Thank you and welcome back to our witnesses here today. You’ve talked about the amendments being years in the making, let alone the whole institutional change and relationship change that you have achieved and are continuing to strive for.

Mr. Calla, you mentioned that we have to change the infrastructure gap, we have to address that significantly and that is one of the key things we are talking about here. I believe you said we can’t do it with the tools we currently have or something to that effect, and therefore we need these amendments and this new institute. Could you speak, Mr. Calla, to the limitations of the current tools, those constraints that are there, and the advantages that these amendments will bring and what you see concretely? Let’s say we’re five years into the future, we passed this and we’re five years out, going from a point of constraint of existing tools to new tools and our tool kit as a result of these amendments. What’s the advantage, and what will we see concretely?

I think the biggest challenge we face in Indigenous communities is we are a pay-as-you-go government. Perhaps some Canadians wish that all orders of government in Canada were pay-as-you-go, but none of us are, and we all fund. We all go to capital markets and raise debt, and there is a reason for it. How many people pay cash for their house? Does it mean you don’t get a house until you can pay cash for it? I think that’s the biggest issue, the whole funding model has to change. There has to be long-term commitments from the federal government in that capital. One thing we have realized is that we’re not going anywhere as Indian people and Canada is not going anywhere. Let’s establish a more reasonable approach that reflects modern-day principles of finance and government. That’s the biggest thing.

The second-biggest thing is that we need to look at a completely different procurement model that provides capacity support, looks at public-private partnerships, looks at the ability to blend capital monies with other orders and other money. To give an example, in my nation, Squamish, we had a large infrastructure project for housing but we could only get a quarter of it funded because that was all the money that they could give us in this fiscal year. I asked, what if we pay for the rest of it and you just give us the money when it becomes available? We can’t do that. It cost us 25% more to space it out over six years. It doesn’t make any sense. We have to have ourselves open to those kinds of concepts. That will be another significant step, but the biggest step is working with communities to bring a technical capacity that many of them can’t have themselves. We simply can’t have 600 different sets of administrations with a capacity that can deliver. We need to aggregate and provide institutional support.

That’s what I believe would have happened had colonization never occurred. We would have emerged — in keeping with the times — and developed the institutional frameworks, and we would have established treaties and working relationships among ourselves, that would have permitted us to engage in the world as it is today. That’s what I think will happen with infrastructure. We will bridge that gap by bringing the capital markets into it in a meaningful way, by providing revenue streams for fiscal powers and other revenue arrangements, and it’s starting to happen. Natural Resources Canada is looking at resource revenue sharing, for example. Increasing the tax table is another example that we’re talking about.

I think if you do those three things, that’s the kind of systemic change you are looking for. It’s a 90-year program to do it this way. I was in Attawapiskat, as I may have said. They are drinking water out of bottles. I bought a case for nine dollars in Vancouver. I went up to Attawapiskat and that same case is $48. Why do they have a drinking water advisory? Because their water intake is 100 yards from the landfill. Where is the engineering and planning to do that kind of stuff? The whole system has to change, and that’s how we will get there.

Thank you all very much for being here. I found all of your comments informative, emotional and very inspiring. I appreciate all your comments. I have said this before in this room, but I learn so much every time I am in this committee, regardless of the topic, and it is certainly my privilege to be here.

My question will be directed to the First Nations Infrastructure Institute. I’m curious as to what extent are First Nations today empowered to choose and direct their own contractors when it comes to infrastructure development, and will your organization be able to empower them to do so more? Does this bill have an influence on that?

I believe so. Our initial goal is to go in and — they may have some infrastructure that’s ongoing. We want to get them shovel ready. Our next is to build their capacity, so FNII will be up there, but to build their capacity and then it will go like that. They have to be able to work with them to pick whoever they want to do their infrastructure, and Jason Calla is more involved in that than I am. I used to go in as the chief and connect with the politicians and the leadership and then hand it over to Jason Calla and his team.

I’m a previous mayor, so I feel you.

Mr. Claxton’s experience dealing with CP holders and with different localities is helpful in talking to communities.

One of the purposes of FNII is to assist in the procurement of projects as well, so that would be established in the way of tendering and contracting the project. I think under the current system with ISC it tends to be restricted to one procurement model, the design and build approach. We’re proposing that there be a number of models out there. There are advantages and disadvantages to these models, depending on your objectives and your project, so supporting the community to work through these different models and figure out what’s best for them.

My question follows up on what Senator Sorensen just asked. First of all, thank you for all the work that you have done and the generations before you and the work that they’ve done to bring us to this place.

I know there are just under 300 First Nations who are not part of this group. What happens for them? Other groups may have alternative ways to go toward self-government. I guess I should have asked this of government. Will they continue to support those ways as well for those nations who want to achieve this self-government in a different way?

What options or opportunities are there that you offer First Nations who may not necessarily be part of your group but who want to achieve self-government? I think we are all going toward self-government, but it may be different.

I was born and raised in Treaty 6 territory, so I come from a treaty space, and I wonder how this act impacts treaty relationships and relationships of nations with government. I know that’s a bit long-winded, but just thinking about that because not everyone will be the same.

I worked with a lot of First Nation communities who are in the treaty process or have treaties, and particularly the modern-day treaties. The question you asked is what happens the day after you sign the treaty. You have been so focused on getting to a treaty. You don’t have the administrative capacity, and you have to start to build it. We’re tools for those groups. We need to be looked at as tools for those groups of people to help them.

We also recognize government. I mean, we’re not always here to slam government. Government has been very supportive of some of the initiatives that the First Nations Financial Management Board has proposed, including providing support services to smaller communities, particularly in remote locations where we’re doing the back office functions for them, in the same way that FNII will do that with infrastructure. But we’re doing the bookkeeping and reporting through technology. When I was in Attawapiskat, they were on Starlink. I had as fast an internet connection in Attawapiskat as I did in downtown Toronto. That technology leap is there, so we will provide that support to First Nations.

We don’t exclude anybody. We’ll talk to anybody, whether they are scheduled or not in hopes of getting them to the point where they will consider it because there are no obligations. The reason that some are taking so long is that they want to be part of it, but they want to take their time and get through it, and we’re happy to do that. We need some of these amendments, though, so we can deal with self-government and treaty First Nations. Some of the things we are doing will facilitate some of these communities being able to consider these pathways where they couldn’t before.

One of the things also critically important about the legislation is there is a non-derogation clause that doesn’t affect treaty or self-government agreements. One of the reasons we want the legislation expanded is so we can provide services like the British Columbia Health Authority as an example, so that we’re not going to just build one health facility but 20. Those are the discussions we’re having in B.C. We’re not going to build one water system for the Mi’kmaq; we’re going to be building 25. It expands the rate at which we can deal with the $300 million infrastructure gap. We’re going to try to do our bit. It doesn’t solve all of the problems, but without institutional support and centres of excellence, we won’t be able to have the standards or the training for individuals operating these facilities 24-7, 365 days a year.

Minister Miller invited me to ask Mr. Jules the question about how you see the First Nation Infrastructure Institute mandate working alongside the Canada Infrastructure Bank and its Indigenous component.

Firstly, we help create our own First Nations infrastructure, our finance authority, so that’s one option available for First Nations. But it doesn’t preclude First Nations from working with the infrastructure bank. It’s going to be their choice. I think that with the work that needs to be done, we need to be able to work with all financial institutions, and that’s going to be at the local First Nations level to make that choice.

We’re open, hopefully, after the legislation is passed. We want it to be able to come into force as quickly as possible so we can get into business and provide direct services for First Nations.

That doesn’t preclude us from working with all the financial institutions, but our primary focus here is with the operation that Ernie Daniels heads up, which is the finance authority. Again, when the Canada Infrastructure Bank is looking at setting aside about $3 billion, you have to be able to take advantage of that also.

Also, I think for the first time, we’re going to be able to have true public-private partnerships with First Nations to build infrastructure in our communities. The irony of ironies that I always like to point out is that the only public-private partnership is in British Columbia, and that was to build a provincial jail. We want to move beyond building jails, senator.

Are there any other senators who would like to ask a question?

Manny Jules would like to make a statement.

I didn’t want to let this day pass without recognizing the sacrifices our veterans made on this day many years ago. I had my uncle fight in North Africa, up the boot of Italy, into France and then in Germany, and the fighting by our veterans in the First and Second World Wars, which opened up the discussions we’re having today. Thank you for this opportunity.

That’s a fitting note on which to end the panel. The panel has been very compelling and very helpful to the committee. I want to thank all the witnesses for coming and the good work that you have done. Hopefully, this bill will move quickly through the Senate in due course.

Before we adjourn, I would like to take a short moment to remind everyone that tomorrow we will be hosting our annual Voices of Youth Indigenous Leaders event with two meetings during the day, one at 11:30 and the other at 6:45, for two hours each. In anticipation of that, I’d like to ask the committee: Is it agreed that the committee allow electronic and photographic media coverage of its public meetings on Wednesday, June 7, 2023, with as little disruption of the meetings as possible?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Thank you.

Thank you, everyone, the meeting is now adjourned.

(The committee adjourned.)