Evidence of meeting #109 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was peoples.
A video is available from Parliament.
12:10 p.m.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
On an individual community first nations basis, absolutely. I can speak to Membertou First Nation just outside of Sydney. I know for a fact that when they developed a hotel, they did that on fee simple land at the time. They later entered into a land code, which may have made that process a little simpler, but at the time chose to do that through a fee simple transaction.
Michelle, I don't know if there's more you would like to add.
12:10 p.m.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Indigenous Services
I'm not sure I can add more than that, Robert.
Clearly, sir, we can follow up if there are specific questions.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
I think for economic development, it's one of the barriers out there. We as individuals, under our structure, can get mortgages. We can borrow and we can get that. It has been an economic barrier, in a sense, for indigenous people that this barrier has been there, because they haven't been able to have title, fee simple, to gain actual property.
I think this is something that you're suggesting is now beginning to happen.
12:10 p.m.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
Yes, I can say that, sir. Certainly, one thing we're seeing is that sometimes communities are wanting to add to reserve, which is a process that we work on between both our departments, but in some instances they prefer to purchase land and hold it in fee simple.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Thank you.
With your department, when you talk about funding, is it yearly grant-based that we're talking about? When you're talking about economic development, you're talking about $350 million. Is it grant-based in a yearly grant application?
12:10 p.m.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Indigenous Services
Yes. The vast majority of it, so the $350-million aboriginal entrepreneurship program, is a contribution. In this case, it is with the national aboriginal partnerships corporation. They dole out the money to 58 independent indigenous financial institutions, who in turn work directly with communities to help individual indigenous entrepreneurs in communities obtain loans for businesses. From our perspective, it's a contribution.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
One of the challenges with grant-based, having talked economic development with a number of nations, is that the application process to find the grant, to secure the grant, to get it to the grassroots to where an audit may occur, which obviously it doesn't, and then to start over again just doesn't work. They're saying that the grant structure doesn't work. It just doesn't get to where it needs to get. After many hours, days, weeks and months, it doesn't work.
12:10 p.m.
Jessica Sultan Director General, Economic Policy Development, Department of Indigenous Services
That is an issue that we are taking much notice of and working to modernize. I would note two specific undertakings. One is looking at the ability to potentially do multi-year funding, which would address that specific issue. The second is ongoing support, I'll call it, in terms of more direct provision to communities or indigenous entrepreneurs in the development of those grant proposals so that there's not as much administrative burden on each of the communities.
That's further offset by the provision of economic development officers in the community. Ideally, one in each community is what we're working towards to support that type of work.
May 27th, 2024 / 12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Thank you.
At this time, Mr. Chair, I would like to move a motion. It's one that has been circulated. The motion reads as follows:
Given that the appearance of the Minister of Indigenous Services and the Minister of Northern Affairs was delayed due to votes on Wednesday, May 22, 2024, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), the committee re-invites the Minister of Indigenous Services and the Minister of Northern Affairs to appear separately for a minimum of one hour each to discuss the Main Estimates 2024-25, and that this meeting be held no later than May 31, 2024.
That has been circulated and tabled, and I'm moving it.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Jamie Schmale
Thank you very much, Mr. Shields.
I believe everyone has a copy of that motion.
For the committee's context, the clerk has informed me that there are a few ways to go about this. Currently, we have Minister Anandasangaree in the first panel. Then we have Minister Hajdu and Minister Vandal for 30 minutes each in the second panel. Then we have the First Nations Tax Commission and I believe another witness for the third panel. That would be three hours on Wednesday.
There are a few ways to do this. We could ask ministers Hajdu and Vandal to try to stay, if it works in their schedule, for the full hour but in the same panel. The other option that was explained to me was to have each minister for one hour, because we have three hours each, but it depends on their schedules. I know that their schedules do fill up.
I leave it up to the committee to determine how they wish to do that and how they wish to proceed.
Is there any debate on this?
Mr. Battiste.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
Yes, I think it would be great to get the ministers back. It was kind of a rushed intervention in committee because of the votes and whatnot. We asked for their time for an hour. They were able to do half an hour. What's the relevance of their doing a complete full hour? That means that each minister appears for an hour and a half as opposed to an hour.
Can we not just have them come back for one more round each, and then we can get to the tax commission?
I know that there are things that we also want to get to in terms of possible legislation that might be coming to us in June. If we're going to ask them to come back, fairness is that, if they've done a half-hour, they should do another half-hour. To add another hour on to that, I just don't see the relevance with all the important things that we have on the go.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate Mr. Shields' bringing this forward. I think it's an important motion. We have a lot of members who have very important questions to ask of both these ministers.
To your question, Chair, about how we do this if passed, I would suggest we just ask both Minister Hajdu and Minister Vandal to stay an extra hour. We'd have the hour with Minister Anandasangaree, the hour with both ministers Hajdu and Vandal, and then the hour for the tax commission. That would be my suggestion. Of course, that's predicated on the motion's passing.
Yes, that would be a three-hour meeting, which I believe is already scheduled.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]
I agree with Jaime and Eric.
I'm in favour of an hour for Minister Anandasangaree and half an hour for ministers Hajdu and Vandal. I believe the other invited guests we already had should be involved that day as well.
I wish to say that we could allow extra time for those ministers. It is our responsibility to tell them, as members of Parliament, that we want them to spend an hour or half an hour to brief us. They have to respond to us and respond to our invitation.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
I think you have consensus for the three hours.
We would ask for ministers Hajdu and Vandal to maximize their time with us. They have already delivered opening comments, so we can go straight into questions with them as opposed to having them do opening comments. We can then maximize that hour that we have with them to potentially get a maybe a round and a half each.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Jamie Schmale
Is that acceptable to the committee? Does everyone agree?
(Motion agreed to)
That's perfect.
The bells will ring, but I think there's agreement around the table to go into the bells so that the Bloc and the NDP get their chance at questions.
I believe this now goes to the Bloc, because the the time.... I'm sorry; it's the Liberals.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Jamie Schmale
You are correct.
Mr. McLeod, you have six minutes, please.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Michael McLeod Liberal Northwest Territories, NT
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thought you were going to skip me.
I think it's important that we take a bit of a look at our history as we move forward on the taxation issue. From the time the treaties were signed, from the time the Métis scrips were signed, the indigenous governments were not allowed at the table to take part in the development of this country. I know that certainly in the Northwest Territories the indigenous people really didn't have a seat at the decision-making table. It also meant that there was really no avenue to generate revenues. There were many barriers, in fact, to stop them from doing that.
Now, as we move forward and we are talking about reconstituting nations, as we're talking about working with indigenous governments and indigenous people becoming self-governing, the issue of taxation is a very important one. The ability to finance self-governing nations and other governance models in indigenous communities has to be based on the ability to finance their operations. This means we need to get clarity on the ability to tax our own people, under indigenous governance.
There's been discussion about arrangements viewed as grants or contribution agreements, but I think most indigenous governments view the agreements as being along the same lines as those of the provinces and territories, under which long-term formal financing arrangements can be put together. There's no one funding source that could generate enough revenues to fund an indigenous government. Many different sources would have to be utilized, and many would have to be part of the arrangement with the federal government.
Royalties are also something that has to be considered. In the Northwest Territories we already have resource revenue-sharing agreements on some of the developments and renewable projects that are happening. Those things would all have to be taken into consideration and included in a long-term, multi-year financing formula.
It's been a long time coming, because for the 10 years the Conservatives were in power under Harper, the approach from the Conservative government was that pretty much everything had to be through OSR, own-source revenues. There was no progress being made on some of the policies, like the self-governing financing agreement that is now in place, which will really help when it comes to clarifying what the federal government will be providing. However, there are still other barriers.
My first question will be on discussions that may or may not be happening. Let's use the Northwest Territories, where I'm from, as an example. If any revenue agreement, especially with respect to royalties or taxation of properties or income tax, is taken over by indigenous governments, that will mean that revenues will drop for the Government of the Northwest Territories.
Have any discussions happened with other jurisdictions and other governments that would be impacted?
12:25 p.m.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
Thank you very much for the question. It's an important one.
I certainly don't want to freelance here, sir. We could, perhaps, come back with a written response on that to make sure we give you a comprehensive response in that area, unless Mr. Duschenes has anything to add. No. Okay.
Michelle may have something for you, sir.
12:25 p.m.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Indigenous Services
I appreciate very much the question and certainly agree with you. Certainly, the Indian Act over the years has effectively locked indigenous people out of participating in the economy.
There are some things in place that are encouraging. My colleague Rob mentioned earlier that you can opt out of the Indian Act as part of the fiscal management act and set up your own financial administration laws. You can opt out of the Indian Act if you're a first nation and develop your own land code. These are certainly ways to create economic prosperity and other sources of revenue, but you're quite right: Going forward, there needs to be a whole lot more.
I can say that, with the government's commitment to developing an economic reconciliation framework, some of those discussions have already started. The framework, the policy, the vision and the actions all will be described by indigenous peoples. It's they who are going to set their future, and they who are going to say what they need. I think it's clear that revenue and economic prosperity, and removing those things and barriers that are in the way of first nations, Inuit and Métis people becoming prosperous, will certainly be top of mind.
Even within the structure that we're currently working in at Indigenous Services Canada, we're thinking, “What more can we do?” We have transfers that go out to first nations communities. Are there ways that you could look at those? Could you monetize them? Could there be ways to further encourage the money that's currently in the system to be used differently and more innovatively—to build homes, to build infrastructure?
All that is to say that there are discussions happening. Certainly, we're hearing it everywhere. I think that perhaps even with the economic reconciliation framework there's a real opportunity to hear from indigenous peoples on how they would like that to go.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Jamie Schmale
That's about it. I'm sorry. You went about 40 seconds too long, Mr. McLeod.
For the Bloc Québécois, we now have six minutes.
