SoVote

Context: Subject Matter of Bill C-45, An Act to amend the First Nations Fiscal Management Act (INAN) - May/3/23

04:44:55 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Absolutely. I think we have to understand the premises and the conclusion, obviously, to try to state something that makes sense with respect to monetization. It's not the be-all and end-all, but certainly it is a lever that we're not using or having communities use to the full extent that they could, given the current model. There are some communities that don't have the good fortune of having those revenue streams or sources of income that they could then leverage into larger forms of financing. The basic premise of what is being advanced is that the current grant model that the federal government puts forward is not enough to close the gap in the period of time within which we all aspire to close it. There are other levers that we also have to examine, whether that's within the Infrastructure Bank, better access to equity as opposed to simply getting debt, looking at the grant model or looking at how it serves communities, especially those in the most need. But clearly—it's a long way to go to agree—I will agree with you on that point. We have to fully understand what particular stream of money it is that people are wishing to pledge against a larger set of a financial commitment. That is not entirely clear all the time in these discussions, but it is a very important one to have, because not all revenue streams can be subject to what these institutions are looking for.

257 words

Mr. Gary Vidal

04:46:27 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

In an interview with Paul Wells back in February, you talked about economic reconciliation in terms of how it can become a catchphrase. Can I just ask you what you meant by that?

33 words

Hon. Marc Miller

04:46:39 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Absolutely. That will probably take more time than the time allotted. I think we've had a nasty habit in government of picking winners and losers in indigenous communities. When you talk about economic reconciliation, often it has become an opportunity to ignore the elephant in the room, which often is the federal government not paying its long-overdue debts, the failure of which has caused the socio-economic gaps. Trying to plug that gap with new financial instruments without addressing the underlying causes of that socio-economic underdevelopment is, I think, a warning to us all because we've all been guilty of it. My only point is that you can't walk into the most prosperous community in Canada and say this model needs to apply everywhere else in Canada. I think that is a warning to all of us when we try to use indigenous communities to augment our own political positions. That was the long explanation.

160 words

Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)

04:47:43 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Minister, welcome. It's great to have you here. This is the first time since I've joined the committee that I've been able to be here with you present. It's great to see you. Welcome to the officials, and thank you for also being here today. Because I'm fairly new to this committee, I'd like to start with a bit of a high-level question, just to get your thoughts on why this piece of legislation is important to reconciliation in Canada. We've heard that the act itself has been in place since 2005. Now we're in 2023 and we're putting forward a number of amendments. Why is it at this point in time that this legislation is needed? Could you give us a sense of that? Particularly if there are others who are new to the table or watching who may be interested in why this legislation is before the House, it would be great to hear from you on that.

170 words

Hon. Marc Miller

04:48:34 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you. It's an excellent question. Even though it is relatively recent in the arc of legislation that deals with indigenous communities, it has been and still is seen as one that is very progressive: namely, in what we aspire to be as a country, which is in a position of equals with indigenous communities. One of the first things you see when you talk about that position of equals is the reality of the socio-economic gaps that have put us and particularly the Government of Canada in a position of power. You talk about nationhood, and “nation to nation” presumes a relationship of equals. When that socio-economic relationship isn't the case, it creates the outcomes that we are seeing today. A lot of these pieces of legislation were put forward by very progressive members who were indigenous and had a vision of how their own communities, in the circumstances of being subject to the Indian Act, could get out of some of the more onerous and heavy provisions of the act and take control over their assets and over the future of their peoples. They were put in place with that spirit in mind, whether those were views on how you would get revenue from your own ability to tax or on the availability of capital. We know that in our history indigenous communities have had less access to capital than non-indigenous communities. All these instruments were put in place with that in mind, but things have changed quickly in the last 20 years. For example, there have been demands—and I think one of the key pieces is the infrastructure institute—to have a centre of excellence for how infrastructure is built in communities and run by indigenous peoples. Also, there are some changes to the legislation that are the result of advocacy over that period of time and, very recently, in particular when it comes to the 350-plus communities that are scheduled. Not all those communities availed themselves of every instrument under this suite of legislation, but it does represent a real consensus among indigenous communities that have signed on as to what is needed to reform it and get more access to capital through some of the legislative changes. One of the important ones I would highlight, which we're still working on, is that we have a set of modern treaties and relationships and we need to make sure they have full access to all the levers that exist under these tools.

427 words

Mr. John Aldag

04:51:05 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you. One of the things I noticed when we had the panel here on Monday was that many of the progressive councils or bands you mentioned that were drivers behind this were from British Columbia, an area I come from. I was really pleased to see that the first nations in British Columbia were at the forefront of this. We heard from one of the witnesses on Monday about how we need to have instruments that allow the nations to work at the speed of business. That was a theme that came up. One of the issues, as I understand it, is that the legislation is an important first piece but there are regulations will need to follow in order to fully implement the suite of tools that are available here. In that spirit of operating at the speed of business, could you give us some reassurance or a sense of what that looks like? Once we get the legislation in place, how long will it take to fully implement the other pieces that will be needed to allow the participating nations to avail themselves of the tools they have?

191 words

Hon. Marc Miller

04:52:12 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

It's an excellent question. I'll answer it partially and then defer to Chris. We've seen that one of the biggest points of advocacy we hear from communities is the functional inability at times to have their bylaws enforced. In this piece of legislation, there is a suite of bylaws, for example, that will allow communities to have bylaws that have teeth and to therefore access the capital that is needed and have those relationships with communities that they don't have, or that their non-indigenous partners take for granted. That allows folks to move at the speed of business when it comes to some of the regulations when they are going to be fully in place. Do you want to speak a bit about that, Chris?

130 words

Mr. Christopher Duschenes (Director General, Indigenous Institutions and Governance Modernization, Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs)

04:53:02 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you, Mrs. Chair. Thank you, Minister Miller. The legislation does provide for the provisions for regulations to be created. One of the very interesting and big successes of the legislation is that since it was enacted, there has been more and more interest in joining into the legislation, which then results also in the need to create more regulations specific to those target groups that are expressing interest. Modern treaty holders and self-government communities are the ones that have expressed from the very beginning the most interest in getting in on the act. Creating those regulations is a long and complicated process. We have made great headway recently on those regulations. There will be more regulations created in the future. We hope that in relatively short order those regulations will be in place. That was precipitated by two first nations in your province, so the regulations will be very specific. One of the challenges on the regulatory front is that each time they are created, they have to be tailored very much to the situation at hand, so our colleagues at Justice have done yeoman's work with the province and with first nations in doing that tailoring to make sure it's legally sound and implementable, but it is a slow process.

215 words

Mrs. Marilène Gill (Manicouagan, BQ)

04:54:33 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to thank the minister and his team. I have many questions, as always. The first question is about economic reconciliation for all. I asked the question last Monday. First nations can participate in the First Nations Fiscal Management Act, but not Métis and Inuit nations. We're not there yet. I was wondering where the difficulty lies in those cases. What is planned for the future? I'm not asking for a complete timeline, but I would like to know what the possibilities are for those nations over the next few months and years.

103 words

Hon. Marc Miller

04:55:24 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Given that participation isoptional, it will be up to those nations to decide. Historically, this type of legislation has stemmed from our relationship with first nations and not with the Inuit and the Métis. The federal government has only recently recognized the Métis. That means that their access to capital is even more recent. The Métis have their own financial institutions and know what they want to do. If they want to be part of the system, we will welcome them. As to the Inuit communities, I do not foresee any obstacles, apart from two or three challenges due to the necessary coordination between the legislation and modern treaties. There's nothing insurmountable there. Political factors could come into play. There is no legal obstacle stemming from the act as it stands.

138 words

Mrs. Marilène Gill

04:56:42 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you. I also have a question about first nations. As you stated, participation is indeed optional. Up until now, 348 nations have participated, unless I am mistaken. You also spoke of hurdles that keep certain nations from participating or mean that they don't get the results they might have expected. Will the proposed amendments to the First Nations Fiscal Management Act eliminate the hurdles for the nations that are hesitant to participate or would like to do so, but are not able to? Once again, I do know that participation is optional.

95 words

Hon. Marc Miller

04:57:38 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

I can only presume that that is indeed the case, obviously, because the nations are the ones who do the work and who have highlighted the existing hurdles. Out of the 348 nations, only 77 have had access to capital, which translates to about $1.6 billion. That is the clear objective of the act as is stands. My answer is therefore a simple yes.

67 words

Mrs. Marilène Gill

04:58:02 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Monday, I was told that the people who had been consulted are members of first nations that were already participating under the act. This leads me to believe that some nations did participate and did not receive any funding. We've got the nations that were consulted, but what about those that weren't. I am guessing that if those nations aren't participating, it's because of obstacles. Maybe the act isn't attractive to them either. I can't say, and it's not up to me to do that. However, I wonder why you didn't consult them, if you hope to offer them the best possible choice of development tools. My question is basically about the nations that aren't participating under the act.

128 words

Hon. Marc Miller

04:58:39 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

There are a large number of communities listed in the schedule, but not all of them are. Some communities see the act as colonial. Some communities have another vision of their self-determination, and others are experiencing difficulties that keep them from participating. We will indeed have to keep up our efforts to be as inclusive as possible. I think the leaders of these organizations would be the first to say so.

72 words

Mrs. Marilène Gill

04:59:20 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Okay. These nations weren't consulted, but we still know that...

11 words

Hon. Marc Miller

04:59:25 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Not to my knowledge. But they might have been consulted through the band.

13 words

Mrs. Marilène Gill

04:59:27 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

It would be interesting to consult them afterwards. However, I do understand that it is a huge undertaking and that some considerations, whether they be ideological or political, can mean certain communities will choose not to participate under the First Nations Fiscal Management Act. Obviously, that is also their choice. You said in your opening statement that certain hurdles have been eliminated. Setting aside those that are linked to the infrastructure project, what are the main hurdles that have been eliminated thanks to the amendments proposed in bill C‑45?

92 words

Hon. Marc Miller

05:00:01 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

It's mainly hurdles in terms of flexibility. The act still had a lot of impediments that gave more authority to the federal government. Now the communities will have more flexibility, more room to manoeuver in seeking access to capital. More services will be provided. Institutions are taking a closer look at the consultations that we have done over the past few years and aim to make changes in keeping with the needs of communities who want better access to capital. Bill C‑45 gives rise to tremendous hope. The communities have been waiting for it for a long time now, and I would be thrilled if you could speed up its passing. I know that the Senate will also have a say, but we would be most grateful.

131 words

Ms. Lori Idlout

05:02:12 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:] Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Minister Miller, for your presence, and thank you to your colleagues, as well. I'm glad to see everyone here. The presentation you just provided was nice to listen to. You worked with first nations organizations in creating and implementing this bill. However, we all know we need other amendments to the bill. For instance, The Hill Times newspaper had an article regarding inadequate infrastructure due to a lack of proper funding in the amount of $349.2 billion. With the $349.2-billion envelope, and thinking of the laws or bills that will be amended, what other infrastructure will be created? How will this envelope of funding help reduce the gap in infrastructure?

127 words

Hon. Marc Miller

05:03:42 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you, MP Idlout. It's important to take a step back when we talk about this suite of legislation. It is only part of the conversation, for sure. Even the discussions on monetization are ones where certain communities would benefit from it and, clearly, others might not. The way the government has dealt with infrastructure gaps in the past has been insufficient. When it has, it was typically through a grant model. When you're talking about the vast sums of money that are needed to close that infrastructure gap, the reasoning you have heard from a number of officials is that the grant model is not sufficient. I don't know that to be the case. When you look at the suite of tools that exist for indigenous communities to access capital, we certainly have to have an equal amount, if not more than what non-indigenous communities have, particularly given the Government of Canada's direct obligation to close those socio-economic gaps, and our existing fiduciary duties. We have seen in the last couple of budgetary cycles vast amounts of infrastructure monies. In the case of your constituency, and the people you serve, MP Idlout, that work will transform some communities, but there is so much more to do, whether it's redoing the infrastructure in Iqaluit for the water, or whether it's getting the housing built. I spoke to the premier about that yesterday. These are all things that, if we relied solely on the institutions supported by this legislation, would never happen. You need direct support from the Government of Canada in making sure that actually gets done. How does that get done? It gets done through consistent investments from the Government of Canada and making sure we are closing those gaps in the way the Inuit Nunangat policy tells us to behave, which is in co-development and in the spirit of self-determination. That requires constant co-operation with, in your case, NTI and the Government of Nunavut. We have good relationships with them, but we know the money is still needed out there. It will have to come through grant models. Leveraging the Infrastructure Bank is one aspect. Opening up some flexibility in terms of the availability of capital is another one. We have taken some small steps in that regard. Given the seriousness and the importance of that gap, we have to have all options on the table. This will play its part, I think, and a very important part, but it is very much only one part of the conversation.

432 words

SoVote

Government bills