Evidence of meeting #3 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was calla.
A video is available from Parliament.
1:45 p.m.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]
Regarding that economic development, it's different from protecting the land. You sit on two committees that are opposed. One is about economic development and one protects the land. You sit on two boards. You talk about the financial board at this moment, at this meeting, but you also sit on other boards.
1:45 p.m.
Executive Chair, First Nations Financial Management Board
I'm sorry but I don't know what the question is, if there is a question. Yes, I do sit on this board and I sit on the Trans Mountain board.
1:45 p.m.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
How do you reconcile with the first nations that oppose the pipeline? Secondly, how do you reconcile the differences between environmental protection and economic development when they are such opposing lines of thinking when it comes to representing first nations in different areas?
1:45 p.m.
Executive Chair, First Nations Financial Management Board
Well, my own community of Squamish, for example, did its own environmental assessment of a natural gas project on its traditional territory and established the rules and regulations under which it would take place.
I think there is a role for first nations to be engaged in the natural resource extraction industry in this country and in establishing the standards under which these projects will be undertaken and to minimize the impact on the environment of doing so. As we're seeing with mining and other areas, there's a great need for indigenous input into these activities, as well as assurance that if these projects are to be undertaken they're being undertaken in a way that mitigates not only the environmental impact of a project but the cumulative environmental impact in the regions.
1:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Garneau
Thank you, Mr. Calla and Ms. Idlout.
We're now ready to proceed to the second round. I should add that if any of our witnesses were halfway through answering a question or had just begun and ran out of time, we would welcome their submitting in writing their fulsome answer they didn't have a chance to give because of time restrictions. I wanted to make that point.
We will now start the second round with the Conservatives.
Mr. Schmale, you have five minutes.
1:45 p.m.
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I'm curious. I'm happy to take the time, but weren't the Liberals supposed to go after the NDP?
1:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Garneau
No. According to our routine motion, it would start off with the Conservatives and then the Liberals, the Bloc, the NDP, the Conservatives and the Liberals.
1:45 p.m.
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
That's perfect. Thank you very much.
Thank you, everyone, for that testimony. It's great to see some familiar faces.
Manny, you were on a bit of a roll, so I'm going to go to you first, if I could. We talk about economic freedoms, and I appreciate you bringing that up very much. You mentioned they had been restricted for 150-plus years and that many of these were caused by legislation passed by Parliament.
How can we help get some of these restrictions, regulations and red tape out of the way?
1:45 p.m.
Clarence T. (Manny) Jules
Part of my presentation this morning was leading in that direction. What I was saying by “let's work together” is that we have laid out a very ambitious legislative agenda. One of the things we want to see passed in federal legislation is a first nations infrastructure institute. That's of paramount importance for us, and it's how we would be able to get back to monetizing federal dollars so that we can put more infrastructure and badly needed infrastructure in first nations communities.
When we talk about 150 years, it's all about paramountcy of federal legislation. The way forward, in my estimation, is to ensure that there's federal legislation passed allowing first nations to occupy the jurisdictional field on an optional basis and to begin to move forward. However, we can't do that without having federal partners. Our approach has always been to work with all of the federal parties to ensure that we get all-party support in moving forward.
That's a very simple answer to the question.
1:50 p.m.
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
Can you expand on what you're talking about when you're talking about revenue streams, such as taxation of certain items? Can you talk about some of the benefits and how they would allow communities to chart their own course and look after things in their own community?
If you could expand on those, it would be great.
1:50 p.m.
Clarence T. (Manny) Jules
The highlight for me was a tax-sharing agreement in New Brunswick, but which Premier Higgs ended last year. I'm sure Ms. Atwin is familiar with that. That had generated some millions of dollars for individual communities on a tax-sharing arrangement. It allowed those communities to share in the revenues that were generated. That's ultimately what the solution is.
The federal and provincial governments have to give taxation and jurisdictional room for first nations to occupy, so that we would be able to look after ourselves. That's why I referenced the 1927 amendments to the Indian Act. Those were led by Duncan Campbell Scott, who basically put in place the residential school policies and a lot of the policies we still deal with today that are inherent in the bureaucracy and in the Indian Act.
When I think about the proper place of first nations and how we can begin to work together, it's to legislate our way out of the mess that we find ourselves in. It's providing stable resources through tax jurisdiction and other jurisdictions, so that we can begin to make up our minds about what our priorities are without having to first seek approval from somebody else.
We are proposing that we develop an approach that would lead us to be part of the federation. Right now, we're not. All of the resources in the country are divided between the federal and provincial governments. Indeed, the first initiative that allowed us to have independent taxation revenues happened in 1988. It's high time we begin to look at taxation as a very fundamental economic and jurisdictional tool. The federal government could lead the way in this example.
Having said that, we are reaching out to try to resolve the issues in New Brunswick. We're working with the Mi'kMaq. We're also working in Manitoba and here in British Columbia on trying to resolve these very complex issues.
As we begin to resolve them, all of the institutions before you here today are a testament to the fact that stability and jurisdiction lead to economic development and growth and to social policy issues being dealt with at the local level. It puts power in the hands of the communities, which is where it should rest.
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Garneau
Thank you, Mr. Jules.
I gave you a little more than five minutes there, Mr. Schmale.
Now we'll go to Mr. McLeod from the Liberal Party.
You have five minutes.
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
Michael McLeod Liberal Northwest Territories, NT
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm hoping that the interpreters can hear me. I've made some adjustments to my microphone.
I want to say, first of all, welcome to all the presenters today. I really appreciate having Manny Jules, Harold Calla and former northerner Ernie Daniels, a colleague of mine from way back, appearing before us.
There are some very interesting points being made. I'm hoping, Mr. Chairman, that these three individuals will provide us with the documents, which some of them have referenced, for us to use as part of our review of this issue in committee.
I don't have to tell any of these three how important this issue is. Looking at the barriers and at the issue of economic reconciliation is very important for us if we are to move forward. It's a big part of reconciliation. In the Northwest Territories, we've been doing a lot of work on this issue because it has to be part of the plan of nation rebuilding and reconstituting nations, that is, the question of how we're going to govern ourselves and how we're going to finance ourselves. The financing scheme has to be very diverse because there's no one pot of money we can dip into.
We've been talking a lot about resource revenue sharing, and at our last Liberal convention, we passed a motion that 50% of resource revenues that are raised and that go to the federal government and the Northwest Territories would go to the indigenous governments, and we've been talking about taxation of our own membership once we sign and settle self-governance agreements and move forward on land tenure.
Another big piece is the review of indigenous procurement. Up to now, the procurement policies have just not been working. They're so old and outdated that they don't work for us, and they're cumbersome to use.
There are lots of things happening. I was very keen to see the document, the article, that Ernie Daniels put forward on replacing the diesel generators in the Northwest Territories. I think, Ernie, you talked about looking at one pot of money, and I think you referenced the money that's there for infrastructure for indigenous communities, but I'm curious to know if you're not looking at other funding sources or pots of money. There was a pot of money through the Arctic energy fund. I think there was $400 million in there.
Would a combination of different funding sources from the government allow you to move forward and do a pilot project? That's my first question, and then I'll follow up with a second question once you've referred to that.
1:55 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, First Nations Finance Authority
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. It's nice to see you again.
Yes, it doesn't really matter where the money's coming from. I think what's really important is that it's a stream of money, because I don't know if paying a lump sum is the issue. There's probably not enough money to do it all. If the infrastructure gap is at least $30 billion—it's probably more; I think it's more—and if the government is not able to fund that in a short period of time, well then, it's not getting close.
With the diesel, it's wherever the stream of revenue is, and in my example, I mentioned that the government pays for diesel. They pay for transportation. There's a cost to that, so if we had a more energy-efficient alternative, you're saving on that. That's one source of it, and I know that savings and costs go into a general pot, and there are complexities, but if there were a dedicated source as well, then communities could do it on their own times when they need it, when they're ready and when they're able to do it.
It's getting that revenue stream, and the revenue-sharing agreements are really going to build this infrastructure and really encourage economic development. A lot of the communities that we finance for certain projects are building infrastructure with what they have, but what it's doing is creating opportunities for individual people to jump into business. This is kind of like the same thing.
The diesel one, we thought, ticks off a lot of boxes that the Government of Canada is looking at.
2 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Garneau
Mr. McLeod, you only have five seconds, so I think it's going to be a tough one.
The next speaker is Madame Gill.
You have two and a half minutes.
2 p.m.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My question is for Mr. Calla.
I was struck by Ms. Idlout's line of questioning. Could you please tell me when exactly you became the executive chair of the First Nations Financial Management Board, as well as the date or year when you were asked to sit on the Trans Mountain board of directors?
2 p.m.
Executive Chair, First Nations Financial Management Board
I was invited to be the chair of the financial management board right after the legislation was passed in 2005, and I was invited to be on the board of Trans Mountain about two and a half years ago. I don't have—
2 p.m.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
Was it before the government bought the pipeline, after or around the same time?
2 p.m.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
Whether it was before or after the purchase, you joined the board in approximately 2019. Is that correct? It's just to have a general idea.
Sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off, but I'd like you to clarify something. This may be a naive question, and I'm not trying to put words in the honourable member's mouth. She asked you about reconciling the two positions.
I wonder whether the fact that you occupy both of those roles might give the impression of a conflict of interest. I'm referring to an apparent or perceived conflict of interest, to be sure. I'd like to hear your take on it. Either way, you hold two positions. The executive chair position is very important from a leadership standpoint, and the board of directors position is another matter, but the fact remains that you were asked by the Government of Canada.
2 p.m.
Executive Chair, First Nations Financial Management Board
I was invited to participate in the board after the government acquired Trans Mountain. I raised the issue of my position with the financial management board for them to consider, and if they felt it was a conflict—because I was not for or against any project, but wanted to be in a position where first nations had the opportunity to have some input—then they shouldn't consider me. They concluded that they didn't think it was a conflict, and I accepted the position to be on the board.
I have to say, in fact, some of the matters that have been raised by indigenous communities have been considered by Trans Mountain. The pipeline route has been moved to accommodate some of their interests. Those kinds of matters have been taken up.
I live in an urban area. My community is from an urban area. I know that we all have electricity, we all have natural gas and we all drive cars. That has to come from somewhere.
Do cumulative impacts on the environment need to be considered? Yes. Do we need to move away from the carbon footprint? Yes. But it has—
2 p.m.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
That wasn't what I was getting at, but thank you.
I think I'm over my time, Mr. Chair.