Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 12th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We are back. I call the meeting back to order.

We have a new panel. I would like to advise our witnesses for the second panel that we have a motion on the floor. Hopefully we will get an opportunity to hear your opening statements, but we currently have a motion on the floor. We suspended previously and we will go back to that point in the meeting.

Before I go back to Mrs. Stubbs, I have a point of order from Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

As an act of simple respect for our witnesses, who have expertise on really important legislation, I would ask Mrs. Stubbs if she could hold off and allow the witnesses to testify so that we have them on the record. They've taken their time to do this. She can then go back, take the floor and do what she's going to do.

It's really important that we get this witness testimony, and I think it would be really disrespectful to the role that's been given to us to not let the witnesses speak first.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Angus, for your point of order.

Mrs. Stubbs has the floor, so if we have unanimous consent from colleagues to allow the witnesses to speak, we can proceed with witness testimony and then go back to where Mrs. Stubbs left off. I will defer to my colleagues around the table.

Do we have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Angus, for providing that, but we do not have unanimous consent around the table. I will go back to Mrs. Stubbs.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I'm sorry. Just to clarify—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Angus, do you have a point of order?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I have a point of order just to clarify that.

Because I'm virtual, I didn't see it. I understand that the Conservatives are not allowing the witnesses to speak on legislation for Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Show up and you can see who it was, Charlie.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Angus, can you hold for a second, please, on your point of order? You are correct. We did not have unanimous consent to allow the witnesses to speak, but I know Mr. Patzer is back for the second hour.

I gave a little speech earlier in the meeting today, Mr. Patzer. I did. I gave a speech to members earlier.

Colleagues, when a member is speaking or if the chair is speaking, let's not have multiple mics turning on. It is very difficult for our interpreters to interpret, and we want to make sure that they can do the great job they always do of interpreting. However, if they can't hear the individual or see them being able to speak, it's very difficult for them.

I'll ask, colleagues, once again. We're starting the second panel. Mrs. Stubbs had the floor, and we will go back to Mrs. Stubbs. She can continue from where she left off.

Mrs. Stubbs, I'm going back to you now. Go ahead. The floor is yours.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's interesting to see MP Angus blocking discussion about an initiative that would benefit indigenous people in communities all across the country, when he talks about lots of things that are going wrong but chooses to prop up the Liberal government anyway.

I will just continue to wrap up my comments as efficiently as possible, which of course will happen better without interruption. I know that it's important to every Canadian and every community and person invested in energy development of all kinds in all parts of this country.

Before I talk about a couple more of those indigenous voices that Charlie Angus and the Liberals around the table are trying to silence, while they also don't acknowledge the fact that it's their own government motion that pushed Bill C-49 behind Bill C-50. In fact it was my November 1 motion that asked this committee to get the government to fix Bill C-69 and then immediately move to work to move on Bill C-49, so that the government didn't pass a bill as written that has multiple sections the Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional. It would obviously cause uncertainty and invite immediate litigation on a number of grounds if they passed Bill C-49 as it's written.

No doubt I certainly appreciate and value the opportunity to fix Bill C-49 so that it will do what its proponents say they want, except that as of now, of course, the bill is one of additional red tape, lack of clarity and uncertainty that will block both traditional oil and gas and renewable offshore energy development.

To explain why the common-sense Conservative endorsement of this first nations resource charge is important, let's talk a little bit about the organization. It is important to note that it will build on the most successful first nation-led legislative initiatives in history, the First Nations Fiscal Management Act and the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management, and of course there are now over 400 first nations using one or both frameworks.

I'm going to really put a fine point on why this optional tool is so important. It will especially help smaller first nations communities with capacity challenges and fewer resources to be able to bring home all of those economic and multiple other kinds of benefits from pursuing responsible resource development through this “reconciliACTION” initiative that Conservatives are proposing. It will help smaller communities to negotiate with big companies and law firms to secure benefits and opportunities.

To that end, I want to share the words of Chief Sharleen Gale who's from Fort Nelson First Nation in B.C. and she's the chair of the First Nations Major Projects Coalition. She says,

For too long, our people and governments have been left out of the resource bounty of this land. Many of our nations and members want to be part of the resource economy. They want careers, business opportunities, and equity stakes in resource companies. The First Nations Resource Charge finally means our fiscal jurisdiction over the resources on our lands is implemented. The Resource Charge will mean we can increase the economic benefits to our members and regions, improve services and infrastructure and close the gaps with the rest of Canada sooner.

The chief and other members of the Doig River First Nation in B.C. say it's ridiculous that the smallest governments must navigate the most complex negotiations. They say:

We want to implement a charge like other Canadian governments to streamline business. The Resource Charge is going to provide the kind of revenues we need to have the water, health care, education, and opportunities that every other Canadian takes for granted.

They also say:

We have many resource projects in our territory. The current process for negotiating financial compensation for First Nations takes too long, and it costs too much. We are small administrations. We cannot respond and negotiate in a timely way. It costs us hundreds of thousands of dollars. Our time is scarce. It costs Canada tens of billions in lost investment every year. The FNRC changes this. It is a pre-specified standardized charge for doing business in our territory—whether that is forestry, mining, hydroelectricity, oil and gas or any other resource project.

That captures especially well why our common-sense Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre and the Conservative Party of Canada are urging the government to support this optional first nations-led tool.

Chief Donna Big Canoe, who was in Vancouver, from the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation in Ontario, says:

Confederation in 1867 divided everything between federal and provincial governments, treating us as if we didn’t exist—wards of the state—leading to poverty, dependency, and the existence of residential schools for years. The solution is to bring First Nations into the federation by granting us tax powers to exercise our own jurisdiction. The First Nations Resource Charge aligns with this goal.

I'm mindful of Councillor Strater Crowfoot from the legendary Crowfoot family from the Siksika Nation in Alberta, who also supports this initiative. He says:

In 1989, we passed amendments to the Indian Act that gave First Nations the option to assume tax room and service responsibilities on reserve lands. A lot of people thought it was minor and would never amount to much. Other people thought we simply weren’t capable of carrying out such responsibilities. That, to me, is the most dangerous form of discrimination. Other people thought it was some plot to hold First Nations back. But First Nations all over the country proved the naysayers wrong. A lot has changed since then and for the better. I was there in ‘89, so I know. And I’m proud to be here now. This is going to allow many First Nations who were unable to take advantage of that earlier initiative to become more self reliant and more self-determining. It’s also a major step in acknowledging our rights and obligations over our historic lands. I welcome the Leader of the Opposition for supporting this, and I hope every political leader in the country will support this. It’s the right thing to do for First Nations and for the country too.

I will conclude, Chair, with a couple of other comments by indigenous leaders who've been involved in the work of developing this proposal, and I urge the members of Parliament and the House of Commons to consider supporting it.

Chief Darren Blaney from the Homalco First Nation in B.C.—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mrs. Stubbs, I want you to hold onto that quote until you can get it in. We have a point of order from Ms. Jones.

Ms. Jones, go ahead on the point of order.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm wondering if Mrs. Stubbs might want to outline her position on UNDRIP as well in bringing forward this motion. They're connected in terms of upholding the rights of indigenous peoples. I understand that they voted against UNDRIP, so I'd like to know what her views are on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Ms. Jones, for your point of order.

That is a very important consideration, although it is a part of debate. I would just ask all colleagues to use a point of order for a matter of procedural relevance, although I would like to—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you. We have a point of order from Mr. Angus.

Mr. Angus, go ahead with your point of order.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I'll repeat what I said in the previous session when our witnesses, who brought such expertise, were so disrespected and not allowed to participate.

I will ask that our witnesses be excused so they don't have to put up with this gong show. I would like to ask them if they would send us in writing any thoughts—

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I have a point of order.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

—about the legislation. Bill C-49 is very serious legislation for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. The Conservatives are determined to block it, but our witnesses should not have to put up with this. They have better things to do. They're experts in their fields, and I apologize to them that they're witnessing this. I would ask that they send us anything that we can use so that, when we get this committee back on track, we can use their testimony.

Again, I'd like to apologize for this embarrassment.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Angus, thank you for your point of order.

We are scheduled, and I am hoping we will get to the witnesses at some point to get opening statements, but we may not. Witnesses can provide statements in addition to the opening statements.

I offer my apologies to all the witnesses who are waiting patiently to provide opening statements. I do hope we'll get there, but it's not up to me. It's up to our colleagues who have a motion on the floor.

I will go to the point of order from Mr. Patzer.

Mr. Patzer, go ahead on your point of order.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You know, as a recurring theme with this committee, Mr. Chair, I would ask you to remind Mr. Angus to be judicious in his words, because I'm not too sure what he meant by a “gong show”. Is he calling the first nations resource charge a gong show, or was he referring to my colleague as a gong show? Either way, that is a completely ridiculous and absurd thing for him to say. I would hope that he would reconsider the words he chooses next time.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you for your intervention on the point of order, Mr. Patzer.

I would ask all colleagues, as we have a good working environment here, to make sure that we use language that is appropriate when dealing with others and not use language that targets or misinterprets anything anybody else says.

On that, I will go back to Mrs. Stubbs.

Witnesses, if Mrs. Stubbs does finish up or we do get unanimous consent to allow you to proceed first, we will get there. If not, we will proceed back to Mrs. Stubbs on her motion.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thanks, Chair.

Of course, the sooner people stop interrupting me, the faster I will be able to amplify and share the voices of the indigenous people who want this initiative, for the benefit of indigenous communities and all Canadians right across the country, as well as for the benefit of the future of responsible resource development in Canada, which is so integral to our economy.

Chief Darren Blaney of the Homalco First Nation, B.C., said, as I was saying before I was interrupted:

It is our responsibility to act as stewards and guardians of our lands and waters in a balanced way. Our connection to the lands and waters runs deep, but we also know the importance of economic opportunity. Homalco has projects and businesses that work towards this balance—whether it is forestry, tourism, or fishing. There is a proposed $10 billion hydroelectric dam in our territory. The Resource Charge doesn’t mean we won’t say no to bad projects where the costs to us are too high. It could mean, however, that good projects happen faster. This is what we all want. We want to continue to open up good, quality economic opportunities and participate meaningfully in projects in our territories.

Grand Chief Mike Lebourdais of the Whispering Pines First Nation in B.C., who has been a very outspoken leader about the importance of energy development to indigenous communities, including fighting for the pipelines that have been killed or delayed by this Liberal government, said:

The Resource Charge is a First Nation led initiative. Whispering Pines and many other First Nations want to be in the business of doing business. We don’t want to be in the business of negotiating how we should do business. The First Nations Resource Charges means less time negotiating and more time raising our quality of life to national standards.

Councillor Thomas Blank from the Tk’emlúps in B.C., with whom I had a wonderful conversation in Vancouver on Thursday, said:

Tkemlups has led First Nation tax initiatives for the last 50 years. The First Nations Resource Charge builds on what made our previous tax proposals work. What if instead of the federal government collecting money, and then negotiating with First Nations how much they get and how they spend it, we just let First Nations collect it and make their own decisions? It worked for urban First Nations, like [one of their communities] with property tax and property transfer tax. We know not all First Nations have a location advantage, but many have resource development opportunities on their territories. Let’s make it work for rural First Nations with the First Nations Resource Charge.

Jean-Claude Therrien Pinette, from an Innu community, said, “We recently participated in a conference on the initiation of the First Nations Resource Charge organized by the First Nations Tax Commission. This initiative makes sense for us. We have many industries on our traditional territories. Gone are the days when we simply received offers of low-paying jobs. We expect to receive a share of tax benefits and charges, as do other governments. That’s why we support the resource tax proposal.”

Let me close with comments from Dale Swampy, president of the National Coalition of Chiefs. He said, “We think it is the First Nations that should be leading the development of Canada’s natural resources to show how these partnerships with industry can ensure environmental protection and sustainable practices...more First Nations support the natural resource sectors, like oil and gas, than oppose it”.

I do certainly hope that all the witnesses get a chance to speak today and give their comments. I want to make sure they are invited—and know that they should and ought to, because it will allow them to give more comprehensive information—to submit written submissions and their recommendations for any amendments to C-49. We certainly will all take that into account.

As of right now, we very efficiently could resolve this, Mr. Chair, by putting a vote to the committee. To that end, I would ask the Liberal, NDP and Bloc members of this committee to support this common-sense motion. I ask for that full support in order to help bring home this optional step in the right direction, in a good way, towards economic reconciliation for indigenous communities to gain opportunities in ownership, equity, contracting and so many others in responsible resource development.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mrs. Stubbs.

I do have a speaking order on the motion that I've identified from hands that were raised, so now I will proceed to the next speaker on the list, who is Mr. Aldag.

Mr. Aldag, go ahead.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Thank you.

First of all, for any witnesses from the first panel and for those who are on the second, my comments will be brief, but I would like to begin by apologizing for this diatribe that we've all been subjected to by the lack-of-common-courtesy Conservatives. It is astounding that, every time we have credible witnesses here, this is the type of filibustering that we are subjected to.

I would like to make a few comments on the content of the motion. I would point out, first of all, that our government, the Liberal government, is intent on advancing reconciliation and supporting indigenous peoples in participating in and benefiting from natural resource projects, especially those on indigenous territories, and this remains a top priority for our government.

We believe that it is fully important to move forward with the full engagement of indigenous communities, including meaningful consultation. I'm very concerned that the Conservatives are trying to advance this motion. I'm curious about what kind of consultation went into it. At the committee here, we have not had any sort of study on this matter that's part of the motion being dropped on us. We've had no witnesses. There's been no report produced by this committee.

Reconciliation is an important issue that deserves fulsome and meaningful consultation and discussion with those directly impacted. In this case, it's with indigenous communities across Canada.

I would note that the first nations resource charge is not defined, and that's a problem. There's no mention of Inuit or Métis communities, so it's concerning that the Conservatives would omit those very important groups from this motion.

I find it also very concerning that this filibustering on a very important study comes the first day back after we had the first round of debate in the House on the first nations clean water act. We had a Saskatchewan Conservative MP, Kevin Waugh, who made extremely offensive comments and allegations during his party's first intervention on that legislation that first nations were burning down their own water treatment plants and that they weren't educated enough to operate them.

This is a completely baseless and offensive claim, but it's not surprising, because the leader of the official opposition himself has said that residential school survivors need a stronger work ethic. I'm not surprised that the Conservatives will resort to these kinds of baseless claims and use whatever straws they can reach to try to stall Bill C-49.

I find it particularly offensive that first nations are being used as pawns in this filibuster today by the Conservatives.

I would like to point out that the Conservatives had the opportunity to demonstrate through actions that they were meaningful supporters of indigenous issues in Canada, but they voted against $4 billion in indigenous housing. They voted against UNDRIP legislation. They voted against the indigenous loan guarantee program. They voted against first nations water and infrastructure funding. They voted against equity investment funds for indigenous governments. It's very concerning that these are the kinds of actions we see, although it's frankly quite unsurprising that these are their actions.

I really do believe that we have important discussions that we'd like to have today, so at this point I would like to move to adjourn debate.