Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Oct. 5th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

You have six minutes.

[Larry Innes]

If I could put the first principles down, one is that it takes too long. The money comes too late, and the degree to which Canada's previous versions of this policy have insisted on certainty, in a world that is only becoming less certain, has created a degree of paralysis in negotiations where there's a desire to get it right for now and for forever, which is almost an impossible task. That has created delays.

As you know, the Government of Canada has recently adopted new policies, as my colleague Commissioner Haldane has indicated, which are based on the idea of rights recognition and the idea of treaties being documents that can be renewed over time. It seems to me that moving toward those policies and embracing them more quickly among all levels of government—so that it's not simply the federal government leading on these, with the territories and the provinces being dragged kicking and screaming into the discussion—would also help move these conversations forward in something resembling real time.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Thank you for that.

I want to pick up on something you mentioned about timing. I've heard from indigenous governments in the Northwest Territories that the lack of available federal negotiators is slowing down the process of negotiation. Is that something you've witnessed? Does that mean the government needs to address the human resources gap within the department so that negotiation meetings can be more productive and can happen with greater frequency?

[Larry Innes]

In fact, this is a problem with both the number of negotiators and the number of tables that are being staffed, but it's also the degree to which these negotiators are, I will say, no longer as empowered as they once were. In the early days of negotiations, going back to the 1970s and 1980s, negotiators had the trust of cabinet. They were empowered decision-makers who were there to make deals on behalf of government.

We have, unfortunately, moved into a system now where.... I mean no disrespect to my colleagues, but I often lose track of the number of federal officials who come to tables as chief negotiators only to be shuffled out some months later. That is no way to build relationships. That is no way to solve complex problems. It bureaucratizes and systematizes things that are, frankly, far more fundamental and that need to be far more relational and built on a senior relationship between leaders of governments toward solutions that can be achieved within the life of governments.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

This is my last question.

Can you talk a little bit about the importance of supporting indigenous stewardship of lands, and about how the conservation economy is a key component of economic reconciliation?

[Larry Innes]

Thank you. That's a question that I take great pleasure in going on about, again, at some length.

The transformation that is occurring across Canada as indigenous communities from coast to coast to coast reassume their responsibilities over the lands—stepping forward as guardians, as stewards, as monitors and reassuming their former roles as people who lived on those lands and who brought their knowledge and their laws to the management of those lands—is creating opportunity with good jobs that are meaningful and accessible to people in the places where they live. They no longer have to go south or elsewhere to work.

It's also bringing new investment in science, innovation and knowledge sharing, and bringing that spirit of innovation that is going to build indigenous economies in places where commercial opportunities of the scale we see in Squamish don't necessarily exist, but meaningful jobs can be created.

We know, from the work that is being done, both here and in other jurisdictions, that these jobs have incredible multipliers. The social impact of a well-paid guardian job in a remote community transcends that individual and their family, and it extends to the entire community, often with a multiple of four to six dollars returned in social value for every dollar invested. Those are investments that we can and should make.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

We're out of time. I thought we were in a five-minute round, so I gave Mr. McLeod some wrong information, but we're at the six-minute mark here. I'm sorry about that, Michael.

We will go now to Madame Gill.

Mrs. Gill, you have six minutes.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also want to thank all the witnesses.

Mr. Calla, you said earlier that returning land was one thing, but that you had to have the means to develop it. You also talked about inclusion and an indigenous development bank. You mentioned that you would be submitting a brief, if I'm not mistaken, later this year, if not early next year. Obviously, as a member of this committee, I would like to hear about it right now.

Could you share with us, not the content of this brief or what it might be, but what it might mean for first nations when the land is returned?

[Harold Calla]

Thank you for the question. I am happy to speak to some of it.

First of all, I will say that we've hired international experts who have worked on the creation of indigenous development banks all around the world to help us craft this report. The intention is to identify the viability of such an enterprise in Canada and what its purposes might be. First nations have never been allowed to develop wealth or have a balance sheet. We don't have the fiscal powers that other governments do, and we don't have the same kind of access that other governments do to the capital markets, easily.

Certainly, through the First Nations Fiscal Management Act, we've created the First Nations Finance Authority, which has used the oversight framework of the FMA to raise close to $2 billion on behalf of first nations over the last number of years, in New York.

We used to think that was a big number, but not anymore. The scale of economic development opportunities being considered now is in the multi-billions of dollars. The First Nations Major Projects Coalition and the First Nations Financial Management Board recently returned from London and Paris, where they went with the Minister of Natural Resources to talk about natural resource precious metals extraction, and the Major Projects Coalition identified that they have 19 billion dollars' worth of shovel-ready projects that they support ready to move in first nations communities.

First nations communities want equity in these entities because they want to be sitting at the boardroom table to have influence over how these things are being managed and undertaken. They also want to ensure that there are economic benefits flowing to them.

Because we haven't had the opportunity to develop wealth, Canada will need to step forward and, through some instrument or loan guarantee, support access to some of the resources that are going to be necessary to acquire the equity, but I don't believe that it needs to provide it all. Based upon conversations that we've had, our indications are that we could enlist the capital markets to also become a player. We want to do this in an aggregated way so that you don't have to start at square one of the project development process, and so that there is a place you can go where these matters can be considered.

The biggest value in this is getting to the final investment decision more quickly. That would include economic participation by first nations, and the private sector might understand better how that could be achieved without adding costs to the project. We think that's important, and I think an indigenous development bank can help do that.

The other thing that an indigenous development bank could do is provide support to first nations communities where they might not otherwise get it. I know that in British Columbia, during the 2008-12 period, when LNG was such a big factor, many of the communities in northern B.C. that were being approached and given referral letters didn't have the capacity to analyze what was being undertaken, and we actually supported them through the Financial Management Board with the creation of the First Nations Major Projects Coalition, but we're now at a point where these are significant interests.

I think what the international community is looking for is a clear indication that Canada has its house in order with regard to indigenous issues, that there is indigenous inclusion and that there is a pathway that doesn't take a decade to reach a final investment decision, or we're going to lose that opportunity again.

An indigenous development bank creates a risk management tool for the government to protect its investment. It may not have to be there for the life of the project, but to get it through the critical phase of proof of concept.

I hope that answers some of the question.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Calla.

Do I have a little more time left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Yes. You have about 35 seconds.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Innes talked about his experience in national parks. I think he also said that we shouldn't be afraid of land restitution, and that there were other examples outside Canada where this restitution has been successful, such as in Australia.

Could he give us any other examples we can trust and that might inform us so that we don't make the same mistakes and those who fear land restitution fear it less?

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

If you can, answer that briefly, Mr. Innes. We are near the end of the time. Madame Gill may need to pick this up in her next round of questions.

I'll give you about 30 seconds.

[Larry Innes]

The two examples of it set in Australia would be Uluru and Kakadu. Uluru was handed back 20 years ago. It's a national park in the centre of Australia. Kakadu, on the northern tip of Australia, was handed back in 2022.

Both of these are part of what they call native title settlements in Australia, which we would know as land claims in Canada. In those agreements, the indigenous government maintains ownership of the land, but it enters into long-term arrangements with the state to manage those lands going forward under a partnership or shared decision-making model.

Here in Canada, we've done very similar things. Parks Canada led the way with the Haida in what is now Gwaii Haanas, where there's a shared decision-making structure. Joint jurisdiction over those lands is recognized by both parties.

In the settlement of modern land claims, you see the large transfers of lands from Crown governments to indigenous governments with the recognition of their prior ownership, depending on the perspective you take. This then leads to the development and institution of indigenous laws over those lands, and the opportunities to create both jobs and wealth from those lands for those communities as a part of Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

We're going to have to cut it off there. Thank you so much.

Now we'll go to Ms. Idlout for her six minutes.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Thank you.

First of all, I want to thank everyone here. What you're reporting is very good to hear.

First, I want to ask Celeste Haldane about the bill the Conservatives passed to address the housing crisis. Their solution is to sell off federal lands to private housing developers. Can this bill be an infringement on the rights of indigenous peoples in areas where the land in question is unceded, or there are ongoing treaty negotiations?

[Celeste Haldane]

Thank you.

First, I want to acknowledge that this is how you end up in court: having legislation like that passed. I think there are better ways forward.

I will pick up, Harold, on what you mentioned with regard to the development that your nation is undertaking.

Other nations are also undertaking similar developments. I'm going to reflect on the Tsawwassen Nation, which is a modern treaty nation building between 8,000 and 10,000 residential units to address the housing crisis. Why I think that's so significant is that local communities are coming together to come up with solutions that are meeting local needs. When you have that type of thought process, I think it's better reflected versus a top-down, legislated process.

I would be very concerned with regard to the disposition of federal Crown lands when you have indigenous nations that have not settled treaties and that have an ongoing connection to the land. To me—and this is the lawyer in me coming out, so don't hold that against me—that is how you end up in long litigation and with areas of litigation that will not result in addressing the actual issue.

If we want to address the housing issue, I think there are better ways to move forward. Again, restitution is what we're talking about. We're talking about land back. When we have indigenous communities that have been ostracized and removed from their lands for the settlement of Canada, it flies in the face of what we're trying to achieve when it comes to reconciliation and building that new relationship based on trust and mutual respect.

I see a number of issues and challenges with that, particularly given the context in British Columbia—which is where my expertise lies—where we have 50% of first nations currently negotiating modern treaties. We have a huge level of uncertainty when it comes to access to lands and resources, as well as to ensuring that indigenous nations are able to have control over their territories.

This is outside of just the reserve lands. They have access, control, jurisdiction and law-making authority over their entire territory. If that also includes federal surplus lands or federal lands that we haven't had that negotiation about, we haven't resolved the issue. I think that would be very dangerous.

That's my perspective. I think there are ways forward, which would be negotiations.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Thank you for your response.

The next person I want to ask is Larry Innes.

It's good to see you. I recognize you. I want to ask you this.

I proposed Bill C-326. If this bill is passed, it would amend the Territorial Lands Act to make sure there is free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples before staking claims. They should be consulted and informed of their rights to vote.

Take, for example, the mining companies. Say there was a study done on mining exploration. In your opinion, how is free, prior and informed consent related to land rights? Does your community give free, prior and informed consent when being consulted on a project?

[Larry Innes]

Nakurmiik, Ms. Idlout.

I think your question hits on a really important topic, which is that when we think about lands so often we just look at the surface. Much of the wealth in this country is of course generated from minerals, from oil, from gas, and from all manner of things that are below the surface. We've had, since Canada, a system where those minerals and their wealth are purportedly reserved to the Crown. They are given over to mining companies and to developers through a process of mineral staking.

Just last week, in a decision of the B.C. Supreme Court, the province was found to violate the fundamental premise of consultation that exists in Canadian law and to fall far short, of course, of the standard of “free, prior and informed consent” as articulated in the UN declaration.

I think I'm on fairly solid ground when I say that our system of subsurface resources.... When we talk about restitution across the country, it's about reforming the mineral tenure systems to provide, in the first instance, for the consent of affected indigenous peoples in deciding what minerals can be explored and developed, and where, and then, most importantly, it's about sharing in the incredible wealth that can be derived from minerals as we look to the future economy, in which critical minerals and other things are going to be playing an important part not just in the wealth of Canada as a nation, but in the wealth of all the nations that make up Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

We're going to have to stop there. Thank you.

Our next round is a bit shorter. I was quite generous in this round in allowing a bit of extra time. This time we're going to have to be a bit tighter.

We'll start with Mr. Viersen, who has five minutes on the clock.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, if I have the indulgence of the committee, I'd like to just give notice of a motion, unless there's unanimous consent to let me move the motion.

Earlier this year, we had communities in Grouard and Kapawe'no First Nation whose church building was burned down. This is not the first church building in my riding that has burned down in the last few years. I would just like this committee to basically state its opinion, and that it be reported to the House.

The motion would be as follows: That it be reported to the House that the committee condemns the arson and attacks of over 80 churches across Canada; in particular, that it extends its condolences to the communities of Grouard and Kapawe'no First Nation for the loss of the St. Bernard church, one of the oldest churches in Alberta, a piece of history, a building that holds memories for generations of community members; and that this committee reaffirms the freedom of religion and assembly and calls for those responsible for these attacks to be brought to justice.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do have some questions for Mr. Harold Calla. It's good to see you again, sir.

You use the term “fiscal powers” often. One of the fiscal powers of any government is taxation. I'm just wondering if you have any comments around the fact that the Indian Act denies the ability of self-governments to use taxation as a form of fiscal power.

[Harold Calla]

To be quite frank, I'm not sure that it does. They can pass bylaws, but you get concurrent taxation in that case. That really defeats the purpose of it. I think that, as we look at modern-day self-governments, we have to realize that a government, by its very nature, is usually something that has defined boundaries and the powers to exercise fiscal measures within that defined boundary. I think we need to be in a position where we recognize that first nation governments can't be truly self-governing unless they have those same kinds of opportunities—which doesn't mean that we necessarily add another layer of tax to the Canadian tax system. What we mean is that other orders of government vacate the field so that first nations can move into that field, much like what happened in British Columbia in the area of property taxation, with the provincial government passing the Indian Self Government Enabling Act shortly after the 1988 amendment to the Indian Act, which clarified the ability for first nations to use property tax on reserve.

I think that self-governments, by themselves, have the ability, then, to collect revenue using their fiscal powers. That enables them to access capital markets, much like the Government of Canada and provinces and municipalities do. I don't know that the Government of Canada and others have to go to the bank and fill out a credit application to get a loan to meet their needs as they determine fit. First nations, as governments, have been what I call pay-as-you-go governments, where you get cash money and you pay for whatever you get in that fiscal year.

While maybe there were many days in which the federal government did that as well, they don't. The fact is that it's up to us to make the decisions in indigenous communities, if we need to provide the infrastructure, to be able to go to the capital markets and finance, to invest in our economies the way we need to invest in them. I think that fiscal powers are central to the concept of self-government and the options that need to be contained in there, but that does not necessarily mean, and should not mean, that we're adding another level of tax. It should mean that other orders of government are vacating the fields of tax where we exercise authorities.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

I think you made a little quip about balancing the budget. I'm not sure about that, but thank you for that as well.

I am pretty certain, though, that in the Indian Act, which your community may or may not be under, there is a moratorium on taxation. I thought you had explained this to me before. Can you just explain a little bit about that?

[Harold Calla]

We exercise property taxation on reserve, but we don't tax our members' housing. We tax the indigenous interest on reserve land. I wouldn't call it a moratorium. I would call it the exercise of fiscal powers, much like the provincial and federal governments offer many different incentives through their property taxation system to encourage certain types of activities that they would like to pursue.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you for that round.

We'll go now to Mr. Battiste, who has five minutes.