Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 1st, 2023

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Daniels and Mr. McLeod, for your questions and your answers.

We go next to the Bloc Québécois and Madam Gill for six minutes, please.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd also like to thank all the witnesses who are with us today. We're having very interesting discussions on a number of fronts.

Many of those present worked on the early version of Bill C‑45. I invite them to share their comments and answers with us, if they wish.

Mr. Daniels, you talked about one of the major amendments to the First Nations Fiscal Management Act, the expansion of the meaning of “borrowing member”. I'd like to know why that meaning was limited in the first place. Was it simply because the act was new? Also, while Bill C‑45 will broaden that meaning, do you think it's broad enough or could it be broadened even further?

[Ernie Daniels]

I believe there will be an opportunity to open up more to other indigenous groups, such as Inuit and Métis. I think that's the next logical step in this. Right now, I do believe that getting the not-for-profit organizations that are providing services to communities will definitely be beneficial. For example, in B.C., the First Nations Health Authority would like to undertake an infrastructure program. They may be already doing that, but there's a need for health centres all across the province. I can see that being the same for other provinces in the country as well.

In some cases, another possible group that could access, or be eligible later on, would be first nations collaborating together on a single project, operating from a not-for-profit basis, of course. I'd like to see that myself. I think that the first nation groups were the first groups that actually started working on legislation like this. It started in B.C., and Harold or Manny could probably answer that a bit better than I can because I came in later. I came in in 2011, and they were there from the start.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Indeed, this includes Inuit and possibly Métis. Similarly, why was no consideration given to including other indigenous groups in the definition of “borrowing member”? Perhaps they were, but I wasn't involved in the initial discussions. Why is this definition not further broadened through Bill C‑45?

[Ernie Daniels]

That's very good question again. I think that when we start amendments, it takes a lot of time and effort to get things moving forward.

We would like to see the eligibility expanded to Inuit and Métis, but we have to work with our counterparts at the federal government, which is CIRNAC in this case. Sometimes amendments go forward that they want to support. Also, they could have reasons why we're not working on Métis and Inuit right now.

Like I say, I am positive that will be forthcoming. I'm sure about that.

I will leave my comments at that.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

I know we're running out of time, so this may be my last question. It may overlap with previous questions.

I'd like to know whether expanding the definition of “borrowing member” would put pressure on the First Nations Finance Authority itself, since it could force it to expand its service delivery. At the same time, it obviously increases the possibility of different groups and different nations borrowing funds.

Would that put pressure on the authority itself, or will you receive additional funding to help you in your mission? Furthermore, could there be increased competition so that the pie would be shared among more people rather than among the members of the same group, as was the case before? This isn't an opinion; I'm really asking in good faith.

[Ernie Daniels]

Thank you for that question.

First of all, the act is a voluntary act. Those organizations would request to work under the act.

With regard to competition or more lending groups, I would imagine you're talking about sharing the pie. I always go back to letting the choice be with the first nations or the entity that's borrowing to see what type of financing would be most suitable for them. I think there is a lot to go around.

With first nations, we mentioned a $349.2-billion infrastructure gap. I can imagine that gap is pretty big for Inuit and Métis as well. I was at a conference a few weeks ago, and I heard that the Inuit infrastructure gap is about $60 billion.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Jamie Schmale]

I'm going to have to stop you there, Mr. Daniels.

I'm sorry, Madam Gill. I appreciate the questions, but we have run a bit over time.

Certainly, Ernie, you're in the hot seat today.

Next up is Lori Idlout from the NDP for six minutes.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of the witnesses for your testimonies. You testimonies are very important.

First of all, to each of the witnesses, can you share your thoughts on Bill C-45? It is simultaneously being created and the federal government is codeveloping this act with you. I'd like to understand a bit more about the process. Was it good for you? Was it satisfactory for you?

The other question I would like to ask you is whether you would want to make further amendments to the content of the Bill C-45.

Each of you can respond.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jenica Atwin]

That's for whomever would like to start.

[Harold Calla]

It's Harold. If I may, I will start.

I look at the legislation as a living piece of legislation. It's always going to be amended to reflect the current circumstances of the day. We've been working on these particular amendments for quite some time. Did we get everything we wanted? We never get everything we want, Lori, but we got a lot of what we wanted. We're happy with what we got and want to see it come into place. We understand and respect that there is a commitment for ongoing dialogue on how you might improve this legislation, expand its scope and reach all corners of the indigenous community in Canada. We look forward to those opportunities.

I think what we've proven is that the concept we developed works. We now have this number of first nations participating. There's a lot of money being collected in local revenues now, through the tax commission. Ernie talks about $1.8 billion. All of these things have made a dramatic impact in communities, in terms of community infrastructure and the buildings they have.

We've now realized, through the process, that we need to expand the reach to first nations organizations, non-profits and tribal councils, because that's what they wanted. We identified—to get the bill moving and started—that it would be Indian Act bands. We agreed to that. However, we now understand the demand is much more significant than that, and we're prepared to respond to that.

Yes, we want to be welcomed back at some point, hopefully, in the near future to consider further amendments to this act, as the circumstances demand, but we're happy with what we have today.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jenica Atwin]

Go ahead, Mr. Claxton or Mr. Calla.

[Jason Calla, Technical Team, First Nations Infrastructure Institute]

Good afternoon, everyone.

In terms of the amendments with respect to the First Nations Infrastructure Institute, it was a good constructive process. We appreciated the working relationship we developed with the people at CIRNAC to develop the amendments. We are fortunate to have a development board led by Allan Claxton and other leaders from across Canada who provided leadership and guidance to the amendments based on their years of experience in leadership and administration with projects in indigenous communities. When we got a chance to see the draft legislation, we had a good technical team discussion to review it and propose some refinements. No substantive issues were missing.

Again, it's a new initiative. I'm sure that, as we work with the legislation, we'll find ways over time to improve it, but we were happy to report that the substantive things we were hoping for are in the bill, and we have no further changes proposed.

Thank you.

[Clarence T. (Manny) Jules]

Thank you very much.

I think that, when we first started doing our work, it was a question of developing trust, not only with first nations, but ultimately with the federal government that we had the wherewithal to be able to have the knowledge to create legislation out of nothing.

When I first started doing this work in the 1980s, it was thought that the taxation amendments only applied to a small number of communities, and through the second phase—I would call it—in 2005, we had to develop trust amongst first nations right across the country. This led to a heated debate at the Assembly of First Nations conference, and we've overcome those debates internally with first nations.

Now we are ready to expand the catch, if you will, to include Inuit and Métis, and those are critically important for the future, because it's my belief that, without all indigenous people working together, none of us will be free of colonialism.

When I think about the Métis in particular, there's one individual who worked for me a while ago, Garry Ladouceur. He was instrumental in creating the Metis Settlements Act in Alberta, and that's one particular piece of work that we monitor as a tax commission, because what happens in those communities has an impact on first nation communities.

Also, in embracing the Métis, we're embracing the history of this country in all of its complexity. When you look to the far north and the Inuit, there are a lot of issues that I feel we could have been involved in such as the jet fuel contamination of the water systems and the like.

In my meeting with you, Lori, we talked about the names and thought about our common history of being notified that your name is now a number. As I told you at that meeting, my number is 6880032401.

There's a lot in common that we have to overcome collectively as indigenous people in this country, and what that brings us is the strength to be able to overcome all of the hurdles that are going to face us in the future. Indeed, when we start to deal with those areas, it means that our place in this country and in this federation will be strengthened.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jenica Atwin]

Thank you, Mr. Jules

Thank you, Ms. Idlout.

We'll now move to our second round, and we'll begin with Mr. Schmale for five minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Chair. It's good to have you back.

I appreciate the testimony we're hearing from everyone today and their words about this piece of legislation.

I'd like to pick up on something and maybe direct this question to Harold Calla, or I can open it to the field as well.

Ernie Daniels was talking earlier about the ability to use monetization to finance and build a whole bunch of infrastructure. It could be a whole range, including houses, for example, which we all know are deeply important to every community, indigenous and non-indigenous, at the moment.

In addition to the housing piece of this puzzle, what about the economic reconciliation that has to be included in this conversation in order to set the stage for that growth to maintain and grow that housing and also the community? How important is economic reconciliation?

[Harold Calla]

I think that housing can play a major role in economic reconciliation, but it has to become more than a program. It has to become a business activity. If you're going to own a home, you generally have to care for it and pay for it, and that's difficult to do if you don't have an economy in your community.

Part of the strategy here is to look at how we create the infrastructure, how we create the housing and the other supply chain issues that are involved in a housing portfolio to support the capacity development of our individuals and train them in the trades so they will have employment. I think that's a critical piece of what we need. Sometimes we just look at the house, the stick frame construction, and say that's what housing is. Well, it's the supply chain that delivers that stick frame that really needs to be looked at. We need to participate in that whole value chain so that there can be permanent employment.

Eventually, one would like to think that you're going to build all the houses, so I think we need to be in a position where we are looking at these things from the perspective of their economic value and how you maintain that. The infrastructure is a big piece, obviously, but it is about gaining meaningful employment on a long-term basis to be able to maintain the homes in good standing.

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

That way, you can see the ability to move away from program funding and start to build an economy, which is done on the local level and outwards from there.

[Harold Calla]

It's very much so. If program funding was going to work, it would have worked by now.

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

Thank you very much.

Mr. Jules, taksis is one of the first things you brought up to me when we met not too long ago: taxes. Give me your thoughts on that. Perhaps you can tell us about the significance of this being in the legislation.

[Clarence T. (Manny) Jules]

A lot of first nations and other Canadians don't recognize or know their history. Taxes were a fundamental part of indigenous culture, going back many millennia. As a matter of fact, our cultures wouldn't have survived on this land without the concept of taxes.

Taksis is the Chinook spelling of “taxation”. It's a concept we understood, a concept we practised and a concept that will now be enshrined in Canadian legislation, if this particular piece of legislation is passed—Bill C-45. It was a Chinook trade language spoken in the Pacific northwest, from Alaska to northern California. It is a very important concept because it educates our people. We had these concepts that were part of our cultural milieu. It also signifies to Canada that taxation is something we're not afraid of dealing with.

Taxation is a fundamental governmental power that has its roots in the Matsqui court decision. It's one of the very first court decisions I was involved in, going to the Supreme Court of Canada. When you talk about fundamental governmental power, everybody just refers to taxation in its spelling as it is now.

When we introduce the concept of taksis, it's going to fundamentally change how we view taxation in this country, and in particular how my people—how Secwépemc and indigenous people across the country—think about taxation. It isn't a foreign concept. These are concepts we had as part of our world view. It's how we financed our infrastructure, how we financed our culture and how we financed international trade among the indigenous populations of the Americas.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jenica Atwin]

That's your time. Thank you very much, Mr. Schmale.

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

I gave myself an extra minute.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Jenica Atwin]

We'll move to Mr. Weiler for five minutes.