Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 12th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Colleagues, there was a point of order.

I would ask colleagues to work with everybody in a collegial manner and not make statements that are maybe misleading or that members feel are targeting them in an unfair way or make a mischaracterization.

Thank you for your point of order.

Mrs. Stubbs, I will go back to you.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thanks, Chair.

I would like to apologize to MP Jones if I misinterpreted her laughter when I said that I would move on.

Maybe you were having a side conversation and laughing. I'm sorry that I misinterpreted that. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify. You did start laughing right around when I said I was going to explain how important this is.

Thanks again for giving me the floor back, Chair.

I'm sure this is an initiative that deeply concerns every elected member around this table who cares about economic and energy opportunities for all Canadians and also for indigenous communities.

Let me just explain the driver, the genesis and the catalyst of this proposal that common-sense Conservatives bring forward for all parties to consider, especially when they consider walking their talk on truth and reconciliation with indigenous people and communities.

To be clear, this is a first nation-led solution to a made-in-Ottawa problem. It was developed by the visionary leaders and experts at the First Nations Tax Commission. They developed that plan, along with multiple other first nations, and brought it to Conservatives. There have been 14 months of consultations and conversations all across the country and of course our common-sense Conservative leader, Pierre Poilievre, has announced our endorsement of this proposal.

It's a new optional model that can help simplify negotiations between resource companies and first nations. The reality is that Conservatives have listened to first nations advocacy, and we support this optional first nations resource charge that enables first nations to take back control of their resources, their money and their lives on their lands.

This new optional model will not preclude any community from continuing to use other existing arrangements or pursuing impact mutual benefit agreements with private sector proponents. First nations can choose the FNRC as they wish, and the FNRC will respect all treaty rights and all constitutional rights.

Meanwhile, a Conservative government will work to properly deliver on the Crown's duty to consult with indigenous communities, including the necessary back-and-forth, two-way dynamic for redress and accommodation of issues raised by indigenous communities early on or throughout the assessment of major projects, including—importantly—decision-makers being at the table so all parties can be confident in the ultimate recommendations.

Putting first nations back in control of their money and letting them bring home the benefits of their resources and resource development will help get local buy-in for good projects to go ahead. That will mean more earnings for grassroots first nations communities, not Ottawa gatekeepers and layers and layers of bureaucracy. Those earnings will mean paycheques, schools, cultural exercises and clean water for people, to name just a few.

It's pretty clear—even with the reactions of the NDP and Liberal MPs here on this committee—that only common-sense Conservatives will fight for real economic reconciliation by supporting first nations to take back control of their money and their lives. Today we'll see that there will be an opportunity for NDP and Liberal MPs to show whether or not they want to join us in that effort.

Common-sense Conservatives, of course, commit to repeal Justin Trudeau's radical anti-resource laws to quickly green-light green, good projects so first nations and all Canadians can bring home more powerful paycheques.

Let me just share the words of Manny Jules, the chief commissioner of the First Nations Tax Commission. He said—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

I'll let you call on the NDP MP who wants to interrupt what an indigenous leader said.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Angus, go ahead on the point of order.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you.

I carry this work with respect and integrity for the job before us, which is the mandate of this committee to address Bill C-49. I would like to ask my colleagues that we perhaps write to the premiers in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia to tell them that the Conservative Party are adamant. They said that they were going to block this legislation. We've tried to work with them. We've brought witnesses.

I think it would be fair to bring a letter to the premiers saying that we are dealing with a party that is using indigenous issues now to try to obstruct.... I think it's very low, but they're going to do what they're going to do.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

George, this is not a point of order.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Our job was to respond to the premiers of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Angus, thank you on your point of order.

I just want to remind all members that, when we do bring forward a point of order it must be procedurally relevant and not used for debate. However, I do want to hear from members when they make a point of order so that I can determine if it is or isn't.

Mr. Falk, you have a point of order. Go ahead.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I do have a point of order, because this committee, over the past several months, has experienced constant interruptions from the NDP's Charlie Angus on non-points of order that he has claimed have been points of order.

This was not a point of order. This was debate. He wants to write a letter to the premiers. Good on him. Let him write it.

Mr. Chairman, this is not a point of order. Mrs. Stubbs has the floor. She's making a point as to why reconciliation with first nations is important. She was just going to quote from the financial chief. This is important. Our first nations folks need to be heard. This is a good motion that has been made—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Falk, as you've just suggested, you're also now engaged in debate on a point of order that is not a point of order. You're using your time for debate as well.

I would ask all members not to use the time, when stating there is a point of order, to engage in debate, so that we can continue on with the debate that's occurring. If you would like to debate this motion, please let me know, and I'll put you in the speaking order.

Mrs. Stubbs, I'm going to go back to you. If you're close to wrapping up and can indicate that, I will get back, hopefully, to our witnesses at some point, but we will be changing to the next panel as well in a few minutes, so I'm not sure if we'll get to that point or not.

I will go back to you.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thanks, Chair. Certainly without all the interruptions I would have been finished, but it's par for the course around here with all the high carbon hypocrisy.

Just to respond to MP Angus's remarks about motive, what I am talking about here today and the way I'm talking about it is not remotely new. I have consistently advocated on these issues repeatedly in my various roles relating to natural resources, including on behalf of the five first nations and four Métis settlements that I represent in Lakeland and on behalf of the indigenous communities in Alberta and certainly right across the country. This isn't remotely new or a show, like he said.

Let me lead with the words of Manny Jules, the chief commissioner of the First Nations Tax Commission. He has spent his life's work fighting for recognition of inherent rights and title and advocating for tax and other fiscal capacity and economic opportunities for indigenous people.

He said:

In 1910, my ancestors asked then Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier to accommodate our jurisdiction and fiscal powers in Canada. We wanted to look after ourselves and be part of the economy. Instead, they took our children and denied our rights, fiscal powers, and jurisdictions. This approach has failed. It’s time for a real change. The First Nations Resource Charge is a practical step towards the better future my ancestors asked for 114 years ago—together [with all Canadians and governments] we will make each other great and good.

I would also like to share the words of Chief George Lampreau from the Simpcw First Nation in B.C. He said:

The Simpcw First Nation is leading the First Nations Resource Charge. I call on the federal and provincial governments to cede room for the first governments of Canada to implement a First Nations Resource Charge. Real change means all governments need to offer tax room instead of revenue sharing.

He continued:

The FNRC will provide a good option for First Nations, especially those who have not had the same opportunities as urban communities, like my community, Simpcw. However, even if we choose to use this option, we will still need to build on it through negotiation, to develop fully comprehensive agreements. Those agreements must ensure that we can take advantage of the economic opportunities that projects bring and that our voices are heard with respect to understanding the environmental impacts of major projects on our historic lands.

Let me share the words of Chief Derek Epp from the Tzeachten First Nation in B.C. He said:

Thirty years ago, like many First Nations, we were 95% dependent on federal transfers; now, 95% of our revenues are from our tax and other own sources. The Fiscal Management Act...and the Framework Agreement...helped us take advantage of our location advantage. Similarly, the Resource Charge supported by the FMA and FA is going to help a lot of rural communities take advantage of their resource advantages.

The Tzeachten First Nation also stated:

First Nation jurisdiction should be a non-partisan issue, and we call on all parties and provinces to do the same and support the FNRC.

The Tzeachten First Nation has been a leader in First Nation tax and jurisdiction initiatives [including their] work with the First Nations Tax Commission to advance the FNRC along with other First Nation fiscal powers....

Currently, First Nations must negotiate economic and fiscal agreements for every proposed project in our territories. No other government in Canada must do that. These constant one-off negotiations are wasting time and money.

It is good to see the Conservative Party of Canada propose to cede some of the federal corporate tax room. The First Nations leading the FNRC proposal, and the First Nations Tax Commission will hold them to this commitment.

That is a commitment that our leader, the Honourable Pierre Poilievre, made on Friday.

They state that it “represents practical reconciliation. It addresses long-standing grievances and starts to bring the first governments of Canada, First Nations, into the federation. Confederation was based on the fiction that First Nation rights didn’t still exist.”

They point out that:

The Indian Act legislated First Nations out of the economy [and that the] FNRC will help right these historic wrongs and begin to legislate First Nations back into the economy.

The FNRC allows interested First Nations to become more self-reliant. It will mean First Nations can begin to close the many infrastructure and service gaps that exist between them and other Canadians [including] education, health, social, and environmental services.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mrs. Stubbs, could I ask you to hold for one second?

I will go to Ms. Jones on a point of order.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to indicate to our witnesses how sorry we are that we are not able to get to their testimony. They have been an hour and a half in the room, but the Conservatives have delayed Bill C‑49 since the beginning, five months, by bringing forward other motions that are unrelated to this study or to the panels that are ongoing within the committee.

It's not that the motion is not an important motion that needs to be debated, but bringing it forward today is an intentional strategy on behalf of the Conservatives so that we do not get the chance to ask questions of the witnesses who are here, to hear their testimony and to hear their responses to issues that could impact them in the legislation and, to be honest, it's a very disrespectful practice that is occurring here.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I have a point of order.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

I want the witnesses to know that, in the last hour and a half while they've been sitting here, we've been sitting here waiting to ask them questions about a bill that is very important to so many industries in Canada. We are unable to do so because the Conservatives are filibustering this session with a motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Ms. Jones, we have a point of order from Mr. Falk, but before I go to that, I just want to address your point of order, Ms. Jones.

You stated it in your point of order that the member does have the right to move the motion. Although you'd like to hear from the witnesses, the member does have the right procedurally to move the motion, so the motion is in good standing.

I will go to Mr. Falk on the point of order.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

My only point of order, Mr. Chair, was that what the member opposite was engaged in was more debate than an actual point of order. I think she acknowledged that the procedures of this committee are completely in order. I would really like it if the Liberals and NDP would stop interrupting with their points of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Falk, on—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

—providing a point of order but also engaging in debate on your point of order.

I am going to go to Mr. Angus on a point of order.

Mr. Angus, go ahead, on a point of order.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Again, I offer my deep embarrassment to our witnesses.

This legislation is important, and they know it. If they reached out to my office, we would do whatever we can to hear more from them, to talk with them, because our job here is to deal with the legislation before us and not to play in this gong show set up by the Conservatives.

I'm sorry you have to witness this. If you leave us at this time, you will not be blamed. Any normal human being would leave if they could, but please reach out to my office. We'd love to hear your testimony. You're raising some really vital and important information that is necessary to create proper legislation to protect all interests, so thank you very much for your presence. I'm sorry that this is being done today.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Angus, for your point of order.

I just want to take a moment at this point to let the witnesses know that, if you do want to provide a further brief from your opening statement, you can do so and we can accept it. We are nearing the end of our time for our first panel. I don't know how long we will be, but I do not want to continue to hold you further. If you still would like to provide additional information to what you've provided in your opening statement, please do so to the clerk.

Colleagues, we will now suspend and change over to our next panel.

Mrs. Stubbs, we will continue with you when we come back, but I'd like to release the panel members who have been waiting for an opportunity to engage for the last half-hour. We have another panel that we will proceed to.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

I have a point of order right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I've said we will suspend, so we will suspend and come back.