Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 1st, 2023

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

The only thing I would mention is that I sit on the finance committee, and one of the things we were talking about a while back was flood mapping. The reality is that there are certain parts of this country, certain segments, where you're just not going to want to rebuild in certain places because it doesn't make any sense, and then, when you do, you get into the resiliency.

I think it was you, Mr. Jules, who made a comment about sharing information, and that the world needs us to be able to access indigenous knowledge. You're absolutely right. I do think we need to do that, and I think the data collection will be very important as well.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jenica Atwin]

Thank you.

Mrs. Gill, you have two and a half minutes.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Jules, you weren't able to finish your answer earlier, because I mistakenly thought I had six minutes. I'd like to continue the discussion on expanding legislative authority. You were cut off when you were about to talk about enforcement. How does the bill go further than before?

[Clarence T. (Manny) Jules]

What we wanted to be able to do through these particular amendments, which also set the stage for other institutional development into the future, is to clarify that first nations do have the jurisdiction of enforcement and are able to follow, in our case, tax arrears off reserve lands. It's a very complex area of enforcement. It's one that this bill helps to bring clarity to, but much work needs to be done in this area because it isn't just us and the FMA. It also impacts the first nations lands management and, indeed, even to the extent where it's difficult for provincial governments to move child care from provincial jurisdiction to first nation jurisdiction with some other legislation that was passed. It's a multi-faceted area.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jenica Atwin]

You have one minute.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

In that case, I'll ask one last question.

Earlier, someone—I think it was Mr. Daniels, but I'm not sure—told us about the legislative changes requested by borrowing members. There are currently 348 first nations listed in the schedule to the First Nations Fiscal Management Act, which is huge. In fact, that represents more than half of them.

Have any requests, comments or suggestions been received from first nations not yet listed in this schedule?

I don't know who is best to answer my question, Madam Chair. I'd just like someone to answer it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jenica Atwin]

Give a short answer, Mr. Daniels, if you'd like. You have about 30 seconds, but you can add it to another question if you'd like.

[Ernie Daniels]

I think it's a process for a first nation to go through the different parts of the legislation as they work their way through the different institutions to do the different works they want to do. For the FNFA, of the 342 that have scheduled, we have 151 first nations that are borrowing members with us right now. If we had all the first nations joining all at once, it would be a matter of capacity to deal with all of these nations. That's one part of the answer.

The other one is that first nations want to know more sometimes. It takes some effort when you start to talk with a first nation and go through the process, because this is an entirely new way of doing business, if you will, in terms of trying to get, in our case, to the point of getting financing for a specific project. I must say that all the institutions here provide excellent service to the first nations that want to join, and even those that do not.

I know FMB does the 10-year grant process. First nations are getting used to it in most cases, and some are ready to jump into it. For those that will be coming, it will be a matter of time, because they will start to see the benefits the other first nations are enjoying right now.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jenica Atwin]

Thank you, Mrs. Gill.

[A voice]

I'll further add, very quickly—

[The Chair, Liberal, Jenica Atwin]

You'll have to wait for the next question slot. I'm so sorry.

We'll go to Madam Idlout for two and a half minutes.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Thank you.

I apologize for forgetting, but I believe this is directed to Ernie and Allan. I don't believe these two witnesses answered or provided their responses to the same question I asked prior.

Thinking into the future, what recommendations might you have to ensure that regulations don't create barriers to supporting the work you do in order to have continuity?

[Ernie Daniels]

One of the things I've noticed during the latest work on amendments to the act is that the capacity on the federal government side really needs to be there. We have to make sure that it continues going forward. We're building up our capacity on our side, and we need to make sure that it's still there on the federal side. That capacity on the federal side is what I see.

I think also allowing us to start discussions on the different regulations for expanding to the different indigenous groups as well.... If we can start that work now, a longer runway is more beneficial than a shorter runway.

[Grant Christoff]

If I could add to that, I would just say a quicker pace of legislative and regulatory development.... Echoing what Ernie just said, we need increased collaboration with our federal counterparts. I would also say we need to be more collaborative in all of our legislative initiatives, again echoing what Ernie said.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jenica Atwin]

There are 30 seconds left, if anyone else would like to add anything. All right.

We'll move on to Mr. Vidal for five minutes.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Daniels, I want to follow up where we were kind of cut off in the last round about this idea of the increased definition of “borrowing members”. We talked about tribal councils.

Another specific example I have in northwest Saskatchewan is the Pelican Lake First Nation. I think you're aware of the situation with the Pelican Lake First Nation, which has about 1,700 members in northwest Saskatchewan. They're working with Pinehouse, which is a Métis community in northwest Saskatchewan with a population of about 1,000 people.

In those two communities, there is a volume of electricity available that is about a third of the national average. They're proposing to build a couple of biomass facilities. They have the fuel. They have the sources. They have the arrangements with SaskPower where they could proceed with this, but they are looking for the opportunity to get funding through your organization.

However, we have a Métis community and a first nation, which I don't think fits the definition of any of this yet. I'm just wondering if you have some thoughts on where this might have to go. Where could we go with this at some point that would allow this kind of arrangement? It would have all kinds of positive benefits like replacing the unreliable diesel generators and solving the shortage of available electricity for communities like this in a riding like mine.

Take some time and just explain how we could get there based on your understanding of the act and where we might have to go.

[Ernie Daniels]

Thank you for that question.

I'm very well aware of those communities and of the issues that they face.

I think with the regulations that are being developed, in regard to the not-for-profit organizations, if it's limited to first nations then we have a problem. However, I think there might be some openness to “indigenous” as a definition. If we can keep that in mind when we're working on the regulations that would really help. Other than that, we'll have to continue working to expand the definition to include Métis.

We can keep that in mind for the regulations, keeping it as “indigenous” rather than strictly “first nation”.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Daniels.

I'm going to pass my time to Mr. Schmale to finish off.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Vidal. Again, I appreciate the opportunity to jump in on this discussion.

Mr. Jules, just to finish up where we left off the last time, we were talking about taksis. We were talking about the benefits the communities themselves could have when they have the ability to raise revenue. We're talking about keeping taxes low while we do that, of course.

[A voice]

[Inaudible—Editor]

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

I would love to hear that.

I want to go on to how to get projects done quickly, how to do that. There have been discussions throughout this two-hour period about that. You can do that by allowing communities to make decisions that are best for them based on the circumstances they're dealing with on the ground.

I'm open to whoever wants to talk about this. What would be the benefits that you would have when decisions were not made in boardrooms or in office towers here in Ottawa about communities where people may or may not have been? How we can get more velocity in those tax dollars to get projects actually built and done for the requirements of those on the ground, rather than trying to discuss what gets approved and what doesn't here in Ottawa?

Basically, I just want someone to elaborate on getting things done quickly rather than getting program funding. Who wants to talk about that?

[Clarence T. (Manny) Jules]

I will put in my two bits.

One of the concepts that I've been advocating for, and it's something that's been percolating under this thinking cap for quite a while, is a first nations resource charge. Canada is at a crossroads. It needs all kinds of metals to be able to function in today's marketplace. It needs critical minerals. Joe Biden was up recently to talk about critical minerals.

What's hindering that is first nations jurisdiction. We need to recognize first nations jurisdiction so that they can partake in resource development and extraction in a way that hasn't happened in the past. In order to do that, first nations have to be part and parcel of the deal with the environmental issues, and also be able to benefit from those developments. Right now that isn't happening. We see that happening over and over again with any resource development. The money either comes here to Ottawa, or it goes to Victoria or Fredericton or some other place around the world.

If we don't have the jurisdiction, and if we don't benefit from the resource development in this country, we won't be able to ever catch up to the infrastructure backlog. In order for this to happen, we need to be able to have a clear signal from the federal government that it's prepared to cede federal tax room to first nations. At the same time, the provincial governments have to do likewise.

If that doesn't happen, we're not going to be able to have food security and energy security in this country in our lifetimes. First nations are now at the forefront of those struggles, because it's the land that we're trying to take care of.

It's even about water rights. One of the issues that I've been dealing with in the Prairies is the flooding situation that this young lady was talking about earlier on. You have a situation where the Red River flows north. Where does it flood? It bypasses Winnipeg and all the other communities. It floods the first nation communities. When you talk about hydro development, who does it impact more than anybody else in this country but first nations?

First nations have to be an integral part of energy strategies. The federal government has to be cognizant of the fact that there isn't going to be any resource development without first nations being intimately involved.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jenica Atwin]

Thank you very much.

We'll have Mr. Battiste close out our third round.

You have five minutes.

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

Thank you.

I'm inspired by your whole notion of moving at the speed of business. Unfortunately, we move at the speed of government, but every so often we have legislation where we have all parties on side and we see a piece of legislation where it seems that there's consensus and a lot of people are on board. We have various mechanisms within the House of Commons where we can speed up legislation when we have unanimous consent from all parties in the House of Commons.

If we could do that for this, do you believe that the legislation that's there right now has satisfied your organizations to the point where you'd like to see its passage sped up through a unanimous consent motion, if we can get that?

[Clarence T. (Manny) Jules]

Absolutely. All of the parliamentarians would answer our prayers and answer the prayers of the communities that we work with and serve. We want this legislation to be passed as quickly as possible so that we can get on to the taksis but also the task of building new and better infrastructure. Let us do the work. You pass the legislation as quickly as possible—and unanimously, because it is our belief that this should happen with all-party support in the interests of this country.