative—I must say, better him than me, and he can be sure I will never try to take his Conservative title away from him—that the Conservative Party had moved similar motions in 1986 and 1991. Perhaps he could tell us if he is against these reinstatement motions.

Could it be that the Conservatives were wrong when they moved these motions in the past? If he is in favour of reinstatement motions, why did his party put forward an amendment and an amendment to the amendment to prevent us from voting on the main motion?

That is what is before us today. In conclusion, allow me to point out what bills we are talking about.

A number of these pieces of legislation are very important.

Bill C-57, the Westbank First Nation self-government bill is an important bill. Why does the hon. member and his colleagues not want us to pick up where we left off on it? What about the Food and Drugs Act amendments, Bill C-56, of the last session? What about Bill C-54, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to transfer money to the provinces? Why is he against us recognizing the work that Parliament has done on these bills? Why is he against the Radiocommunication Act?

There was also the acceleration of the redistribution, Bill C-51. That is an interesting bill. We now hear that the so-called new Conservative Party, if that is not an oxymoron, is now against Bill C-51. It was the House leader of the then Alliance Party who asked for the bill in the first place in order to accelerate the redistribution. Now that party is against reinstating that bill and has threatened to amend the bill once it comes forward.

With regard to capital market fraud, the so-called Enron bill, why is the opposition against us wanting to increase transparency in the finance sector? What about Bill C-43, the Fisheries Act? What about Bill C-40, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act? It is interesting to note that this bill deals with tightening up security and the safety for Canadians, police work, et cetera. That party always alleges it is in favour of such measures, but it is not showing it.

What about Bill C-36, the Archives of Canada act. I remember a then Alliance member who worked very actively with me to amend that bill to make it go forward. I am looking at him right now, the critic for Canadian heritage of the then Alliance party. Why is he against us moving ahead with that bill when he worked so hard to get it improved and passed in the House? I do not understand.

What about the remuneration of military judges? What about Bill C-34, the ethics bill?

Not every one of these bills will be introduced by the government, but a large number of them will be. This is an enabling motion permitting the government to reintroduce every single one of them. Why is the opposition against that?

Let me go a little further by mentioning the international transfer of persons found guilty of criminal offences, Bill C-33. The opposition again, allegedly on the side of public safety, is against us moving ahead to bring that bill back at the stage it was at.

Criminal Code amendments should strike a chord with the folks across, but no they do not. I think principles have been overtaken on the opposition side. The hon. member across invoked so-called principles, but hon. members across saw an opportunity to, in their view, embarrass the government for moving closure very early when it came back.

As we have already established, once we have the amendment and the subamendment, we create the condition which can only be solved by having closure. One could argue very successfully, if it was looked at totally objectively, that it is the opposition that is forcing this closure upon the House, not the government.

Let me mention some more legislation. We have Bill C-27, the airport authority bill. Bill C-26, the Railway Safety Act, was in committee. Bill C-23, the registration of information relating to sex offenders, was passed at third reading and sent to the Senate. The opposition does not want us to reinstate that bill. It wants us to go back to the beginning presumably. What does the opposition have against us trying to improve the safety of Canadians by proceeding with the legislation in a more expeditious way, recognizing the work already done by hon. members of the House?

There are more bills. There is Bill C-7, the accountability of aboriginal communities bill. Surely hon. members would be in favour of that because they keep invoking it in speeches in the House of Commons. Assisted human reproduction, Bill C-13, was a bill that stayed for years in the House at various stages. There were white papers, preliminary bills, final bills, witnesses all over the place, and finally we received a conclusion to it and it was sent to the other place where it was not quite concluded there.

Why should we have to restart work that has already been done? Why can we not respect the democratic will of members who have seen fit to vote on that issue in the past and send it to the Senate. Surely that is respecting the democratic institutions, not the other way around.

Why does the hon. member not withdraw the subamendment and amendment? Of course we know that will not to happen because the opposition members are up to using procedural tricks to stop the government from proceeding with this. That is what they are doing. They are being excessively partisan again. The way they are behaving now it is a small wonder Canadians do not trust the opposition to form a government.

In conclusion, why do we not just carry the motion right now and reinstate those bills right where they were or allow the ministers in each case to reinstate the bills? It is not to skip steps in bills. It is merely to recognize the work already done by us, members of the House. What could be more democratic than that? That is what should happen right now, and surely that is the correct approach.

The hon. member's party itself gave unanimous consent for that exact motion before. I know because I put the motion to the House at the time. It passed without even debate in the House in the past. The hon. member knows that is correct.

Why does the member not remove the amendment and subamendment and carry the motion right now? Why does the member not stop this unnecessary foolishness of trying to force the government to do this in order to pretend that the government is moving closure whereas it would not have otherwise.

We know the truth. We all know what it is like. We want to recognize the work done by members on all sides of the House on all those pieces of legislation and recognize the value of their work.

I ask the hon. member again to allow this vote to take place right away. Then we can get to business, complete this legislation and proceed with other legislation, all for the betterment of Canadians. That is what we are for on this side of the House. Let us see if the hon. member across is in favour of his partisanship or is in favour of helping Canadians.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to introduce Motion No. 2, which proposes, and I quote:

That, during the first thirty sitting days of the present session of Parliament, whenever a minister of the Crown, when proposing a motion for first reading of a public bill, states that the said bill is in the same form as a government bill in the previous session, if the Speaker is satisfied that the said bill is in the same form as the House of Commons had agreed to at prorogation, notwithstanding Standing Order 71, the said bill shall be deemed in the current session to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of the prorogation of the previous session.

There are ample precedents for the House of Commons deeming government bills from previous sessions to have been advanced in new sessions to the stages at which they expired at prorogation.

This approach has been applied for over 30 years in order to avoid wasting parliament's time and resources. In 1970, 1972 and 1986, the House gave unanimous consent to such motions to reinstate bills. In 1991, 1996, 1999 and as recently as 2002, the House passed a motion similar to that which we are proposing today. Furthermore, it is consistent with practice in the United Kingdom House of Commons.

If our motion is adopted, witnesses will not have to come back to committees to present their views and briefs all over again. The committees in turn will not have to hear them all over again.

Before this procedure was accepted by the House, reintroducing bills that had died on the Order Paper wasted valuable parliamentary resources and tax dollars since the same debate and the same committee hearings had to be repeated for each bill which needed to be reintroduced.

Given the financial constraints under which we are operating and for which we should be aware, we feel it is wiser to devote these resources to priority needs in areas such as health care, for instance.

Furthermore, this method allowing bills to be reinstated is already part of the House rules governing private members' business. The House Standing Orders stipulate that private members' bills be automatically reinstated after prorogation of the session.

The motion we have put before the House does not deal with any one specific bill. It may well be that some ministers have reasons for not reinstating proceedings on their bills that were terminated by prorogation. The motion will apply solely to bills that have been introduced and at least referred to committee, either before or after second reading.

As for bills that had only been introduced, but not yet studied in committee during the previous session, they can be reintroduced during the present session. In that case, it could not be said that reintroducing these bills would constitute needless duplication of work and, naturally, a waste of parliamentary resources.

The procedure will work as follows. During the first 30 sitting days of the new session, any minister who introduces a bill identical to a bill in the old session, and which at least had been referred to a committee, will have the right to request that the new bill be reinstated to the stage at which it had progressed at the time of prorogation.

The procedure does not oblige a minister to reintroduce a bill. It merely gives them a new right to do so during a limited period at the beginning of the session.

There are important bills from the last session that respond to the needs and interests of Canadians. For example, there is a need to reinstate Bill C-49, which provides for the electoral boundaries readjustment based on the 2001 national census, to take effect April 1, 2004.

Given their growing population, British Columbia and Alberta are each entitled to two additional seats and Ontario to an additional three seats.

As part of the action plan on democratic Reform, which I have the honour of leading in this House, the government has promised to reinstate Bill C-34, the legislation to create the office of an Independent Ethics Commissioner and a Senate Ethics Officer, who will report to the House and Senate respectively. We hope that, with the support of our fellow parliamentarians, we can bring this bill into force.

The government will reinstate other bills, including Bill C-17, the Public Safety Act, 2002; Bill C-20, an act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act; Bill C-23, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act; and Bill C-57, Westbank First Nation Self-Government Act.

As this list shows, the motion serves the interests of the House. It also serves the interests expressed by the opposition in a number of cases. For these reasons I do ask for the support of all members. Perhaps if we can come to a consensus we can adopt this motion today.

Let us support this measure, which has been supported many times by all parties of the House. I sincerely hope we can concentrate our efforts and resources on the real issues facing Canadians.

Petitions

[Randy White, Canadian Alliance, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have thousands of names here petitioned in the House of Commons asking that government assembled in Parliament amend Bill C-23, allowing for retroactive inclusion of sex offenders serving a sentence or paroled for sexual offences and that sex offenders automatically be included on the national sex offender registry, removing the possibility of using the registry as a bargaining chip in going through the criminal justice system.