André Bellavance

[First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, November 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to rise in this debate on Bill C-20, 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.

I will read the summary of the bill to revive the interest of my colleagues and of listeners:

This enactment strengthens first nations’ real property tax regimes andcreates a first nation bond financing regime, and creates four institutions tosupport those regimes, to promote first nations’ economic development and tostrengthen first nations’ statistical capacity.

This is the purpose of Bill C-20 which is before us today. At this time, we support referral of the bill to committee. We tend to approve of this legislation, even though we have to say it is defective in some ways.

Bill C-20 will make it possible to create an environment that will help first nations achieve self-sufficiency. As sovereignists, we believe that self-sufficiency can only be achieved when a nation owns and controls all its economic levers. We have talked about this issue quite often. When it comes up here, we are very happy to be able to support it.

Of course, we are concerned with the self-government claims of the aboriginals. We repeatedly supported the right to self-government for aboriginal people and, of course, we are pursuing this approach. We believe that this bill will allow first nations to have access to financial tools that other levels of government are already using, if only to have access to the financial market.

First nations will thus be able to participate in a significant way in their economy and to encourage private investments on their lands, which is now more difficult. First nations, which seek to borrow funds to build their community infrastructure, have to deal with transaction costs, processing delays and interest rates that are much too high or even prohibitive.

A backgrounder produced by the First Nations Fiscal Institutions Initiative says this:

A dollar of first nation tax revenue buys 30 to 50 percent less in capital works than that of other governments. The problem is principally rooted in the legislative and institutional framework.

According to first nations who support this legislation, it is 10 times more difficult to build a first nations economy than any other in Canada. This is because some lands do not have services, investors are uncertain and the cost of starting a business is still too high.

As well, according to these first nations, it is the Indian Act that, for 130 years, has prevented first nations from creating their own institutions and participating in the economy.

We hope this bill will help correct the situation and, to repeat what my wise colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent said a few moments ago--and I have often said how wise he is--to be strong, Quebec must have strong first nations with flourishing community economies.

This is exactly what our dear colleague has said. I repeated what he said because I thought it was very important to mention it. We are sometimes asked what an opposition member can do. That happened to me during the electoral campaign in a debate organized for the public. The chief organizer for the Liberal candidate asked me “What are you going to do in the opposition benches?” In fact, we are preventing the government from just going ahead and adopting any bill they want that does not meet the needs of those concerned by this legislation. Why do I talk about it? Because before this bill was tabled today, we have seen Bills C-23 and C-19 that were not acceptable. These are the two bills that had to be amended to produce Bill C-20.

As I was saying previously, many factors explain why we rejected former Bills C-23 and C-19, as did the first nations. We had concerns about the fact that the First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act could work against aboriginal rights and reduce the federal government's fiduciary obligations toward the first nations. We were also concerned that the institutions would only serve a few first nations. We also had other concerns.

Naturally, the Bloc Québécois expressed its concerns and apprehensions during the debate on these previous bills. The work accomplished by the opposition and the first nations has paid off—and that is my answer to the man who had come to me with this question—because Bills C-19 and C-23 were unacceptable. As I said, they were eventually amended so as to become Bill C-20 before us today, which is a much better bill.

I must point out that two very important changes have been made to the bill. First, a schedule was added to ensure that the legislation applies to those first nations who wish to participate, because participation is optional. Second, a non-derogation clause was included to protect the aboriginal rights and treaty rights of all first nations.

These changes ensure consistency with the Charter of the Assembly of First Nations as well as the principles of self-determination, the approach taken by the first nations, and the optionality provided for in recent resolutions of the Assembly of First Nations, which were passed, if memory serves, in Saskatoon and ratified again in Charlottetown.

Notwithstanding these improvements, the Bloc Québécois will remain alert. Of course, we will examine the bill based on certain fundamental principles.

First, does this bill protect the right of first nations to self-determination? Will it be beneficial to first nations, particularly to those of Quebec? Will it protect the rights of, and obligations towards, first nations who are not part of the legislation? Will it help to address the fiscal imbalance for the first nations who use this legislation?

More importantly, the Government of Canada must not use Bill C-20 to opt out of its trust responsibilities towards aboriginal people. We know that it is always the government's job to address inequality between aboriginals and non-aboriginals.

With these concerns in mind, the Bloc Québécois will make sure that Bill C-20 really give the first nations access to tools that other levels of government already have in order to take a more active part in their economy.

[Arthabaska Red Cross, November 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Arthabaska Red Cross distinguished itself at a provincial convention by winning the award of excellence in intervention.

Moreover, the organization, which is actively involved in 24 municipalities in my riding, received 34 citations for the commitment of its volunteers on the “flood” team, six certificates and merit badges, and a medal for dedicated services.

These awards were won in connection with the floods that hit the Bois-Francs region, on August 4, 2003. At the time, torrential rain forced 500 residents to temporarily abandon their homes and necessitated the evacuation of 150 people.

An award of distinction was also given to Sylvie Côté, publisher of the newspapers La Nouvelle , L'Union and L'Avenir de l'Érable . Together with Arthabaska Red Cross, she organized a fundraising campaign, and $280,000 was collected to help the victims.

Congratulations to the whole team of the Arthabaska Red Cross and to Sylvie Côté for their dedication.

[Cascades, November 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to mention the 40th anniversary of an outstanding Quebec business.

The Cascades group, founded by Bernard Lemaire in Kingsey Falls in 1964, with only 12 employees, is now among North America's leaders in the manufacturing of packaging products, tissue paper and specialized fine papers. It now relies on a workforce of 15,000 employees in nearly 150 units located in Quebec, Canada, the United States, France, England, Germany and Sweden.

Cascades is a major international company that recycles more than two million tons of paper and board annually. Leading edge de-inking technology and sustained research and development enable Cascades to create innovative, high-value-added products.

I want to congratulate the brothers who built the company, Bernard, Laurent and Alain Lemaire, and all their employees on their success and their contribution to Quebec's economic development.

[Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act, October 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot respond on behalf of my colleague, of course. The hon. member has submitted a long list of problems he feels are in the agreement. All I can say is that he is entitled to his opinion, but I do not share it.

[Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act, October 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we are of course going to look into what the hon. member says. Obviously, this may merely be a technicality that will have to be checked in committee.

At this point we are totally in agreement with the principle of this bill. This has been pointed out by the Bloc Québécois Indian and northern affairs critic. The Bloc has always been in agreement with the bill, even when it went by another name and died, unfortunately, on the Order Paper during the last session.

We are going to look into what the hon. member has said. There is nothing to prevent certain amendments from being made in committee, as required. We will pay careful attention to the bill, while delaying its examination as little as possible.

[Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act, October 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. Do I have a couple of hours to give her a course on Quebec sovereignty? I do not think so, unfortunately. It is no surprise that we are here. We have been here since 1993. In our speeches we often draw parallels with sovereignty in Quebec.

As far as how it would work is concerned, it is not so complicated considering this agreement was established on the same principle as the agreement with the Nisga'a. I know her party was against that agreement.

We agree completely with aboriginal self-government. We will not flip-flop on this, because of some alleged administrative problems. Quite the contrary, we know that, while Nisga'a agreement was not supported by her party, it is working quite well. In Quebec, the agreements with the Cree and the Inuit are also working quite well.

The federal government needs to look at these agreements and use them as examples. In the case of the peace of the braves, the problem still has not been resolved with the federal government. We are asking the federal government to draw on this agreement with the Tlicho and to do the same with the peace of the braves and the agreement with the Quebec Cree.

[Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act, October 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we are in a place where we talk about democracy. That is the link I wanted to make with the agreement being presented in this House.

In a future referendum in Quebec, I would like the result to be 84% in favour of Quebec's sovereignty. We are going to work very hard to achieve that.

I can assure my colleague that when this happens, we will be as direct and frank in our negotiations as the Tlicho were with the Northwest Territories and the Government of Canada.

[Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act, October 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, today we are dealing with Bill C-14, an act to give effect to a land claims and self-government agreement among the Tlicho, the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Government of Canada, to make related amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, or the Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act.

We in the Bloc Québécois are in favour of this bill, as we were moreover of Bill C-31, which died on the Order Paper but has now returned as the bill we are discussing today, Bill C-14.

I have had the honour of meeting with representatives of the Tlicho nation, on October 6 and then again yesterday, along with the Bloc Québécois critic for Indian and northern affairs, the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. I would draw to hon. members' attention that this gentleman is the first aboriginal person from Quebec to sit in this Parliament. He was a negotiator for the aboriginal peoples for many years. I will not let his age slip. I dated myself yesterday, but I will not do the same to him. I will merely say he was an aboriginal negotiator for many years and is very familiar with the issues. As native elders pass down their wisdom to the younger members of their community, he is passing his knowledge on to me, and I am very grateful to him. It is a pleasure to work with him on this.

The Tlicho who met with us have, moreover, honoured him with the name Barbe blanche. I have not yet been given a name, nor do I yet have a white beard, but I am sure it will not be long until I do.

We also received a letter from grand chief Joe Rabesca on October 22 thanking us for the way the Bloc Québécois has backed his people's claims.

I will just provide some of the background of this bill. The Tlicho agreement comes out of the failure of negotiations with the Dene and Métis nations, a process that ended in 1990. Negotiations with the Tlicho nation resumed in 1994 and concluded in 2003 with the signing of the Tlicho agreement. In this field, patience is a must. The Tlicho have been patient, and I think their patience will soon be rewarded.

On June 26 and 27, 2003, the Tlicho voted 84% in favour of the agreement. It was not a close vote for a referendum, but I will say that we would have unquestioningly accepted the result even if it had been 50% plus 1.

Thus, the passage of Bill C-14 is the final step in recognizing the land claims and self-government of the Tlicho people.

With respect to the terms of the agreement, just to remind the House what it is about, the agreement will give the Tlicho the largest contiguous block of land belonging to a first nation in Canada and will set up new forms of self-government for the Tlicho. The agreement will clarify the rights, titles and obligations of the Tlicho nation. The agreement does not interfere—and this is important—with ancestral or treaty rights of other aboriginal groups. The Tlicho government will own a territory of almost 40,000 square kilometres and it will receive slightly more than $150 million over 14 years. It will have specific legislative jurisdiction over its land and over Tlicho citizens, including those not living on Tlicho land. The most important point in this bill is that the agreement gives the Tlicho nation the tools it needs to achieve financial self-sufficiency, to protect its way of life and to improve its economic growth and the well-being of the whole community. Those principles and values are very dear to us.

The Tlicho have been waiting for 14 months now, since the agreement was signed, for self-government. The Bloc Québécois is 100% in favour of the right to self-government for the aboriginal peoples, their right to govern themselves autonomously. The agreement before us is an excellent example of self-government.

Since it first arrived on the federal political scene, the Bloc Québécois has recognized aboriginal peoples as distinct peoples. We think that aboriginal peoples have a right to their languages, their cultures and their traditions.

Aboriginal peoples unquestionably have the right to decide how to develop their own identity. Therefore, we endorse most of the recommendations of the Erasmus-Dussault royal commission on aboriginal peoples. They called for an approach to the concept of self-government based on the recognition of aboriginal governments as a level of government with jurisdiction over governance and the welfare of their people. We feel that this agreement reflects this approach.

In Quebec, if I can make a comparison, we have long been advocating this type of agreement, in which mutual respect is paramount. As early as 1985, René Lévesque and the Parti Québécois government in office at the time recognized Quebec's aboriginal nations. The Quebec people recognizes that diversity is not a threat, but an asset.

In Quebec, the year 2002 was also a turning point in this regard. It was once again a sovereignist government—what a coincidence—the PQ government of Bernard Landry, which signed the peace of the braves agreement and the joint agreement. The peace of the braves was signed on February 7, 2002, by then Quebec premier Bernard Landry, and the Grand Chief of the Grand Council of the Crees, Ted Moses.

This historic 50-year agreement marks the beginning of a new era in relations between Quebec and the Cree. The agreement concerns the establishment of a new relationship between the two nations. It provides, I should point out, for greater empowerment for the Cree regarding their economic and community development and for hydro development projects in James Bay. It also provides for the harmonization of forest activities with traditional Cree activities.

What a fine example of nation to nation negotiations. Soon, a sovereign Quebec will also be negotiating nation to nation with Canada, and the earlier the better. During the last election campaign, the Bloc Québécois reminded the federal government that the peace of the braves agreement was the example to follow. The Cree nation deserves as much consideration as the Tlicho nation. The peace of the braves has demonstrated that major development projects have to be negotiated with mutual interests in mind. The Bloc Québécois supports the first nations in their fight for emancipation. That is why we are asking Ottawa to follow this example to negotiate a similar agreement with the Cree.

As for the joint agreement, in 2002, the Parti Québécois government of Bernard Landry signed with the Inuit of Nunavik a 25-year agreement to accelerate economic and community development in Northern Quebec. This joint agreement enables the Inuit to assume responsibilities in economic and community development formerly held by the Government of Quebec.

This agreement is opening up bright new horizons by accelerating hydro development in Nunavik, promoting more control for the Inuit over their economic and community development, simplifying and increasing the efficiency of the financing for the Kativik regional administration and northern villages, and providing funding for priority projects.

To conclude, there are two historic agreements, both signed by a sovereignist government. Those who believe that we, sovereignists, want to close borders do not know what we are about. Those who believe that we do not treat our minorities right do not know what we are about. A sovereign Quebec will work in partnership with other peoples.

I reiterate the Bloc Québécois' support for the principle of self-government for aboriginal peoples. This agreement actualizes the right of the Tlicho to govern themselves. I might add that the Tlicho nation clearly indicated its desire to self-govern, and we support this democratic desire.

[Supply, October 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I do thank my colleague. This is indeed a serious problem and my colleague for Rivière-du-Nord brought it up earlier. She spoke about the Léonard report, which is very relevant in this regard.

The problem is that the fiscal imbalance gives the Prime Minister of Canada a way to step up the intrusions. Furthermore, it has been estimated that 44% of federal spending is intrusive. This is nothing short of catastrophic. Spending has burgeoned, half of it intrusive, in areas where it should not go at all. That is the problem.

To do away with this problem would be simple: correct the fiscal imbalance. If each government stuck to its own sphere of activity, there would no longer be a problem.

[Supply, October 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his relevant question. Indeed, this is a serious problem and, once, again, as with the fiscal imbalance, everybody agrees.

Concerning the calculation of equalization, it should, first all, be done on the basis of the 10 provinces rather than of 5 of them. I have with me some information that might be of use to my colleague.

The assessment done by the federal government to arrive at the amounts given at the equalization meeting is whimsical. The federal government considers $9.510 billion its basic contribution, because it appears in the budget for 2004, only for the year 2004-05. In addition, the federal government then considers any discrepancy from that amount as new money, whereas as early as 2005-06, it adds $1.390 billion to that base—what it calls a base—to bring the total amount to $10.9 billion. By taking the difference year after year and by considering that to be a contribution—we are talking from $1.39 billion in 2005-06 to $4.8 billion in 2013-14—the federal government ends up saying that it will increase its contribution by $28.7 billion over the next 10 years.

There is a hitch, however. That is because a group of independent experts was created whose role it is to examine how the statutory equalization payments should be divided among provinces in 2006-07 and beyond. However, the Prime Minister has not seized the opportunity offered by the conference to address the fiscal imbalance as a whole and, also, we know, he did not have the political will to meet the needs of the public. He chose instead to meet the needs of his caucus, which was accusing him of having already given too much, and to continue with the financial strangulation of Quebec and the provinces caused by fiscal imbalance.