Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 5 - Evidence - Meeting of March 9, 2005
OTTAWA, Wednesday, March 9, 2005
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, to which was referred Bill C-20, 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, met this day at 6:17 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Nick G. Sibbeston (Chairman) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Our committee is considering Bill C-20, concerning First Nations financial institutions. This is our fourth committee meeting. We welcome the witnesses who are here tonight. We welcome everyone else who is here tonight to observe the proceedings.
Just so you know who we are, I will introduce you to the members of our committee. Senator St. Germain is the deputy chairperson. He is from British Columbia. I am Nick Sibbeston from the Northwest Territories. Senator Fitzpatrick is from Kelowna, British Columbia. Senator Leger is from New Brunswick. Senator Christensen is from the Yukon. Welcome to you all.
Mr. Ken Marsh, Liaison, Canadian Property Tax Association: I am honoured and pleased to be here to speak on Bill C-20 on behalf of the Canadian Property Tax Association. I would like to commend the Senate for inviting the CPTA to provide testimony to this hearing, as too often, taxpayers directly affected by proposed legislation are left out of the legislative process.
Our national association was formed in 1967 and today has a membership of close to 400 persons representing over 200 corporations across Canada. We are the largest organization of its kind in Canada. The CPTA brings together a unique array of top corporate property tax officers, lawyers, tax consultants and government officials.
Since its inception on March 1, 1967, the CPTA has worked consistently to provide an opportunity for open and informed discussion of significant issues on municipal assessment and property taxation for its members across Canada. I am the past president of the CPTA, and currently serve the board and members as the legislative liaison supporting our ongoing activities related to Bill C-20.
I am also the manager of property taxation for TransCanada PipeLines, Canada's largest energy pipeline corporation. I am a certified property tax professional and have been in the property assessment/taxation business for 25 years.
While I will focus my comments on the importance of Bill C-20 for the CPTA and property tax in general, I would be remiss if I did not mention another important taxpayer group in which I participate, the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association. CEPA represents Canada's transmission pipeline companies. Its members are world leaders in providing safe, reliable, long-distance energy transportation. CEPA is dedicated to ensuring a strong and viable transmission pipeline industry in Canada in a manner that emphasizes public safety, pipeline integrity, social and environmental stewardship and cost competitiveness.
The member companies of CEPA pay property tax in excess of $350 million annually. CEPA has a direct interest in this proposed legislation, and I would like the committee to note that it has provided support to the FNTC, which was reflected in the letter of July 9, 2001, from CEPA president, Mr. Bob Hill, to ITAB board chairman Manny Jules.
Taxpayers recognize the importance of taxation in the fiscal framework of the country. What we expect from the property tax system is fairness. Fairness can be defined in many ways, but in this case it means fairness and equity of property assessments based on market value principles and taxation that provides for services at affordable prices. It also means due process for addressing concerns and disputes and the right to appeal assessments.
Governments have to recognize that they must be accountable to taxpayers for expenditure of tax dollars. The impact of an excessive tax burden goes well beyond the reduction of profits for a corporation. Excessive taxation reduces the viability of business, impacts plans for new development, reduces employment opportunities and stunts the growth of our economy.
Our attendance at this committee is another step in a process that for the CPTA spans many years. The modern era of First Nation property taxation began in 1988 with the passage of Bill C-115. For as long as I can remember, Manny Jules and other representatives of the Indian Taxation Advisory Board have been attending and actively involved in the annual workshops of the CPTA and reporting to our membership on First Nation property taxation and the evolution of ITAB to a statutory institution, the First Nations tax commission.
The relationship the CPTA has developed with ITAB has led to an open dialogue with respect to tax policy development. We are pleased to see that the proposed legislation before us has considered our views and included significant improvements to the current system. By replacing the Indian Taxation Advisory Board with the First Nations tax commission we are building a framework that provides greater transparency, stability and regulatory certainty, to the benefit of First Nation governments and their taxpayers.
You will be particularly interested to know our view of how the proposed First Nations tax commission will benefit taxpayers. Here are some provisions that we would like to note.
There will be taxpayer representation on the commission. This will ensure our interests are brought forward and represented in all decision making. Previous ITAB policies and procedures to protect taxpayers' interest, such as ensuring taxpayer representation in property tax law review and notification of taxpayers and affected persons of property tax laws, will now be legislated and promulgated through the First Nation Gazette. The gazette has become an important resource for tax practitioners, and the legislative provision for the expansion of this service is vital.
The expanded powers of regulation will further guarantee quality services at a fair price. Because of Bill C-20, the CPTA will now have an opportunity to participate in consultation related to the development of these regulations.
The CPTA has always stressed fiscal responsibility. This policy requirement has been considered in Bill C-20. First Nations tax authorities are required to maintain a balanced property tax budget to protect current and future taxpayers, consistent with other jurisdictions. A financial firewall between property taxes and the First Nation revenues will ensure that property tax revenues are spent only on local services and long-term infrastructure improvements.
Taxpayers are also pleased that the proposed legislation enables First Nations to develop laws that govern the relationship between First Nations and their taxpayers. This bill will provide for expanded communication and dispute resolution functions, thereby eliminating the possibility of conflict through a misunderstanding.
In closing, I would like to add that this bill will help to improve investor confidence in First Nations. Investors have already established a good working relationship in many Aboriginal communities. Now there will be a national institution to provide the regulatory framework that is required by First Nations to support both law-making and building infrastructure.
The CPTA supports the passage of Bill C-20. We recognize that like any proposed legislation, there will be room for improvement in the First Nations fiscal and statistical management act. We are satisfied that this is a significant step forward and that the current form meets our requirements. The CPTA also looks forward to the review of legislation in the years ahead, when we will again consider improvements to the statutory basis for real property taxation on reserves.
The parliamentary process for this proposed legislation has taken almost five years. We urge the Senate to pass this bill quickly. We ask the government to make this a priority and provide the resources required to get on with the business of implementation of these institutions. Thank you for receiving this testimony. I would be pleased to answer any questions.
The Chairman: We will let the other witnesses make their presentations. When all is done, you will be able to answer questions.
Mr. John Reddick, Chair, Interim Westbank First Nation Advisory Council: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, and committee members. I am here to express my views, concerns and general thoughts as a resident on First Nations land, paying my residential taxes to the band.
First, I should introduce myself and give you a little of my background. I have been living on Westbank First Nations land since November 1995. I have been a member of the Westbank First Nation's interim advisory council since June 2001, and am currently the chair. The role of the advisory council is to give input to the chief and council on any matter that directly or significantly affects non-member residents, which, incidentally, includes review of the draft taxation budget.
In February 2002, I also participated in the first of two focus groups organized by the Indian Taxation Advisory Board with the stated purpose of exploring different perspectives, promoting understanding among the parties, exploring issues surrounding residential taxation and representation and discussing possible policy solutions.
I should say that the Westbank First Nation experience is almost certainly different from that of many other First Nations, in that their self-government agreement, which will be implemented April 1, entrenches a law allowing the advisory council to have input into any matters that directly or indirectly affect them. Also, most significantly, it incorporates a dispute resolution mechanism.
I mention this because it bears on some of the concerns that I believe exist among taxpayers who reside on band lands. They are these. Taxpayers want to be assured that the cost of services they receive are properly reflected in their taxes and are comparable to other municipalities. To achieve this, I believe that it is essential that First Nations wishing to assume taxation powers be mandated to establish a mechanism to allow taxpayer input.
I believe that it is in the interests of First Nations and resident taxpayers that all such dealings be as transparent as possible; and that when an advisory body has a legitimate question concerning matters that affect them, that they be dealt with in an open and timely manner.
It is in this way that trust is built and confidence in the process grows.
Within this framework, First Nations wishing to have taxation powers should be mandated to establish a dispute resolution mechanism so that disagreements can be dealt with at the earliest possible time and at the lowest level. Another concern of taxpayers is the need for proper checks and balances to ensure that any First Nation currently collecting taxes or wishing to assume taxation powers has the resources and expertise to do so, and that there be an appeal process to an independent review board that includes residential, business and utilities representatives. The proposed establishment of the First Nations taxation commission and the First Nations financial management board under Bill C-20 will go a long way toward providing these checks and balances. The enhanced regulatory and administrative powers of the proposed tax commission and financial management board provide protection that does not exist under section 83 of the Indian Act. First Nations currently collecting taxes under section 83 and those wishing to do so in the future should be mandated to provide expert resources for the protection of taxpayers under Bill C-20, and the act should be amended to reflect this. The establishment of the First Nations finance authority and the successful model it is based on is very much in the interests of both First Nations and taxpayers and makes one wonder why this was not done a long time ago.
In closing, I would like to thank the committee for this opportunity to appear, and to table a copy of these remarks and a copy of the Westbank First Nation draft law establishing the advisory council that will be implemented as the first order of business under the Westbank First Nation Self-Government Agreement, April 1, 2005.
Senator St. Germain: I move acceptance of the documents into the permanent record of the committee.
The Chairman: It is moved by Senator St. Germain that the committee accept the documents. Is the motion agreed to, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Mr. Maurice Sandford, President, Snake Island Cottagers Association: I am President of the Snake Island Cottagers Association. I thank the committee for allowing me to present a brief this evening. Snake Island is part of the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nations Reserve No. 33. The land consists of three islands, Snake, Fox and Georgina, all located on Lake Simcoe in Ontario. Snake Island has approximately 240 cottagers. We lease the land that our cottages are built on from the band. On April 1, 2001, we entered into a 40-year binding lease with the band. I would like to point out that this lease was the first in Canada that we know of, and presumably precedent setting, that was negotiated with a First Nations band since the passing of the First Nations Land Management Act in 1999. When we first learned last November that the band was about to tax the cottagers, we were shocked that this could be legal. We had no knowledge of what had happened previously. While investigating the taxation rights of Aboriginal peoples, we happened to find Bill C-20 on the Internet. It has always been my belief that the rights of citizens to vote and be represented by a government, particularly with respect to taxation matters, was well established in Canada under the Charter of Rights. Now I understand that Bill C-20 and changes already made to the Indian Act have taken this right from us. Our association was not aware of these changes or that the rights had been taken from us.
What is most troubling to me is the lack of transparency that seems to prevail when dealing with the band and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Back in 1999-2000, the band developed and adopted its own land management code. One of the first in Canada, the code was written under the guidelines of the First Nations Land Management Act. Subsection 10(4) of this act reads as follows in respect of third parties:
If other persons have an interest in the land that is to be subject to the proposed land code, the council shall, within a reasonable time before the vote, take appropriate measures to inform those persons of the proposed land code, this Act and the date of the vote.
The band has not informed our association of the proposed land code. In light of Bill C-20 and changes to the Indian Act, we will be challenging the land codes so that we can be better represented on council and have our views as a third party interest in band lands heard.
At the time, various bills were passing in Parliament. Back in 1999-2000, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development still had full jurisdiction over Indian affairs, and yet we were never advised, despite the fact that we met with officials of the department and the band while these changes were in the process of being made. It seems to me that the most telling and important issue is that the concept of taxation by the bands was expected and understood by DIAND and was part of their agenda in the lands transfer policy made back in 1999-2000. Clearly they have failed to inform us or have deliberately misled us about this issue. At the same time that our leases were about to expire, we signed a 40-year commitment without knowing that taxation would soon be applied. Thus, we were entering into a new ball game and no one would explain the rules to us.
Notwithstanding all of the above, if Bill C-20 is passed and the First Nations are granted the right to tax whomever they please on their lands, changes must be adopted in the land code or in Bill C-20 so that a fair, above-board and completely transparent process is established. Just as laws are passed in Parliament, a similar process of transparency should prevail when bands deal with issues that involve third party interests.
The Sechelt First Nation in British Columbia adopted a municipal style of self-government whereby non- Aboriginals would serve on the council as non-elected members. In our case, because there are three separate islands with no formal lines of communication, we propose that three members, one from each island, sit on band council along with the five elected band members. The band would still hold the majority of voting members and non- Aboriginals would have the right to speak on matters proposed that affect them and to vote on any proposal before it would be adopted. When a new bylaw is proposed to council, a committee would be formed that would include non- Aboriginal representation to further study the proposal. Once the study was complete, findings would be presented to council and voted on. Once the bylaw is voted on, the right to appeal to a tribunal would be available. The tribunal would consist of a chief from another band, a local councillor and the member of Parliament for the area.
This appeal process would not have to be a judicial review, where lawyers are necessary, but it would have to be a fair and legitimate process. A final right of appeal would also be made available in the form of a letter to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I am sure some bands may not like what we are proposing, but the Sechelt First Nation has adopted this style of government under the B.C. laws. In so doing, it has shown that Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals can work together for the betterment and preservation of reserve lands.
In closing, complete transparency and the right to be heard and represented in such affairs must be a part of the band's land management code or part of Bill C-20, where the word ``shall'' is part of the sentence in terms of it being adopted by the band.
Senator St. Germain: Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing before our committee. It is encouraging to hear that the Canadian Property Tax Association is in favour of this.
I suppose with any proposed legislation, there is always the risk that someone will slip through the cracks, such as in the situation of the Westbank First Nation. Mr. Reddick, you listed your concerns, and we have an understanding of the Westbank agreement because we went through it not long ago. Do you not think that the provisions for transparency and taxpayer input are adequate?
Mr. Reddick: In terms of the Westbank experience, the establishment of the advisory council is very positive. We have definite input into matters that concern us.
As a matter of interest, a meeting of the advisory council that was scheduled for today had to be postponed because the subject for discussion was the draft taxation budget proposed by the Westbank First Nation for this year. To briefly describe the process, the budget is developed on an interim basis. I believe it goes initially to the chief and council. It comes back to the advisory council, which examines the budget and compares it to last year's. We then submit written questions, and ultimately, we get a response to them.
We must remember that while our input has significance and should be listened to, we are an advisory council.
I am very pleased to see the powers in Bill C-20 for this proposed First Nations taxation commission. There are powers and regulations, there is control and an appeal process, and there are three members of a 10-person committee who represent the interests of the taxpayers, be they business, homeowners or utilities. That is a tremendously positive move, and I support the bill.
I have difficulty in that, although there is this improved mechanism, there is also a provision that allows First Nations that are taxing now or may wish to tax in the future to opt out. I believe that that defeats the purpose. To quote a friend of mine, when you build a new mousetrap, maybe you should make it mandatory that everyone use it. That is okay, I guess, as long as you are not a mouse.
Bill C-20 has a lot of strengths, and I think it should be mandatory that First Nations operate under it.
Senator St. Germain: There are reasons why it is not mandatory. I represent you as a senator from British Columbia, as does Senator Fitzpatrick, and we are very concerned about the well-being of all British Columbians. We are concerned to do the right thing. To make it mandatory would be unfair to native bands because some of them want to remain under section 83 of the Indian Act for various reasons, including size and logistics.
I believe that Bill C-20 will be of advantage to you, and without putting any pressure on Westbank, I am quite certain that they will opt in and give you the comfort level you need.
Mr. Sandford, I gather that you have been paying rent on these 240 cottages.
Mr. Sandford: Yes.
Senator St. Germain: Is the band supplying any infrastructure?
Mr. Sandford: They currently supply only garbage pickup, for which we pay, through a maintenance fee, $200 per year per cottage in addition to our lease payments.
Senator St. Germain: What about road infrastructure?
Mr. Sandford: There are no roads. It is a small island about a mile offshore and there is only a path on which the tractor pulls the garbage wagon.
Senator St. Germain: Would that not obviate the need for taxation of residents to a great degree?
Mr. Sandford: We thought so, but the land manager told us that they will start taxing us. I asked what the taxes would be for, but she did not provide an answer. What could they tax us for? I think they get grants to pay for the three police officers who are on the big island. There are none permanently situated on our island. Other than that, I have no idea what they could be taxing us for. There are no permanent landowners on our island.
Senator St. Germain: Without being facetious, people in many municipalities wonder what they are being taxed for.
Mr. Sandford: I am not against the taxation process. I now understand that the band has the right to tax under various acts. My concern is the lack of transparency. They tell us after the fact that something has happened. We would like to have a process that will allow us input throughout rather than after the fact.
Senator St. Germain: I think that Bill C-20 will give you a level of comfort that you do not now have.
Mr. Sandford: I tried to read the bill, but it is pretty difficult.
Senator St. Germain: That may be. This is an evolving process for Aboriginal peoples. I feel safe in saying that Bill C-20 will be an asset in your situation.
Senator Fitzpatrick: Welcome to the committee. I have appreciated your testimony.
Mr. Reddick, who is from the Okanagan, lives in Westbank across the lake from Kelowna, where I live. It was about a year ago that we received Royal Assent for the Westbank First Nation Self-Government Agreement. It was the first stand-alone self-government agreement approved in Canada.
I appreciate your testimony tonight in particular, because you come to us with the experience of living in a community that has operated under section 83 in regard to tax collection. Could you give this committee an impression of the size of your community, Mr. Reddick? It is not a small, sleepy community, but rather, one of significant size.
Mr. Reddick: There are 8,000 non-member residents on Westbank First Nation land. That represents 20 per cent or more of all non-member residents on band land across the country. That is a significant amount of taxation money. In fact, it is like a small municipality in itself.
I personally live in a gated community of about 265 homes. There are three other such gated communities in the ward that I represent.
There are five members of the advisory council, each representing wards that probably have the same number of people. A significant number of people and significant amounts of taxation monies are involved.
If you were to travel from Kelowna to Vancouver, you would pass through Westbank. We are a seamless society. It is a very attractive area. We are very fortunate that we have a progressive, forward-looking band in Westbank First Nation.
If I may make a comment to Mr Sandford, I think the establishment of an advisory council similar to the one that we have in Westbank First Nation would go a long way toward solving some of your communication problems. Like everything else, it is a growing process, and as we move along and establish mutual trust, everyone will feel much more comfortable with that process.
I would not want to say that the interim advisory council — it has actually been in effect for over four years — has not had its bumps in the road. As in any relationship, that happens. I hope I have answered your question.
Senator Fitzpatrick: As I said, I live across the lake. I do not live on Westbank First Nation land, but it is fair to say that there is a consensus within the community that the self-government agreement is a good thing. I do expect, from the information that I have received, that Westbank will participate in this new financial management act.
That leads me to Mr. Sandford. I thought it might be helpful for you to have an appreciation of the experience that Westbank has had; they have had this advisory council. The Westbank First Nation has certainly dealt with the community and listened to them. In my assessment of C-20, it provides a more transparent alternative than you have under 1(a) of section 83 of the Indian Act. You said that you were advised that taxation was to be proceeded with. Has it actually happened?
Mr. Sandford: No.
Senator Fitzpatrick: If I could make a suggestion, you might use Westbank as an example with respect to having an advisory council or advisory committee. There is the other question — we are all facing this, whether we live on First Nations land or otherwise — of our taxes going up every year, and it is part of this land valuation process.
Mr. Sandford: Yes, I think an advisory council would help us very much. In terms of what I was saying before, about the lack of transparency, things were happening. When we developed our new lease with the band in 2000-01, one of the clauses spoke to taxes, levies and so on. The band did not meet with us but hired a lawyer to negotiate with our cottage association. We asked about this clause, and the lawyer said that is only if one of the three levels of government, federal, municipal or provincial, passes a law, and the band would have to forward that amount to us. We said okay, that is fine, that makes sense. At that time, even though I am sure the band knew that they had the right to tax it was not communicated to us when we actually developed our new lease. When they said ``We intend to tax you,'' we were confused.
I was speaking to Mr. Jules, and he said maybe we should be getting together, because he is part of it. I would be more than happy to develop some kind of advisory council and maybe that would alleviate the unknown and the suspicion.
Senator Fitzpatrick: I can suggest that you will get very good advice from Manny Jules. He had has been at this for a long time.
Mr. Sandford: It seems that way, yes. I wish I had met him before.
Senator Fitzpatrick: My last question is to Mr. Marsh, and perhaps it is not a fair question because you were talking with respect to the taxation organization that you represent, but you also represent TransCanada PipeLine and the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association. Do you believe that Bill C-20 will provide a catalyst for economic opportunity for First Nations because it allows them to take the business into their own hands with respect to economic development? We know in some resource areas, pipelines will be very important to First Nations. Would you care to comment on that?
Mr. Marsh: As you are aware, we currently do pay property tax to many First Nations. I would not want to say exactly how much the industry pays, but I think we pay a fairly large portion of the $40 million.
We were encouraged by the fact that we have representation. The bottom line for the membership when the bill was introduced is that we realized that there would be taxpayer representatives. We felt that was encouraging and that our interests would be met. We would be involved in the regulation and policy procedures. We felt that it was a very fluid process compared to the current section 83 of the Indian Act. We really had no concerns going forward.
From an economic standpoint, we see it as being transparent and we are encouraged by that.
Senator Christensen: Mr. Sandford, you are subject to tax now under the existing Indian Act, section 83?
Mr. Sandford: I understand that now, yes.
Senator Christensen: You did not know that before.
Mr. Sandford: I had no idea, and certainly not when we developed our lease. We would have done it differently.
Senator Christensen: If the band opted into this, there would be a lot more transparency, so C-20 would be to your advantage and to the band's advantage. It would be a win-win situation.
Mr. Sandford: Exactly, right.
Senator Christensen: Mr. Reddick, you were saying some bands would opt out. This is proposed opt-in legislation. Everybody starts from square one, and those that wish to adopt Bill C-20 can, but it is not a matter of everybody being covered and then they can opt out of applying it.
Mr. Reddick: I understood that, yes.
Senator Léger: Let me try to ask questions not on the specific words and experiences. I understood from Mr. Marsh that the First Nation tax commission and the Canadian Property Tax Association got along quite well. It is the mentality that I am looking at, the back and forth, this new era that we are all invited to enter. That gave fiscal responsibility to both sides. As you said at the end, there is room for improvement, the two sides realize that. Investors' confidence, that was certainly very important. If I understand it well, the two sides were both trying to advance tax- wise?
Mr. Marsh: Correct.
Senator Léger: That is what I wanted to know about — the mentality. The words and so on are not my job.
Mr. Reddick, it would still be in the same vein — the transparency that you seek; that same transparency exists on both sides, does it not?
I often wonder if the Aboriginals do not have another way of having transparency. If I understand correctly, you came to understand each other, to find one way. When it comes to a law, Bill C-20, the legal words are there and so on, but the feeling, the mentality, is there also for non-members, right? That was most interesting for me. There are 200- and-whatever non-members, so you are living that back and forth.
Mr. Reddick: Yes, absolutely.
Senator Léger: That is what I wanted to know. Are the checks and balances the same both ways? We have to come to one at the end. Are the two sides advancing both ways?
Mr. Reddick: Yes, and we are very pleased to see within Bill C-20 that there are actually resources for both sides, both in the form of an appeal mechanism and in the form of resources for bands that want to take on taxation powers. It is a pretty daunting task when all of a sudden you get involved in having to levy taxes, having the bylaws in place, the representation and so on. I am very pleased to see the additional powers that have been put into Bill C-20, and the resources that are available to First Nations.
Senator Léger: We have had witnesses from the First Nations, both for and against; but those who were for definitely sounded as if this spirit of working together was positive — we have to find ways and the two sides have to learn from each other. That is what I was looking for.
The Chairman: Any further questions?
I have a question for Mr. Marsh. The bill provides for the establishment of three financial entities — the tax commission, the financial management board and the financial authority — and the first two are established by the federal government, with large boards of directors through Order-in-Council appointments. This is a question I have asked other witnesses. Are there comparable provincial bodies that govern and deal with tax matters? What comparable entities are there in the provinces that would be similar to the regime that is being established under this bill?
Mr. Marsh: If you are speaking in terms of a commission, I would not say there is a similar provincial commission. However, we realize that the valuation concepts, the taxation concepts, do follow the lines of other provincial or municipal jurisdictions. There is commonality there, and we are encouraged by that.
The Chairman: The financial management board would be unique to First Nations in this case, because it is a body that is established to deal with financial management and ensure that there are good accounting procedures and financial management of First Nations.
In the provinces, is there any body that deals with municipalities or other property owners at all?
Mr. Marsh: Are you speaking specifically about financial management boards?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Marsh: I cannot answer that, sir.
The Chairman: One of the concerns I have expressed is that the federal government seems to be establishing large entities, with 12-person boards. In part, I wonder if the federal government needs to set up such large boards. Can a tax regime be established by the federal government for First Nations without setting up large entities? This is why I am asking.
I recognize maybe it is a first step, providing comfort to First Nations and the federal government that the system that will be established will work. However, I think you have to be mindful of the real world, what is out there in the provinces that have experience in this area. Obviously, they will work toward being as efficient and as functional as provincial-type institutions.
Mr. Marsh: Right.
The Chairman: Are there any other questions?
If not, I want to thank you, gentlemen, very much for your information and the evidence given to us tonight.
Honourable senators, this is our fourth meeting dealing with this bill. I do feel we have had a good opportunity to hear as many witnesses as possible. We are now at the stage where all our witnesses have come forward and given evidence, so we are in a position where we can consider the bill clause by clause. Senator St. Germain?
Senator St. Germain: I would like to go on record, Mr. Chairman, as saying that concerns about the proposed legislation have been brought forward by Aboriginal bands. There is an issue concerning opting into the system, that a decision of the council of a band, or a nation, as I like to call them, is all that is required to opt in.
There has been discussion that there should possibly be a referendum process. I have searched my soul on this, listened to both sides, and I think it should be on the record that there is concern about this. However, I believe that if we intend our First Nations to be economic generators for their people and economic generators in the community as a whole, if everything was done by referendum, it would reduce, if not obliterate, any opportunities for good business. Like anything else, business decisions generally have to be made quickly. Nevertheless, I think it should go on the record that there was concern about that.
There is also a lot of apprehension that the adoption of this bill will possibly undermine certain benefits that native nations have now — benefits that flow through the Indian Act and through the federal government. I have been assured that this should not happen simply because the only portion that would be affected would be rental revenues, which would be as a result of taxation under this particular bill. It should have no effect, but it was another concern.
The final concern is the statistical institute — that it should not be included in Bill C-20, but in a stand-alone bill. I do not have the answers on that. I am not certain why there is apprehension about this, because stats are generally collected on anything and everything, and good decisions can only be made with good statistics.
These are the three issues that have been brought to my attention. They are worthy of mention and should be on the record. They were brought to me by Aboriginal nations that came forward, and I think they did so in good faith. I have been able to satisfy myself that these three items will not jeopardize anyone, and hopefully the benefits of Bill C-20 will outweigh anything that may arise out of them.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, is it agreed that the committee move to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-20?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The normal procedure is to postpone consideration of the long title, the preamble and the short title contained in clause 1. Shall the committee proceed in the normal way? The normal way is to agree to groups of clauses as they are organized in the bill.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clauses 4 to 15 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 16 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clauses 17 to 28 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 29 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clauses 30 to 34 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 35 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 36 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 37 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clauses 38 to 48 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 49 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clauses 50 to 54 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 55 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clauses 56 and 57 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clauses 58 to 73 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clauses 74 to 87 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clauses 88, 89 and 90 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clauses 91 to 103 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clauses 104 to 107 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clauses 108 to 113 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clauses 114 to 131 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clauses 132 to 139 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clauses 140 to 146 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clauses 147 to 154 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 155 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the schedule carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 1, the short title, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the preamble carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Is it agreed that the bill be adopted without amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Is it agreed that I report this bill to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: This concludes our consideration of Bill C-20.
Are there any other matters that honourable senators wish to deal with?
There being none, this concludes our business for tonight. I thank you all for attending, particularly the witnesses and other people who have come to observe our proceedings tonight.
The committee adjourned.