Evidence of meeting #184 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was proposed.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Manuel Dussault  Senior Director, Framework Policy, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Justin Brown  Director, Financial Stability, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Peter Fragiskatos  London North Centre, Lib.
Yuki Bourdeau  Senior Advisor, Capital Markets Division, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Eleanor Ryan  Director General, Financial Institutions Division, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Jean-François Girard  Director, Consumer Affairs, Financial Institutions Division, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Brigitte Goulard  Deputy Commissionner, Financial Consumer Agency of Canada
Kim Rudd  Northumberland—Peterborough South, Lib.
Mark Schaan  Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada
Ian Wright  Director, Financial Crimes Governance and Operations, Department of Finance
Darryl C. Patterson  Director, Corporate, Insolvency and Competition Policy Directorate, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Department of Industry
Martin Simard  Director, Copyright and Trademark Policy, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Department of Industry
Andrea Flewelling  Senior Policy Advisor, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Department of Industry
Patrick Blanar  Senior Policy Analyst, Patent Policy Directorate, Department of Industry
Dale MacMillan  Vice-President, Corporate Services and Chief Financial Officer, National Research Council of Canada
Christopher Johnstone  Director General, National Programs and Business Services, National Research Council of Canada
Eric Grant  Director, Community Lands Development, Lands and Environmental Management, Lands and Economic Development, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Leane Walsh  Director, Fiscal Policy and Investment Readiness, Economic Policy Development, Lands and Economic Development, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Susan Waters  Director General, Lands and Environmental Management Branch, Lands and Economic Development, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Michèle Govier  Senior Director, Trade Rules, International Trade and Finance Branch, Department of Finance
Katharine Funtek  Executive Director, Trade Controls Policy, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Bev Shipley  Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC
Nicole Giles  Director, International Trade and Finance, Assistant Deputy Minister's Office, Department of Finance
Deirdre Kent  Director General, International Assistance Policy, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Mark Lusignan  Director General, Grants and contributions Management, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (International Trade)
Michelle Kaminski  Director, Office of Innovative Finance, Grants and Contributions Management, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Chantal Larocque  Deputy Director, Development Finance, Grants and Contributions Financial Policy, Foreign Affairs Canada
Danielle Bélanger  Director, Gender-Based Analysis Plus and Strategic Policy, Policy and External Relations Directorate, Status of Women Canada
Alison McDermott  General Director, Economic and Fiscal Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Derek Armstrong  Executive Director, Results Division, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
Lori Straznicky  Executive Director, Pay Equity Task Team, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace Information, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
Don Graham  Senior Advisor to the Assistant Deputy Minister, Compensation and Labour Relations Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
Bruce Kennedy  Manager, Pay Equity Task Team, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
Richard Stuart  Executive Director, Expenditure Analysis and Compensation Planning, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
Colin Spencer James  Senior Director, Social Development Policy, Strategic and Service Policy Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
Andrew Brown  Director General, Employment Insurance Policy Directorate, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development
Barbara Moran  Director General, Strategic Policy, Analysis and Workplace, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
Rutha Astravas  Director, Employment Insurance Policy, Special Benefits Policy, Department of Employment and Social Development
Charles Philippe Rochon  Senior Policy Analyst, Labour Standards and Wage Earner Protection Program, Workplace Directorate, Department of Employment and Social Development

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Mr. Fergus.

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

I'm somewhat familiar with this issue, and I might have a number of questions I'll come back to.

The first is on the structure of the board. I haven't had a chance to take a look at the clause-by-clause approach to the legislation. Could you give me a bird's eye view of the structure, of who gets to sit on the board under the reforms?

6:05 p.m.

Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada

Mark Schaan

The board structure is staying the same. There's a vice-chair of the board appointed through the GIC process. There's a chair of the board, who has to be a retired justice. Then there are up to three additional lay members of the board, who have the capacity to oversee hearings.

What is changing in the process, in terms of the structure, is how they go about their business. As I said, we refer to it as the accordion model. We've set out regulations that will dictate the process leading up to a hearing. Hearings will then be case-managed, which is empowered by this legislation, and then there will be deadlines imposed through regulatory powers on what happens post-hearing towards the decision.

In addition, this relates to new appointments. There have been new appointments to the board, including a new vice-chair and a new lay member. There are additional resources. The board's been given a 30% increase in their resources to allow them to more efficiently work through their scope, which will be significantly expanded since their rules were last updated. Really, it's a comprehensive approach to the structure of the board.

In theory, it doesn't change, because you still have hearings with a vice-chair and a chair and lay members, but every aspect of the process is changing by regulating the starting point of how the process gets kicked off, when to file and for how long, what happens in the hearing process, and then what the deadlines are after a hearing is concluded.

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

The second issue, I guess, is that, before politics, I was fascinated by the Supreme Court's decision determining what fair access is. How do any of these changes reflect, respect or limit that decision?

6:05 p.m.

Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada

Mark Schaan

We're very aware of the ongoing litigation and the issue of educational copying and fair dealing. This reform and modernization of the board maintains the existing statutory damage model. However, Minister Rodriguez and Minister Bains have written to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, and the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage asking them specifically to look at the applicability of a tariff, the obligation to pay a tariff and the statutory damages associated with non-payment of a tariff, recognizing that this is very substantive and significant issue of effect to creators and that it's one that requires a more considered approach than the modernization efforts that we're pursuing here today.

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

What you're trying to say in sum, if I understand, is that it requires a more considered approach and the changes here do not weigh in on that debate.

6:05 p.m.

Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada

Mark Schaan

That's correct. We've left the statutory damage model as is.

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

Thank you.

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Mr. Julian.

6:05 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

I have just one question. What was the degree to which you consulted the artistic community around this?

6:05 p.m.

Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada

Mark Schaan

We ran consultations starting in the summer with a public paper that laid out a whole series of options. We received more than 60 submissions. A significant number came from the creator community. We were, between our two departments, in touch with the creator community routinely in all of its facets: literary publishing, music, songwriting, and dramatic arts.... I'm going to miss someone and then they're going to get mad at me tomorrow when I don't name them.

This is really an issue for which in the copyright community there was, by and large, a consensus that retroactive tariffs were bad for both sides in a contested hearing setting and that modernization of the board was essential for all players.

6:10 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Thank you.

6:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

That will end that session.

Thank you, Mark, for your long time at the table.

I thank all of the other witnesses for appearing as well. Some of you got off easy.

We will now turn to part 4, divisions 11,12 and 19, dealing with the First Nations Land Management Act, the First Nations Fiscal Management Act, and the addition of land to reserves and reserve creation act.

We have Mr. Eric Grant, Director of Community Lands Development, Lands and Environmental Management; Ms. Waters, Director General of Lands and Environmental Management; Ms. Van De Ligt, Policy Analyst for the Fiscal Policy and Investment Readiness Directorate; and Ms. Walsh, Director for the Fiscal Policy and Investment Readiness Directorate as well.

The floor is yours. Welcome.

We're starting with part 4, division 11.

Mr. Grant.

6:10 p.m.

Eric Grant Director, Community Lands Development, Lands and Environmental Management, Lands and Economic Development, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm here today to provide a briefing on clauses 352 to 384 of the BIA. They deal with amendments to the First Nations Land Management Act, a long-standing piece of legislation that received royal assent way back in 1999. When it came into force, the act ratified the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management. This was a nation-to-nation agreement signed between Canada and 14 first nations in 1996.

Together, the framework agreement and accompanying federal legislation provide a mechanism for first nations to opt out of one-third of the Indian Act and take on authority, control and responsibility for their lands, resources and the environment. It's worth noting that first nations land management only applies to reserve lands, defined as federal lands that have been set aside for the use and benefit of first nations in accordance with section 91(24) of the Constitution.

Today more than 150 first nations from across Canada have opted in to first nations land management, with 77 fully operating their land laws. The community must vote to pass these laws. I'll speak a little bit more about that later.

The department has been working in partnership with the indigenous rights holders since 2016 on the current bundle of legislative amendments. The Land Advisory Board is the indigenous institution that represents the interests of first nations land management communities. A resolution was passed unanimously giving the Land Advisory Board their current mandate in this regard. I mention this just to demonstrate that there is great interest and support among participating first nations in these changes.

While significant, the proposed amendments to the First Nations Land Management Act are categorized as administrative and practical in nature. They form the first phase of a broader land reform strategy that will roll out over the next three to five years. As mentioned previously, the legislative proposal parallels amendments that have been made to the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management, which must then be approved by two-thirds of the first nations that are active in this. I mention this because to date, more than 80% have already signalled their interest by signing on to the proposed amendments, and none have opposed thus far.

I'll move on now to a few specifics. I mentioned earlier that the amendments could be categorized as administrative, but they will also make meaningful improvements to communities and simplify the entry process for new communities as they come on.

First, the amendments to the First Nations Land Management Act are proposing to including a statement that acknowledges Canada's pre-existing commitment to implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In May 2016, the Government of Canada adopted UNDRIP without qualification, and committed to its full and effective implementation in accordance with the Canadian Constitution. Acknowledging UNDRIP within the First Nations Land Management Act aligns with the Government of Canada's commitment to a renewed nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous people based on the recognition of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership. It is a symbolic statement and furthers Canada's reconciliation efforts.

Another set of amendments aligns voting procedures to other democratic processes in Canada by removing the participation requirement that currently exists. As I mentioned earlier, communities must vote for their leadership to exercise the law-making powers of first nation land management. Currently, a minimum number of voters must vote, and of those who vote, more than half must vote to approve. The proposed amendments would allow first nations to decide if they want to use a participation threshold or if they want to align their voting practices to simple majority rules that are used in many other voting processes in Canada.

The proposed amendments will make improvements to how new lands are added to the reserve land base or additions to reserve. Rather than having these new lands come on as Indian Act lands before they then get transferred to first nation lands under this act, the proposed amendments would do an automatic transfer. When the lands are added, they automatically become first nation lands. This eliminates a significant administrative step and a time-consuming step in that process.

The amendments will also transfer what we call “capital” monies—that is, monies generated from non-renewable resources like oil and gas—directly to first nations. Currently, the department manages those monies on behalf of first nations. Right now under first nations land management, only “revenue” monies—that is, monies from permits, leasing and revenue-generating opportunities—are included as part of first nations land management. This would move all Indian monies, as we call them, over to first nation control.

Next, the amendments will provide for first nation employees a protection from liability that's similar to the protection provided for those in other governments. What we mean by this is that employees cannot be personally sued in the conduct of their official duties.

There are several other housekeeping amendments, such as eliminating obsolete clauses that no longer apply due to certain sections of the Indian Act being repealed. We'll clean those up. I won't bother mentioning those here, but I'm happy to take questions on them.

Just to close, the amendments are strongly supported by first nation partners and will further strengthen a successful first nation-led sectoral self-government initiative, one that supports first nations to operate at the speed of business and to enhance community economic development.

I'm happy to take any questions.

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Okay, we will turn now to questions. Does anybody want to start?

At the briefing night, I asked what the implications would be of supporting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Has there been any legal advice under that? There are rights on all sides, but just what are the implications in the long term for Canadians as a whole of encapsulating that declaration in our own laws?

6:15 p.m.

Director, Community Lands Development, Lands and Environmental Management, Lands and Economic Development, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development

Eric Grant

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We did get your question the other night and we appreciated that. We've looked and we did not get legal advice and did not think legal advice was necessary because this is merely the statement of a pre-existing acknowledgement that the government is implementing UNDRIP.

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Okay, that's fine, as long as we know.

Are there any other questions from any other members on division 11?

We turn then to division 12, on the First Nations Fiscal Management Act.

Ms. Walsh.

6:15 p.m.

Leane Walsh Director, Fiscal Policy and Investment Readiness, Economic Policy Development, Lands and Economic Development, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development

Thank you. I'm here to speak to clauses 385 to 414 regarding the First Nations Fiscal Management Act changes in front of you.

This act came into effect in 2006 and has established a strong framework for first nations who opted into the regime to implement taxation and fiscal management and to access long-term financing to meet their economic development and infrastructure needs. There are three first nation institutions that operate under this act. We refer to these as the fiscal institutions. They include the First Nations Financial Management Board, the First Nations Finance Authority and the First Nations Tax Commission.

This act, like the First Nations Land Management Act, is optional. However, more than one-third of first nations across the country have chosen to exercise their fiscal powers under this regime. That's 239 first nations and soon to be 266 first nations.

These amendments are mainly administrative but they are important to the continued evolution of the regime. These were developed in partnership with our first nation fiscal institutions in order to improve their daily operations and respond to the needs of their member first nations.

Budget 2018 committed an additional $50 million over five years, with $11 million ongoing for these institutions to expand their operations nationally. These changes will help them do so.

I would like to give you a few concrete examples of what these amendments will achieve.

There are bijural concerns with the current act. This means that there are inconsistencies between the civil law and common law concepts that speak to rights and interests on reserve lands. These must be addressed in order to ensure national consistency, particularly as we implement in Quebec.

There is a need to strengthen the liability protections for the institutions and their staff as their work continues to evolve. For example, the financial management board is partnering with the Assembly of First Nations and the government to develop a new fiscal relationship. We need to ensure that this work is included.

There is a need for regulations for taxation on lands that are shared by more than one first nation. We refer to these as joint reserves. First nations under this regime want to be able to tax these lands. These amendments will help them do that.

To continue to evolve the regime, there is also a need for regulations to enable aggregate indigenous organizations delivering public services to be able to access the regime to meet their infrastructure needs. For example, the First Nation Health Authority in British Columbia, which delivers health services to all the first nations in that province, has asked for access to the regime for this purpose.

Finally, these amendments will enable first nations under this regime to access their Indian monies upon a successful vote by their communities. These are monies held by Her Majesty for the use and benefit of first nations.

In summary, this regime is optional and first nation-led. These amendments are mostly administrative. They are clarifying language, addressing operational issues for the fiscal institutions and their members, and expanding access to those who have asked for access to the regime.

I'm open for questions.

6:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Mr. Poilievre.

6:20 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

Does the regime apply both on treaty lands and on reserve lands?

6:20 p.m.

Director, Fiscal Policy and Investment Readiness, Economic Policy Development, Lands and Economic Development, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development

Leane Walsh

Currently the regime applies to what we call Indian Act first nations although it does contemplate self-governing first nations accessing the regime. There's a regulatory power included in the act, and we're currently working with our partners at the Department of Justice to develop those regulations.

6:20 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

When you say “contemplates”, what does that mean?

6:20 p.m.

Director, Fiscal Policy and Investment Readiness, Economic Policy Development, Lands and Economic Development, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development

Leane Walsh

There's a specific amendment power under section 141 that allows adaptation regulations to the act to enable self-governing first nations to be able to opt in to the regime, just like a first nation would.

6:20 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

Absent that particular provision, it would just be reserve lands?

6:20 p.m.

Director, Fiscal Policy and Investment Readiness, Economic Policy Development, Lands and Economic Development, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development

Leane Walsh

It would be first nations who are still under the Indian Act.