SoVote

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

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

Ms. Lori Idlout

05:06:42 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:] We know that over 300 first nations organizations, or their local bands, have wanted to be included in this bill. Can you explain why other first nations people and their bands would not want to be included in this bill, although it seem to be helpful?

53 words

Hon. Marc Miller

05:07:25 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

I think there are probably a number of reasons, which I probably won't do justice to. I alluded to it a little when I answered MP Gill's question. There are some communities that don't feel they should be subject to this type of regulation from the Government of Canada, regardless of the potential benefits it offers. There are perhaps others that don't feel it's for them for a variety of reasons. There are probably others that are still not comfortable or have challenges with capacity in even getting to the table. I think that is where Indigenous Services and Crown–Indigenous Relations play very important roles in working with communities. Those are often the stories of the have-nots. I have no particular answer to offer you, but as you can see in the number, it is not an exclusive club only for the haves. I've had conversations with leadership in these groups where they have engaged with communities that are not part of this or not scheduled, and they are eager to help and get out there. For lack of a better word, I think there is a convincing job to do for those communities that are hesitant. I don't want to speak on their behalf, because I know that there are a variety of reasons. There is some work to do to gain more acceptance. I think because the previous legislation was seen, in that context, as heavy-handed, this will open the door to more of these conversations, but when you look at those that are scheduled and then those that have accessed capital, from 348 to 77, there is a gap there that is still to be addressed within the current group of scheduled ones as well. I wouldn't say that for everyone in this group everything is rosy, because it isn't, but again, I do persist in thinking that this is an extremely important suite of legislation that is important to get passed and modernized, even though it's a piece of legislation that's only 20 or so years old.

356 words

The Chair

05:09:45 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Qujannamiik, Ms. Idlout. We'll now move to our second round. Mr. Melillo, you have five minutes.

17 words

Mr. Eric Melillo (Kenora, CPC)

05:09:52 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Minister, for being here. I think it's great that we're moving this forward. It's always nice when we can agree, at least a little bit, in this place. I appreciate your being here on this. I want to speak to some of the comments we heard from witnesses in the last meeting, Minister. It's clear that the infrastructure institute, this idea of monetization and the ideas set out in Bill C-45 have been on your department's radar for quite some time. If I'm not mistaken, the institute itself has been part of the departmental plan since 2020. Obviously, we're all happy to see this moving forward, but I'm wondering if you can shed some light on what happened since 2020 and why it's taken so long for us to get to this point.

148 words

Hon. Marc Miller

05:10:41 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

I guess it's a combination of things. Building the case has been an important aspect of this. In my capacity as the current indigenous services minister, I met with a number of the proponents. They made their cases convincingly. In the context, and looking at the priorities we had over that period, I know that a lot of you guys would say that there was a whole heck of a lot of money going out there during that time, but it was to deal with a once-in-a-lifetime, let's hope, pandemic. It is always an issue of priorities. It was very hard, actually, to get infrastructure builds done with communities shut down. That is just a fact. It is particularly a tribute to a lot of the communities that lifted their boil water advisories during that period of time in terms of the efforts that were put in to get stuff done. Yes, there are priorities. Yes, there is getting the business case across the line and prioritizing that as part of the budgets in question. When it comes to the infrastructure institute and these institutions, there is a general perception that they are west coast-led, and I think—

205 words

Mr. Eric Melillo

05:11:55 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

I do have limited time, Minister.

6 words

Hon. Marc Miller

05:11:59 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

That's fine. I appreciate that. I did want to give you a suite of answers that were helpful.

19 words

Mr. Eric Melillo

05:12:03 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Maybe you can get to it in the next question here. I think you can appreciate where I'm coming from on this, because obviously there is a huge infrastructure gap. We have a lot of work we need to do. Having all these delays is definitely a concern for me, and I'm sure it's a concern for you. I would suggest that it does remain a priority for your government to move this forward. It's concerning that it hasn't been, of course, over the last number of years. Minister, it brings to mind the situation of Grassy Narrows First Nation. I know that you're well aware of that. I want to thank Ms. Idlout for raising this concern as well in the chamber earlier today. It should be non-partisan. This community has been struggling with the effects of mercury poisoning for decades, as you know. I recall working with you and Chief Turtle shortly after I was elected, almost three years ago, when an agreement was reached. We were all excited to see some progress happen there. Now, unfortunately, we're seeing further and further delays. Can you speak to why we're seeing delays with this project? Can you tell us when your government will keep its promise and deliver this treatment centre?

221 words

Hon. Marc Miller

05:13:18 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

When we talk about the agreement with Grassy Narrows, it was really important to sign it and commit to building a mercury treatment facility—not just a mercury treatment facility, but a new water plant. There was over $80 million put on the table to build and operate the facility, without counting the new water plant. That's a lot of money. It took a pretty innovative approach with the community at the time to get that across the finish line. What we've seen clearly—without speaking of the discussions that are ongoing, because those are discussions being led by Minister Hajdu—is that there has been an increase in the cost of building materials. The process that was put in place is one—

129 words

Mr. Eric Melillo

05:14:08 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

In part, it's because of the delays. I want to make that clear. Each year there's a delay, we will see construction costs increase, which is why it's so important that we move forward on this quickly.

40 words

Hon. Marc Miller

05:14:16 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Yes, there was a 12- to 18-month window once the agreement was signed in which there were feasibility studies and full costing to be done. I think we're at a point now where we've seen cost increases. That is something on which I'll defer to Minister Hajdu's good leadership to get across the finish line. The point to take away from this is that we're committing to making sure that the folks at Grassy Narrows get the justice they deserve.

86 words

Mr. Eric Melillo

05:14:44 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

I have only a few seconds left, so thank you.

10 words

The Chair

05:14:47 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you, Mr. Melillo. We'll move to Mr. Battiste for five minutes.

13 words

Mr. Jaime Battiste (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.)

05:14:49 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Minister, for being here today. On Monday, we heard from several of the leaders about how important optionality is for this bill and how, when moving forward with first nations.... A lot of the time, government had a “we know best” attitude in many decades past, and that has harmed the trust between first nations and the federal government. They spoke to why optionality is a very important part of this piece of legislation and the work that they're doing. First, I wonder if you could speak to why optionality, or opting in, for band councils is an important part of advancing reconciliation. The other part is this: How does this help us implement some of the principles surrounding UNDRIP in terms of what we promised in Bill C-15? What does this mean in relation to what we are trying to accomplish with UNDRIP and moving forward with this legislation?

160 words

Hon. Marc Miller

05:15:56 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

I think, MP Battiste, you said it best when you said that it is really up to the communities to choose. The Indian Act is not only a racist document, but one that has been imposed on communities. Getting out from under it has been the subject of a lot of simplistic thoughts as to how that happens. When you sit down, however, it is a complex web of insidious discrimination that has affected pretty much every facet of indigenous identity and experience, especially in the on-reserve scenario, for anyone who knows the history of the Indian Act. This legislation gives the optionality to the communities to say yes, but, importantly, to say no. Whatever reason that is, we in government just need to accept it. I mentioned earlier that going from 348 communities that are scheduled in the annex to 77 that have drawn down or received the financing under this particular regime is important, but it isn't necessarily linear for people. Some people don't want the on-reserve property taxation laws. There are only 133 that have developed and implemented those laws as part of the tax commission. There are 256 that have enacted financial administration laws, and 210 that have received certification. Is this a natural progression? It may or may not be. Some of it is important, and some of it is take-it-or-leave-it for some communities. As part of developing the amendments in the package you have in front of you today, that has been something that has been stressed time and time again. As progressive as it was perceived to be 20 years ago, that currently isn't the case today. It leaves partners unable to move “at the speed of business”, as they said quite clearly on Monday, for example. That is key. I think it's a matter of financial speed as much as it is the ability of people to affirm their right to determine what they do with their own selves and their communities. In that sense, it is in the spirit of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and, frankly, it responds to some of the TRC calls.

371 words

Mr. Jaime Battiste

05:18:36 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

I just want to make it clear that we're looking at all of the first nations across Canada, many bands. Nothing in this legislation changes anything in those communities unless they choose to be a part of it. Is that correct?

42 words

Hon. Marc Miller

05:18:51 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

That's correct.

3 words

Mr. Jaime Battiste

05:18:53 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

With my final 30 seconds, I just want to be able to thank all of the members of this committee. We heard from Manny Jules about the lessons he learned from his father about meeting at the speed of business. I saw that we did our best as a committee within 48 hours to make sure that we were moving at the speed of government and moving at the speed of business. I just want to thank my colleagues from the various parties who are here today, as well as the Greens, who gave us unanimous consent to move fast on this. I hope we get it through and continue to meet at the speed of business for all of the first nations in Canada that want to be a part of this. Thank you.

135 words

The Chair

05:19:32 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you, Mr. Battiste. Mrs. Gill, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

17 words

SoVote

House Committee