Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 3rd, 2023

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

In part, it's because of the delays. I want to make that clear. Each year there's a delay, we will see construction costs increase, which is why it's so important that we move forward on this quickly.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Yes, there was a 12- to 18-month window once the agreement was signed in which there were feasibility studies and full costing to be done. I think we're at a point now where we've seen cost increases. That is something on which I'll defer to Minister Hajdu's good leadership to get across the finish line.

The point to take away from this is that we're committing to making sure that the folks at Grassy Narrows get the justice they deserve.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

I have only a few seconds left, so thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jenica Atwin]

Thank you, Mr. Melillo.

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

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being here today.

On Monday, we heard from several of the leaders about how important optionality is for this bill and how, when moving forward with first nations.... A lot of the time, government had a “we know best” attitude in many decades past, and that has harmed the trust between first nations and the federal government. They spoke to why optionality is a very important part of this piece of legislation and the work that they're doing.

First, I wonder if you could speak to why optionality, or opting in, for band councils is an important part of advancing reconciliation.

The other part is this: How does this help us implement some of the principles surrounding UNDRIP in terms of what we promised in Bill C-15? What does this mean in relation to what we are trying to accomplish with UNDRIP and moving forward with this legislation?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

I think, MP Battiste, you said it best when you said that it is really up to the communities to choose.

The Indian Act is not only a racist document, but one that has been imposed on communities. Getting out from under it has been the subject of a lot of simplistic thoughts as to how that happens. When you sit down, however, it is a complex web of insidious discrimination that has affected pretty much every facet of indigenous identity and experience, especially in the on-reserve scenario, for anyone who knows the history of the Indian Act.

This legislation gives the optionality to the communities to say yes, but, importantly, to say no. Whatever reason that is, we in government just need to accept it.

I mentioned earlier that going from 348 communities that are scheduled in the annex to 77 that have drawn down or received the financing under this particular regime is important, but it isn't necessarily linear for people. Some people don't want the on-reserve property taxation laws. There are only 133 that have developed and implemented those laws as part of the tax commission. There are 256 that have enacted financial administration laws, and 210 that have received certification. Is this a natural progression? It may or may not be. Some of it is important, and some of it is take-it-or-leave-it for some communities.

As part of developing the amendments in the package you have in front of you today, that has been something that has been stressed time and time again. As progressive as it was perceived to be 20 years ago, that currently isn't the case today. It leaves partners unable to move “at the speed of business”, as they said quite clearly on Monday, for example.

That is key. I think it's a matter of financial speed as much as it is the ability of people to affirm their right to determine what they do with their own selves and their communities. In that sense, it is in the spirit of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and, frankly, it responds to some of the TRC calls.

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

I just want to make it clear that we're looking at all of the first nations across Canada, many bands. Nothing in this legislation changes anything in those communities unless they choose to be a part of it. Is that correct?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

That's correct.

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

With my final 30 seconds, I just want to be able to thank all of the members of this committee. We heard from Manny Jules about the lessons he learned from his father about meeting at the speed of business. I saw that we did our best as a committee within 48 hours to make sure that we were moving at the speed of government and moving at the speed of business. I just want to thank my colleagues from the various parties who are here today, as well as the Greens, who gave us unanimous consent to move fast on this. I hope we get it through and continue to meet at the speed of business for all of the first nations in Canada that want to be a part of this.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jenica Atwin]

Thank you, Mr. Battiste.

Mrs. Gill, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I will continue on the subject of hurdles.

Minister, you said earlier that certain nations perceive the act as a colonial. Obviously, I understand that if they don't participate in the consultations, it can be difficult to change the act. I also don't know if it is possible that the act may no longer be seen or construed as being colonial.

How do you think that the hurdles linked to the perception or interpretation of the act as a colonial instrument could be eliminated from this piece of legislation?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

What immediately comes to mind is that the government is pushing an act through its own Parliament so that levers may be used to make this a reality. These levers should exist in any event; they have been erased over the course of our rather difficult history with indigenous peoples.

In such a context, it's difficult to avoid that type of argument...

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

I don't wish to interrupt you, but...

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

In such a context, that is to say the legislative system at Parliament here in Ottawa, the act is the result of a collaborative process. We gathered the opinions of interested communities who sought to participate in order to underscore their right to self‑determination. If a community wants to impose a tax, it is up to that community. It's not up to Canada to do that.

I think there is also a tremendous lack of confidence in the government within these communities, whatever the political party in power. Even when you do manage to build some up, that confidence remains very fragile. You always have to build bridges. Obviously, this means communication.

The bill is reforming certain initiatives. I think that the document before you is in keeping with the spirit of co‑development, which in itself will inspire confidence and more importantly, give certain nations the desired access to capital by eliminating current hurdles.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Quickly, do you think that the bill, once it is passed, will do what it sets out to accomplish, given what you have just said?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

We will see what the Senate thinks, but I believe so.

There will always be work to be done. For example, we spoke of monetization and other challenges. This is the result of in‑depth work with our partners, and I am very proud of that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jenica Atwin]

Thank you, Mrs. Gill.

Ms. Idlout, you have two and a half minutes.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

For Bill C-45, the implementation process took a long time. The partners worked on this legislation with the first nations bands. You were working with them. Through the work you did with them, this legislation was created.

You say your government is important. You say you need to work in partnership with first nations, Métis and Inuit. You have to work in partnership with all the indigenous groups.

Why is this bill only being implemented at this time, when you say it is very important? Can you answer me? Why have we been waiting for this legislation for so long?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Nakurmiik for that.

We can always go faster. I think, in this case, it has been relatively quick. I would say, with the exception of the infrastructure institute.... I think it took some time for us to come around to it. You can create these entities, but if you don't secure the funding for them, their ability to engage and be at the height of expectations....

I want to thank the advocacy of Manny Jules for that. It's something that has been a brainchild of his. It did take some time. I think it took his advocacy and the advocacy of many others to convince the federal government this was the right thing to do.

I think that, sometimes, governments have a control problem. We don't like letting go. That requires trust and partnership. Having an infrastructure institute that would not necessarily be dependent on the federal government—or that could at least provide advice and the confidence indigenous communities require to get things built—is an element to that. This is an important day for people who have fought so hard for that.

Sometimes, governments take a little time to learn how to let go.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jenica Atwin]

Thank you, Ms. Idlout.

Mr. Zimmer, go ahead for five minutes.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

I think Mr. Schmale will be taking over.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jenica Atwin]

Sure.

Mr. Schmale, please proceed.

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

Thank you, Mr. Zimmer. That's so kind.

Thank you, everyone, for being here today.

I want to echo the words, Minister, that you said at the beginning. It's great work by every member here to move this piece of legislation through: Mr. Battiste, Madame Gill, Ms. Idlout and, of course, the team here.

My question goes to the process now. I believe we're expected to do clause-by-clause on Monday, so we'll wrap this up. Do we see a sense, on the government's side, that we'll have this on the agenda in the House to debate as soon as possible, before we rise in June?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

There are two things. I have a list of things we'd like you guys to pass by unanimous consent, if you so choose.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!