44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 15, 2023 11:00AM
Mr. Speaker, I think we have heard, loud and clear, from indigenous communities at the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, and across Canada, that processes work only if they are co-developing the process. The process works only if they are helping lead this process.
With this legislation, we have four organizations in Canada that have been working really hard, for many years, to ensure that we move forward on this. The biggest thing that we have to ensure is that it is optional for communities, that we are not forcing anything on Indian Act communities, that this is part of it only if they choose to be a part of it. That is the biggest part of respecting another nation's self-determination.
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, as members know, I am running for Prime Minister to put Canadians back in charge of their lives, and nowhere is this more true than when it comes to our first nations, which have suffered for far too long under a paternalistic and overpowering federal government and a so-called “Indian Act”, which seems determined and designed to prevent first nations from making their own decisions and controlling their own lives. That is why Conservatives have long called for empowering first nations governments to take control of their land, resources, money and decisions.
That is why we are so happy that the government has copycatted one of our central proposals to make that happen with regard to infrastructure. The Liberals have included it in their budget, and we are pleased that they have carved it off the budget and allowed it to pass through the House separately, expedited as we asked for, so that we can get it done.
Let us talk about what this bill would do.
I just got off the phone with the great Manny Jules. He is the head of the First Nations Tax Commission. He and his family were among the architects of allowing first nations to collect their own local property tax revenues. He has fought his entire life to allow first nations governments and decision-makers to take control of the money that would otherwise go to Ottawa and to allow the local first nations to decide for themselves, rather than relying on the incompetence of the bureaucracy and politicians in Ottawa.
In other words, he told me that he is tired and first nations are tired of being the fastest turtles in the room, because that is how the system of infrastructure finance, he says, has worked, or failed to work, under the existing rules that we are about to change. In the past, a first nation that wanted to build something would have to apply for financing from Ottawa. Sometimes, it takes as long as 10 years for the bureaucrats to wrap their heads around the most basic infrastructure project that other communities would take for granted.
Many of my constituents ask why it is that our first nations cannot have clean drinking water systems in their communities. The answer is that none of us would have clean drinking water if we had to live under the same impossible and incompetent rules that the federal government imposes on first nations. Having to apply to a government that is 2,000 miles away and to deal with bureaucrats they have never met and do not know, who have never been to their community, to sign off on every single detail of every infrastructure plan, of course, is going to prevent things from getting done.
What we need to do is stop stopping and start starting, and to do that, we need to get Ottawa out of the way. The bill before us would do that.
It is a common-sense proposal. Here is how it would work: If a first nation wants to build something, instead of just asking for permission from the bureaucrats in Ottawa, it can monetize its future revenues to build long-standing assets. Let us say they are building a bridge that will last 40 years; they would be able to amortize the cost over the 40-year period and use their annual revenue streams to pay that cost. Of course, they would issue debentures, or debt, like any other government would normally do, and they could pool their risk with other, similar first nations that have similarly high financial and infrastructure standards. This would allow them to make their own decisions about projects today using the future revenues that they will inevitably bring in, which they can guarantee and certify.
That is how things get built. It would also allow public-private partnerships. This would, of course, send the New Democrats into a panic, because they do not want any private involvement in any aspect of our lives, but it would allow first nations to team up with the pension funds and other major investors to build projects that are both profitable to investors and also extremely effective for local communities. It would allow them to build schools, hospitals, water systems, bridges, roads and training centres. All manner of things that we take for granted in the rest of Canada could be built through this. It would also allow them to own the projects and use the assets for leverage for future investments.
This is the kind of common-sense infrastructure finance that we would expect if we were living in any other part of the country, so we as Conservatives support this. We want it to happen as quickly as possible, but we also want to go further.
We believe that the government's paternalistic, anti-development laws, like Bill C-69, are a major attack on indigenous rights by blocking first nations from developing projects that they support, preventing paycheques and preventing revenues for programs that would lift people out of poverty. We would repeal Bill C-69 and allow first nations to build projects with their resources. We would work with them on a new model so they can keep more of the money that comes from those projects.
This is an exciting time, when first nations entrepreneurs are leading the way. Let me give one example of this. Vancouver has become a city held back by government gatekeepers. It costs $650,000 in red tape for every new housing unit, because the city hall there is run by gatekeepers and the Prime Minister sends more money for gatekeeping. There is no wonder it is the third most expensive housing market on planet Earth. The Squamish people have their own land within the city of Vancouver but, luckily, they do not have to follow the zoning and permitting rules of city hall. They were able to approve, and are now building, 6,000 units of housing on 10 acres of land; that is 600 units per acre. If they were part of the city of Vancouver, they never would have gotten it done.
We can also look at what the Tsuut'ina Nation is doing near Calgary, building incredible business plazas that would still have been tied up in Calgary city hall bureaucracy if it had had to follow the rules in that jurisdiction. What we are seeing across the country is that first nations communities are, increasingly, far better places to do business than the municipal jurisdictions next to them are. We can imagine what they could do if the federal government in Ottawa would get out of the way and let them get things done.
This bill would do that for traditional infrastructure projects that governments normally run and regulate. Let us imagine allowing for the same with private sector and resource development projects. It would mean more business opportunities for first nations to generate revenues to provide Canada with lower-cost goods and more powerful paycheques for all our people. Now let us imagine further, that, instead of all of the revenue coming from those projects going to Ottawa to be gobbled up by bureaucracy, and forcing first nations to ask for it back, the money stayed in those communities in the first place and they could reinvest it to create a virtuous cycle of more and more opportunity. This is the vision we have: by getting rid of the gatekeepers and getting out of the way of first nations, allowing more local autonomy in decisions about resources, construction, jobs and financial management, we believe that, over the next century, first nations can lead the country in prosperity.
That is the empowering vision that we have, but we have to get back to common sense. It is wonderful that we have one bill, just one bill, with some common sense in it from the government, which proves that even a broken clock is right twice a day. The government should listen to Manny Jules more often, listen to our first nations leaders more often and listen to the people on the ground, the people who know what has happened, the people who have the traditional wisdom. If it did that more often, we would get more bills like this, we would have more paycheques for our people, we would get more built for our country and we would all be better off. It is the common sense of the common people, united for our common home. Now, let us bring it home.
1435 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by thanking the Leader of the Opposition for his critics, who did a wonderful job in terms of making sure that we got this, in a timely manner, in front of us to debate. I agree with you; this is quite good in terms of common-sense legislation.
I would have to just kind of correct the member opposite. I know he does not often get up in the House to speak to indigenous issues, but when you use the term “our first nation” it comes across as possessive. Many first nations across Canada have said they do not want to be considered our possession or the possession of anyone.
The question I have concerns Bill C-69, which you talked about as an important thing. I agree with you when you say that indigenous communities are becoming far better places to do business. A lot of the time, when they are doing that business, indigenous communities are prioritizing what the impacts are on the environment. A lot of the things that we heard during UNDRIP were about communities wanting free, prior and informed consent when it comes to development on their area. That does not mean that they are against development but that they are for sustainable development.
Do you stand with indigenous communities and their free, prior and—
230 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 4:08:04 p.m.
- Watch
I just need to interrupt the member to make sure that he is asking the question through the Chair and not directly to the member. Rather than using “you” when asking a question, just try to run it through the Chair.
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
47 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I will take that into consideration. I get so much time to speak to you, as a former Nova Scotia MP. Rarely do I get to speak to the Leader of the Opposition.
The question was what your thoughts are around free, prior and informed consent for indigenous communities to be able to—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
61 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 4:08:43 p.m.
- Watch
Again, I remind the hon. member.
The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.
13 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, does the member opposite believe that the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous communities is important when it advances sustainable development?
24 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I agree with the member when he says that the two shadow ministers, one of Crown-indigenous relations and the other of indigenous services, for the official opposition, the member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock and the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, have done a fantastic job in advancing and fighting for first nations across the country.
With respect to the debate on free, prior and informed consent, the Prime Minister does not agree with that. He is against it. We know that because he has cancelled projects where there is unanimous support. Teck's Frontier Project mine, for example, had all 20 first nations around it agreeing with the project, and the Prime Minister walked in and cancelled it. What he likes to do is use first nations as an attempt to block things from going ahead, because that is what he really wanted to do in the first place. It is not because he cares about their well-being, but because it is a rhetorical tool for his ideological, anti-development agenda.
I believe in listening to all first nations, including those that are in favour of projects. That is why we will work with those first nations to get things done and make sure they are the primary beneficiaries and the big winners when they do get done.
232 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, I would like to remind the member that first nations do not belong to the Conservative Party and to refrain from saying “our first nations”, because first nations are self-governing nations that were here before Canada. I ask him to please remind his party to stop saying “our first nations” or “our indigenous peoples” in its terminology.
I do want to ask the member about first nations and what their priorities are. If first nations such as the Wet'suwet'en Hereditary Chiefs are rejecting mining projects, does that mean he supports all first nations, as he says, even if they reject mining projects?
112 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, she mentions the Wet'suwet'en. Twenty out of 20 Wet'suwet'en nations along the route of the Coastal GasLink pipeline are in favour. All of the elected first nations support the project, and the NDP goes against all of the elected first nations leaders and imposes the NPD's ideological agenda to try to block those opportunities. I disagree with the NDP when it takes away the land rights of first nations people in order to impose the extremist ideology of the NDP that prevents first nations from having opportunities and keeps them in poverty.
We believe in these projects like LNG Canada, the Coastal GasLink, the Haisla Nation's development of liquefied natural gas, and projects of so many other first nations that want to develop resources but have NDP politicians standing in the way. We stand on the side of first nations that want to get things done, and we do not stand with the NDP and its obstructions.
165 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, I am very pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-45, an act to amend the First Nations Fiscal Management Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
As the indigenous critic for and on behalf of the New Democrats, I say that we are very pleased to show our support for the passing of Bill C-45. I share my gratitude with Harold Calla, executive chair at the First Nations Financial Management Board; Manny Jules, chief commissioner of the First Nations Tax Commission; Ernie Daniels, president and chief executive officer of the First Nations Finance Authority; and Grant Christoff, general counsel at the First Nations Infrastructure Institute. The leadership they have shown is very important for the advancement of first nations, and their acknowledgement is well deserved.
We have heard from other parties that this is about economic freedom and about creating economic independence. That is not solely what it is for me. If there were true reconciliation and true economic independence, Inuit, first nations and Métis would be able to thrive off the land based on their expertise and knowledge of the land. If it were truly about reconciliation, indigenous peoples would have free, prior and informed consent right at the beginning of the free entry system, and indigenous peoples' questions would be appropriately responded to during consultations at the environmental assessment phases. Only if indigenous peoples' standards were met would any development on lands be allowed to happen, knowing that it would include benefiting indigenous peoples and not only the private sector. That is what economic reconciliation would look like.
What Bill C-45 would do is open doors for first nations that wish to use the same powers that municipalities all over Canada do. It would open up ways for first nations, tribal councils, modern treaty nations and self-governing groups that have opted in to build their administrative, financial and governance capacity through the risk-managed support of the First Nations Financial Management Board. It is so that first nations can make decisions about and seek supports for infrastructure developments.
Bill C-45 would create an indigenous-led first nations infrastructure institute. First nations opting in to the first nations infrastructure institute would see the doors open for them to make decisions about owning, building and maintaining infrastructure in their communities. Bill C-45 is sorely needed because of the years of Liberal and Conservative governments' failures to properly invest in first nations and their infrastructure needs. To date, it is reported that first nations now experience a staggering infrastructure gap of at least $30 billion.
Since my election and since becoming the indigenous critic for the New Democrats, whenever I meet with first nations, Métis and Inuit, including and especially my constituents in Nunavut, I hear frequently what the infrastructure needs are. First nations have decades-long water advisories, mercury poisoning, few to no health and well-being treatment centres, and school and, especially, housing needs that fall well below the investments people see and hear about in the rest of Canada. Since the government continues to fail in meeting the most basic infrastructure needs, my hope is that the passage of Bill C-45 would make those improvements. First nations would see significant gains. If there were schools in first nations communities like Kluane First Nation in the Yukon, for which it has been asking for years, this bill would not be necessary.
Bill C-45 would not absolve government's responsibilities to uphold treaty rights. It would not absolve government's responsibilities to ensure reconciliation.
Amendments to the current and other acts would include, among others, better supports for first nations seeking to create local revenue laws beyond real property taxation, strengthening the education and capacity supports available currently, supporting local revenue-based service agreements, and offering advice to self-governing first nations and other levels of government.
Bill C-45 would expand and modernize the First Nations Financial Management Board's mandate by completing the 2018 expansion of services and certification standards for new client segments, including tribal councils, and treaty and self-governing groups. It would also provide monitoring and review services.
It would create a full-time position on the First Nations Financial Management Board, establish a national indigenous-led organization under the First Nations Fiscal Management Act to achieve better and more sustainable infrastructure outcomes for first nations, expand law-making powers allowing first nations to make laws respecting the provision of services and to regulate, prohibit and impose requirements in respect of those services on reserve lands.
First nations would be given more authority and enforcement powers to ensure compliance with their local revenue and service laws. The bill would combine the fund supported by other revenues with the fund supported by local revenues. It clarifies that only borrowing members with outstanding loans could be called upon to replenish the fund in circumstances that it has used.
I repeat that this is not about economic reconciliation. First nations, Inuit and Métis were self-governing before colonialism. Through their self-governance, indigenous peoples had laws and management regimes that protected the wildlife and environment. Indigenous peoples respected important relationships with the land and with each other.
While colonial and genocidal policies continue, Inuit, first nations and Métis continue on a path of reconciliation. That relationship with the government is not reciprocal, not to the extent that will advance indigenous peoples' health and well-being.
Bill C-45 is a step to give powers to first nations to make choices and act without federal government assistance. As such, New Democrats support Bill C-45. New Democrats will continue to advocate for reconciliation that is meaningful to Inuit, first nations and Métis.
965 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for her dedication and hard work on this file. I know she sits on the INAN committee with me. We have seen and heard of so many different indigenous communities from across Canada with some amazing ideas in terms of how to create economic wealth in a way that is sustainable. Within the powers of this act, we heard a lot about access to capital and indigenous communities needing access to capital to do all these great projects.
When indigenous people have access to capital, what are some of the amazing things they are able to accomplish in her riding and across Canada?
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, I have heard some examples shared in our committee like more culturally appropriate facilities, places to smudge, and schools developed to be more culturally appropriate to first nations, Métis and Inuit communities.
It is important that we support this bill so that first nations communities can say what is important to them. If a first nations wants a school, then this bill would allow that to happen in a more expedited way than what we do with the federal government assistance.
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Nunavut for her remarks. I had the opportunity to visit her riding back in 2018. I met with indigenous leaders and territorial leaders there, as well as the Northwest Territories, as part of a trip with the foreign affairs committee.
One of the issues we discussed was the government announcing an offshore drilling ban. This was announced back in 2016. The Prime Minister announced it alongside President Obama. We heard that leaders in the territories got a phone call 45 minutes before that happened. It was a complete lack of consultation.
The presumption seems to be on the part of the government that if it is blocking development, if it is saying no to something going forward, then somehow it does not need to consult. In reality, it should be consulting in either case. The government brought in a policy that has severely limited economic development in the north without proper consultation with indigenous or territorial leaders.
Can the member share what the current conversation is around that issue? Does she think the government should have been consulting before implementing this kind of policy?
191 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, I think that consultation is absolutely important, but what is more important is the proper implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which declares that there should be free, prior and informed consent before any kind of development is happening. I do hope that this party supports my bill, which would make changes to the Territorial Lands Act and would make sure that there is free, prior and informed consent, even at the beginning stages, so that we do not have to end up in these conversations questioning whether consultation was appropriate or not.
100 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I have only ever heard the Conservatives talk about oil and gas whenever they talk about indigenous. However, the Liberals are telling us about all these great projects that are going to create capital.
In Fort Albany right now, people are flying home today from weeks of being put up in hotels and community centres, because the dikes broke on the Albany River due to failed basic infrastructure, putting them at risk. We are working with the Mennonite Central Committee and True North Aid to get food hampers in. That is the reality on the ground in the communities I represent: underfunded infrastructure and having to beg to get food in, because the government has failed in its fundamental obligation to keep communities safe.
I would ask my hon. colleague: How is it possible for these communities to take economic control of their lands when they have been left in such dire straits of infrastructure poverty and a lack of an ability to control their lives?
168 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, this is very much a question about whether there can be true self-determination as indigenous peoples have been suppressed and oppressed for so long, which is why I made sure in my presentation that I talked about the genocidal policies still having an impact on first nations, Métis and Inuit communities. We have to start making sure that if we are going to talk about self-determination, if we are going to talk about reconciliation, there need to be continued investments, there need to be improved and increased investments, that allow first nations, Métis and Inuit to thrive and have a better well-being at the same level that other Canadians do here in Canada.
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
There being no further members rising, pursuant to an order made earlier today, Bill C-45, an act to amend the First Nations Fiscal Management Act, to make consequential amendments to other acts, and to make a clarification relating to another act is deemed read a third time and passed.
50 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 4:26:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 57 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 4:27:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise today, as the member for Calgary Centre, to present a petition from my constituents, particularly those who have relatives in Sudan.
The petitioners are asking the government to commit more resources and expedite the arrival of Sudanese applicants who have applied for Canadian citizenship, Canadian permanent residence, who have family here. There are permanent residents in Canada who are looking to bring their family and loved ones over. This has to be expedited as quickly as possible. The petitioners are asking for the expedition of this and to be put to the top of the list. Forty months is too long to wait when people are in a conflict zone, and so they are asking the government to make that commitment and get these people processed through its department as quickly as possible.
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
