International Trade Committee on Sept. 18th, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the international trade committee. My name is Mark Eyking.

We had some meetings throughout the summer and are going to continue with our study on the future of trade with our North American partners. We have heard from many witnesses so far. We have done quite extensive travel in the United States, and next week the committee will be going to Mexico and the central United States.

Before we get under way, I'd like to welcome our three new committee members. As we brag, we are one of the most exciting, active, efficient, “get 'er done” committees on the Hill. You'll see how that works. We are here for Canadians, to work with Canadians, to help have more trade, and to help our economy grow.

Without further ado, I am going to start off. We have witnesses with us. As you know—the witnesses probably have had a heads up—you get a five-minute start to explain your case, and then we go to the MPs for dialogue.

I think we're going to start with the Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business and Max Skudra.

Go ahead, Max. You have the floor.

[Max Skudra, Director, Research and Government Relations, Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business]

Thank you.

Do we have five minutes and then questions after that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

No, everybody does five minutes, and then we'll open it up.

[Max Skudra]

Excellent.

Thank you for having me, and condolences on the loss of a parliamentarian.

I will cut right to it. I represent the Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business. We have a membership of more than 500 companies. Of those, 70% are aboriginal firms. We are the largest such business organization in Canada. We have been doing public policy research as well as corporate social responsibility in events and networking for aboriginal companies. The mission is to effectively connect corporate Canada with aboriginal firms. The 30% of our members who aren't aboriginal are some of the largest corporate players in Canada, including Suncor, Syncrude, IBM, Tim Hortons, etc. We bridge the gap between indigenous business and the indigenous economy and mainstream corporate Canada.

As I said, we do quite a bit of public policy research. Our findings, in partnership with Environics Research Group as well as TD Economics, have demonstrated that the aboriginal economy in Canada is booming. It is growing at a remarkable pace. There are roughly 43,000 aboriginal companies in Canada. Those companies have increased in the last five years. The profitability of those companies has increased by 15%. The number of profitable companies as well as the profitability has increased markedly.

The research we did with TD Economics demonstrates that aboriginal companies do more business abroad than the Canadian average and they introduce more new services, processes, or products to their firms than the Canadian average. Based on that, we would say that they innovate more than the Canadian average.

This significant growth is something that I think is overlooked in most of the Canadian discourse. I would say it's a significant bright spot in the relationship between indigenous Canadians and the broader society. We have been working for the last 30 years at CCAB to support and facilitate that growth.

What I would like to put forward to the committee is the importance of a number of very key things in the NAFTA renegotiations and as well in the broader policy context. We are quite concerned, obviously, because of the dependence and predominance of aboriginal companies that do business abroad and in the United States in particular, about anything to restrict that flow of trade across the border, as well as anything that would restrict the freedom of movement for indigenous peoples in businesses—in particular currently, set-asides for NAFTA.

That's the defensive position. The more offensive position that we see is that the current reservations in NAFTA allow for set-asides from the Canadian government to support aboriginal businesses. We would like to see that language expanded somewhat to be more reflective of what is in CETA. This would give the federal government a broader scope of action to support aboriginal businesses. What you see in Canada right now is firms such as Suncor or Bruce Power doing considerable work to support aboriginal businesses through procurement processes, companies such as TransAlta doing really innovative work to help with financing, and the Government of Canada federally being somewhat tied by trade policy. We would like to see that changed with the updated NAFTA.

We would also really like to put forward, as I'm sure some of my colleagues will as well, the point that there is a concern around intellectual property. We would be quite concerned about anything that negotiates away parts of indigenous intellectual property, which may not be on the top of the agenda or the first thing that comes to mind for the government when discussing this issue with the United States.

How am I doing for time? I usually don't do this in five minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

You only have half a minute, but we like the way you finished early.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

You know, there's a lot of time during questions and answers. You might have new thoughts and we're not that strict here.

[Max Skudra]

I can keep talking.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

We'll move on, and you'll have lots of time to speak as we go along. Thank you for your comments.

[Max Skudra]

Thank you, I appreciate it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

We're going to move on now to the International Inter-tribal Trade and Investment Organization, and Wayne Garnons-Williams who is the chair.

Go ahead, sir. You have the floor.

[Wayne Garnons-Williams, Chair, International Inter-tribal Trade and Investment Organization]

Good afternoon. Bonjour. Tanisi.

I'd like to acknowledge that we've gathered on the traditional territory of the Algonquin peoples.

I am chair of what we call IITIO. My core recommendation for you today as legislators is to enable enabling legislation for international inter-tribal trade. IITIO's raison d'être is to assist in the global flow and exchange of indigenous goods, services, and investments, while respecting its principles, which are respect for indigenous culture and teachings; establishing environmentally sustainable practices; informing, educating, and encouraging all parties to adopt these practices; fostering indigenous communities that are healthy, robust, and stable; and above all, growing indigenous economies.

Canada, the United States, and Mexico are countries founded on trade with their original indigenous peoples. The 1996 Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples comprehensive review issued priorities that included a vision of a renewed relationship based on the economy, lands and resources, and economic development.

Canada's legal obligations to indigenous peoples are basically duty to consult and accommodate under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and various comprehensive land claim settlements, which include an express treaty obligation to consult indigenous parties if their interests may be affected by new international treaties Canada is negotiating. In short, meaningful, full, and informed consultation is key.

Canada, Mexico, and the United States are all signatories to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which celebrated its 10th anniversary just last week. Article 19, to paraphrase it, is that the countries shall consult with indigenous peoples to obtain their free, prior, and informed consent on issues that may affect indigenous peoples. This is consistent with the Government of Canada's July 2017 statement to the 10 federal-indigenous relationship principles. I focus only on principles six and eight. Principle six is basically the free, prior, and informed consent. Principle eight is renewed fiscal relationships developed in collaboration with indigenous nations that promote a mutually supportive climate for economic partnership and resource development.

In previous NAFTA arrangements, as my friend was saying, Canada, Mexico, and the United States each inserted specific non-conforming measures that exempt specific sectors from the operation of NAFTA. The aboriginal affairs sector is one of them. A NAFTA indigenous chapter could include topics like traditional knowledge, not to be confused with intellectual property, inter-tribal trade, indigenous free passage rights, i.e., the Jay Treaty border crossing principles, market access, agriculture, rules of origin, dispute settlement, sustainable development, inter-tribal international investment, procurement, financing, labour, and HR. Again, we ask parliamentarians to pass enabling legislation for international inter-tribal trade.

In conclusion, I'd like to close with the following words of Justice Murray Sinclair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in his 2015 final report. He states:

Reconciliation calls for national action....

Laws must change.

Policies and programs must change....

The way we do business must change.

Members of the Standing Committee on Trade, reconciliation includes federal government recognition of pre-existing indigenous economic rights through enabling legislation for international inter-tribal trade.

Those are my comments, and I open it for questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, sir.

We're going to move on to the National Aboriginal Economic Development Board, and we have Dawn Madahbee Leach, the interim chair. Thank you.

Go ahead, you have the floor.

[Dawn Madahbee Leach, Interim Chair, National Aboriginal Economic Development Board]

Thank you. Meegwetch.

I would like to take a moment to acknowledge that we're gathered on the traditional territory of the Algonquin and Anishinabe people. I speak to you as interim chair of the National Aboriginal Economic Development Board.

Our board is made up of first nations, Inuit, and Métis business and community leaders from across Canada, whose mandate is to advise the whole of the federal government on indigenous economic development.

As you know, the Government of Canada now supports the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples without qualification. As the declaration celebrates its 10th anniversary, the board welcomes and congratulates the Government of Canada for taking this important step towards true reconciliation with indigenous people.

We urge the Government of Canada to take a bold and decisive leadership role in ensuring that a modernized NAFTA integrates indigenous rights and considerations into the very fabric of the agreement. Not only is this in keeping with Canada's stated commitment to a renewed relationship with indigenous peoples in Canada, but it is also consistent with Canada's commitment to promoting human rights, inclusion, and respect for diversity around the world.

During the first NAFTA negotiations in 1994, indigenous peoples in North America expressed different opinions. While some felt that trade liberalization would create economic opportunities, many felt that NAFTA would not benefit indigenous people as a whole. Many of the concerns stemmed from the fact that NAFTA was negotiated without proper consultation and participation of indigenous peoples.

Our board strongly believes that the success of this renewed agreement for indigenous peoples in Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. will hinge upon the process by which the agreement is negotiated, as well as meaningful engagement with indigenous peoples. This is the base requirement upon which the specifics of the terms and conditions of the agreement must be built.

Traditionally, our people had free and open borders. Trade between nations that today fall on both sides of the U.S. and Canadian borders was unencumbered, and there are numerous examples today of communities whose traditional territories exist on both sides of the border. The Jay Treaty of 1794 between the U.S. and Britain sets a precedent for the recognition of traditional indigenous practices and systems of trade, commerce, and mobility that existed long before European arrival to North America. The Jay Treaty recognizes and confirms our pre-existing rights—rights that are constitutionally protected.

For Canada, it is in this context of rights that a modernized NAFTA must be negotiated. In Mexico, since 1994, indigenous communities have faced human rights violations under the agreement through the loss of lands and livelihoods. Our board stands in solidarity with all indigenous communities across North America and urges the Government of Canada to lead in rectifying the issues that led to the violation of indigenous rights under NAFTA. An indigenous chapter is of critical importance to ensure that indigenous rights are inherent in the agreement.

Our board's report, called “Reconciliation: Growing Canada's Economy by $27.7 Billion” estimates that Canada's GDP would grow by 1.5%, or $27.7 billion per year, if barriers preventing indigenous Canadians from participating on an equal footing in the Canadian economy were removed.

In Canada, Supreme Court cases such as Tsilhqot'in versus B.C. have recognized aboriginal title to lands and resources, giving the first nations exclusive rights to the use of this land. Across Canada, indigenous ownership and control over large tracts of land that encompass significant natural resources is a reality that will likely grow, increasing indigenous land ownership and creating opportunities for international trade.

Much of northern Canada, for example, is governed by modern land claim and self-government agreements. These constitutionally protected agreements provide indigenous peoples in the north ownership of large tracts of land, as well as harvesting rights, capital transfers, and participation in land and water management regimes. Canada's north covers 40% of the country's land mass and is almost exclusively covered by land claim agreements.

The forestry sector—one of Canada's biggest trade industries, worth $22 billion annually—involves many indigenous communities and businesses. Across Canada, 58% of indigenous communities have a contract or a partnership with a forestry company. This creates immense opportunities for both indigenous communities and private natural resource companies to respond with innovative solutions domestically as well as across borders.

Besides forestry, indigenous businesses are directly involved in primary resource-related industries including fisheries and mineral development.

Through meaningful inclusion in NAFTA, indigenous peoples in Canada have a unique opportunity to grow our economy by harnessing the energy and expertise of indigenous communities across Canada.

An area of concern for our board in the current round of NAFTA renegotiations is procurement. Subnational procurement in Canada is worth an estimated $18 billion annually, and it is a significant contributor to indigenous economic development.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Excuse me. Would you mind wrapping it up a bit? We're way over time.

[Dawn Madahbee Leach]

Okay.

I just wanted to also say that the board encourages the Government of Canada to negotiate strongly for exemptions from the “buy American” requirements and to enhance Canadian and business access to procurement opportunities in the U.S. Indigenous minority suppliers in the U.S. are already provided with procurement opportunities that are substantial and measurable, and so should we be.

In closing I just want to say first that indigenous peoples' and indigenous corporations' access to economic opportunities must be protected, that economic development must be meaningfully supported through the inclusion of an indigenous chapter in the agreement, and that the federal government has committed to full implementation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission calls to action, including actions number 44 and 43, which call for full adoption and implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

I would welcome any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you very much.

We are going to get into dialogue with the MPs. We're starting off with the Conservatives. They have the first five minutes.

Mr. Carrie, you have the floor.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for being here today. This is such an important treaty. I'm going to try not to talk very much, which is extremely hard for politicians, but we have only five minutes.

You mentioned the Jay Treaty, and really when you think of it, indigenous people were the first free-traders. I'd like to know to what extent indigenous people have participated in the Government of Canada's consultation process, and on balance whether you think your views have been heard and considered.

[Dawn Madahbee Leach]

I know that the Jay Treaty discussion has been pretty extensive, because it's been very much a grey area here in Canada where we do have some borders that are pretty open for trade, especially amongst indigenous people across the borders, and it has not been an issue. We've had people in our area selling fish into the U.S., for example, but in some areas that wouldn't be allowed. It always depends on the border crossing.

I really think we need to clear up the area. It's not consistent. Looking at the spirit of the Jay Treaty and the fact that we have communities right on the border with people living in the same community, with the same chief and council, but with homes in different locations on the U.S. and Canadian borders, that's just how our people hunted in those areas. This really is an area where there ought to be more discussion to come to some sort of an agreement so that all parties, especially under the NAFTA discussions, clarify what the process would be.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Do you have any specific recommendations for us to bring forward?

[Dawn Madahbee Leach]

I think that the spirit of the Jay Treaty should be recognized. I think that if there are companies that are identified as being indigenous and are verified by their communities as being indigenous, they should be allowed to have that trade across the border. There could be a registry system for the companies that are allowed to trade. I think that's one thing.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I think Mr. Garnons-Williams wanted to add something.

[Wayne Garnons-Williams]

Yes,. Thank you.

My friend here is right in the sense that it's the spirit of the Jay Treaty because, as we all know, the Jay Treaty has no force or effect in Canada currently as a result of both judicial decisions saying Great Britain was a signatory and not Canada, and we've never passed enabling legislation to that effect. So there's that, but it's the principle behind it.

When you roll back the clock and you look at the fact that, back in 1794 when Great Britain, in what we know as Canada, and the United States were establishing a border, they realized they had whole bunch of indigenous people trading all over the place. We have, for instance, the Mohawk in what we now know as Ontario, Quebec, and New York. We have the Athabasca, who are in Alaska and Yukon. We have the Coast Salish in B.C. and Washington. We have the Colville Confederated Tribes and Okanagan in Washington and B.C. respectively. I could go all the way across the border and find first nations that have been cut in two. Some of them are vehemently trying to re-establish their links, but it's very hard because, of course, back then, when you roll back the time, you see the fact that the federal perspective on indigenous people back then was very “You're not citizens, you're not necessarily even people, and through manifest destiny, we're taking over.”

It's this new field that we're looking at to revisit the past. We can't move forward without acknowledging that what happened with respect to the Great Britain and the United States was an acknowledgement of the pre-existing economic right of trade, indigenous inter-tribal trade, embodied in the Jay Treaty.

I'll quote the Jay Treaty, if I could, just a very short little section:

...the Indians dwelling on either side of the said Boundary Line freely to pass and repass by Land, or Inland Navigation, into the respective Territories and Countries of the Two Parties on the Continent of America (the Country within the Limits of the Hudson's Bay Company only excepted) and to navigate all the Lakes, Rivers, and waters thereof, and freely to carry on trade and commerce with each other.

That is what it's all about, and to respect that is part of reconciliation, if Canada wants to put their money where their mouth is. That's why I'm saying pass legislation like what's happening in the United States with respect to the Jay Treaty. I mentioned the fact that the Jay Treaty was revoked because of the War of 1812 and then, as a result of a stalemate, the United States said, “Hey, why don't we pass legislation to support the principles of the Jay Treaty?”, which they did.

Section 289 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended in 1965, has embodied the spirit of the Jay Treaty in the United States, so it's not hard to imagine that Canada could pass legislation enabling inter-tribal trade between the nations and just clear that up, because the moment you do, then all the other departments have to get in line, customs, excise, and port authority. All of those organizations have to say, “Okay, great. Parliament wants this, we're going to make this happen.” Without that, you can see it, in the history of trying to move indigenous trade, getting hamstrung by the departments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, sir. We're way over time, but it was such a good dialogue, I let it keep going.

We're going to move over to the Liberals now.

Mr. Fonseca, you have the floor.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for your presentations. As I was listening intently, Mr. Skudra, you spoke to many of the successes that the indigenous peoples have had in terms of business success and in terms of trade. It's fabulous to hear that. I think, through the consultations that we've heard and we've received as a government, over 22,000 submissions have come in. Through many of those submissions and many of the conversations that have been had with indigenous peoples, the minister and our government proudly put forward having as a priority of ours an indigenous chapter within NAFTA, and we think this is terrific.

We're going to push forward with our table, with our trade negotiators. They're being informed by many of these discussions and conversations at the table.

If that chapter does not make it into that final agreement of NAFTA, what other options would you like Canada to pursue with our other two trading partners?