Debates of May 10th, 2004

First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act

[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.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Davenport, Fisheries.

[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, I want to share some statistics with the hon. member. I know she was a former school trustee, as was I, so borrowing money is not new to either of us.

These statistics come from a recent publication entitled the Finances of the Nation dated 2003. It states, “The consolidated net debt for Canadian governments, federal, provincial and municipal, on March 31 of the year 2000 amounted to an estimated $830.4 billion”. It is up from 20 years ago when it was $130 billion. Imagine what the public debt would be in this country if the first nation governments fell under this category. The ones that stand to gain are the financial institutions that will collect the interest because prime plus interest rates are what the financial institutions are all about.

I want to share one other thing with the hon. member. I was very adamant in defining that the Crown has to declare the proper relationships with the aboriginal nations. We have to be suspicious about governments, regardless of what political stripe. In the province of Saskatchewan, an NDP government instituted tax exemption treaties, which used to be tax exempt right across the province. It was an NDP government without consultation that revoked that tax exemption, so any government could pull this off.

That is why I am adamant that this consultation take place with first nations leaders and their communities and that any financial institution, any fiscal relationship should be based between the Crown and the original nations. That is why I raise that issue.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, from the member's comments on taxation, he has reinforced my point that the only ones who would benefit from the first nations being able to get loans would be the financial institutions. Ultimately, the taxpayers would have to pay the additional cost because there is no property tax base from which to get the taxes.

There is no question that as school trustees we might know about borrowing money, but I also know that where I come from we often did not have to borrow money in a sense because we had a property tax base. We probably had an average income of $45,000 to $50,000 within the area I represented. We could afford to pay taxes. I do not begrudge my taxes. I receive great benefits. My water and sewer are provided. I have fire and ambulance service. I have the services of a hospital. The roads are cleared. All three of my kids received schooling for 12 years.

First nations, in most cases, do not have the incomes coming in but they do have treaties in which the government said that they would have certain services. As I have said before, if the government could get out of the treaties, the Progressive Conservatives and Liberals would have done it a long time ago. The reality is that the treaties are there and the government will have to own up to them. The sooner the government owns up to them the less cost it will ultimately be from taxpayers dollars but less cost to the destruction of first nations people as well.

I will not try to hide from the fact that the provincial tax was brought back into place in Saskatchewan. I am originally from Saskatchewan. I know that the provincial government struggled. We had discussions with different people because we knew it would have an impact. As politicians we all got together to discuss these things.

However the reality is that the federal government cut dollars to the provinces and the provinces, in trying to maintain their health services and other services, felt that they had no obligation to exempt first nations from provincial sales tax. They are exempt from GST.

Consultation did not take place initially but I am happy to say that there was some consultation after as to how the whole thing would proceed. It was not something they did lightly but I know it was done because of a lack of resources and they wanted to ensure that services were maintained.

[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.

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech and there is one flagrant contradiction in what we are hearing.

The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, who has followed this file very closely, has pointed out a long list of contradictions. The hon. member opposite has just told us that it is very important to work with the first nations. Indeed, what we object to—and I think it is our major objection—is that the first nations are afraid the government is trying to impose its will on them. There is an impression that the government is increasingly paternalistic, and that is not what the first nations want.

My colleague just expressed the opposite of what everyone fears. Who is telling the truth? It is like that old television show called To Tell the Truth .

If what I have just heard is true, if the hon. member really does understand this correctly, would it be so bad to take a step backward, to do what they are asking, that is, not to pass this bill right away and go back to consultations? There has been a misunderstanding on this, since 60% of aboriginal peoples oppose this bill, and say they have not been sufficiently consulted, and now I hear that it is necessary to work more with the native people in particular. I would like her to clarify this for me.

Why are people objecting to what she says is being done? Can she explain this to me in a way I can understand?

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me point out that first nations communities do not have the duty or obligation to agree with each other. Different people can have different views. Some reserves have serious problems; others are doing better.

Some aboriginal groups in some reserves want the institutions provided for in this bill. According to the hon. member, further consultation is needed. It might be useful for those who do not agree with the bill, but for the people who want to bring about changes, start using statistics and change the ways things are done, and who need the tools mentioned in the bill, it is important to pass this bill.

We can take a look at what is going on in these reserves and see if amendments need to be made for certain aboriginal groups. As for the others, perhaps we can provide them with this tool.

One size does not have to fit all. It is possible that there are some reserves or some bands who wish to have the tools that are here and others who disagree. But as for further consultation and not passing this bill, consultation is always wonderful, but by not passing this bill we deny the first nation peoples who want these tools the possibility of having them. Who are we to say that those people are wrong? Who are we to say that they are not representative of their band or their reserve?

They are empowered to lead. They have asked us to do this. We have consulted. We should get on with passing this bill and give the tools to those individuals. We should see how they work for those people who wanted them. We should see how they work and if further improvements are needed. That is fine. As for the groups that do not want to use the tools that are in this bill, that is fine too. They do not have to. There is no obligation to use the tools that are here.

Just as the municipality of my colleague opposite uses the different tools it has at its disposal, my community uses others. We have specific plans to create sports clubs in my community. They are different from plans in other communities, but we are working within the framework of a municipal act. That is exactly what there would be here. Different tools would be available to our first nation peoples.

And there are leaders, representatives and individuals in the first nation community who absolutely support this bill. They have called me. I have spoken to them. They have stopped me in the street. There are people who want these tools. We should not be in a position to deny them, because others disagree, to those groups who are ready, willing and eager to get on with it. We are not forcing anything on the people who disagree. We are allowing something for the people who agree and who in fact have led the way on this bill.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment and then a question. The member mentioned how municipalities can do their business. Municipalities have a municipal act and they can do business and fall under provincial guidelines.

In the year I was first elected, I met a fellow from one of the first nation communities. He was 107 years old. I was absolutely honoured to meet him. He told me about when the police came into town with the representative of the Crown and the chief of the first nation signed on to the treaty. He did not tell me about a municipality making a representation to government as to whether or not they should do anything. It was the first nation on the same ground as the Crown. This is what we are talking about here.

The member is quite right when she says that first nations can go ahead and do this. I say to the member that they are doing it already and they do not need this bill. However, there is a very big risk that this bill will jeopardize other first nations who do not want it. There are 600 and some first nations that do not want it. How in good conscience is the member able to support a bill when 600-plus first nations have said they do not want it? Who is it we are representing here?

I suggest to the member that there is no need for the bill. First nations who want this can go ahead and do it. I would like her to tell me why they are not able to do this right now.

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly cannot speak for each and every one of the groups that does not want the bill. I certainly am not able to delineate every single one of their objections or why I would think that there are others who could disagree. I think the most important thing is that no group is going to be forced to do anything as a result of this bill. I appreciate the risk that some perhaps feel. That happens whenever we pass a bill in the House. Some groups disagree. That is the nature of a democracy. I think it is reflective of the differing positions that many of the first nations communities find themselves in. There are some who are doing quite well economically and there are others, frankly, who are living in shocking conditions, which I know the member opposite has identified. I have been there and I know as well.

We have to be able to provide tools. We have to be able to provide the flexibility to enable people who want to negotiate, who want to be able to do the things they want to do, without obligation on the others who do not want to participate or who do not want to get there.

Surely in this day and age when we have complicated problems, if we do not have simple solutions, if we cannot wave a magic wand and solve everything for everybody, we had better be offering people flexibility. We cannot even provide a magic wand that will help some people fix their own situation, because that is important. We had better be offering people flexibility and we had better be offering innovative solutions to individuals and working together on innovation. Otherwise we are doomed to just continue on as in the past. That is not good enough. We have an obligation to right the wrongs, to allow people to solve their own future, and to create the real economic prosperity that first nations, Inuit and Métis people deserve.

We can disagree about whether this bill will allow people to do that. Ultimately it comes to a vote and we have to make decisions. We can revisit them later if they are seen to be not working as effectively as we wanted. We can amend bills. But to not to pass this is a tragedy when there are many first nations people who do want this bill.

[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.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the hon. member's speech on the bill before us. It is the same bill that we studied before the House prorogued. I heard almost nothing but statistics. We are not talking about a uniform group of nations from coast to coast. We are talking about different first nations.

Some 60% of first nations reject this bill while only 40% approve of it. How useful will this bill be? I do not think it will be useful and I think it should be dropped. I think the government must first recognize the first nations and the differences between them. As for all the services that were mentioned, the first nations already have access to them.

In my view, self-governance should be negotiated with each group, each first nation. That is the crux of the matter. Do we as a state want to recognize the power that belongs to the first nations, the power to govern themselves and make their own laws and regulations on their lands, just as we do for other groups?

That is the flaw with this bill and the reason for my question. Can the hon. member explain why the government is not making more of an effort to negotiate self-governance with each group? When asked, the deputy minister said, “We do not have the necessary resources or the necessary funds at this time to negotiate with each group”.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, the blueprint and the dynamics of this piece of legislation before us is not a one size fits all proposition. As a matter of fact, it actually recognizes that first nations are very diverse in nature and that they have different opportunities. It will be up to each first nation to decide if and when it will make a law in order to exercise the powers pursuant to this bill when it is passed and whether it will request service from an institution. Clearly, we are putting the decision making where it rightfully belongs, in the hands of the leaders of the first nations.

It is incumbent on members of the House to recognize how very diverse first nations are. Some have very large tax bases while others have extremely limited ones. In either case, they will have the opportunity to access the specialized advice, training and support services they require in order to succeed.

The very issues that my hon. colleagues raised are actually entrenched in this legislation.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there are two things I would like to point out to my colleague from Kitchener Centre.

First, with all due respect, the alleged optionality of these institutions is completely misleading. I wish I had more time to explain to the hon. member some of the points I made earlier in my speech, but the fact is they are statutory national bodies that would affect the rights and interests of all first nations in Canada, whether or not they are added to the schedule. I will have to stop there because there is no time to elaborate on it, but I would like to emphasize that point to her.

Another point I would like to make is she mentioned that optimistically they hope to free up about $125 million over five years in venture capital or private financing for projects. Does she not find it odd that the budget for these four institutions is $25 million per year? In other words, it will cost $125 million to run these four new institutions for five years, and that is the exact figure they are optimistically hoping to free up from private sources to promote initiatives. To me that adds up to a recipe for failure. I would like her comments on that.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would tell my hon. colleague that he is viewing this piece of legislation as limiting instead of empowering. Indeed what this would do is provide the tools so that first nation leaders could exploit the potential for their constituents in a way that is most appropriate for them.

We need only look at the variety of first nation peoples across Canada to see some best practices and some examples where there has been extremely fine leadership and where first nation bands have been able to utilize the resources at their disposal in order to see great benefit throughout the people they represent.

This is not a limit. This is offering additional tools for first nations, somewhat like what my hon. colleague from Burlington spoke of earlier, the variety of tools that municipalities have. First nations can look at a variety of tools, pick the ones that are most appropriate for them and the government will partner with them and try to facilitate the kind of infrastructure needed so they are able to make local decisions that fulfill local needs in a way that is appropriate for them as an individual band.

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat shocked to hear some of the answers being given today. We are told, for instance, that the first nations will not be forced to use this tool.

However, first nations need tools to develop. Should we provide tools to only 40% of our first nations communities, when we could take a little longer, say a few more weeks, to truly consult with them in order to provide tools that 100% of these communities could use?

In Quebec alone, 8,400 dwelling units are needed. The housing situation in my area is absolutely terrible. No one could live in such poor conditions, and only about 400 to 500 units will be built. These people do not need optional tools; they need tools everybody would be able to use, because it is their right.

My hon. colleague mentioned self-government. That is probably the most important tool first nations communities need.

[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.

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes to add my voice to this debate. I had the opportunity to do so by asking questions.

First, I must tell you that this is not the first time that I am interested in the issue of the first nations. I was a member of the Quebec National Assembly under René Lévesque, who was the first premier to recognize the first nations and their autonomy. Each year, Mr. Lévesque would oblige us to spend at least one evening—more, if possible, at a large convention held by the first nations in Quebec City—discussing with them to try to understand their problems and also try to ensure that they were increasingly recognized in Quebec as full-fledged nations, with whom we could discuss as equals.

It is quite deplorable to see how the federal government has always treated the first nations. It is as though it were the superior government and they were inferior minorities, underage people, and it had to take responsibilities for them, make decisions that they would be fully capable to make themselves, if they were given the opportunity.

I had the opportunity to visit aboriginals in my riding several times, and it is disturbing to see how they live. They are surrounded with wealth, but they have no right to develop themselves, since they are still under trusteeship.

When I saw the state of their housing units, I asked some Attikamek why they did not renovate or repair them. They told me that they did not own them, that these units did not belong to them, they belonged to the federal government. They said that they had been put on a reserve. They were very upset that, because they could not develop their abilities and skills, and considering the right to self-government enjoyed by all nations of the world, they had major problems, including health problems and problems with suicide.

Last summer, I visited an aboriginal community. During the first month of the summer, in June, three young women aged 14 to 18 had committed suicide. Three suicides in a community of 2,000 people is quite dramatic, considering that these are very talented people. There is nothing they would love more than to develop their talents, to make a contribution and to prosper.

For example, in a community like Weymontachie, which has no more than 2,000 people, I found out that there were two hockey players aged 19 and 21, who were of professional calibre. I worked with them to try to get them to play in Europe. So, these are two players in a population of less than 2,000.

These people are full of talent. It is simply a matter of allowing them to develop their talents. It is not true that these people still need to be under the trusteeship of the government, under the Department of Indian Affairs like in the old days. These people simply need to be treated like adults.

I am told that the bill before us will be good for those who want to use it. The hon. member who just spoke said that people have been talking about it for years. Another member said that, if this legislation does not do the trick, the government will amend it. As we know, it takes years to change things, particularly with this government.

If we are taking the time to give people the tools they need, why not take the time to give them what they truly want and to adequately consult them?

That was not done. My colleague from the New Democratic Party has just said that it is wrong to say it is voluntary. They are afraid. Moreover, the law will make certain things mandatory, and those are not the things people want to be mandatory.

My colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot suggested that we take a few weeks more, but that the results would have to be unanimous, or at least a very broad consensus. So, it is not a big deal. He told us that if this bill had been presented to the Assembly of First Nations, the attitude would have changed completely. These people simply want to be consulted and listened to, like competent adults, individuals who have the right to develop as they choose.

Having had my political education under the watchful eye and tutelage of a man like René Lévesque, I find the attitude of this government scandalous from all points of view, and that is not all. In fact, they take themselves for superior beings. They believe they possess the truth. That is the defect of the Liberal government opposite. It is at the point where all kinds of things are popping up. Scandals are everywhere. Almost nothing is working normally, but they still possess the truth. In fact, they have the truth and, since they are a federal Liberal government, they have the talent, the will and the attitude of superior beings who are capable of telling the first nations what they need in order to develop.

I do not believe that. I invite anyone at all from the government to come with me to visit the aboriginal people, the first nations, in my riding. I am sure it is the same all across Canada. In any case, it is like that all across Quebec; that is certain. These people have the right and the duty to develop—according to their own desires.

When I went to meet with the first nations, including the Attikamek, I wanted to find out about the guaranteed income supplement. I had been told that the first nations were one of the populations that had been deprived of the supplement and needed to be targeted. To my great surprise, I found virtually no senior population worth mentioning among the Attikamek. In the white community, there is about a 15% senior population; there were three Attikamek over the age of 65 in a village of about 2,000.

If their life expectancy is no better than that, does this indicate good living conditions? Does this show that they have everything required for development? I was told “Don't bother looking for seniors. Nobody here gets the guaranteed income supplement, because we have no seniors”.

For us, the average life expectancy is 79 years for men and 82 or 83 for women, yet their community of about 2,000 had only three seniors. This raises questions about their living conditions and their development.

When we hear, on the other hand, about three suicides and suicide attempts by girls between the ages of 14 and 17 in a single month, we need to ask ourselves some questions, as the reasonable people we think we are. We must stop imposing our way of thinking on others, and we must listen to them to find out their needs and provide the opportunity to develop to which they have a right.

I agree with the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and the hon. member from the NDP. It is wrong to say that the 60% who do not want this legislation simply do not have to use it. We will pass this bill for those who like it and think they need it and the others can just ignore it. That is wrong. We have been told that there are requirements in the legislation that the first nations do not like.

As citizens, as a government, it is our duty to ensure that the tools in this legislation are accepted by the entire community and that they obtain the broadest consensus possible, as the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot says.

The first nations are not here to represent themselves. That is why I would be remiss to pass up the opportunity to vehemently denounce this paternalistic attitude of the federal government toward the first nations of Quebec and Canada. The government must agree to go back to the table, to negotiate, to ask them what they want and, above all, to tell them the truth. If, in fact, $150 million a year is available under the legislation, yet the government knows there is only $25 million, then now is the time to say so. They need to be told the truth. It must be possible to get at the truth in this House. That is essential.

They have to be told the truth about what this legislation will mean for them. In turn, they have to be honest about what they want in order to be considered adults and equals so that they can develop as all peoples in the world have the right to develop.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, you understand that this is a good speech from a member of Parliament who had the privilege to sit both in the National Assembly and in the Commons. Thus, he has a wide experience. I cannot remain insensitive to the many references that he made to the former member for Taillon and premier of Quebec, René Lévesque, who was said to be part of a much too short list of liberators of the people. Of course, as you know, our liberation will come soon.

I would like to ask this question to the member. If Mr. Lévesque were still alive today, would he find any inspiration in this bill? Is it appropriate that Bill C-23, which we are debating, is totally at odds with the principles that René Lévesque defended throughout his political career?

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak about him also. Indeed, talking about him brings back excellent memories.

As a political mentor, there was none better than him. I heard someone say that a people produces a man of René Lévesque's calibre once every hundred years. I had the chance to work with him.

Mr. Lévesque would say, “When things are not going well, shut down your office and go see the people; there lies the truth”. I remember that, in 1981 or 1982, following his second election, we were in the middle of an economic crisis, things were going really bad and everyone was totally depressed. Mr. Lévesque said, “We shut down Parliament, and I ask all members, no matter what party they represent, to go back in their regions, in their ridings, to meet the people and come back with solutions”. This, in my opinion, is well applied democracy.

I will answer the hon. member's question by saying that if Mr. Lévesque had this legislation before him, he would go back to the first nations and say “Here, in my generosity I drafted a nice piece of legislation. Tell me what does not work in it and what could be done to improve it”. We have to work together. We do not work for the sake of saying that we were a member of Parliament for x number of years, or that we are part of an invincible and extraordinarily bright government. We are here to serve people who want to develop.

Here is a little story. One day, I was driving back from La Tuque and I saw someone wearing a poncho who was hitchhiking along the highway. I stopped and told the person to get in the car. This was in the seventies. I saw that the gentleman, who was about 30 years of age, was a little sad. I tried to get him to talk, but he was reluctant to do so. Finally he told me that his country was located around Lake Gagnon, in northern Mauricie. He was the last one left; his people were all gone. That morning he was coming from his country. He had buried his father the day before. His father desperately wanted him to stay with him, so that his remains could be buried with those of his ancestors, on the shores of Lake Gagnon.

I began to draw him out about his people and I realized that they had all been exterminated. That community, which he called his country and which was located on the shore of Lake Gagnon, did not disturb anyone. On the contrary, it was developing that region of Quebec. Finally, I looked at him and said “It seems to me that you might resent me”. He wondered why he should, since it seemed that such was their fate. I told him that it was not true, that if I were in his shoes, I would not accept this as my fate or that of my community.

These people have a right to be respected like anyone else. They have a right to live and to develop like everyone else. Their aspirations are as good as mine. We have a right, a duty to give these people the tools they need to develop.

In one of his songs, Gilles Vigneault says “Ask the stones, ask the kings. No one is a stranger on this earth. Everyone has rights”.

There has to be a minimum of respect. It is not true that it would cost too much, that we would lose a degree of autonomy, or that we would be diminished if we respected others more.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I comment on the member's speech, he took a gratuitous shot at our party in the early part of his speech. He suggested that we had all the truth.

I would suggest that it is the Bloc that thinks it has all the truth. It always votes the same way. Bloc members are never thoughtful on different positions. They always think that sovereignty is the only way. The Bloc thinks it has the truth, whereas on this particular bill, when first nations brought it forward, Bloc members did not make one point in favour of the bill.

On our side of the House, we have members speaking on both sides of the bill. We are not saying that we have the truth. A number of Liberal members have spoken against the bill. I have mentioned that Chief Roberta Jamieson and Chief Paibomsai have approached me and that they are against the bill. I have tried to discuss issues that they have brought forward. I do not think the member should be suggesting that we are the ones who think we have all the right answers.

The member brought up the issue of optionality and mentioned that the NDP member had said that it was not optional. I will make it quite clear to everyone that this bill is totally optional. If first nation people want to buy into one of these financial institutions, they sign up. No first nation has to sign up. No first nation has to collect property taxes. There are already roughly a hundred or so that are collecting property taxes. They have chosen to do so under the Indian Act. They have that power under the Indian Act.

They can stay under the Indian Act and continue to collect taxes. They could stop collecting taxes, or they could collect taxes under this particular bill. The purpose for that or the reason why the first nation approached us and asked us to do this is to help them get some financing that they could not get before.

All this does is gives them that tax collection ability, which they have had for many years, in a structure that would help them get bonding. It is totally their--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Order. Please direct your comments to the Chair. The hon. member for Champlain.

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether or not there was a question in the member's remarks. In any case, if he thinks that the Bloc Quebecois is the holder of the truth, he is totally wrong. I hope that this is not the impression we give. On the contrary. I mentioned the statements made by the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, among others, who worked on this issue with the aboriginals. He went as far as Vancouver with our colleague from the New Democratic Party. They both received the eagle feather because of the good job they did on this issue and because they consulted with first nations.

This is exactly what must be done. We must consult with the first nations. The member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot has some experience in this place. He says that, if we took a few more weeks—a few weeks is nothing compared to years—we would have unanimity, or at least a very broad consensus. We are not saying that we are the holders of the truth. The truth lies with the first nations peoples. That is where the truth lies.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a story to tell my colleague. It is a short story, and it is rather sad.

About a year ago, an aboriginal leader from the riding of Matapédia—Matane, who shall remain nameless, came to see me. We had talked on several occasions. His problem was that the beginning of the school year was approaching and he was ready to hire teachers. However, he had received no guarantee from the federal government that he would be able to hire the teachers that were needed to teach aboriginal children. He met the official responsible at the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, but I had to intervene because things were moving too slowly. Then, he was told that he was going to get his damn cheque. This aboriginal leader was treated with total contempt.

I would like to know from my colleague if he thinks that this kind of attitude is acceptable.

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, of course, when you have paternalistic laws, when you make regulations from a so-called superior vantage point for the people that you want to administer, you risk developing attitudes such as this. It is relatively common to see people who think that we give everything to the first nations, when in fact we took everything from them, they were here before us, and they developed before us. That is why we must stop being paternalistic.

We must give them the tools to ensure that they will develop according to their abilities and their aspirations, but without thinking that, when we give them a cheque, we are giving them a gift. That is not true. It belongs to them. This country was theirs before we came. They certainly have aboriginal rights going back at least 10,000 to 12,000 years in certain parts of Quebec.