Evidence of meeting #92 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Federal Negotiations Manager, Negotiations - Central, Treaties and Aboriginal Government, Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
You're correct. It simply says that this is the mechanism through which the tax treatment agreements are given effect.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
In essence, whatever the relationship between the Government of Alberta and the federal Government of Canada, the Government of Alberta would have the same tax treatment as this.
Federal Negotiations Manager, Negotiations - Central, Treaties and Aboriginal Government, Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
I think that's an accurate statement, Mr. Viersen, if I follow your question.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
The income that Alberta gets isn't subject to income tax in the same way.
Federal Negotiations Manager, Negotiations - Central, Treaties and Aboriginal Government, Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
The intention is that the Métis governments would be given similar tax exemptions as those of, for example, the Government of Alberta.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
That's a good thing.
I'm hopeful that these governments run surpluses, unlike the federal government here, which seems to be running deficits. It's definitely running deficits.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
I stand in awe of the shamelessness here. I'm not talking about revelations; we knew this already. This something else.
Liberal
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
It's a point of levity. I think this is more a point of levity.
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
It's once again on relevance to the specific clause. I would say that this argument is not helpful. It's irrelevant.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
No, I don't think so.
This is a thing on tax treatment agreements. I think the deficit spending was entirely in line. I'm pointing out that I'm hopeful the Métis governments can run a surplus and not have to pay taxes. I'm happy about that.
I would just point out that I hope the federal government can start to run surpluses, though I'm glad that the government doesn't have to pay taxes either.
Yes, that totally makes sense. I think I can support this portion. Thanks.
Conservative
Gary Vidal Conservative Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
Thank you, Chair.
I think it was Mr. Schintz who said this, but I'm not sure which of you said it now, to be honest with you. Did I hear, and am I understanding, that in approving this clause in this piece of legislation—if passed—we're providing agreement for something that is going to be negotiated in the future, but we don't know exactly what that something is yet?
I just want to understand it. If we're approving something, are we giving somebody a blank slate? Are we taking the Etch A Sketch, giving it a shake, saying “Do whatever you want”, and we're already approving it?
That's what I heard. I might be wrong.
Federal Negotiations Manager, Negotiations - Central, Treaties and Aboriginal Government, Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
I understand. I'll do my best to clarify, Mr. Vidal.
Federal Negotiations Manager, Negotiations - Central, Treaties and Aboriginal Government, Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
One point I would make about tax treatment agreements is that they're time-limited agreements.
I will reiterate that they're negotiated by Finance Canada.
Federal Negotiations Manager, Negotiations - Central, Treaties and Aboriginal Government, Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
These are time-limited agreements, and they deal specifically.... The intention is to give these governments the same tax exemptions we provide to other governments in Canada.
Federal Negotiations Manager, Negotiations - Central, Treaties and Aboriginal Government, Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
As you'll see, the intention behind 14, the next clause, is to clarify that those tax treatment agreements are not protected by the Constitution. They are simple side agreements to deal with the basic tax exemptions that we provide to other governments in this country. That is the scope of what these clauses consider.
It's true that there aren't added constraints on this section. There is a history of these kinds of negotiations. The Minister of Finance has a mandate to negotiate these, and there's a scope to that mandate. These really are specific to the tax exemptions of the government and the tax treatment of these governments.
Conservative
Gary Vidal Conservative Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
I don't see anything nefarious in this, but it seems odd to me that we're approving something that's going to happen in the future without ever.... It's a little bit like my colleague's request for the treaty to come back for some oversight. Is it common in all kinds of agreements that there's no mechanism for it to come back for any kind of perusal or approval and that the approval is done in the negotiation between Finance Canada and the government? Is that simply the end of the story?
December 14th, 2023 / 5:05 p.m.
Federal Negotiations Manager, Negotiations - Central, Treaties and Aboriginal Government, Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
The intention is that this is the mechanism to give that tax agreement effect. That's why it's included in the legislation.
