Hon. Pamela Wallin: I have a question for Senator Gold.

I would like your explanation for this: I’m going through “rapportage” on the committee discussions on the other side. Bill C-13 establishes targets for bringing more francophone immigrants to French-speaking parts of the rest of Canada. Could you tell me how that would work?

Hon. Denise Batters: In the briefing note on Bill C-13 submitted to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages, the Barreau du Québec stated this:

It has been suggested that amendments to the Supreme Court Act or the Official Languages Act could affect the notion of “composition of the Court” as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Reference re Supreme Court Act, ss. 5 and 6, further to Justice Nadon’s appointment. Thus, the addition of a bilingualism requirement to any of these statutes would, in their view, have to go through the constitutional amendment process (seven Canadian provinces with at least 50% of the population).

While we do not take a position on this constitutional issue, we would like to emphasize that it deserves particular attention to ensure that any amendments requiring bilingualism of Supreme Court judges are successful, not counterproductive.

I also note that in my home province of Saskatchewan, the last Supreme Court justice that was appointed from Saskatchewan was Emmett Hall in the 1960s, before I was born. He served until 1973. Given the low rate of bilingualism in Saskatchewan, we want to ensure that we have the best jurists on the Supreme Court of Canada. We need to assess that.

With those important issues to consider, why shouldn’t this bill be studied at our Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs?

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Audette, do you have a supplementary question?

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Audette, do you have a supplementary question?

Hon. Michèle Audette: Would Senator Gold take a question?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for raising the issue of the court because I think it will also give me an opportunity to correct what I think is a slight misunderstanding of the provisions of this bill as it applies to the court.

To answer your question directly, no, I don’t believe that the issues that you have raised justify sending it to the Legal Committee, and I’ll explain why.

With respect to the judiciary, the provisions of this bill remove an exemption that existed for the Supreme Court of Canada that was placed in the original act and, at the time, was thought to be “temporary,” absolving the court as an institution from the same requirements that other superior courts had. That is, to give effect to the constitutionally protected rights of litigants to be heard and understood in the language of their choice without the aid of an interpreter. What is perhaps not understood — and I apologize, Senator Batters, if I’m putting words in your mouth, or others; I don’t mean to. But this does not mean that every judge appointed to the Supreme Court or any other Supreme Court must be bilingual, fluent or otherwise. That is not what the legislation requires. It is an institutional obligation on the court as an institution that when it hears cases, the litigants before the court must be ensured that they are able to address the court and be understood without the benefit of an interpreter.

I’ll give an example. It happens, happily, that the Supreme Court of Canada in today’s composition has nine judges — three from Quebec, three from Ontario, as is our practice, custom and law — who are all functionally bilingual, but it is not actually a requirement and wouldn’t be a requirement. It would be a requirement that the panel of judges who hears a case be a panel that is able to hear and understand testimony, whether in English or French, without the benefit of an interpreter. For example, the quorum for a case at the Supreme Court of Canada, as you know, is five. There is nothing in Bill C-13 that requires that every future judge, where it’s the Supreme Court or of any superior court — because those provisions have been in place for some long time — must be fluently bilingual. It is conceivable that a Supreme Court judge may be appointed if they only speak French and perhaps an Indigenous language. Although I don’t think there has been a unilingual French judge on the Supreme Court since Confederation, there have certainly been unilingual English judges. But that is not precluded by this so long as the court, as an institution, when it structures its panels — which is typically under the jurisdiction of the Chief Justice — has the ability to satisfy the institutional obligation that is now imposed upon the Supreme Court from which it had been exempted temporarily under the Official Languages Act of 30 years ago.

Hon. Jean-Guy Dagenais: Honourable senators, I rise today in support of Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other Acts, at second reading.

My support of this bill does not mean that I think it is a comprehensive solution for protecting the French language in Canada. However, it contains enough positive elements that it should not be dismissed out of hand either. In my opinion, Bill C-13 is a step forward that should be taken today, particularly given the fact that it took eight years for this update to be introduced.

That being said, I am no fool. Bill C-13 will not fix the demographic decline of French in Canada in just a few months or years. Francophone communities across the country are not just going to start getting all the services that have been promised in the new law in their language with the snap of a finger.

Bill C-13, as we received it in the Senate, will be a worthwhile tool, as long as the government gives our politicians and institutions the funding they need to meet the many commitments that will come into effect.

I would remind honourable senators that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has expressed doubts that the objectives set out in Bill C-13 will be achieved, given the rather modest amounts committed to that end in the most recent federal budget. Implementing and ensuring respect for the Official Languages Act in a country as big as Canada is a costly challenge.

Unfortunately, we must realize that the application of the provisions of Bill C-13 will become a significant economic issue in the years to come, and it will be our duty to remind the government of its commitments and obligations. As citizens and as politicians, we will have to ensure that the current government and those to follow will take concrete action to stop the demographic decline of francophones.

Canada’s Official Languages Act must not be a mere piece of paper to be bandied about only during an election campaign or even in regulatory or legal debates to demand that everyone’s rights be respected. Bill C-13 must be a way of life in Canada and must become, in time, a proud legislative achievement for a country that has become as multicultural as ours.

Although we have to be patient in some respects, at this point I am so pleased that Bill C-13 will grant a new right to work and be served in French in Quebec and in regions with a strong francophone presence across the country. Working and living in one’s own language in a bilingual country should not be a battle, but a way of being.

I also want to say how happy I am with the new powers that will be given to the Commissioner of Official Languages to compel and punish federal institutions that do not comply with the Official Languages Act. This is a major and, frankly, long‑awaited change. At last we will have new provisions that will greatly facilitate the application of the Official Languages Act.

Although I am satisfied with the new requirement for the government to appoint bilingual judges to the Supreme Court of Canada, I am nevertheless disappointed that this mandatory bilingualism will not apply to the Governor General of Canada or the Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick. In my opinion, these two office-holders simply must be able to communicate with citizens in both official languages. However, it would appear that the 1982 Constitution prevented adding such provisions to the new version of Canada’s Official Languages Act. I find that quite unfortunate.

We will have to continue to rely on the current government to ensure that the two official languages’ criterion is applied to these appointments. Unfortunately, the latest appointments have demonstrated that a prime minister has the political ability to say certain things but then do the opposite.

I want to come back to the political aspect of passing Bill C-13. I’m pleased to see that all the members in the other place — with the exception of one, whom I will talk about later — voted in favour of Bill C-13. That means that 300 elected representatives from across the country have passed this bill to modernize our country’s Official Languages Act. I want to stress that 300 MPs from across Canada voted in favour of the bill; it’s very important to remember that.

I think it’s important to note here that all political parties in the other place voted in favour of Bill C-13 after obtaining meaningful amendments from the government. Clearly, the last-minute compromises and additions yielded significant results, given that the Government of Quebec expressed its satisfaction and desire to see Bill C-13 passed by the Senate before we rise for the summer, which is fast approaching.

Historically, language issues between Ottawa and Quebec have been very controversial. However, with this series of 11 amendments negotiated in good faith and included in the bill, we are seeing the emergence of a new political dynamic that we were not accustomed to.

Obviously, no one could argue with the fact that the federal government needed to intervene to stop the decline of one of the country’s two official languages, French. This decline is not just happening in Quebec.

In this context, any law or initiative to protect and promote the use of French in Canada must be commended and supported, whether it be at the federal or provincial level.

It became a national and cultural emergency to do something to ensure that the historic bilingual character of our country lives on.

When I go back a bit, there are two points that seem important to me in Quebec’s support for Bill C-13.

First, there is the tacit recognition of Quebec’s power to legislate in order to protect and promote French within its territory, while maintaining the rights of the province’s anglophone community.

Second, Bill C-13 now includes certain aspects of Quebec’s Charter of the French Language, which target federally regulated businesses that hire employees not only in Quebec but in all areas of the country with a strong francophone presence. Airlines, railways and banks will be particularly affected by these new provisions.

Bill C-13 is not one-sided. It regulates and guarantees rights and services to minority communities in Quebec and across the country, whether those communities are anglophone or francophone.

I think it is a shame to have to say this again, but francophones were just as involved as anglophones in founding Canada, and their language needs to be respected and protected. I am talking not just about Quebecers, but also about the Acadian community and every francophone community in Ontario, Manitoba and throughout our great country.

Unfortunately, at the risk of repeating myself, there will always be fringe politicians who see efforts to protect the French language as a threat to their right to live in English. We saw a fine example of that in the other place.

What surprises me is that some of them live in Quebec, including the only MP who voted against Bill C-13 in the other place and who wanted to get rid of the references to the Charter of the French Language because he is convinced that the Quebec government is bent on taking away anglophones’ rights.

I just want to say that that member and those who support him, whether overtly or covertly, have an especially insulting attitude toward francophone Quebecers. Why? Because they don’t seem to realize that, as anglophone Quebecers, they have access to two anglophone universities in Montreal, namely McGill University and Concordia University. They also have access to an anglophone university in Sherbrooke, Bishop’s University. They also have access to anglophone colleges and anglophone schools, and they even have a constitutionally protected school board.

When these anglophone Quebecers go out, shop or deal with the government, they can do it in their own language. If they need to go to court, they can do it in English, without restrictions, without interpreters and without delays. Do francophones get as many rights and public services when they are the minority in other provinces? I believe that you know the answer.

To close this chapter, I just want to remind them of the striking revelation from Air Canada’s president and CEO, Michael Rousseau, who confessed that he had lived in Montreal for 14 years without ever having to speak French.

I think that the MP’s attempt to marshal a political uprising against Bill C-13 because he believed that his language is under threat in Quebec was an act of political naivety. I believed that period was over.

Quebec’s anglophone community has always been treated better than francophone and Acadian communities in other provinces.

I would add that that has always been the case and will continue to be the case even after the passage of the new Official Languages Act.

In closing, I want my colleagues to remember that a language can’t survive unless it’s taught properly and spoken every day. It should not be a struggle to live and speak in French in Canada. It is a right, a constitutional right that must now be strengthened.

I therefore ask you to vote in favour of Bill C-13 when the time comes, and then to join me in remaining vigilant in order to ensure that its content is implemented as set out in the bill.

Thank you for listening.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall these amendments be taken into consideration?

(On motion of Senator LaBoucane-Benson, amendments placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.)

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall these amendments be taken into consideration?

(On motion of Senator LaBoucane-Benson, amendments placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.)

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons returning Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to make related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and to repeal the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act, and acquainting the Senate that they had passed this bill with the following amendments, to which they desire the concurrence of the Senate:

1.Clause 2, pages 1 and 2:

(a)on page 1, add the following after line 16:

qu’il s’engage à adopter le principe de précaution, si bien qu’en cas de risques de dommages graves ou irréversibles, l’absence de certitude scientifique absolue ne doit pas servir de prétexte pour remettre à plus tard l’adoption de mesures effectives visant à prévenir la dégradation de l’environnement;”;

(b)on page 2, add the following after line 36:

“Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to openness, transparency and accountability in respect of the protection of the environment and human health;”;

(c)on page 2, add the following after line 41:

“Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to implementing a risk-based approach to the assessment and management of chemical substances;”.

2.Clause 3, page 3:

(a)replace line 3, in the English version, with the following:

“not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective”;

(b)add the following after line 13:

3.Clause 4, page 3:

(a)add the following after line 28:

(b)add the following after line 28:

4.Clause 5, pages 3 and 4:

(a)on page 3, add the following after line 42:

(b)on page 4, replace line 9 with the following:

“intergenerational equity, according to which it is important to meet the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs;”;

(c)on page 4, replace lines 13 and 14 with the following:

5.Clause 5.1, pages 4 and 5:

(a)replace line 27 on page 4 to line 3 on page 5 with the following:

(b)on page 5, replace lines 8 and 9 with the following:

“registry is publicly accessible and searchable and is in electronic form.”.

6.Clause 10, pages 6 and 7:

(a)replace line 26 on page 6 to line 23 on page 7 with the following:

(b)on page 7, replace lines 28 to 35 with the following:

7.Clause 10.1, pages 7 and 8: delete clause 10.1.

8.Clause 11.1, page 8: delete clause 11.1.

9.Clause 14, page 9:

(a)replace lines 9 to 15 with the following:

“81, add a substance to the Domestic Substances List if

(b)replace lines 18 to 27 with the following:

10.Clause 15, page 10:

(a)replace line 23 with the following:

“conditions, test procedures and laboratory practices to be followed for replacing, reducing or re-”;

(b)replace lines 26 to 28 with the following:

“classification of a substance as a substance that poses the highest risk.”.

11.Clause 16.1, page 12: replace lines 3 to 21 with the following:

12.Clause 19, pages 15 and 16:

(a)on page 15, replace line 25 with the following:

“and publish a plan with timelines”;

(b)on page 15, replace line 29 with the following:

(c)on page 15, replace lines 37 to 41 with the following:

“the development and timely incorporation of scientifically justified alternative methods and strategies in the testing and assessment of substances to replace, reduce or refine the use of vertebrate animals.”;

(d)on page 16, delete lines 1 and 2;

(e)on page 16, replace line 16 with the following:

“paragraph 68(a), including the manner in which the public may be provided with information regarding substances or products including, in the case of products, by labelling them.”;

(f)on page 16, add the following after line 30:

(g)renumber the subsections of section 73 and amend all references accordingly.

13.Clause 20, pages 17 and 18:

(a)on page 17, replace line 21 with the following:

(b)on page 17, replace lines 23 to 25 with the following:

“specified on the List, if

(c)on page 18, replace lines 1 to 4 with the following:

14.Clause 21, page 20: add the following after line 34:

15.Clause 22, page 21:

(a)replace line 26 with the following:

“amended and the reasons for the amendment in the Environmental Registry and in any other”;

(b)add the following after line 27:

16.Clause 29, page 24: replace line 37 with the following:

“respecting preventive or control actions, including actions that lead to the use of safer or more sustainable alternatives for the environment or human health, in relation to a”.

17.Clause 39, page 31:

(a)replace lines 2 to 17 with the following:

“106, add a living organism to the Domestic Substances List if

(b)replace lines 20 to 23 with the following:

“tion 105(1), 105.1(1) or 112(1) is not being manufactured in Canada or imported into Canada the Minister may delete the living”.

18.New clause 39.01, page 31: add the following after line 34:

19. Clause 39.1, pages 31 and 32: replace line 35 on page 31 to line 15 on page 32 with the following:

20.Clause 44.1, page 35: replace lines 21 to 25 with the following:

21.Clause 50, page 39: replace lines 14 to 16 with the following:

22.Clause 53, pages 40 and 41:

(a)on page 40, replace line 1 with the following:

(b)on page 40, replace line 14 with the following:

(c)on page 40, replace line 27 with the following:

(d)on page 41, add the following after line 29:

23.Clause 55, pages 41 and 42:

(a)on page 41, replace line 32 with the following:

(b)on page 42, delete lines 15 to 35.

24.Clause 57, pages 43 and 44: replace line 14 on page 43 to line 4 on page 44 with the following:

25.Clause 67.1, page 51: delete clause 67.1.

26.Schedule 1, page 53: delete the reference to “section 68.1” in the references after the heading “SCHEDULE 1”.

Hon. Marty Klyne moved second reading of 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.

He said: Honourable senators, on the unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin people, I’m honoured to rise as sponsor of Bill C-45. This legislation amends the First Nations Fiscal Management Act of 2006, helping support economic reconciliation and greater prosperity for First Nations.

Bill C-45 contains important measures to enhance the statute’s opt-in fiscal frameworks for the 348 scheduled and participating First Nations and any new entrants. Most importantly, this bill will also create the First Nations infrastructure institute.

I will start today by situating this bill in the bigger picture of economic reconciliation. Then, in the second part of my speech, I will explain Bill C-45’s improvements in relation to tax authorities, financial management, economic information, borrowing and infrastructure development and maintenance. All of this sets the table for greater access to capital and mainstream funding and investments, as well as First Nations’ meaningful realization of social and economic rights and equity. In turn, this shift can help First Nations prosper, supporting the revitalization of languages, cultures and ceremonies.

In the big picture, the statute that this bill would amend is an alternative to the Indian Act framework and one that is consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP. Indeed, as the preamble notes, the bill will help implement multiple articles of UNDRIP. Essentially, the First Nations Fiscal Management Act provides participating First Nations with a legislative and institutional framework through which they can assert their jurisdiction in financial management, taxation and access to capital markets.

By enhancing this framework, also noted in the preamble, Bill C-45 responds to Call to Action 44 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in relation to self-determination and economic reconciliation. The preamble also acknowledges traditional Indigenous models of taxation and sharing, including the word taksis in the Chinook trading language.

It is of fundamental importance to me, as sponsor, to highlight that First Nations-led institutions led the co-development of Bill C-45 through six years of hard work and consultations, including engagement with the 348 participating First Nations.

On today’s commencement of Senate debate, congratulations to Ernie Daniels, President and CEO of the First Nations Finance Authority; Harold Calla, Executive Chair of the First Nations Financial Management Board; Manny Jules, Chief Commissioner of the First Nations Tax Commission and Allan Claxton and Jason Calla of the First Nations Infrastructure Institute Development Board and their teams. Three of those organizations already exist under the act and will receive important modernization measures via this bill.

The legislation will also establish a fourth organization in relation to infrastructure. Along with the participating First Nations, this is their bill.

Thank you as well to Minister Miller and his team for advancing Bill C-45 on behalf of the government and to the other place for their unanimous support. I hope senators will join me in honouring these shared efforts and the consensus reflected in this bill by passing Bill C-45 before the summer.

This legislation is cause for optimism as our country works toward economic reconciliation. In 2021, with Bill C-15, Parliament upheld legal protection for Indigenous rights through UNDRIP. That historic change was a pivotal response to a long-term injustice. It restored Indigenous nations’ legal rights to self‑government, social and economic rights and equity regarding their lands, waters and resources, including for responsible development.

Again, that all aims toward prosperous communities and supporting flourishing languages, cultures and ceremonies.

The UNDRIP action plan is due to be released this June. Senators should expect an economic component further to the Indigenous Peoples Committee’s observations from two years ago. For example, I hope to see the action plan engaging with the National Indigenous Economic Strategy unveiled last year by a coalition of 25 Indigenous organizations and their 107 calls to economic prosperity.

Complementing the breakthrough of UNDRIP, Bill C-45 supports financial pathways to greater self-determination, prosperity and well-being for many First Nations. For example, this bill can help communities build and grow their tax base, raise revenue for services, regulate services, start or purchase businesses and invest in infrastructure to improve quality of life and support commercial opportunities. All such changes toward greater prosperity can go hand in hand with traditional knowledge, values and culture. Moreover, the changes in this bill can fully complement the realization of self-government via section 35 constitutional rights and UNDRIP.

Of note, Bill C-45 responds directly to issues raised by Senator Tannas on May 16 in our Senate inquiry celebrating success stories of Indigenous businesses and entrepreneurs. Senator Tannas noted that First Nations businesses often don’t have access to capital to finance on-reserve assets. Bill C-45 enhances one avenue of financing by continuing to develop and support the First Nations Finance Authority, a lender to qualifying nations.

Before I get into the bill’s details in the second part of my speech, I will share two concrete examples of how the First Nations Fiscal Management Act can be a game changer.

My first example comes via Member of Parliament for Sydney—Victoria Jaime Battiste, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, who is the first Mi’kmaw member of Parliament. On debate in the other place, Mr. Battiste shared the following experience of Membertou First Nation in Cape Breton. About 10 years ago, Membertou received the First Nations Financial Management Board’s first-ever financial systems certification. That certification provided the community with access to long-term, affordable capital, allowing Membertou to refinance and reinvest in business developments. The results have included an $8.2-million elementary school, a 90-lot housing development and a $9.5-million highway interchange opening access to further commercial developments on Membertou’s land.

Membertou went on to build one of the largest sporting venues on Cape Breton as well as a state-of-the-art bowling alley.

That said, perhaps Membertou’s greatest economic achievement was the acquisition of Clearwater Seafoods in 2021. That $1-billion acquisition was achieved with six other First Nations, all part of the First Nations Finance Authority under this act. Membertou Development Corporation is now home to 12 corporate entities.

My second example of success under the First Nations Fiscal Management Act is Siksika Nation, east of Calgary. In 2016, Siksika Nation opened the long-awaited new Chief Crowfoot School. The original school suffered damages from flooding, was overcrowded and had heating problems. Thanks to Siksika Nation’s commitment to obtain First Nations Financial Management Board certification, it was able to access financing through the First Nations Financial Authority to build the new school. Today, Chief Crowfoot School offers students various services, including speech and language, a dental therapist, a family liaison, a parent-student support worker and weekly visits from an elder to share traditional and cultural teachings. Siksika language and culture are also offered for each grade to promote pride and respect for Siksika heritage.

This example is a social success, but it’s also an economic one, considering the brighter future these students will be able to access. Early in life, an excellent community-led education instills identity, pride and hope in these students in the Siksika Nation. First Nations in Canada need more stories like that across the country.

In addition, First Nations under this act have realized billions of dollars in investment and the assessed value of their reserve lands now exceeds $15 billion. Thousands of laws have been passed under the act, and 150 First Nations administrators have graduated from the Tulo Centre of Indigenous Economics in Kamloops, B.C.

Loans to First Nations from the First Nations Finance Authority have resulted in the creation of over 20,000 jobs and an economic output of $4 billion through nine provinces and the Northwest Territories. On that point, I remind senators that, in 2021, Senator Harder’s Senate Prosperity Action Group noted a performance target of Indigenous businesses contributing $100 billion to the Canadian economy compared to the current estimated $32 billion. Let’s help reach that goal with Bill C-45.

At the House committee, Manny Jules of the First Nations Tax Commission quoted his father, Chief Clarence Jules, from 1965. His advice for First Nations was, “We must be able to move at the speed of business.” I can personally attest to this need for nimbleness in seizing economic opportunities from my experience in mainstream business as a corporate banker, commercial lender and as a developmental lender in Indigenous economic development.

However, colleagues, it is not only First Nations who can benefit from the First Nations Fiscal Management Act and the amendments in Bill C-45. This legislation can lead to shared opportunities and benefits for the entire country. For example, the act can support First Nations’ co-ownership of ventures developing critical minerals needed for the green transition, along with other net-zero capital located on First Nations’ territory. Bill C-45 will support more First Nations in being able to enjoy better interest rates when borrowing through the First Nations Finance Authority.

The journey toward economic reconciliation now offers Canadians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike, generational opportunities for employment, partnerships, investments and environmental progress. To illustrate that, last year, RBC reported that Indigenous territories hold at least 56% of advanced critical minerals projects, 35% of top solar sites and 44% of better wind sites. Business leaders and investors should run, not walk, to consult Indigenous nations on those opportunities.

Colleagues, let’s turn to the details of Bill C-45. I begin with a quote from Harold Calla of the First Nations Financial Management Board at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, where he gave a good summary of the act and the bill.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, leave was not granted. The sitting is therefore suspended, and I will leave the chair until 8:00 p.m.

(The sitting of the Senate was suspended.)

(The sitting of the Senate was resumed.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Klyne, seconded by the Honourable Senator Audette, for the second reading of 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.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, it is now 6:00, and, pursuant to rule 3-3(1), I am obliged to leave the chair until 8:00, when we will resume, unless it is your wish, honourable senators, to not see the clock.

Is it agreed to not see the clock?

Some Hon. Senators: No.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, leave was not granted. The sitting is therefore suspended, and I will leave the chair until 8:00 p.m.

(The sitting of the Senate was suspended.)

(The sitting of the Senate was resumed.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Klyne, seconded by the Honourable Senator Audette, for the second reading of 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.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, it is now 6:00, and, pursuant to rule 3-3(1), I am obliged to leave the chair until 8:00, when we will resume, unless it is your wish, honourable senators, to not see the clock.

Is it agreed to not see the clock?

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to 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.

Rarely does a bill cross our chamber that has received unanimous support in the other place, yet Bill C-45 has done just that. Partisanship has been set aside in recognition of the good work of the organizations this bill purports to expand and in acknowledgement of the important work Canada must still do to reconcile itself with its colonial past.

This bill will expand the roles of the three First Nations Fiscal Management Act institutions: the First Nations Financial Management Board, or FMB; the First Nations Tax Commission, or FNTC; and the First Nations Finance Authority, or FNFA. It will also establish a fourth institution, the First Nations infrastructure institute, or the FNII.

The First Nations Fiscal Management Act — or FMA — institutions are Indigenous-led organizations that aim to provide the resources, administrative tools and guidance to instill confidence in First Nations’ financial management and reporting systems to support economic and community development. The actions of the organizations support economic reconciliation and create pride in Indigenous ownership, nation building and Indigenous individuals’ self-actualization.

We all recognize the inherent right of Indigenous peoples to maintain and develop their political, economic and social systems or institutions; to be secure in the enjoyment of their own means of subsistence and development and to engage freely in all their traditional and other economic activities.

Economic reconciliation is an important pillar in overall reconciliation. It represents Canada’s efforts to reverse the archaic and paternalistic Indian Act and its consequences that effectively removed First Nations from the national economy. Indigenous peoples want to address their own issues with their own resources and to return a sense of self-sufficiency and honour that has been stripped away by the paternalistic, archaic and irreparably broken Indian Act.

Reconciliation must be centred on the future of Indigenous peoples, and I am glad we have Indigenous-led organizations like the FMA institutions to lead the way. The FMA is the most successful First-Nations-led example of implementing First Nations jurisdiction through optional legislation, as within 15 years it has grown to the voluntary participation of nearly 300 First Nations from across Canada.

The FMA was founded on four basic principles and objectives that continue to guide policies, standards and proposals for institutional, fiscal and legislative changes.

First, through the First Nation institutionally supported jurisdiction, the FMA provides a framework and process to establish, implement and protect First Nation optional jurisdictions. Jurisdictional space is created for First Nations to occupy with their own legislation supported and protected by the FMA institutions. The FMA institutions provide knowledge, efficiencies, capacity and advocacy that individual First Nations would have difficulty achieving on their own. In this way, the FMA supports effective and applied self-determination for interested First Nations.

Second, the FMA supports First Nation economic growth through a strong First Nation investment climate. This investment climate is characterized by lower costs of doing business; standards to support increased trade and provide certainty; access to long-term capital; sustainable business grade infrastructure; available information to support investment, financial management and administrative capacity; and quality local services at a fair price.

Third, the FMA establishes a revenue-based fiscal relationship like other governments in Canada. Key features include a connection between clear revenue powers and expenditure jurisdictions, incentives for economic development, First Nations institutionally supported systems for transparency, statistics and accountability, and transfers to ensure national service and infrastructure quality standards.

Last, the FMA is an optional process for First Nations. This creates an institutional incentive for motivation and improvement and respects the self-determination of each First Nation.

With respect to the bill, it does several important things. First and foremost, it establishes a fourth institution under the FMA, the First Nations infrastructure institute, or FNII.

First Nations face a staggering infrastructure gap of at least $349.2 billion. Inaction will only make the problem worse, and it’s clear that top-down, government-driven programs have failed to respond to the massive need. At the House committee, Mr. Allan Claxton, Development Board Chair of the FNII, had this to say:

The problems with the current first nation infrastructure systems are well known. Infrastructure on reserves takes too long to develop, costs to much to build and does not last long enough because it’s not built up to the proper standards. This contributes to a series of poor health, social and economic outcomes.

He also said, “High-quality public infrastructure is important for the health and sustainability of our communities.”

The FNII’s mission would be to provide the skills and processes necessary to ensure Indigenous groups can effectively and efficiently plan, procure, own and manage infrastructure on their lands. Through FNII’s team, optional capacity support services would be available to all Indigenous governments and entities, including best practices for maximizing economic benefits not just for First Nations but for regional economies as well.

Bill C-45 also expands the First Nations Tax Commision, the FNTC, to support First Nations that choose to increase their fiscal powers beyond real property taxation. It would also open FNTC to be able to offer services to self-governing First Nations, municipalities and other orders of government.

The legislation would continue expanding and modernizing the services of the FMB, the Financial Management Board, to meet the needs of First Nations and other Indigenous groups and entities. This would be an optional pathway for tribal councils, modern treaty nations and self-governing groups to build their administrative, financial and governance capacity through the risk-managed support of the FMB, as 342 First Nations — 348 expected by the end of the week — have chosen to do. This legislation is a key step to the FMB being able to support innovative projects of collaborative entities such as the Meadow Lake Tribal Council, which is comprised of nine First Nations.

Mr. Harold Calla, Executive Chair of the FMB, summed it up during his testimony thus:

These amendments build on the achievements of Canada’s most successful piece of indigenous-led legislation. A huge part of this success lies in the FMA’s optionality for first nations that choose, on an individual basis by band council resolution, to be scheduled to the act. There are no financial enticements to do so, just an individual nation’s desire to have good financial management that is recognized to meet international standards, to be able to borrow from the First Nations Finance Authority or to levy local revenues to fund first nations government services.

With the passage of these amendments, nations will be able to choose expert advice and support for building and maintaining infrastructure. The optionality of this legislation also provides evidence of its success. Nearly 350 first nations have chosen, one by one, to be scheduled to the FMA. That is over 60% of the first nations that are part of the Indian Act.

The bill will also establish a statistical function within the FNTC and FMB. The socio-economic gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians is a barrier to economic reconciliation. A lack of readily available data and statistics makes the problem worse: Decision makers, such as the chiefs and councils in First Nations governments, do not have access to the kind of information they need to understand the causes, solutions and complexity of the socio-economic gap — and close it. By providing economic and fiscal data, all levels of government will be better informed.

Bill C-45 also would provide First Nations with additional powers to ensure compliance with their local revenue and service laws, such as enabling First Nations to apply to courts of competent jurisdiction for court orders directing persons or entities to comply with their local revenue and services laws and to collect amounts owing to the First Nations under their local revenue laws. It would allow First Nations to use these provisions to enforce all their local revenue laws, not just laws in respect of taxes, charges or fees. First Nations would be empowered to enforce their laws respecting the provision of services, including using “stop work” and “do work” orders and the discontinuance of services.

Finally, changes are proposed that would enable First Nations scheduled to the First Nations FMA to also be signatories to the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management, the FNLM. 

Conservatives have long supported economic self-sufficiency and economic reconciliation as an essential off-ramp from the Indian Act. The 2021 Conservative election platform supported the creation of a First Nations infrastructure institute along the same lines as the one proposed in Bill C-45 and supported the expansion of FMA institutions’ mandates and powers to enhance the work they do in establishing accountability and transparency for First Nations.

Our 2019 Conservative election platform spoke to the importance of Indigenous communities accessing capital for economic development to reduce the socio-economic gap between their Indigenous and other Canadian communities.

As I mentioned earlier, Bill C-45 was passed in the House of Commons with all-party support. Amendments at committee were clarifying in nature and agreed to by the bill’s proponents. I know that the Senate will do its due diligence in scrutinizing Bill C-45, and I hope we will reach a similar conclusion.

It’s time for action, and it’s time to return a sense of self-sufficiency and honour to a people that have had it stripped away by the paternalistic, archaic and irreparably broken Indian Act. It’s time to restore to Indigenous people more control of their land, money and decision making.

Manny Jules, Chief Commissioner of the FNTC, in his closing testimony concluded with this comment:

Your support for these amendments demonstrates that my ancestors were right when they wrote in a letter to the prime minister, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in 1910, that by working together we can make each other “great and good.”

Thank you.

Hon. Marty Klyne: Colleagues, let’s now turn to the details of Bill C-45. I begin with a quote from Harold Calla, of the First Nations Financial Management Board, at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. He gave a good summary of the act and the bill:

These amendments build on the achievements of Canada’s most successful piece of Indigenous-led legislation. A huge part of this success lies in the FMA’s optionality for first nations that choose, on an individual basis by band council resolution, to be scheduled to the act. There are no financial enticements to do so, just an individual nation’s desire to have good financial management that is recognized to meet international standards, to be able to borrow from the First Nations Finance Authority or to levy local revenues to fund first nations government services.

Mr. Calla continued:

With the passage of these amendments, nations will be able to choose expert advice and support for building and maintaining infrastructure. The optionality of this legislation also provides evidence of its success. Nearly 350 first nations have chosen, one by one, to be scheduled to the FMA. That is over 60% of the first nations that are part of the Indian Act.

Specifically, Bill C-45 makes the following five proposals:

The first is expanding and strengthening the mandates of the First Nations Tax Commission and the First Nations Financial Management Board, such as letting them take on economic research and data-collection functions to facilitate evidence-based planning and decision making, enhancing their ability to offer advice in support of self-determination and granting them the authority to conduct their annual meetings virtually.

The second proposal is updating the chairperson position of the First Nations Financial Management Board to a full-time position, with accompanying compensation, and ensuring strong and diverse Indigenous representation on the board.

The third is combining two existing debt reserve funds — one to protect borrowing with local revenues such as property taxes, and the second for borrowing with other revenues like oil and gas — into a single fund relating to own-source revenues to simplify and lower the cost of pooled borrowing by First Nations. The changes also clarify that only borrowing members with outstanding loans can be called upon to replenish the safeguard fund in circumstances that it had to be used, in the event that multiple First Nations may default on their loans.

Proposal number four is enhancing First Nations’ authority to make and enforce laws, including expressly through court orders, regarding revenue collection and the provision of services on‑reserve. These changes will allow nations to create local revenue laws beyond real property taxation and/or to regulate services in relation to, for example, the provision of water, sewer, drainage, waste management, animal control, recreation, transportation, telecommunications and energy.

The final proposal is creating a fourth institution under the act called the First Nations infrastructure institute as a centre of excellence to help participating First Nations and other interested Indigenous groups access the necessary tools and resources to develop and maintain strong, sustainable infrastructure.

This last proposal aims to help close the $30-billion infrastructure gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities. As Allan Claxton, Development Board Chair for this forthcoming institute, told the House of Commons Committee:

The problems with the current first nation infrastructure systems are well known. Infrastructure on reserves takes too long to develop, costs to much to build and does not last long enough because it’s not built up to the proper standards. This contributes to a series of poor health, social and economic outcomes.

We are proposing to establish the First Nations Infrastructure Institute . . . to tackle these problems.

FNII has been designed to build on the successes of the FMA model. It will also be optional to all first nations.

Senators, this institute will also be available to nations with self-governing and modern treaty agreements. In addition, the infrastructure institute can support Métis and Inuit projects should that be of interest to their communities, as eligibility for these types of service offerings would not be limited to those scheduled to the act to date.

At the House of Commons Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee, Minister Miller noted that the development board for the First Nations infrastructure institute has already set up a successful pilot project with the Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point First Nation in southern Ontario. This First Nation is developing a feasibility study, business case and procurement options for water and waste water assets. The hope is that this is only the beginning of this initiative’s path to adequate infrastructure for First Nations, supporting the quality of life and economic opportunities that many Canadians take for granted. That is what economic reconciliation is all about.

To conclude, I remind this chamber that this consensus and opt-in bill is the product of extensive consultations and determined First Nations leadership. The other place passed Bill C-45 unanimously and expeditiously. The Senate should do the same.

On a personal note, I believe that Canada, as a nation of nations, is building up a head of steam to advance economic reconciliation. As obstacles are removed and rights are recognized, Indigenous nations, organizations, business leaders, entrepreneurs and youth are creating their own paths to success.

In the Senate, we have a part to play. The Prosperity Action Group’s 2021 report is a Senate policy initiative towards inclusive and sustainable wealth creation across Canada. The report aims to set the conditions whereby a rising tide lifts all ships and no one is left behind, including other racialized or marginalized communities.

In addition, senators from across the country are celebrating the success stories of Indigenous businesses and entrepreneurs in an ongoing speech series in this chamber. I urge colleagues to add your voices to our inquiry, lifting up and heralding Indigenous businesses in your region.

Therefore, colleagues, let’s build on all this momentum by moving quickly and with a united spirit on Bill C-45. Together, let’s pass this legislation into law before the summer, making a powerful statement and bringing practical change towards economic reconciliation. Thank you, hiy kitatamîhin.

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: Honourable senators, I rise today in reply to the Speech from the Throne.

When the Right Honourable Mary Simon stood in this chamber and delivered her speech, she spoke in Inuktitut. She opened her address urging action on reconciliation. She pushed us to move beyond platitudes and sound bites to actually achieve change. To quote Her Excellency:

Despite the profound pain, there is hope.

There is hope in the every day. Reconciliation is not a single act, nor does it have an end date. It is a lifelong journey of healing, respect and understanding. We need to embrace the diversity of Canada and demonstrate respect and understanding for all peoples every day.

Already, I have seen how Canadians are committed to reconciliation. Indigenous Peoples are reclaiming our history, stories, culture and language through action. Non-Indigenous Peoples are coming to understand and accept the true impact of the past and the pain suffered by generations of Indigenous Peoples. Together they are walking the path towards reconciliation.

Colleagues, I believe that language is a vital aspect of culture and identity, so it is incumbent upon us to do our utmost to protect, promote and revitalize Indigenous languages.

When I was minister of education for the Northwest Territories, the Government of Canada, represented by the then Indian affairs and Northern development minister, the late Honourable John Munro, made a special trip to Yellowknife in 1982 to meet with our cabinet to inform us that Canada would take action to legislate official bilingualism in the Northwest Territories.

I remember telling Minister Munro in response that while the benefits of official bilingualism would be welcome in my constituency, where there is a significant francophone population, if the Government of Canada would not correspondingly support and recognize Indigenous languages also in need of recognition and support in the N.W.T., federal unilateral action would amount to a declaration of war. “We have more tanks than you do!” the minister told me, jokingly, but agreed to consider my plea for parallel federal support for Indigenous languages and helped authorize a meeting with the secretary of state to discuss ongoing federal support for Indigenous languages.

At that time, I served in our cabinet with the Honourable Richard Nerysoo, who was then Premier of the Northwest Territories. We came to Ottawa and negotiated with the then secretary of state, who was also our esteemed former colleague senator Serge Joyal, and came away with a contribution agreement for a significant $16 million to support Indigenous languages. This was the so-called Territorial Language Accord, which has since then continuously provided federal support for French language enhancement for our small percentage of French speakers in Nunavut — roughly 4% — and roughly equal support for the enhancement of Inuktut languages in Nunavut, the first languages of a significant majority of our 85% Inuit population.

For our part of the deal, the N.W.T. government passed the Official Languages Act, which recognized nine Indigenous languages in addition to French and English as the official Aboriginal languages of the territory. This carried over when the territory later divided, and Nunavut was created. Canada’s newest territory passed its own Official Languages Act in 2008, which recognized Inuktut, Inuinnaqtun, English and French as the official languages of Nunavut.

A key element of the Act is the inclusion of language in section 3, which states:

. . . the Official Languages of Nunavut have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in territorial institutions.

That same year, the Government of Nunavut passed the parallel Inuit Language Protection Act. The then minister of languages, the Honourable James Arreak, released a document entitled Uqausivut, which was meant to serve as a road map for language protection and revitalization for the territory. It explained how the Official Languages Act and the Inuit Language Protection Act would work in tandem to provide the legislative framework required to see Inuit languages flourish.

The document clearly laid out the intent of these bills by stating:

While respecting the equality of Official Languages, the Inuit Language Protection Act was designed specifically to ensure respect for unilingual Inuit, particularly Elders, to reverse language shift among youth, and to strengthen the use of Inuktut among all Nunavummiut. The Act was unanimously approved by the Members of the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut in September 2008, and is now law in Nunavut.

As one of Canada’s founding languages, Inuktut is also an irreplaceable part of the national heritage, and contributes to the richness and diversity of life in this country. Canada recognized this fact, and the need to protect and support Inuktut, when it signed the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions in 2005, and, more recently, when it endorsed the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in November 2010.

The act requires, and I stress this, every organization — which includes by definition “a public sector body, municipality or private sector body,” and a “public sector body” means “a federal department, agency or institution” — to “provide, in the Inuit Language, . . . customer or client services that are available to the general public.”

The act goes on to say that every organization shall be bound by the language and signage obligations laid out in the act.

Sadly, honourable colleagues, this is not the reality we live in today in Nunavut. Inuit are not able to access federal government services in their preferred first language. During the Aboriginal Peoples Committee’s study of Bill C-91, the Indigenous Languages Act, former Nunavut languages commissioner Helen Klengenberg shared a legal opinion with the committee studying the Bill — an opinion which stated clearly that Canada was equally obligated to adhere to the Inuit Language Protection Act as an organization operating within the territory. Accordingly, the committee, with the support of this chamber, reinforced this by attempting to ensure that essential federal services could be provided in an Indigenous language with a reasonable qualification where numbers warrant. However, that amendment was removed in the House under the former majority Liberal government.

It is of great concern to me that the Government of Canada will not honour Nunavut’s Inuit Language Protection Act enacted by the duly elected Legislative Assembly of Nunavut. I often have to deal with complaints from unilingual Inuit who have problems accessing federal government services and programs.

There is no accommodation for the Inuit elders who face language barriers in accessing government programs now delivered through the Income Tax Act. This is partly why I believe that studies have shown that 30% of Nunavut residents — the highest proportion in the country — do not file tax returns. We all know those returns are difficult enough to access and understand for folks who speak English or French.

A very disturbing example of how the Inuit face prejudice — due to Canada’s failure to honour its clear obligations under the Nunavut Inuit Language Protection Act — came to my attention in the last federal election campaign in 2019. At a polling station in Iqaluit, the entire signage at the polling station was in English and in French only — with no signage whatsoever in the Inuktut language. An elder who was at the poll to vote complained to the staff about this blatant failure to respect the third official language — Inuktut — at the poll. She was given a pencil and asked to voluntarily translate the election signage, and handwrite the information on the sign into Inuktut.

When the Indigenous Languages Act was presented and studied in the Senate, Inuit participants in the committee study complained that while it was commendable that the bill addressed the weakened state of many Indigenous languages in Canada which are in danger of extinction due to small numbers of speakers and disuse, it is also essential that the federal Indigenous Languages Act address the needs of Indigenous languages which currently have a better footing and are being more widely used in daily life — recognizing that those languages, like Inuktut, should also be recognized and supported in the new legislation. Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami’s efforts to have these unique needs of the Inuit, whose language is healthy compared, sadly, to many First Nations languages in Canada — which is recognized in the appendix that Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami proposed to be added to the bill — were not supported and not included in the bill. As Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated President Aluki Kotierk explained:

Nunavut Inuit, in close collaboration with others across Inuit Nunangat, have made every effort to work constructively with the Government of Canada to develop Bill C-91. Although we have attempted to engage in the process in good faith, this bill was, by no means, co-developed with Inuit.

Ms. Kotierk added:

This legislation, which is intended to help reverse the steady slide of Indigenous languages into disappearance, does not address issues of access to public services in Indigenous languages and does not reflect the needs which have been clearly communicated by Inuit.

While having the pleasure of hosting our colleague Senator Cormier in Iqaluit last week, I learned that the previously established funding amounts disbursed annually between Canada and the Northwest Territories — and now Canada and Nunavut — have persisted for all these years until recently. The last bilateral agreement for Nunavut was from 2016 to 2020 — a four-year agreement instead of the previous pattern of a five-year agreement. More recently, the renewed agreement has been reduced to two years.

There is a strong concern in the Government of Nunavut that the federal government will now be pushing, as they have done in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, to have Nunavut’s funding for official languages be sourced from the meagre national fund established under the Indigenous Languages Act — which is primarily geared to supporting struggling and threatened Indigenous languages. This would be contrary to the long-standing bilateral agreement between Canada and the Northwest Territories — and through the Northwest Territories, and now Nunavut — to respect French and English as official languages in our territories, but also it would seriously erode support for the Indigenous language of the majority of our population in Nunavut.

Colleagues, we have begun debating Bill C-13 this week. It’s a good day to talk about languages and the long-awaited amendments to the Official Languages Act which, of course, is primarily about Canada’s two official languages. But it was noted by Senator Gold, and others, that the bill also contains a non‑derogation clause to affirm that the bill will not derogate from the rights of Indigenous language speakers. That’s good, but we must be on guard to protect and enhance our Indigenous languages as well.

I’m pleased to have this opportunity, through my reply to the Throne Speech, to put on the public record — as one who personally knows the history of official languages and Indigenous languages in the Northwest Territories, and now Nunavut — my profound concern that Canada must honour the solemn agreement which was made over 40 years ago, where territorial governments accepted official bilingualism for the minority of its French-speaking citizens in return for Canada’s commitments to also provide corresponding support for the recognition and enhancement of Indigenous languages, including, in my territory, Inuktut.

Honourable senators, it’s not enough to say that we support Indigenous languages in theory. We need to ensure that the government follows through with the actions required in order to ensure that we continue to properly resource the measures necessary to provide that support. I, for one, will continue to push the Government of Canada to honour and respect the obligations that everyone doing business in Nunavut, including the federal government, has under the Inuit Language Protection Act.

I’m delighted that Senator Cormier was there with me in my constituency last week to learn about the importance of both Inuktut and Canada’s two official languages in Nunavut. I will count on him for support in this cause.

Thank you, honourable colleagues. Qujannamiik. Taima.

(On motion of Senator LaBoucane-Benson, debate adjourned.)

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the tenth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry (Bill S-236, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance Regulations (Prince Edward Island), with a recommendation), presented in the Senate on May 17, 2023.