Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on June 10th, 2024

[Dr. Jacqueline Ottmann]

Yes, I can. Thank you for that comment and question.

The national indigenous economic strategy that was launched two years ago, in 2022, was, as I mentioned, under four categories—infrastructure, finance, people and lands. There are approximately 25 calls to indigenous economic prosperity under each one of those categories. This strategy is not just for indigenous communities or people to implement. It's for all Canadians and for organizations in the corporate sector. It's like the truth and reconciliation calls to action, where everyone has a role in implementing those calls to action.

The objective here, or one of the goals, is for not only economic reconciliation but also the collaboration of indigenous and non-indigenous businesses and people to contribute to economic prosperity for indigenous peoples, which benefits all Canadians. It is a reciprocal, mutually beneficial document. Since many indigenous people still live in poverty and experience barriers to success, this strategy is a road map for all Canadians.

The launch of the national indigenous economic prosperity institute is very important in that this institute will act as a hub. It will generate research. It will compile case studies. It will track the implementation of the calls to economic prosperity by every sector. Those will be compiled. It will showcase the successes, whether it's the federal government or corporate sector or health sector or education sector, in implementing these calls.

It's very much like the truth and reconciliation centre, which does something similar. It tracks and promotes. Willie Littlechild, who was involved in the development of the truth and reconciliation calls to action, did also indicate that there was a gap in those TRC calls to action of economic reconciliation and indigenous economic prosperity.

This is what this document does. It fills that gap. It is a living document. That's been highlighted. It could reshape and it could grow in a couple of years after review and after feedback. We'll live this document for a couple of years. Then there could be a revisiting of this particular strategy. It does provide an essential road map.

What we're doing now is that we will be posting a position for an executive director. A team will be hired and they will hit the ground running. There's a marketing budget. Again, we are very grateful to the foundations for helping us launch this particular institute. A lot of people don't know that there are approximately 26 indigenous entrepreneurship and business associations across the country. This institute will support those associations but also be a connector, a hub, for those associations.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you.

Have you assessed the cost of this effort to increase prosperity for indigenous peoples in Canada?

[Dr. Jacqueline Ottmann]

The cost is dependent on the commitment of an organization. The institute itself is going to be housed within First Nations University of Canada. Right now, we have just under $7 million that will help launch the institute.

A municipality, say, might choose four calls to indigenous economic prosperity that it's going to focus on. How it is going to do that may be unique...to another municipality. There is probably that financial commitment that an organization will bear initially.

One of those initiatives could be.... I'm thinking about the City of Regina. Its procurement policy says that 20% of its procurement will go to indigenous businesses. That is an example of economic reconciliation. It does meet some of the calls to economic prosperity that are mentioned.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you.

I'm sorry, Dr. Ottmann. I'm going to have to cut you off there.

Thank you very much, Mr. Lemire.

Last in our six-minute round of questioning, we have Ms. Idlout.

The floor is yours.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Thank you.

I wish to thank you, first of all, for your report. It makes it easier to understand taxation.

Grand Chief Joel Abram, I have a question for you.

You talked about taxes in the old days and that nothing has changed—no upgrade, no revisions—and some things have to be revised and brought up to date. Can you talk a little more about how much work is required to bring us up to date?

There are recommendations and resolutions. I want to learn more about whether, for indigenous peoples—first nations, Métis and Inuit—our lifestyles, lives, bylaws, our own laws and our own philosophy have to be incorporated into current changes today, like this one, if we revise certain things.

[Grand Chief Joel Abram]

Thank you for that question. I don't think there's any really easy answer to that, but I do think that, when it comes to benefiting from taxation, first nations historically have been at the bottom of the list. If you take a look at housing deficits and who has actually benefited from the land and the resources that have been extracted from it, it hasn't been first nations.

When you look at the vast amounts of money that have been created through tobacco, which is one of our medicines, it really hasn't been first nations until recent decades. If you talk about wealth, it's more than just money. It's more of a holistic view. Well-being is part of that, whether it's social, emotional, mental, spiritual or financial. There's our social innovation, social finance, entrepreneurship—which is coming back now—co-operatives and non-profits, and there are the essentials, which are things that we really have struggled with historically: housing, food, employment, purpose and education. A lot of this has stemmed from things like the Indian Act, which really limited what you could do.

For instance, we're just now playing catch-up with regard to the inclusion of indigenous peoples in the economy. For a long time, we couldn't even hire lawyers, for example. We couldn't vote. We haven't really been included, so we really just want to catch up—we're playing catch-up. We haven't had statutory funding. We've had funding that's been discretionary funding, which is at the goodwill of the government. I think hopefully we can all agree that the government hasn't had a lot of goodwill when it comes to first nations. If you take a look at how many boil-water advisories there have been over the past few decades, at the housing crisis or all these murdered and missing indigenous women and girls, we know that there hasn't been a lot of support for first nations. There hasn't been a lot of benefit from the taxation when it comes to supporting that.

First nations now control less than 1% of the land mass within Canada, so Canada has enjoyed 99% of the land and the resources that have come out of that. We need to look at things not just in terms of taxation but in terms of resource revenue sharing, and also look at taking care of the environment in a sustainable way so that the next seven generations can enjoy it the same way that we do today. Again, enjoyment of the environment is another form of, I think, economic reconciliation. There's tourism and all sorts of things that we can do nowadays.

I think in terms of taxation, we've gotten the short end of that, of receiving the benefits of taxation. There are all sorts of hidden taxes we haven't really talked about either yet [Technical difficulty—Editor] that are in all sorts of goods and services that we get. Hopefully that helps to answer your question.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Thank you. The federal government stated that they would produce economic reconciliation. I'd like to understand more from you about what the federal government is proposing. I'd like to hear from the grand chief and the chief.

What is your response to economic reconciliation and what is your vision?

I will ask the grand chief first. Dr. Ottmann will be after the grand chief. Thank you.

[Grand Chief Joel Abram]

To keep it really brief, I think that economic reconciliation recognizes the independence, sovereignty and jurisdiction of first nations.

We know that right up until very recently—and I already talked about this before—in the relationship with first nations the federal government saw the first nations as children unable to take care of their own affairs, and they legislated accordingly. That's where we got things like the Indian Act, residential schools, the sixties scoop, the ongoing child welfare situation today and underfunding for everything. There were a lot of instances of Indian agents stealing resources from first nations.

In order to reconcile, we need to hear the truth about what that relationship was and how lopsided it was, and really start to, like I said, decolonize that and go back to the original relationship, which was more, as equals, sharing the resources of the land and also the responsibilities of that as well. I think that's really what we want to do in terms of that reconciliation. It's more of a holistic thing and involves other things besides just economics.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you so much, Grand Chief. I'm afraid I have to stop you there.

Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout. That concludes our first round of questioning.

We move into the second round—the five-minute round—with Mr. Melillo.

The floor is yours.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to both of the witnesses for being here and being a part of this important discussion.

I start with Grand Chief Abram, picking up on what my colleague asked you as well. In your opening comments you spoke a bit about the carbon tax specifically, and it wasn't necessarily surprising for me. We see more and more first nations coming out against this policy—including the Chiefs of Ontario, of course, taking the government to court surrounding the detrimental policy of the carbon tax.

I'm just wondering if you can elaborate further. I believe you said it was a “violation” of land rights. I just want to know, if you can elaborate further on what you meant by that and how you view the carbon tax.

[Grand Chief Joel Abram]

I can see the necessity of doing this, especially for industries that are very carbon-heavy, but it does have disproportionate impacts on first nations, especially within treaty territories. I know the federal government sees itself as having total control over 99% of the land. However, first nations do have traditional territories that they have rights within, whether they be hunting and fishing or resource rights, so we really think there has to be some level of government accountability to first nations for the protection and preservation of those rights.

Article 29 of UNDRIP recognizes the rights of indigenous peoples “to the conservation and protection...and productive capacity of their lands or territories and resources.” Again, carbon taxes, to us, are not really about federalism but rather are a violation of our land rights, and this goes in opposition to the economic reconciliation efforts you're talking about now. Again, I can't go into too much detail because we do have legal action on that right now, but hopefully we can get that settled sooner rather than later.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you very much, Grand Chief.

Dr. Ottmann, I'll ask you a bit about building capacity. I believe you mentioned that earlier in another comment. It's something that I think is a very important aspect of this.

I'm from northwestern Ontario. There are 42 first nations in my district. Over and over, different communities are, of course, trying to appeal for federal funding to help get support for projects. Just when it seems like it's going to move forward, there are delays. There are bureaucratic hurdles, the government isn't ready, the costs increase and it seems like this process drags on. Critical infrastructure and other needs aren't being met as a result.

In your view, how would the ability for the first nations to directly collect taxation revenue assist in their ability to build capacity and move forward on some of these projects more quickly, either by taking a greater lead in those projects or even by going, if necessary, on their own without federal support? I'm just curious about your comments on that.

[Dr. Jacqueline Ottmann]

Thank you for the comment and the question.

I'll begin by saying that there is this unique relationship between the federal government and first nation communities, which is entrenched within not only the treaties but also the Canadian Constitution. There is a commitment the federal government has to first nation communities. I would even say it's about infrastructure, as the federal government is also engaged in infrastructure. I don't think the fiduciary responsibility to first nations people should ever be eliminated or go away because of all those constitutional and legislative agreements.

For first nations people, there's a shortfall. This is what the grand chief mentioned. There isn't economic parity. For indigenous governments and businesses, there is this continuous seeking of resources or financial revenue to make up for that shortfall.

An example we have is our northern campus. It's in a very old building. It's situated near a safe injection site. The City of Prince Albert gave us five acres of land for five dollars in an amazing location, so we submitted a $25-million proposal to the federal green and inclusive community buildings program. We had the land, a detailed schematic and community engagement. As I said, education is the solution for many of the issues we engage in. However, we didn't get the grant, and we didn't get a reason for the grant being rejected.

Now we have, like Prince Albert Grand Council and FSIN—the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations—this challenge. This has been a 30-year issue in that location in Prince Albert, so we are looking—

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Dr. Ottmann, I'm afraid I'm going to have to cut you off.

[Dr. Jacqueline Ottmann]

Sure.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

I hate to keep doing this, but I'm afraid we're over time here.

With that, we'll turn it over to the second questioner in the second round.

Mr. Powlowski, you have five minutes.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

I'll start and then pass it on to Ms. Gainey.

Chief Abram, you talked about your displeasure with the carbon tax. At the same time, you also talked about climate change, which perhaps disproportionately affects indigenous communities, particularly in places in the north—like my friend Michael McLeod's riding in the Northwest Territories, which has been pretty severely affected.

We also know that most conservative economists think the carbon tax is the most efficient way of addressing and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Chief Abram, is your problem with the carbon tax per se or with the fact that you think first nations should get more of the rebate? We know it is meant to be revenue-neutral. I know indigenous people, like everyone else, get their individual rebates, but perhaps the argument is that first nations communities use more fossil fuels because of their isolation. They're up north and ought to get more of the rebate.

Again, is your problem with the carbon tax per se, or with the way the rebate is handled, figuring first nations communities should get a better deal on it?

[Grand Chief Joel Abram]

I think the issue is twofold.

You know, one is around collective.... Where does the benefit come in for first nations? You know, for instance, it could be helping to build infrastructure in northern communities. We know it is happening to a limited extent. However, to support cleaner energy being available for those communities....

I think we all know about all the greenhouse gases—

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Chair, we should make sure the witness is closer to the microphone because there is an issue with interpretation.

[Grand Chief Joel Abram]

Okay. I'm sorry about that. I'll try to speak a little bit louder.

Is that better?

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

I think we're good. With that, we can continue.

[Grand Chief Joel Abram]

I think the number one thing is that we want to have more of those tax revenues going toward collective things like building that infrastructure to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases. I think that's good for the climate overall.

Also, look at things like the impacts of forest fires. We can make a good argument that those are climate-based. For every degree of temperature, we know that the storms are going to be more violent and have more intensity in terms of all those things, whether you're talking about flooding, tornadoes, forest fires or all those natural disasters we can see increasing.

Again, more data over the years will find this. I think that's part of the issue. There's more impact to first nations than just what the carbon tax can speak for. This is especially true for northern ones, where they have to evacuate every summer or every spring because of fires and flooding and all the sorts of things that happen.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Chair, I have to stop you again. The sound is cutting out, making interpretation difficult.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Let me just pause for one minute here.

We're going to try to get through this. If this is going to continue to be a problem, we may have to suspend again, but I'm hoping we can get through this.

Mr. Lemire, you can raise a point of order if the problem persists.

With that, we can go back to the grand chief.

[Grand Chief Joel Abram]

I think the other main point I would like to make is that, if we're going to decolonize that relationship and talk about taxing first nation communities, there has to be a discussion with first nation communities and treaty areas as well about what that's going to look like in terms of having free, prior and informed consent, which is now federal law.

Thank you.