AAND Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES AUTOCHTONES ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DU GRAND NORD

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, December 3, 1998

• 1545

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.)): Welcome, everyone, to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, for Bill C-49, an act providing for the ratification and the bringing into effect of the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management.

We're moving to clause 2. The witnesses are from the Beaucage Tenants Association and the Jocko Point Tenants Association. I will ask whoever is going to lead off here to introduce the group.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Leclair (Lawyer, Beaucage Tenants' Association): Good afternoon. My name is Suzanne Leclair.

[English]

I am a lawyer and also a non-native resident in the subdivision of Beaucage. That's within the land managed by Nipissing Indian Band No. 10.

I'm doing the presentation on behalf of the Beaucage Tenants Association, not so much as a lawyer but more as a part of a group that is of the opinion that the spirit of the bill is one that we adopt, one that we feel will perhaps promote some sense of fairness for the first nations. However, we do wish to point out that in order to have the rules of fairness, if fairness is at the very centre of this bill, we feel that perhaps fairness should be demonstrated throughout the whole bill. That specifically includes dealing with third-party interests.

We, as a group, would like to see the land code process awarded and entrusted to the first nations people, because we feel that as potential landlords they are more keen and more aware of the problems and the local needs. However, the big problem is how to instill and enshrine fairness. Fairness is most definitely not provided for with regard to third-party interests, and specifically with regard to the dispute resolution process as provided.

The framework agreement provides for a mechanism regarding a dispute resolution process between the band and Her Majesty, the Queen. Article 43 of the framework agreement provides for certain rules and certain issues that must be contemplated or are within the ambit of the dispute resolution process. We do not have any of that predictability that the parties to this agreement will have. We, as third-party interests, are entitled to believe only that we're going to get some form dispute resolution process, but there's absolutely no minimum guarantee.

For example, imagine you are awarded a dispute resolution process which omits to tell you that the people hearing or mediating or arbitrating your dispute will be parties that have a conflict of interest, parties that might have a vested or indirect interest in the outcome of this matter. There's nothing in here that promotes the rule of fair play, of fairness between both parties.

The only way you negotiate is if there are incentives to negotiate. If one party is completely isolated and without any right of recourse, it makes sense to think that the dispute resolution process, however weak, will indeed work.

• 1550

When we look at the dispute resolution process, which is referred to in the framework agreement, and more specifically in 5.2(g), we feel that it refers only to a process which will be established. That's basically asking you to jump out of a plane and promising you a parachute before you land. You just can't have that in a nation-to-nation relationship.

We feel that as a group we need to be respected. We're both members of two different nations and, as such, you could probably refer to the Supreme Court of Canada. With respect to any future negotiations on the issue of separation with Quebec, even the Supreme Court of Canada agreed that you must have some fairly basic rules of fair play. You're not even promising that. Bill C-49 sets up a very serious deception.

With regard to issues not within the ambit of Bill C-49, such as taxation, we could just imagine the potential for a scenario where the right to tax certain members of the people living on the reserve on an unequal basis.... Say, for example, that we decided we're going to tax non-native residents. There is absolutely no way that you could have your checks and balances in a dispute resolution process if you feel that the amount of taxation and the goals of taxation are completely unfair.

We realize it is probably not a very likely scenario, but just in a stretch of the imagination, we could see that taxation would be borne exclusively by non-residents. Why not? We're the easy target. We cannot vote out the elected officials of a band if we're unhappy about the burden of taxation.

Only a fair dispute resolution process is right, and in the best of worlds, we would even say a right to vote on matters affecting specifically non-native residents living on surrendered lands.

Mr. Jerry Kervin (Member, Beaucage Tenants Association): I'm going to use the overhead.

I'm also from Beaucage Park or the Beaucage Tenants Association. I'm also going to be talking about the dispute resolution mechanism and the unfairness of it.

I want to show you where we are right now. We've been negotiating for over two years with the band, and here's the situation. In regard to the leased land, for the area outlined in blue, over the last 10 years—actually it goes back further than that—the average price is about $50,000. The fee simple land is all of the land around us and is covered by the North Bay Real Estate Board. The average, as you can see, which includes trailers, homes and the like, is now about $90,000. You can see that we're dead in the water. In the years from about 1992, for example, we could no longer get mortgages on our property.

We tried, then, in this latest situation with the band, to resolve the issues. When we sat down to negotiate the new lease, we found that they had no records of any of the sales in the Nipissing district, so we researched the last 15 years and provided them with records of all the sales at Beaucage and at Jocko Point. Every listing, every sale, went to the band office. We spent two days there confirming these sales so we could both have some idea of what was going on.

We provided them with leases, CMHC leases in particular. CMHC will lease on native land, provided the provisions, the lease terms, are changed somewhat. We got a CMHC lease that dated from 1970 and provided that to the band.

• 1555

We made concrete proposals. Our proposals said, basically, that if they made the provisions such that our land value, the average value, would go up, we would pay them more money, on a yearly basis. We said, “You must change the terms. Help us.” It's to our advantage to have the average land values going up, paralleling the general fee simple market. We made that proposal.

We also did a great deal of research to show them how to go about this—the calculations of the rents, all of this type of thing—and despite all of that work, we've not had a meeting in eight months.

We're asking you to change the provisions to give us some predictability, so that we know when we start a negotiated process there will be an end to it. Our neighbours at Jocko Point are now into their fifth year. We're over two years into it and there's no real end in sight. We're asking you to change it, to protect us, to give us some predictability.

Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you, Mr. Kervin.

Do the people from Jocko Point want to continue at this point?

Ms. Jeannine Morin (Policy Director, Ontario Association of Lessees on Native Lands): I'm here today to represent the Ontario Association of Lessees on Native Land, also known as the OALONL.

The association's solicitor, Mr. Hubert Mantha, was to address the standing committee on Bill C-49, but a court appearance has prevented him from doing so. However, he has provided us with a letter, of which copies are to be distributed—and I think they already have been—to the standing committee members.

This letter touches on two issues. The first issue deals with legal ramifications of Indian bands that decide to become landlords and whether or not this activity attracts the provisions of the Tenant Protection Act. In order to simplify matters, he has attached a copy of the association's position paper, which describes the issues we intend to raise before the Federal Court.

The second issue deals with taxation without representation. Mr. Mantha questions the ability of a group to enact legislation of wide scope which directly affects another group of people that is powerless to affect the legislative process. Mr. Mantha goes on to say that this appropriation of legislative power unilaterally given to the bands by the federal government is that much more objectionable because it is clearly based on race. This legislation is flawed precisely because it ignores all the parties who will be affected by it. There is a solution, he says, and one that we will all benefit from, but we must be allowed to participate.

I have also been asked to distribute copies of a letter sent to the OALONL by Jim Reid, who is the president of the Birch Island Camper Association. Birch Island owns 76 cottage lots located on Whitefish River first nation reserve. The Birch Island Camper Association is a member of the OALONL, and although its band is not part of the First Nations Land Management Act at this time, the association members feel it is only a matter of time before they follow suit. I will cover one area of Mr. Reid's letter that is very disturbing.

It seems that during the 1998 renewal date, amendments were made to the existing lease language without the lessees' input, discussion or agreement. When the lessees refused to sign the unsolicited amendments, the lease payments were refused and mailed cheques were not cashed. They were also threatened with the fact that by not signing they did not have a lease and thereby could lose their properties. The band has refused to acknowledge their concerns and inquiries.

Mr. Reid's closing statement is:

Sections 53 and 60 of the Indian Act have given our association a taste of what Bill C-49 enactment will mean to our future as leaseholders on native lands. We are greatly disappointed with the treatment received from the band council and Department of Indian Affairs.

• 1600

At the very least, prior to the inception of sections 53 and 60 and the impending Bill C-49, the Department of Indian Affairs was answerable to their employers, the voters of Canada. Non-band members living on a reserve will be unprotected at all levels.

In closing, I would like to make a statement of my own. I often hear people say—and I've had this from politicians—“Surely, you must have known what you were getting into when you chose to live there.”

Many lessees are enticed by ads such as the one I have attached to the package. It reads, “Federal Crown Lease Auction.” These homes are on Indian reserves, but that is not mentioned anywhere in this ad. On the other hand, we signed leases with our federal government, so there should be no reason to worry. After all, we are all proud Canadians and our government would not put us in jeopardy, would it?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you, Ms. Morin.

Mr. Rusty Wiley (Vice-President, Jocko Point Tenants Association): I'm vice-president of the Jocko Point Tenants Association.

Clause 16 of the bill and article 16 of the framework agreement speak to third-party interests. This section purports to protect third-party interests, but it makes that protection conditional. The primary condition that makes a lease on an Indian reserve interesting or valuable is that it's a contract between the lessee and the Queen in right of Canada. With this primary condition removed, the appeal to any other conditions becomes a joke. Subclause 16(3) of the First Nations Land Management Act removes this condition.

As well, I want to remind the government that if this legislation becomes law, special consideration will have to be given to lands like Jocko Point, which are absolutely surrendered. If absolutely surrendered land is transferred to this new management regime, irreparable harm could be done to those who built their lives on that land and would have otherwise had a lease in perpetuity.

I'm concerned that should a first nation such as Rama Ontario decide to sign the framework agreement, they'd be able to licence the casino themselves under clause 20 of the First Nations Land Management Act and not only cut Ontario out of the picture, but all the other first nations that benefit from the casinos as well. The first nation, in this case, would be obliged to receive and use all moneys acquired on behalf of their own first nation as it's written in 18(1)(d) of the First Nations Land Management Act.

Bill C-49 is about power. It should, as well, be about trust. I don't understand how the right to manage land with the privileges of an owner does not also include the right to tax themselves. Bill C-115, the Kamloops Amendments, gave the first nation the right to tax interests in reserve lands, but under the Indian Act, if those interests are Indian property, they cannot be taxed. If the first nation is to survive as a governing entity, then it will certainly be necessary for them to raise money to operate. If we're to trust the first nation to manage the land, we have to trust them to tax themselves, something anything any reasonable person knows they're going to require.

Further, I do not believe any member of Parliament believes that taxation without representation should be part of the status quo in Canada. While it's necessary and apparent that the government and the courts of Canada agree that the first nations have the right to tax the property of residents on the designated lands, it's not so obvious that such taxation can avoid the responsibility of fair representation.

Since I believe the failure in Bill C-115 was inadvertent, I contend that this bill is an opportune time to clearly state the intentions of Parliament in this regard. The First Nations Land Management Act should be amended to include a council of the whole, which would include representatives of all those who would be affected by the taxing bylaws.

In an example that illustrates the level of unfairness that we expect, a standard lease held by a Jocko Point tenant has a clause that says the tenant will pay for garbage collection and for road maintenance. It mentions two specific band council resolutions. In the one case, the charge is subject to an annual review, and in the other BCR, the charge is subject to change by negotiation.

The Nipissing First Nation broke this lease in 1995 by passing two new band council resolutions which in each case doubled the fees. Normally, on principle, the tenant would not pay, but the land office of Nipissing First Nation threatened the lease of anyone who did not pay.

These band council resolutions cannot be considered taxing bylaws because the Indian Taxation Advisory Board would not have let them proceed without a dispute mechanism in place. These actions are bullying tactics by a band council that already has sufficient power under sections 53 and 60 of the Indian Act. Giving the first nation council increased powers can only make us more fearful for our security.

Thank you.

• 1605

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you, Mr. Wiley.

Questions?

Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Taxation is always a major issue, of course, and you're concerned about taxation. Is it your contention that the band has already implemented some form of taxation or is about to, and further, that by taxing only leaseholders they are denying themselves a revenue that would accrue to the band for band purposes?

Mr. Rusty Wiley: No. Actually, it's more that this bill transferring the land management powers is going to, in our mind, force the band into a position of raising revenues, and that's going to force them to do what they have not done in the past—impose taxation.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: If you're a farmer resident outside a rural municipality and have land leased in another municipality, I don't believe you would be permitted to vote for the council of every rural municipality in which you lease land. How do you respond to that?

Let's take it in terms of cities. Suppose you're a resident of Ottawa and you lease or rent a house in Montreal and another one in Toronto because you have the kind of a job that requires you to be in three places; I don't believe you'd get a vote in every place if you had just rented an apartment in each of them.

Mr. Rusty Wiley: I don't know why not.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Pardon?

Mr. Rusty Wiley: I don't know if you're correct.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: As a member of Parliament, I rent an apartment here in the city and I'm not—

Mr. Rusty Wiley: You're not permitted to vote?

Mr. Derrek Konrad: No, you're not permitted to vote.

Mr. Rusty Wiley: But you are permitted to vote in at least one municipality. Correct?

Mr. Derrek Konrad: That's right.

Mr. Rusty Wiley: We're not permitted to vote in any.

Ms. Jeannine Morin: None.

Mr. Rusty Wiley: Zero.

Ms. Jeannine Morin: A band member living off reserve votes—

Mr. Rusty Wiley: We don't live in cottages. We have permanent residence on these reserve lands. We're permitted to vote in none.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: If I had only one home, a rented home here in Ottawa, I don't think I would get a vote. I could be wrong.

Ms. Suzanne Leclair: If this is your only vote—

Mr. Rusty Wiley: Is that particular to your job?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Can I have one answer at a time, please?

Mr. Rusty Wiley: Sorry.

Ms. Suzanne Leclair: If you don't like your rental agreement, if you don't like the amount you're paying, the worst-case scenario is that you would terminate your agreement and have that selection of going elsewhere.

In this case, we are dealing with leasehold improvements that are fixed to the land in a very permanent fashion; this is taking your home and bringing it elsewhere, which I don't think is the same scenario that you can draw the conclusion from.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: What do you suggest as an alternative to this, since you already have some difficulties under the current regime? What suggestions have you put forward? Or have you discussed it with the...?

Ms. Suzanne Leclair: We should have some rules of natural justice as the first precondition to a dispute resolution process, where the rules of natural justice would at least provide for some enhanced fairness in a dispute resolution process, because we feel that a worthwhile discussion with the natives.... We would both benefit from an economic advantage, and the only way you can have that is by having the rules of natural justice together with certain rules of fairness.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Do you have any further questions, Mr. Konrad?

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Just one other. I just want to point out that when misleading ads are used to draw people into agreements that turn out to be less than wonderful, they are permitted, of course, to take court action, legal action. I don't think that's a valid argument. You've raised some valid arguments, but I think that one doesn't pass the test.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you.

Mr. Wilfert.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): May have a point of clarification, Mr. Chairman?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Yes.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: My understanding—and please correct me if I'm wrong—is that Bill C-49 does not provide taxation authority to first nations. Therefore, the issue of taxation without representation is a non-issue.

• 1610

A voice: And he's never been wrong yet.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

A voice: That's very kind of you, but—

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): I believe you're correct from what we've heard so far today, but—

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I just want to raise that because, if my understanding is correct, there's no issue here.

Ms. Suzanne Leclair: We used taxation as an example. We certainly don't want to mislead you; we don't want to debate the issue of taxation. We're saying that in the event an issue comes up that you need to negotiate, taxation being one of them.... Perhaps we should have used a different example. But should another issue come up such that we need to negotiate between the parties, it would be very difficult at the current time.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I just raise it, if I might, Mr. Chairman, because in the one presentation, with respect to the second issue Ms. Morin mentioned, it says in bold letters, “Taxation Without Representation”.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): You'll have to put your translation devices on—except Mrs. Leclair and Mrs. Morin, of course.

[Translation]

I have been listening to you for some time now, and it seems to me that there is a lesson to be learned from all of this; and the lesson is don't build a castle on land that does not belong to you. That is the lesson I have learned. Even if you build a cottage on leased land, right from the outset you have trouble getting a mortgage because the bank is of the opinion that if the owner of the land needs it, he will force you to move the cottage.

You have raised some interesting points, but I wonder if your arguments are not simply hiding your fear of what a Native government might eventually do.

I understand that culturally, we, as Canadians, who came after them, have our way of seeing democracy. When we pay taxes or other royalties, we always have a member of Parliament or a mayor who can defend us, but then again, there are no guarantees that they will do so; it depends on the consequences of their action.

So there is a certain amount of fear on your part with respect to what could happen in the future.

Earlier on, I was listening to Mr. Kervin who, in his presentation, talked about the unpredictable nature of some things. Obviously, whether you are under Native jurisdiction or federal jurisdiction, nothing enables you to foresee what will happen when your lease expires. The government could very well say, with the agreement of the Natives, that it wants to increase your lease fees.

So we can not tell the Natives that some things would be unpredictable under their government, when in fact, they are not any more unpredictable under the current reign of the Crown.

Mr. Kervin, you also presented a fancy chart that showed the progression of the value of your land according to whether it was on- or off-reserve. That goes back to what I was just saying; as long as the land does not belong to you, the value of the house will not go up very much, because from one day to the next, you may be expropriated or the landowner can ask for the land on which it is built to be returned.

That leads me to believe that your fears are perhaps unwarranted. You are right, Madam, when you say that given the way the market works, when you are not happy with where you live you can always move. I do not believe that it would be in the best interest of Natives to triple or quadruple the lease fees you are currently paying for the land because you can always decide to leave. And I am not sure they could replace you from one day to the next, especially in the case of isolated communities.

So there is an issue of mutual trust. I understand that you would also like to have some guarantees, but in today's world, there are less and less of them.

Would you be prepared to admit that in the end, your fears stem to a larger extent from the fact that you may go from being under federal jurisdiction to being under the jurisdiction of a Native government?

Ms. Suzanne Leclair: I would like to clarify something with respect to your comment about not renovating property when the land does not belong to you.

• 1615

The lease included a specific requirement to build while keeping costs to a minimum. It contained that requirement. Moreover, the lease applied to permanent residences and to seasonal residences. So we had a certain guarantee due to the fact that the Crown could, on behalf of the First Nations, attribute part of the land to non-Native purposes.

Secondly, you talk about not building on leased land. The idea, however, is not new. I can give you the example of Toronto island, where properties were built on leased land; the improvements made were substantial in terms of costs. So it is not all that uncommon. The lease contained some provisions to that effect.

Now let's talk about the changes constantly made to the lease. If the land has already been mortgaged, a new lease must be designed to mortgage or sell the property. We don't have a choice. If we do not like the provisions of the lease, a new one is drawn up and we must sign it. We end up in a hopeless situation; we have to remortgage, do nothing or sell. But the new lease is signed; it changes from time to time. I bought my property in 1992 and the lease was changed twice. It is a 25-year lease.

I will now address the issue you raised about being afraid of being under Native management. I do not think fears of that nature exist. My neighbours are Natives and I share their interest in cross-country skiing, which is something they love. We have many interests in common. Our concerns deal more with how to instill confidence with respect to our future relations.

I have no intention of substituting my vote for my neighbour's vote in matters that concern him. Like all the members of our group, I have enormous respect for the right of Natives to govern themselves. I have no intention of defining the thrust of it. We simply need to know on what basis the rule of law will be applied in certain very specific areas that concern us directly.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you. Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): They tell me that in the case of Toronto Island there are a number of those leases that were not renewed in order to regain parkland on Toronto Island—

A voice: That's right.

Mr. John Bryden: —so this is a case where the municipality unilaterally acted and didn't renew leases. In my own municipality, there is a trailer park called Courtcliffe Park in which the landlord failed to pay taxes and the municipality expelled all the permanent trailer homes. It's a trailer park, but there are permanent homes.

So I would just question whether or not you are asking something of the aboriginal communities of which you are a part that we don't assign to people off reserve. For example, it would appear you're proposing that landlords elsewhere in Canada—whether they're municipalities or privately owned properties—have restrictions on their right to change the terms of the lease when the lease is expired. It seems to me that whenever you rent you have no guarantee that your renewed lease is not going to be three or four times the price or not renewed at all, so how can you ask something of these first nations that is not applicable off reserve?

Ms. Suzanne Leclair: In fact, the original leases were for a term of 30 years, so the reliance on those leases was indeed for 30 years. When people built in their improvements, basically they built on the basis that they would accordingly be able to amortize or deduct the cost of their living elsewhere. When you have a lease that provides for certain terms to remain in existence for 30 years, you do indeed rely on that.

• 1620

And in the matter of a contract with non-native landlords, you would expect, in a commercial lease situation, to be in court fairly quickly if you did not respect the terms of the lease or if you did not agree on the terms of interpretation, which in fact has happened. We needed the court assistance to clarify certain increases, but there was a contract that we could rely upon.

Mr. John Bryden: What about my case of this trailer park? The owner failed to pay taxes so everyone had to leave. In other words, the rules of the game are changed because the owner changed, basically, from a private owner to the municipality, and the new owner expelled the tenants.

It seems to me that you have a similar situation here. Basically, you're going from one owner to another owner. I sympathize a lot with your dilemma—don't mistake me—and I can appreciate the insecurity you must feel. I think that's very normal. But I have to think of it in terms of equitableness and analogies that I understand, and I just can't make this a special case when I see that my own municipality has taken over ownership of property and, as the new owner, has exerted its right on the tenants. I can't see why you would be a special case. Can you argue that?

Ms. Suzanne Leclair: Yes. The concept of reliance is one on which we are positing our whole concern today. When people were invited upon these lands to build homes, the assurances were quite straightforward. They said, “Come and build your home on these lands, and here are the leases that you'll be required to sign.”

Now, we're going to be in future debate, because if this bill goes through, there are some very interesting legal questions and challenges, one of which would be, “Did we rely on the government, thinking we had a stable landlord?”

I'm sure that I could see, when we're looking at it from a non-native point of view and from people.... You, as a homeowner, probably own a home in fee simple. That's all you've known all your life. You've known a right to a democracy; you've always known that you were dealing with fee simple lands. Why else would you own land in any other way? Why else would we see democracy in any other way? I find it peculiar today that we're prepared to forego our visions of what ought to be democracy for natives, but we don't understand why someone would want to build on leased lands as opposed to fee simple.

In short, my only answer to this is that there was a certain sense of reliance on the stability of who was behind the leases.

Mr. John Bryden: I have to say that I have difficulty.... You still haven't answered my question. Basically, in this instance, are you not asking for something that is not available in general society? If the municipality can foreclose because somebody failed to pay taxes.... I understand you don't even pay taxes directly to anyone.

Ms. Suzanne Leclair: We're paying leases as opposed to taxes, around $2,620.

Mr. John Bryden: Well, isn't that precisely the situation we have with the trailer park? They weren't paying taxes either. Their landlord was paying taxes. He failed to pay taxes, so the municipality foreclosed on the land and they lost their homes.

Ms. Suzanne Leclair: They did not lose—

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you.

I must say, Madame Leclair, that I'm a little concerned. For a lawyer.... You talk about buying and selling, about how you bought this and you have to sell it, etc., but my understanding is that you didn't buy anything but a lease on someone else's land. But whether it was Canada in right of the Queen or the first nations, it is not your land. I think that's something we might respect, with all respect, and no one has.... I think you're acting before anybody's bitten you, and I find that very difficult for us to deal with here.

We are trying, as was said this morning—I'm not sure whether you were here or not—in the sense of fairness and co-operation and so on. You use these terms, but if you're going to change buying and selling and be comparing it to someone who owns the land and the home, you're going to be in trouble.

• 1625

The whole city of Westminster in the city of London is owned by the Duke of Bedford. His family has owned it for hundreds of years. He's never sold any of it. That's why he's the richest man in England. He changes the leases when they're up. You don't have any guarantee except for what the lease says. I think that's what Mr. Bryden is trying to suggest.

Yes, ma'am?

Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): So far this has been a mutually beneficial arrangement, I imagine. The first nations need the tenants and the tenants enjoy the land—and in most cases, really very cheaply.

But I'm really concerned about the comment that this decision in C-49 is based on race, because the Indian Act was based on race. So it was all right to take away the power to administer land because they were Indians, but we're not allowed to give back power over their own land because they're Indians? I find that a terrible conflict, and it's something I'm very uncomfortable with. These people own the land and they have the right to have some say over what happens on it.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Mr. Wiley.

Mr. Rusty Wiley: I don't think anybody disagrees with that. In fact, I've said it a couple of times myself. It's a big problem. When you give them governing power over us, you give them an added burden, an added responsibility to seem like they're treating us fairly. You're burdening them with something they don't need when they're trying to set up these budding governments.

Ms. Louise Hardy: This isn't a self-government agreement.

Mr. Rusty Wiley: I understand. It's a land management agreement. It's a move towards self-government.

Ms. Louise Hardy: And they have that right.

Mr. Rusty Wiley: I understand that. But when you give them management over us, don't forget you're also burdening them.

Ms. Louise Hardy: Well, I'm sure they're prepared to take the burden on.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you. Mr. Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much for travelling a great length, I understand, to be here and make this presentation.

I want to make a couple of comments. One question is for Madame Leclair or Mr. Kervin, perhaps, and one is for Mr. Wiley in particular.

Throughout your presentation, you talk about the lack of certainty. You say that there's an element of fear and unpredictability and so forth, that without some sort of further guaranteed protections, bad things would happen to you. You say that the chief and council might make an inappropriate ruling and kick you off your land and do these things, that somehow under the provisions of this Bill C-49 we would chase all the white people off the land, take their houses and do these sort of things.... I was thinking this through. I thought to myself that it would be really quite foolish, wouldn't it, if the purpose of the bill were defeated?

For example, if I were going to rent a cottage from one of these 14 participating bands, or if I wanted to build a cottage, and they were nasty and bad to me and all these kinds of things, the first thing I would probably do is take out an article in the newspaper and tell all my friends about how bad they were to me. I'd tell them to stay away from there, to not do business with these folks because they're bad and mean and unfair. “Just don't go there,” I'd say, “because it's bad.”

Now, don't you think that as a consequence of that the first nations participating in these agreements are not going to have any commercial leases, are not going to attract an outfitter's outfit there, say, a fishing camp, or commercial properties...?

• 1630

It would seem to me that some of the fears you have fly in the face of a good commercial relationship between two separate bodies. It would seem to me that if your fears are realized, Ms. Leclair, the 10 to 20 years of work that these bands have put in to get to where they ostensibly want to go would be diminished the first time that, for example, a white person came into that community and was treated badly and the word got out that you shouldn't do business with them. Doesn't that seem like just an awful contradiction to you?

Ms. Suzanne Leclair: We're not dealing with bad landlords. Today, my experience with Nipissing First Nation is that certain employees can be rude, but that does not reflect upon my opinion of the band members or the members of councils for Nipissing First Nation. I could see that I've really misled this group when we talk about fears and today's experience. We've had some frustrating negotiations, but that does not colour our landlords bad.

Here's what we're concerned about. This framework agreement and C-49 provide for dispute resolution for third parties who have a dispute. That's what it says. We just want to know what the rules are. We want to be able to know, if we are at this particular point, what we can expect from this dispute resolution process. Because today we have a balanced relationship; there are some consistent sales. We certainly don't go and say to every neighbour.... Sure, a lot of people just don't like the idea.

I noted Mr. Finlay's comment: why on earth would you, as a lawyer, want to buy that in the first place? The draw to those particular lands is that we're dealing with some very.... I, from Ottawa, romanticize the whole native pursuit, the spirituality, the fairness; it was always at the forefront of my university education. What I'm saying today is that if you tie someone's hands with no predictability in the future, we may not have a meaningful negotiation in the future or a mechanism of resolving future disputes.

Mr. David Iftody: Thank you.

I just want to follow up on that theme of good and bad and that kind of thing—and I'll get to my point on this, Mr. Chairman—because I think the whole concept here about relationships between Canadians in general and first nations people in particular is predicated on good faith. We have to come to any negotiations in good faith.

We've talked about cottage owners in areas. I have cottage owners in my riding. My colleague from the Reform Party pointed out how they too don't have a right to vote in my community, but somehow we get along. Good-faith relationships have to take place in any of these processes to make things work. I appreciate what you're saying. I think it's an important point.

I want to keep on that theme and ask Mr. Wiley about that and ask him some questions. I'm a little bit uncomfortable doing this, but I think I have a duty to do this and I ought to speak to these points. It has to do with the concept of relationships.

Mr. Wiley, I believe you have a web site and you communicate through—

Mr. Rusty Wiley: I do not.

Mr. David Iftody: —an Internet service.

Mr. Rusty Wiley: I use an Internet server.

Mr. David Iftody: Okay. You use an Internet service.

Mr. Rusty Wiley: I don't have a web site.

Mr. David Iftody: Okay. I want to draw this to your attention. Maybe your colleagues who are with you don't know this—I don't know—but you published a number of different kinds of articles over the last year or two with respect to native people generally. In one, in the caption at the beginning of the article, you call them “Abhoriginals”, as in abhorrent. That's at the top in capitals. “Not worth the effort”, and it says, “Rusty Wiley”, and then there are a number of comments, like “Natives need $2 billion more per year???”. Then you make some comments. I'm quoting from what we pulled off the Internet, sir, that—

Mr. Rusty Wiley: Somebody's using my name. I don't have a web site. I send e-mail to members of Parliament. The only thing you've ever gotten from me is a direct e-mail.

Mr. John Bryden: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I will intervene here on behalf of everyone. I think the Internet is a dangerous source of information because it's not verifiable. Unless my colleague has verified his information separately, I think perhaps this line of questioning should be discontinued.

• 1635

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you, Mr. Bryden.

Have you anything more, Mr. Iftody?

Mr. David Iftody: Yes, I take that point. I think it's a reasonable point. There are some very condemning statements, I think, Mr. Chairman, that are made in this document.

I won't attribute them to you right now, sir, but I will ask that this be looked at and investigated to see if it is true, to see if these are your words and comments. I won't go any further with this until I have my facts straight.

Mr. Rusty Wiley: I would like to get copies of it from you, because it's not my stuff.

Mr. David Iftody: Yes, I will ask the House of Commons to look at this for me and to see if this can be traced to your e-mail number.

But I just would say to all the folks here making these presentations that if it is true that some of these comments were made, I would not be at all surprised if there is conflict in the relationships with the groups that are participating right now. If I were going to rent somebody a piece of land and he or she said these things about me, Mr. Chairman, then I don't think I would.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Claude Bachand: I find my colleague's position a bit delicate. I want to support Mr. Bryden's position, because I do not want to feel like a member of a judicial inquiry. It seems very dangerous to me to put words in someone else's mouth when we don't even know if he is really the one responsible for them.

I would invite you to be much more cautious and to put an end to that as soon as possible.

Unless my colleague has irrefutable proof that it does indeed come from the gentleman's Internet site, we must put an end to this discussion. I do not want anymore discussions of this nature unless we have irrefutable proof.

I am not here to drag anyone through the mud. I would do it if the comments were accurate or if I were in a position to retrace the individual; in that case, I would not hesitate to do it. But as long as we do not have absolute proof, we must be very vigilant.

These people have travelled here today and I would be very inclined...

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Mr. Bachand, I agree with your point. Mr. Bryden made the same point.

So before we go on—because there are many others waiting, as you know—I want to ask the witnesses if they have anything specific to say or any specific amendment? Or are we just to understand without too much further...? If you have something specific, I think we would like to have it. Or if you can boil down your concern to a sentence or two, we would like to have it.

Ms. Suzanne Leclair: We would refer to some specific amendments, and we would....

Just give me a chance here. I'm a little disturbed by all of this. You've basically coloured our group as extremists and I really resent that.

Mr. David Iftody: Excuse me, ma'am.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I am reading from something that was presented to me by one of my colleagues.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Mr. Iftody, we've—

Mr. John Bryden: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman—

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Order.

Mr. David Iftody: And I—

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Mr. Iftody—

Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Chairman, you must intervene—

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): I am.

Mr. John Bryden: —because this is unfair to the witness and I won't have it. The witness has a right to respond and she should be given that opportunity to respond. And I think that once she has responded, we should leave this absolutely and concentrate exclusively on what brought the witnesses before us. But I do believe the witnesses have a right to respond to what they've heard here, and I would encourage you, Mr. Chairman, to recognize them and allow them to do so.

Mr. David Iftody: Then let's drop the issue, Mr. Bryden.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): I would like to give Madame Leclair an opportunity, if I might, to answer my question, or to leave something...if it's in writing, fine, but if you want to do it orally that's fine too—we'll take it down.

Ms. Suzanne Leclair: We would adopt some of the same comments as the women's group: they required some minimum standard when dealing with areas concerning the effect of marital breakdown. We want minimum standards of predictability when you will be adopting general rules and procedures into your land codes.

• 1640

I think we're certainly entitled to nothing less than what you will be providing to the women affected by the rules of marital breakdown when you're going to be incorporating by way of the land codes.... You're referring to the land codes as a means of providing for the general rules and the procedure. In C-49, if I understand this correctly, 17(3) reads:

The first nation or the Minister may refer any dispute relating to the establishment of the general rules and procedures to an arbitrator in accordance with the Framework Agreement.

So if you don't like the rules, you have some kind of safety net; an arbitrator will come in and take a look to ensure that in regard to the debate about the rules and procedures there will at least be a recourse in setting the rules and procedures. We feel that providing for a section similar to that would certainly appease our concerns.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you. I think that's fairly clear. I thank you very much for coming here and I thank you very much for your intervention. I think we understand what you have in mind. Madame Leclair, we haven't agreed with any amendments yet from anyone, so we don't judge these things...it ain't over till it's over.

Mr. Wiley.

Mr. Rusty Wiley: I was just wondering if I could get that web address for that document—

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): If you leave the table now, I'm sure you could.

I'm going to ask if Brenda Miller, the chief of staff for the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, is here, because Grand Chief Fontaine has sent a letter which we would like to hear.

Thank you very much, Mr. Kervin, Ms. Leclair and Ms. Morin.

Mr. Iftody, can we get on, please?

I'm sorry, Ms. Miller.

I want to introduce Brenda Miller to the committee. She's chief of staff for National Chief Phil Fontaine of the Assembly of First Nations. We had hoped that the chief would be here, but we're delighted to have you in his place with his words.

Chief Brenda Miller (Chief of Staff, Assembly of First Nations): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of this committee. Grand Chief Phil Fontaine sends his greetings. He also sends his regrets. He is out of the country. He so very much would have loved to speak to each and every one of you on this very important issue.

He has, however, provided an official position. It's by way of a letter to the committee. I have an original copy here, an official copy from the Assembly of First Nations. I will read from a transcript copy. It's dated December 3, 1998, and is addressed to the committee chairman.

• 1645

As National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, it is my pleasure to submit my comments regarding the First Nations Land Management Act, Bill C-49. I apologize that my schedule simply does not allow me to appear in person before you.

The First Nations Land Management Act results from the efforts of many committed individuals. Most importantly, the chiefs involved in this initiative have dedicated themselves to this very important project.

This bill is both unique and important. It provides the necessary framework for first nations to construct land codes in accordance with their views and aspirations as a community. Even when passed into legislation, the act itself will not initiate or impose change. The act merely provides the opportunity for these 14 first nations communities to initiate change at the pace and in the direction established by their communities.

Equally important is the fact that this bill does not entail a model to be imposed on other first nations. This bill responds to and reflects the needs and concerns of specific communities, and as such it is an appropriate and important expression of their desire to take control of change in their communities in this area. Other first nations have very different concerns and needs. As such, they will continue to explore mechanisms that respond to their circumstances and their aspirations.

The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples provides all Canadians with very important information and challenges everyone to contribute to reconciliation. Part of this process is to begin to find innovative ways that will contribute to rebuilding first nation economic stability and control. The first nations involved in Bill C-49 feel strongly that it will enable them to regain the authority essential for their growth and their development.

I fully support the efforts of first nations leaders to bring about change, so long as it reflects the aspirations of the people who will be affected. While this bill represents only a fraction of the progress necessary to these first nations, it is an important step. At the same time, the success of this bill must stimulate action towards addressing other first nation concerns regarding lands management and, ultimately, the self-determination of all first nations.

I thank you for this opportunity to share my thoughts on this matter. I encourage all members of this committee and the Government of Canada to support the clear expression of the need for change articulated by these 14 first nation communities. It is incumbent on all of us, first nation communities and the people of Canada, to dedicate ourselves to the challenges of reconciliation and make progress in accordance with the rights, needs and aspirations of first nations people.

Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you very much. Would you remain for just a moment in case there are any comments or questions from members?

Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: How does a band get on the list? Does it apply to be a party to an agreement like this? And what are the standards that are used to determine whether they're permitted to sign a framework agreement? Or do they need to have basic band standards?

It's come to my attention that the Squamish band has a number of disputes with surrounding municipalities and things like that. Does that matter? Or is it a question of whether they have the finances to manage it or whether they have the trained legal and clerical people? What is the requirement for adhering to the agreement?

Chief Brenda Miller: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I believe that the Interim Lands Advisory Board will speaking to this issue next. I'm not in a position to answer such legal and technical questions on behalf of the Assembly. I simply tabled the statement from the national chief.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you very much.

Chief Brenda Miller: You're very welcome.

• 1650

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Now we'll hear from the Interim Lands Advisory Board, most of whom we've seen before.

Robert Louie is the chairman. I know he has something more to say and some other people to introduce: Mr. Orr and Mr. Henderson.

Welcome back, Mr. Louie. Would you introduce the panel that's with you, please?

Chief Robert Louie (Chairman, Interim Lands Advisory Board): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to introduce Chief Bill Williams and councillor Harold Calla from the Squamish First Nation.

Mr. Chairman, we had hoped that we could perhaps have the various chiefs come forward, starting with the Squamish First Nation, to answer specific questions and deal with the clarification of some of this issues questions raised, and then proceed through some of the other chiefs and deal with some of the issues so there is clarification on the table. Would that be all right? As each of the chiefs come up, questions could be posed.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): All right. That would be good.

Chief Robert Louie: Thank you.

We'll start with Chief Bill Williams.

Chief Bill Williams (Chief, Squamish First Nation):

[Witness speaks in his native language]

I just gave you a traditional welcome from the Squamish people, using my ancestral name, Telalsemkin.

I'd like to thank you for sitting here today and reviewing a very important document, which will speak out to the future, to future generations of our people.

I heard a couple of times that there was some issue with regard to taxation. We have had taxation for a number of years in our community. We took it over. And I can tell you very succinctly that moving into land management will not increase our taxes with the existing leases that are there. It'll create an opportunity for development, and that development will increase our taxes. The taxation base that presently exists for us has been functioning for a number of years.

And, just like any other business, we run it like a business. It is unfortunate that our business is right- and left-handed, whereby we have an Indian government on our right hand and on our left hand we are a land developer. In the future, hopefully, we will be a landholder. People get that concept confused; a government can function like a government with the rules and regulations, but at the same time, because it happens to be held closely to the land or the land is set aside for them as a first nation and they try to develop it, the government looks like it's also the developer. It confuses people as to how the land is to be looked after properly.

We want to be able to clarify a bit of confusion with regard to the lands management act, where it will not only be three people who are standing behind the actual holding of the land, it'll be one person, and that'll be the first nation.

The other area that I'd like to do a quick overview of is the fact that the Squamish Nation has had the opportunity to work with the Squamish municipal government, the West Vancouver municipal government, the District of North Vancouver municipal government, the City of North Vancouver municipal government, and the municipal governments of Sechelt and the Greater Vancouver Regional District.

• 1655

We have had a very good working relationship with all levels of these municipal governments in the past. Harold Calla, since he is the head of our taxation arm of the government, can explain in a lot of detail the relationships we do have, along with how taxation is part of our government development.

We're looking forward to having this landholding. It's very important. In the last number of years, we have lost the opportunity to have a shopping centre put on one of our reserves because of the time it takes to negotiate a lease. We have lost the opportunity to have a movie studio put on our reserve because of a mix-up in the leaseholding, which we were unable to unravel. We have the opportunity to put in a large retail entertainment centre on one of our reserves. We have the opportunity in the future to redevelop a marina on one of our reserves. We have numerous commercial and residential developments around Capilano, in IR-5.

With all these service agreements, we plan a future that can only be brighter. We hope everything goes well with your questions. We know we have the answers.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you very much.

Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Oh, I'm sorry. Excuse me.

Mr. Calla.

Mr. Harold Calla (Councillor, Squamish First Nation): If I may, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to respond to Mr. Konrad. I regret that Mr. White is not with us, because I'm one of his constituents and I'd certainly like to speak to him.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Harold Calla: I just regret that he drives past our office every day when he's at home and doesn't stop in and that I have to come to Ottawa to do it.

First of all, I should say that this is quite a week for a little kid from North Vancouver because, last evening, my son and I made a presentation before the Senate committee on governance, much of which...I wish I had brought the paper and delivered it here today, because we made reference to the land management act and what it can do for us.

There's been a lot of discussion about municipalities today. I'm not sure where they are on the voter's list, but I thought they were constituents.... We have a long-standing relationship in dealing with municipalities.

This morning Mr. White claimed that we do not have a relationship with the District of North Vancouver. Apparently he's not aware of the fact that in 1982 the Squamish Nation, the District of North Vancouver, and the Province of British Columbia concluded agreements that permitted the creation of the Seymour connector, a provincial roadway system that opened up vast tracts of land for the District of North Vancouver.

As part of that negotiation, a service agreement was reached that contemplated development of our reserve, that contemplated fees for service, and that contemplated each other's responsibility when development took place. The fact of the matter is that it took 18 years for the other levels of government to fulfil their obligations to us to permit us to develop on those lands, but it was consideration that Squamish deserved when it entered into those agreements—it deserved that those events would happen.

We're now starting to realize on them and I think it's important to understand that. These relationships have been long-standing and in place. Squamish has been managing reserve land for the last 50 years itself and we have long-standing relationships with the municipalities.

Do we always agree? Absolutely not. And sometimes that agreement costs us, just as it has recently. In regard to a regional shopping centre, we've had to delay and eliminate a very substantial development for Squamish, which would have given us, in rent and taxes, $900,000 a year, because the province and the District of West Vancouver can't solve traffic problems. So we're aware of the problems.

We have an understanding that because of the nature and the significance of our landholdings, we must have relationships with tenants, and we understand that issues of taxation are really not issues at all, because the cost of being on reserve land cannot be substantially different from the cost of being somewhere else. Otherwise, there's no interest in being on reserve lands.

• 1700

The taxation issues are not a factor here, and anyone who talks about them is not familiar with how the taxation regime works. You have to submit your taxation bylaws and your rates bylaws to the Minister of Indian Affairs, who approves them. You have to submit to the minister the rate schedules for the municipalities in your surrounding area, and you're expected to be at the ambient level. There are mechanisms in place for these things right now.

Our future is based upon our ability to develop our lands to meet our needs, because they're currently certainly not being met by the federal government. Squamish's annual budget is in the neighbourhood of $32 million a year, and 75% of that comes from own-source revenue generation. And 88% of our own-source revenue goes into the delivery of government programs and services. We're not waiting for somebody else to come along and help us, but what we need is the ability to be able to conduct business without having the encumbrances of what I call “fiduciary gridlock”—the Department of Indian Affairs and the Department of Justice. How many more lawsuits do we want to go through?

Over the last year, we've just concluded the creation of a Real Canadian Superstore north of the Second Narrows bridge in Vancouver. The gentleman who I negotiated with told me that it took four times as long and it was four times as expensive to do business with the Squamish Nation. Now, he persevered because he had no other place to go, but is that what economic development opportunity we're going to be relegated to—that which can't go anywhere else? We have to get to the point where we can compete.

You heard a reference this morning to lost opportunities because of the difficulties in trying to deal with the Department of Justice and the Department of Indian Affairs, and I think those are the kinds of things we have to avoid.

We recognize, as our tenants recognize, that we must have relationships, that we have to pay fees for service with municipalities, and we will negotiate and do those things. But there has to be some reciprocal respect coming from local governments and regional district governments to the Squamish First Nation and others. They can't unilaterally act and develop their surrounding lands without regard for us.

And by way of example, those of you who know Vancouver and know Taylor Way and Marine Drive in North Vancouver, where there is probably one of the busiest intersections in North America because of the traffic that goes up to Whistler.... The City of West Vancouver built three towers right on that intersection. There was never a word about traffic within the municipality, but as soon as we wanted to put up a 100,000 square foot Home Depot, the whole world was going to come down because that increased traffic was going to cause a problem. I don't think that's fair or just, and I think that if we're going to....

We encourage having discussions with local governments in order to plan unique infrastructure like roads, and we make significant contributions to the betterment of greater Vancouver. The Lions Gate bridge, the Second Narrows bridge, the main water pipeline from Vancouver, most of the B.C. rail trackage, and a lot of the hydro, are all on Squamish Nation reserve lands.

We as a community have made a great contribution to the region so that it is able to develop and prosper. Part of what we're expecting out of that is the ability to share in that prosperity.

And it is eventually about the people in our community, Squamish's 3,000 people. Forty per cent of our population is 18 and younger. Sixty-six per cent is 35 years and younger. Eighty-eight per cent of that population is 65 and under. In 20 years, we're going to have another 2,000 people. There isn't enough money in Indian Affairs at the moment for us to be able to meet our needs on the current population base, and it's not going to be able to do it in 20 years. We're looking for this kind of legislation to allow us to be developing in a way that will not put us in a position of having to be a ward of the crown.

So I think that we have to appreciate this bill for what it is. What we want to be able to do is to conduct business and manage our lands according to what our community tells us. And, for those lands we're going to use to meet our community's needs, we want to be able to enter into the marketplace and conduct business—and in the same way that everybody else does.

• 1705

Bill just reminded me that the level of our commitment to the municipalities at the moment resulted just before we left in us loaning the District of Squamish $235,000 to put in a water main for their fire hall so that we can eventually get it to our building.

So we have relationships. They're there. We take exception to the fact, I'd say, that they're not there. We don't always agree, but there are avenues there.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you very much, Mr. Calla.

Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I'll bet you're tough to deal with—

Voices: Oh, oh.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: —so I'll bet it's not as rosy as you say it is, on that basis.

But anyway, my question for you is this: if there are difficult relations, do you expect that they will improve with the passage of this legislation? If so, how will they? Or will it remain about the same, such that you'll still be fighting other levels of government for services like every other municipality and every other level of government does?

Mr. Harold Calla: Let me give you an example. Before we entered into property taxation, we had one reserve that had been split up by the District of West Vancouver and the District of North Vancouver for tax-sharing purposes. There was always a dispute about which police force and which fire department would respond. In one case, we had a house almost burn to the ground while they were having the debate.

When we entered into the property taxation field and had to enter into fees for service, for the first while they both showed up.

Voices: Oh, oh.

Mr. Harold Calla: Yes, they will improve.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: How?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Mr. Konrad?

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I was just wondering if you could give me a concrete reason.

Mr. Harold Calla: They're going to improve out of necessity. We all live in the same area. We all have the same goals and aspirations. We're not going anywhere and we've recognized that they're not either.

We know we have to develop our lands. They know we have to develop them. And we are already in discussions and engaging in a master-planning exercise that will involve not only the north shore municipalities, but the province of British Columbia through the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and BC Rail.

Chief Bill Williams: I think the main point is that we have existing agreements today. We've had existing agreements since the 1970s and 1980s with the majority of the municipalities, and we have agreements today with all the municipalities that affect our lands. Because we have those agreements, it can only get better, not worse.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: And how many fewer people are going to be at the table when you're negotiating agreements once Bill C-49 is enacted?

Chief Bill Williams: You mean from our side?

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Yes.

Chief Bill Williams: A case in point would be negotiating with the Real Canadian Superstore. We sat down and negotiated the agreement amongst chief and council, and then it went to Indian Affairs and the Department of Justice. Two and a half years later, the agreement was finally resolved with the two other departments. What we're saying is, if we can have the opportunity to sit down and negotiate in a timely manner, we would not lose the opportunity of being able to negotiate in a timely way.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: No other department will review these agreements? You'll be responsible for your own agreements?

Chief Bill Williams: The Squamish Nation will be responsible for the agreements because the Squamish Nation will be voting on the bill itself.

Mr. Harold Calla: The reality now is that we do the negotiation, and that has been the reality for a long time. We then have to go down and explain to the Department of Indian Affairs, which then has to bring in the Department of Justice lawyer. It's what I called this fiduciary gridlock. Everybody has to protect his or her backside. They're risk-averse, so to the extent that we are mandated by our community to engage, we want to be able to do that and not be in a position where we have to try to secure the blessing of people who have not participated in the process.

Chief Bill Williams: Can I give you an example of a lease arrangement that we just bought our way out of for over $1.5 million?

• 1710

Back in the 1950s, there was a lease for seven and a half acres to this gentleman for $3,500 a year. We just bought it out, and the point is, the day we bought out of it—for the full year we were getting $3,500 for it—for that month the leaseholders brought in something like $18,000 for that one month through the sublease. This is an agreement that was put together a long time ago, mind you, but these are the kind of agreements that we want to get out of. Now we're finding that we have to buy out of them with today's top dollar.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you very much.

Mr. Wilfert.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Chairman, I was going to make the comment this morning when Mr. White made some comments about municipalities, but I thought I'd forego it. But you brought it up, so I'll mention it for the record.

As the former president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, I just want to say that I'm very proud of the fact that I was involved in the establishment of the Centre for Municipal Aboriginal Relations in Ottawa, and I was further pleased that at my invitation the Minister of Indian Affairs visited the centre at the end of May. That centre promotes, catalogues, and deals with the relationships between aboriginal peoples and municipal governments in Canada in terms of best practices. And absolutely, I would agree with you 100% that there are many best practices in this country.

I have and continue to have many friends in UBCM or AMO or whatever, and I can tell you that one of the things we argued for years—and continue to argue—in the municipal field is that if other governments would act more as the municipalities do.... Particularly, there's the fact that we're all neighbours, and one would assume that as a neighbour, you help your neighbour: you have common interests. Yes, you won't always agree, but there are ways, of course, to deal with those issues when you don't agree.

Certainly, one of the things we're continuing to see at the centre—and if you haven't visited, you should—is the types of best practices that go on, whether it's in Saskatchewan or Ontario or wherever. I think this is the kind of model we should be talking about, and this bill will certainly give impetus to assisting aboriginal people, certainly first nations, in terms of being able to negotiate with municipal governments, etc., in a way that I think is important.

I just wanted to put that on the record. I was going to say that this morning, but you prompted me after your comments. Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you, Mr. Wilfert.

Mr. Bachand, no questions?

I will just comment on what you said about how things should be done and how you look forward to...we're here and we know we're here and we know you're here.... Pretty succinctly, it's the Canadian way of doing things, and we appreciate it.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Louie, call up the next witnesses.

Chief Robert Louie: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

If we might have Chief Darlene Yellow Old Woman-Munro next, perhaps accompanied by Jack Royal, if he wishes....

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Welcome, Chief Darlene Yellow Old Woman-Munro.

Chief Darlene Yellow Old Woman-Munro (Chief, Siksika First Nation): I was going to say to just put a “W” there.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): And welcome, Jack Royal. Carry on, please.

Chief Darlene Yellow Old Woman-Munro: Good evening, chairman and ladies and gentlemen of the standing committee. I'd like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to say a few words.

First, I'd like to say that I speak on behalf of Siksika Nation and I'd also like to say that I'm a woman, I'm a mother, I'm a grandmother, and I am concerned about the future of all the community members of the Siksika Nation.

I believe that Bill C-49 will assist the Siksika Nation in dealing with economic opportunities and in looking at our environmental issues.

I also want to just inform the standing committee that we are working with our surrounding municipalities, especially when it relates to environmental issues.

• 1715

There are currently some protocol agreements in place and those agreements have to be expanded and updated as we move into looking at different issues and concerns that relate to the Siksika Nation.

That's basically what I wanted to relay to the standing committee. Maybe Jack will have something to add to that.

Mr. Jack Royal (Staff Member, Siksika First Nation): Thank you, Chairman and members of the committee. A lot has been mentioned today, so, taking time into consideration, I'll be brief.

I think we are all aware of the problems that exist with the current system available to us within the Indian Act as far as land management is concerned. I can probably give you a lot of examples of some of the problems created due to gaps or inconsistencies or omissions or a lack of mechanisms to address the needs and requirements of first nations land management.

What's of fundamental importance for Siksika, as far as the economic, social and environmental benefits and the need for a new system is concerned, is the fact that this bill would allow us the option or the alternative to come up with a system based on the Siksika Nation values and belief system.

Our experience has been that the systems that have been used to try to fit our values and belief systems have failed. This bill would allow us that alternative: to come up with our own system that would address our needs and requirements. And it would allow us the flexibility to choose whether we would want to opt into this type of system or not.

Again, fundamentally, I think that is the reason we are very supportive, very committed and dedicated to supporting this bill as far as the Siksika Nation is concerned.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you very much.

Are there questions?

Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: What surrounding municipalities do you have agreements with?

Chief Darlene Yellow Old Woman-Munro: We have agreements with the counties of Wheatland and Vulcan.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: That's Gleichen, right?

Chief Darlene Yellow Old Woman-Munro: Yes, there's Gleichen, and Arrowwood. We're surrounded by farmers and ranchers, so we are dealing with issues regarding feedlots and pig farms, hog farms.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: On reserve or off reserve?

Chief Darlene Yellow Old Woman-Munro: Off reserve.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I see. You're getting the environmental benefits of pig farms upwind, eh? Good luck.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): That's exactly what my city has been going through in the last year.

Are there questions or comments?

Is there anything more you'd like to say, Darlene?

Chief Darlene Yellow Old Woman-Munro: No, those are my main comments. Once again, just to reiterate, we do have a good working relationship with the surrounding municipalities.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): We want to thank you very much. You've come a long way. We know it's an important day, as I said during testimony this morning, and we hope that we can conclude it satisfactorily. Thank you for your appearance.

• 1720

Just for everybody's benefit, Chief Louie, I hear that there was a proposal for a recess following Chief Rennie Goose's presentation in order to allow for some consultation. Am I correct?

Chief Robert Louie: It sounds like there might be a possible solution to what we're talking about here today, so by all means, yes.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): We'll go ahead and then I might suggest.... Is 20 minutes perhaps enough or would you rather have half an hour, Chief?

A voice: I think 20 minutes should be adequate, but that of course, depends on how willing our friend, Mr. Konrad, is.

Voices: Oh, oh.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Mr. Konrad, is 20 minutes sufficient?

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I think so.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): All right. Thank you very much.

Sorry, Chief Louie. Carry on.

Chief Robert Louie: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We'll be very brief.

This is Chief Leo O'Donaghey from the N'quatqua First Nation in British Columbia. We've put Chief O'Donaghey a bit on the spot here, but he has agreed to come up just to offer a few comments to the panel, if that is agreeable.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Absolutely. He's been here faithfully all day.

Welcome, chief.

Chief Leo O'Donaghey (Chief, N'quatqua Band): Thank you.

I'm honoured to be here today with the standing committee. I come here to support the bill at this point on behalf of the N'quatqua first nations community.

We live right at the end of the road, an hour north of Whistler. It's a very small community. We don't have a lot of businesses happening within our community like other first nations that are closer to cities and larger towns.

For some time, we've been looking at getting into the land management act at some point. When this bill came along, I looked into it and brought it to my community. They like the idea. They support this bill so that we can move on in our community with some issues we're dealing with, so that we can create some jobs and move on from there.

I really don't have much to say. Many of the speakers ahead of me have pretty well said a lot about the issues with land management.

I'd like to thank you all for listening to me today.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): We appreciate it. Chief, if Vancouver and Whistler are successful for 2010 in the Olympics, are you going to be close enough to invite our international visitors up there?

Chief Leo O'Donaghey: Yes. We're only an hour north of Whistler.

A voice: That's where it slopes?

Chief Leo O'Donaghey: Yes. There's a bit of a slope. It's downhill from Whistler.

Voices: Oh, oh.

Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): If the games do come to Canada and you get any tickets, could you give me a call?

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Depends on how you vote.

A voice: That's right.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Mr. Konrad, do you have a question?

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I take it from your comments that Bill C-49 isn't going to be of immediate value to you. You're looking to set up a framework for down the road when something might come up so that you can deal with it in a hurry. Is that correct?

Chief Leo O'Donaghey: That's correct.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: That's all I have to ask. Thank you very much.

• 1725

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Mr. Bachand?

Anyone on the other side?

Thank you very much, Chief. Do we have anyone else?

Chief Robert Louie: Mr. Chairman, if it would be all right, Chief Rennie Goose from Scugog Island would like to come up to speak.

And there are perhaps two other points of clarification, if time permits. There was some misunderstanding, we think, in the communication by the tenants' association that was made earlier, and perhaps Chief Bill McCue from Georgina Island could help clarify it in order to clear up the record, if that would be appropriate.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you very much for the offer. I think it would help.

Chief Rennie Goose (Chief, Scugog Island First Nation): Good afternoon. We are probably one of the smaller first nations in Ontario. We have approximately 147 members. Our land base is very small. We're in the heart of tourist country, an hour northeast of Toronto.

On March 11, 1997, we voted 94% in favour of Bill C-49. We are the owners of the Great Blue Heron Charitable Casino and Bingo. We presently employ 291 people. We have no lease with our partners, and they are pressuring us very heavily for a lease. I am also just starting to negotiate for more economic development, which would employ another 50 to 100 people in our community.

Out of the 291 people employed at our casino, probably 30 are aboriginal, and the rest are all from the surrounding communities. This is very important for our next negotiations so we can employ more people in the surrounding community.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): I'm sure if that were known in a lot of parts of this country, Chief, we'd all be anxious to have a reserve like yours close by, because you're obviously providing far more jobs than your people can do.

Chief Rennie Goose: Yes, we are.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Ms. Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: A number of the people he employs actually reside in my riding of Whitby—Ajax. And you're right—they have been and are well known to folks in my area.

Chief Rennie Goose: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Mr. Adams.

Mr. Peter Adams: Chief Rennie, I know it's a tiny first nation, but I understand that in World War II, every eligible male in your first nation was in the Armed Forces.

Chief Rennie Goose: It was World War I. Every man left the first nations to go to fight.

Mr. Peter Adams: Again, that's something that I think should be more widely known.

Mr. John Bryden: I'm glad some of them came back.

Voices: Yes.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you very much for that intervention.

Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I have a question that arose—not relating to C-49 particularly, in fact, not at all—in my riding. The proceeds of a casino go to benefit the reserve or the reserves that have invested in it. Is this correct?

Chief Rennie Goose: The proceeds go the the Baagwating Community Association. In turn, we just donated $30,000 to the local community for various organizations around the area.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Okay. That wasn't my question though. That was the buildup to it.

For people who work at the reserve and live off reserve, how is their taxation treated?

Chief Rennie Goose: We don't tax our people.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: How about the federal government when it's for band purposes, when they're working for a band corporation?

Chief Rennie Goose: The employees of the casino?

Mr. Derrek Konrad: That's what I mean.

Chief Rennie Goose: Yes. They're paid through another company, our partners. And yes, they do pay the taxes.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I'm talking about employees, not partners in the corporation.

Chief Rennie Goose: Yes. We don't do the payroll. We have another company that employs the people. They don't work directly for the first nations.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Thank you.

• 1730

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Mr. Bachand?

Chief Rennie Goose, I learned my farming in Durham county and we didn't have any Great Blue Heron Casino. We only had the the Caesarea dance hall.

Voices: Oh, oh.

Chief Rennie Goose: It still stands.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Does it?

Voices: Oh, oh.

Chief Rennie Goose: Yes.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): On the shores of beautiful Lake Scugog!

And is your reserve entirely on the island?

Chief Rennie Goose: Yes. It's at the north end, 595 acres. It's very small.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you very much, Chief.

Go ahead, Chief.

Chief Robert Louie: Mr. Chairman, Chief Bill McCue could perhaps clarify an issue that was raised earlier by the tenants' association, if that could be permitted.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you.

Chief William McCue (Chief, Chippewas of Georgina Island): Good afternoon. I would just like to clarify the document that was passed around concerning the auction of leasehold properties. It stipulates—at the top of the document—that it was a crown lease on Georgina Island.

The property was leased by individual locatees who owned certificates of possession of properties. It was done through a private developer. The first nations had no control over the ad. We knew of the development itself, but the individual locatees and the developer were the ones that specifically put the deal together, not the first nation itself.

Some of our people did work for the company in showing lots and cottages, but they specifically ensured that all the prospective tenants were aware that it was a first nation reserve and a 40-year lease. Some of the questions they were asking, like what happens after the 40 years, we obviously could not answer.

But if you're generating a source of income from lease revenues, which we are doing on Snake, as well as the two other islands that we do have, you're not going to cut off these sources of income that you have budgeted for yearly. I just wanted to clarify that bulletin on the auction.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Are there any questions?

Excuse me, Chief. I have a small question. I can't read this. Right at the bottom of this, it says “Title: ownership is by way of a 40-year federal crown, renewable and transferable lease, paying $1,400 per annum”. Is that right?

Chief William McCue: Yes.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): And no property tax?

Chief William McCue: Yes. The ownership is by way of a 40-year federal crown renewable and transferable lease.

Basically I can't speak for the developer himself, but if you sell your cottage or your leased property, you can transfer it to whomever you choose to sell it to and it would be renewed for the term. The $1,400 is the annual lease payment that you would make to the locatee that holds the title to the property.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): They still don't own the property.

Chief William McCue: No.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): It's still on your reserve.

Chief William McCue: Yes.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): All right.

Chief William McCue: As I said, we didn't have any control over this ad, and I wanted to clarify it.

• 1735

As I said, the band did not endorse the auction and I didn't want it assumed that these were band-title lands. They were individual locatee lands. As I said, we tried to stress to the people when they came to get a lease that they did not own the land, that it was a 40-year lease with the crown on behalf of the locatee, not with the locatee himself.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): What benefit did your reserve get out of this transaction if somebody bought into one of these?

Chief William McCue: We got the administration charges for processing the leases. That's all we got. As I said, it was individual locatees. That's all we got—and maybe a few jobs driving people across the ice to show them the property.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you very much, Chief.

Chief Louie.

Chief Robert Louie: It may be helpful to the committee if I could briefly address a few points that were brought up during the day. I could make some comments to help clarify the record if that would be of assistance. It would take about two or three minutes, I would think.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): All right.

Chief Robert Louie: In no particular order, I have some comments. I've taken notes throughout the day and I wish to make these very brief comments.

Firstly, on the voting issue that was raised, there was concern about the voting issue and the 25%. I wish to draw the committee's attention to the framework agreement, articles 7.4 and 7.5., which basically say that first nations can raise the voting standards even higher.

The other point on the voting is that one of the very key principles that is very fundamental to this process is that all band members within a first nation must be informed. They have that right to be informed, and it's incumbent upon each first nation to ensure that complete packages are delivered to all of the band members, both on reserve and off reserve.

So it's a very open transparent process when that takes place. Mr. Chairman, I don't know if higher standards exist anywhere in Canada with federal or provincial elections.

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): What was the number?

Chief Robert Louie: Articles 7.4 and 7.5.

The next point, Mr. Chairman and members of the panel, is that there was some talk about the resources being excluded, such as oil and gas, migratory birds, fisheries, atomic energies. The question was, why were these excluded?

On oil and gas, I think it's important to understand that this was an agreement that first nations had with the federal government. Oil and gas is a very complex issue and it was felt that oil and gas should be an area for which those first nations that have oil and gas on the reserves could independently negotiate agreements with the federal government. If it's a complexity, we left it out intentionally.

I believe the issue of migratory birds speaks for itself, migratory birds being in flight and not in any one particular area.

Atomic energy is something that was very clear that we had agreed to, and it's the same with fisheries—to be dealt with in other forums. Atomic energy is something that's a national interest and it's perhaps best left in that area.

With regard to the taxation and the rights of taxation, certainly I think that the panel got the right message here. Taxation is not something that's contemplated in this bill. I wish to make that absolutely clear.

Further, section 83 of the existing Indian Act has a process that involves the federal government. That process indicates that the Indian Taxation Advisory Board reviews all applications by first nations when they set assessment roles and deal with the bylaws. So you have an independent process that takes care of it to help protect from any possibility of taxes being raised to such an extreme limit. It's an issue that's dealt with in that matter and is not part of this bill.

With regard to the issue of financing on reserves, the cottagers raise the issue that it's difficult to get loans. I submit to you that it's also difficult for first nations to get loans. It's something that all of our first nations people here, the 14 first nations, and indeed all first nations across Canada, have troubles with. How do you get financing to get homes built? How do you get financing put in place for developments to promote economic activities and so forth? It's a problem shared by all communities.

• 1740

This is what we're hoping to address. One of the purposes of this bill is to ease that restriction to promote economic opportunities and to get rid of the red tape. We think we can do it, and it will be a benefit not only to first nations but to cottagers and all tenants alike.

The issue of the stable landlord was raised. I submit to you that there is not a more stable landlord than first nations. First nations will be there. Some of you, I think, you know the history of first nations—10,000 years. We submit that our people here are saying we're going to be here for thousands of years, if not 10,000. I don't know if you can get a more stable landlord than that.

As for the burden on first nations, we submit that this is something that we're willing to accept. This is responsibility. It's something that our people have been demanding. It's something that's been put forth, and we wish to have this fully understood: this is a burden that first nations here are willing to accept.

The dispute resolution process is something that was sought after by first nations. The problem we have in negotiating leases right now is that the only mechanism that most of the precedent Department of Indian Affairs leases have is that you must go to court when there's a dispute, and that's costly and time-consuming. It's not conducive to resolution for either party. The dispute resolution process being put in place provides an opportunity to deal with situations before they arise without having to go through the expense of and a lengthy time in court. This is what the dispute resolution process is intended to be about, and it's intended that both parties agree to it. Following that, the option is go to court if you can't resolve the issue.

The last point I wish to make is with regard to the question I believe Mr. Konrad had raised, which dealt with how other bands get on this list, how they become part of this. We fully anticipate that a second wave of first nations will be forthcoming—indeed, perhaps a third wave and a fourth wave and so forth.

First nations have made it clear; all first nations, I submit, are very cautious, and until this is proven, first nations will be cautiously watching this process. It provides an opportunity for self-government; it provides a process that first nations have been seeking now for many years.

In regard to the second wave, we have an interested group standing on the doorstep. They're looking at this, and the same process these 14 first nations have gone through would be, then, the requirement of that second wave. It might be easier because a lot of the work has been done, and I think a lot of that work will be available to those first nation communities so that things can be easier, and, hopefully, help promote the process.

But I submit to you that there will not be a horde of first nations rushing to the table, because administering lands and handling the lands management function is a very complex, very serious business. It takes a lot of dedication and experience, and it takes people who are dedicated and willing to handle that responsibility. And I think that for many first nations that will take time.

Those are my comments, Mr. Chairman and members of the panel. Thank you very much for hearing our submissions.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you, Chief Louie. We appreciate, sir, your enthusiasm for the whole process and your dedication to it.

If no one has any other questions, I'm going to declare a recess for 20 minutes.

• 1743

• 1812

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): The committee will come to order.

(On clause 2-Definitions)

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): My understanding is that before we go into clause by clause there is one amendment suggested, for clause 2, the first clause we must deal with. It's on page 2 of the bill, and it reads as follows: that Mr. Konrad moves that Bill C-49 in clause 2 be amended by adding after line 33 on page 2 the following, “Not land claims agreement”, and subclause 2(3): “For greater certainty neither the framework agreement nor this act is a land claims agreement referred to”—

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Mr. Chairman?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): You're going to prove me a liar, are you?

I'm sorry, Derrek. I'm going to take a chance:

(3) For greater certainty neither the framework agreement nor this act is a land claims agreement as referred to in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: That's not a problem.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): It's not? Thank you very much.

Who's seconding that amendment?

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I'll second it.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you, Judi.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Could I say something about...?

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Do you want an explanation?

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: No, I do not want an explanation; I want to make a comment. Is that possible? I think that there might be a minor translation error here. I cannot find the equivalent of the words "for greater certainty" in the French version. Would it not be more accurate to add "pour plus de certitude".

Ms. Geneviève Thériault (Counsel, Lands, Trust and Corporate Services, Department of Justice): No, because it says: "il est entendu."

Mr. Claude Bachand: "Il est entendu." Okay.

• 1815

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): It's okay?

Mr. Claude Bachand: Yes.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): All right. Thank you.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Shall clause 2 carry as amended?

(Clause 2 as amended agreed to)

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): I'll then ask you whether clauses 3 through 48 inclusive carry.

(Clauses 3 through 48 inclusive agreed to)

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Shall schedule 1 carry?

(Schedule 1 agreed to)

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Shall clause 1 carry?

(Clause 1 agreed to)

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you.

Shall the preamble carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Shall the bill carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Shall I report the bill, with one amendment, to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you very much, everybody. I hope everybody is pleased.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.