Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on March 18th, 2024

[Katrina Peddle]

Yes. We would use that money. It's called—sorry to bore you, because this is very bureaucratic—contribution money. That flows through a contribution agreement and is directly sent to the community, yes.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

You made reference to 10 years, so this is not one-year programming.

[Katrina Peddle]

Let me explain. This capacity building is like the beginning of the road. This is the visioning part. The 10-year agreement is once the coordination agreement has been executed. It depends on what the community wants to do. Several of those agreements are 10-year long-term agreements. That's the difference. Many more communities are at the beginning of the road than are exercising jurisdiction at this point.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

So we're a long way from that final.

[Katrina Peddle]

It's a huge undertaking. It will take significant work to get there, absolutely.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

You originally said that it was moving quickly, but, jeez, we're talking about the government here. That's an oxymoron. I mean, things don't happen quickly. This will be a long process.

[Katrina Peddle]

I think that's a very fair point in terms of an overall critique. In terms of what the act is trying to do—and the Supreme Court was pretty clear about that—this process allows us to expedite things that can often take a lot longer, because of the urgency. Think about two years in the life of a four-year-old. That's a very long time. The point is to enable communities to move more quickly than they have been able to do previously. However, it is still a huge undertaking.

It's also important to recognize that for first nations communities, the first nations child and family services program funding has increased. While this negotiation is happening, while these coordination discussion agreements are happening, the communities are already able to put certain things in place because of the different funding available through the program.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

I think it's important to make that distinction, because when we talk about “quickly”, we're talking about youth who, in a sense, are at risk, so the quicker, the better, yet there is a long process to go through to get it. When you're talking about a 10-year agreement at the end, there is a ways to go to get to that point.

[Katrina Peddle]

It takes time to conclude a coordination agreement, absolutely. It usually takes more than 12 months.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Right, and we're not talking about program funding on a yearly basis. That's totally off the table. This is the long term we're talking about.

[Katrina Peddle]

Yes. First nations communities can either continue with the first nations program that exists or exercise jurisdiction under the act. Those are their options.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to read a notice of motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Okay.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

I move:

Given that, the NDP-Liberal carbon tax is set to increase by 23% on April 1st, 2024, and that,

Most First Nations, Inuit, and Métis people live in rural areas that require access to affordable, stable, and reliable gas, groceries, and home heating to live, and that,

The Chiefs of Ontario have deemed the carbon tax discriminatory against First Nations, calling on the government to axe the tax, and, after the government refused to do so, filed for judicial review with support from Assembly of First Nations Chief Cindy Woodhouse and that,

The Premiers of seven provinces and the Premier of Northwest Territories have called for the government to spike the hike,

The committee:

Recognize that the carbon tax disproportionately affects First Nations, Inuit, and Métis, and

Recognize that Indigenous communities across Canada are engaged in the development of natural resource projects for the benefit of current and future generations contributing to economic reconciliation, and

Call on the Liberal Government to immediately cancel the 23% carbon tax increase on April 1 and axe the tax for First Nations, Inuit, and Métis across Canada,

And report this to the House.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

I still have 37 seconds on your time, although I have a speaking list. We'll go to the speaking list.

Mr. Schmale, you're first.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you to my colleague, Martin Shields, for raising that very important motion.

As he pointed out, 133 chiefs of Ontario have come out against the carbon tax. We've had multiple premiers and territorial leaders all speaking about how the carbon tax has increased the cost of living for the people they represent.

We've been getting notices about food bank usage at record highs. We hear from farmers who talk about how the carbon tax is increasing the price of their inputs, which of course increases the cost of food. We know the carbon tax contributes to an increase in the price of home heating fuel. Even the NDP premier of Manitoba took away the provincial tax on gasoline in order to give the residents of Manitoba a break on the cost of living, which is crippling Canadians from coast to coast.

When you look at food prices—especially in the north, where they've always been high—adding this extra layer of tax onto that is increasing the cost of just living, of trying to survive, for thousands upon thousands of Canadians. When they're struggling and when they're hurting, the idea that on April 1 the carbon tax is going to go up yet again is deeply concerning to us on this side of the House.

We often ask ourselves why this hasn't been addressed sooner. I think there could be a number of reasons. This idea that you can tax people, or tax the economy and the prosperity, isn't going to work. It just feels like those who are advocating for a more expensive way of life aren't actually impacted at all by what is going on in the real world. It seems like the speeds are big government and bigger government in terms of how this is being addressed. It's very clear that this is a tax plan. It's not an environmental plan.

Why don't we look at what's been done in the past, which is setting rules and regulations that encourage industry to do what they do best and innovate? For decades, it's been the norm that government would say that we need to either lower emissions or make cars more fuel-efficient, and companies have responded. You've seen that in different models. They use different materials. They may use aluminum instead of another material. They may get more power out of a 4-cylinder than out of a 6-cylinder car. There are a whole bunch of different ways, and then the market responds accordingly.

Right now, we have the government picking one way of doing things. Companies are of course going to jump on this because there are billions of dollars being handed out. These jobs are being created based on government innovation, but it's not necessarily what the market is demanding, nor what the technology tells us.

When you look at the life cycle of where this material is mined and how the materials come together, it's not all that environmentally friendly. Even the recycling of the batteries.... Yes, technology is coming along to that because obviously there is a government push for this, but even the options available now are extremely expensive. Many companies have started to re-evaluate how their business plans look in terms of electric vehicles. It seems that the ones that aren't overly subsidized are pulling back. There are many looking at the hybrid model, which I think is where the market seems to be going in terms of customer demand.

However, at the same time, when we are in an affordability crisis and we continue to borrow, it drives up the cost of living because of course we will very shortly be spending more on interest on the national debt than we do on transfers to the provinces for health care. We are doing a disservice to future generations and really handcuffing the future in adapting to the needs of our children.

When you look at the fact that emissions aren't going down and spending is out of control, I think there is a better way. In the next election, Canadians will have the opportunity to ask themselves what that better way is. I think they will find that common sense will prevail.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

Next I have Mr. Battiste.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to get back to talking, in this committee, about first nations children and the future. I'd like to move a motion to adjourn debate so we can continue with the important work we have today.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

That's a dilatory motion. There's no debate on it.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I have a point of order, Chair.

I'm a visitor in this committee. I know this is politics here, but if they're going to talk about first nations, I'm going to talk as a first nation mother. I can tell you that the biggest issue in our community is child welfare and the fact that our kids are dying in the system. The fact is that the Conservatives in this committee today are talking about life and death and how hard it is for families. I'd like them to come to Manitoba, where 90% of the kids currently in care are from first nations, kids who are dying in the system, and where indigenous women are going missing and being murdered—and then we'll talk about urgency.

I find it disgusting—

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I'm going to stop you there. That's not a point of order. We've just—

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

It's just so the public knows what games are being played in this committee on the backs of the lives of our kids.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

We have voted in favour of suspending debate, so we'll now return to the questions.

Next on my list I have Mr. McLeod, who will have five minutes.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses. Thank you for joining us today and providing us with some very important information.

I understand that the Government of the Northwest Territories chose to intervene in this case before the Supreme Court in support of the Government of Quebec's challenge to Bill C-92. Their involvement in this case was strongly opposed by the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, which has already passed its own child and family services law.

Are you able to speak to the arguments brought forward by the Government of the Northwest Territories and how the Supreme Court's ruling addresses their arguments?

[Valerie Phillips]

Thank you for the question.

Unfortunately, I'm not able to speak to this today, but if you'd like, we can follow up with a written response to that question.