THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, December 9, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples met with videoconference this day at 9 a.m. [ET] to consider the subject matter of Part 4 and those elements contained in Division 35 of Part 5 of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025.
Senator Michèle Audette (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Kuei. [Innu-aimun spoken] I’m delighted and honoured to be here among my fellow senators and our guests. In Innu-aimun, the mother tongue that I’m learning, I wanted to acknowledge the presence of the people in the room, our guests, our colleagues and, of course, the Anishinaabe people whose unceded ancestral territory we cherish. Thank you for agreeing to let us be here. I would also like to say kuei to the many nations who have made this their home, the Métis people, Inuit, First Nations and all those who live on this vast land.
[English]
I would like to remind you that it is very important that we take care of the people who translate my franglais to you, which are the interpreters. We have those translation devices, so let’s make sure that we are not too close to the mic. When we are finished with those, we can put it on the cute sticker that we have on the table.
[Translation]
I would also like to remind you that we’re studying a fine bill. The committee will be welcoming guests to speak about it. I’ll be introducing them to you.
Before we go around the table, let me introduce myself. I’m Michèle Audette, senator [Innu-aimun spoken] in the Quebec region. I’m the chair of this committee.
I would now like to ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
[English]
Senator Prosper: Senator Paul Prosper, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki territory.
Senator Pate: Welcome. Kim Pate. I have the honour and responsibility of living here in the unceded, unsurrendered and unreturned territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation.
Senator Francis: Senator Francis, Epekwitk, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas, Alberta.
Senator Greenwood: Margo Greenwood, British Columbia.
The Chair: Honourable senators, we are meeting today to begin our study on the subject matter of certain elements of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025. Today, in particular, we will focus on Part 4 of this bill, examining the proposed amendments to the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act.
Allow me to introduce our first panel of witnesses: Please welcome to the table, from the Department of Finance Canada, Brent Almond, Director, Indigenous Tax Policy. He is accompanied by Roch Vézina, Senior Tax Policy Analyst. From the Canada Revenue Agency, please welcome Anne Ellefsen‑Gauthier, Director, Public Service Bodies and Governments Division, GST/HST Rulings Directorate, Legislative Policy and Regulatory Affairs Branch.
Thank you all for being available. One of our witnesses here today will deliver opening remarks for five to seven minutes, followed by a question-and-answer session with senators.
[Translation]
I would like to invite Mr. Almond to give his remarks.
Brent Almond, Director, Indigenous Tax Policy, Department of Finance Canada: Thank you, Madam Chair.
[English]
My name is Brent Almond from the Department of Finance Canada, specifically Indigenous Tax Policy. Thank you very much, senators, for inviting us here to the committee.
The First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act currently provides a legislative framework for interested Indigenous governments to levy a broad-based value-added tax referred to as the First Nations Goods and Services Tax, or FNGST.
Under these taxes, it is fully harmonized with the federal Goods and Services Tax, or GST, or the federal component of the Harmonized Sales Tax, or HST, including applying at the same rate of 5%. Where the FNGST applies, the GST does not apply, so there is no extra burden of taxation on consumers.
Part 4 of Bill C-15 would amend the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act to implement a new opt-in fuel, alcohol, cannabis, tobacco and vaping value-added sales tax framework, enabling interested Indigenous governments to enact a value‑added sales tax under their own laws on any or all of the five following products sold within their reserves or settlement lands: fuel, alcohol, cannabis, tobacco and vaping, or FACT, products.
It might take a moment to explain. Settlement lands are a reference to the lands of modern treaty First Nations who have had comprehensive land claim and self-government agreements. There are a number across Canada, but one good example, among others, is the Nisga’a Nation in British Columbia, for instance, where their land base becomes settlement lands and is no longer under the Indian Act as reserve lands. It may be helpful for some of the senators to understand that.
Proposed amendments to Part 4 also include provisions to incorporate process-type improvements and machinery of government changes to streamline the administration of taxes under that act. For example, there would be a change under the act so that interested First Nations and Indigenous governments could be added to the schedule to the act through ministerial order rather than Governor-in-Council approval. That in itself should enable interested Indigenous governments to be participants and part of the framework in less time than would normally be the case going through a Governor-in-Council approval process.
As well, there are some other changes simply modifying and updating where the publishing of laws for Indigenous governments levying FACT taxes would take place — for instance, on a website electronically rather than as previously published in local newspapers.
Like FNGST arrangements, FACT taxes would be implemented through tax administration agreements entered into between the Minister of Finance on behalf of Canada and participating Indigenous governments on a bilateral basis.
I would finish my comments simply by saying that significant Indigenous engagement and collaboration has taken place to develop this framework and inform the design so that interested First Nations are now lining up to be part of the framework and looking forward to advancing to the implementation stage of the FACT sales taxes.
Thank you very much.
Senator Tannas: You mentioned the settlement lands that are referenced in Part 4(a). Is there a definition somewhere? I appreciate you gave us an explanation, but from where do we draw those words where “settlement lands” is defined?
Mr. Almond: Thank you for the question, senator.
The settlement lands for each particular modern treaty First Nation or self-government are located or found descriptively in the modern treaty agreements. “Settlement lands” is defined as part of the overall agreements for modern treaties and comprehensive claims.
Senator Tannas: In the law here, where is that definition? How do you refer to that?
Mr. Almond: In the provisions under the definitions, there is a reference to “the lands of the first nation” under the act, and then it is included as part of being listed under the schedules to the act. Beside a participating Indigenous government or First Nation, there is the name of the First Nation governing body or government name entering into the agreement, and then from there, there is a description in the third column of the lands to which the tax will apply or can apply.
Senator Tannas: If an Indigenous government chose to take a cash settlement and turn it into land by buying something in downtown Vancouver, they could do that? As long as it is in the schedule, you will accept it as settlement lands?
Mr. Almond: It is a little bit more complex than that.
For instance, taking the example, in order for land to become settlement lands, it first would have to go through a process as explained under the treaty document and the provisions of the treaty.
When an Indigenous government purchases a tract of land or properties, they are purchasing those lands in what is called fee simple ownership, which is the ownership of how one would own a house in downtown Ottawa. That in itself does not bring them into the definition of “settlement lands” under the treaty. Settlement lands is specifically a category of lands that become federal lands under the Constitution — it’s section 91 lands under the Constitution — and it moves away to a different category of lands other than fee simple ownership.
Again, in order to become settlement lands, there is an entire process in each of the modern treaties and claims for those lands to become settlement lands.
Senator Tannas: There is nothing in the statute here, though, that defines that this is what you are pointing to, right?
Mr. Almond: That’s correct.
Senator Tannas: It could become subject to anybody’s definition, couldn’t it?
Am I being too pedantic? I’m not used to tax stuff, but I’ve been around the committee a long time. I’ve never heard the term “settlement lands,” so it could mean whatever we want it to mean. You could say it points at some modern treaty where it is defined, but I will leave it, maybe, for you to consider, and if there is an issue, you could let us know.
Just very quickly, the other question I have is you said — and I think you were clear — that a government could tax any or all of the specific items, right?
Mr. Almond: Yes.
Senator Tannas: Thank you.
Mr. Almond: I would be happy to provide clarity on the issue of settlement lands, Senator Tannas, but I would simply add that the definition is defined by the schedule to the act, which is under the responsibility of the Minister of Finance.
In terms of what is considered settlement lands, it’s ultimately the Minister of Finance determining in the schedule what the definition links to, so it is not simply an open definition that can be chosen by any party.
Senator Tannas: Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. Almond, could you send us this information formally?
Mr. Almond: Absolutely.
The Chair: It’s to help us understand. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Francis: Mr. Almond, you mentioned significant engagement in your opening remarks. Can you tell me how many First Nations participated in the consultations with the Government of Canada, which took place over 2022-23?
My second question is: How would this legislation help address jurisdictional challenges between provinces and First Nations on taxation matters related to cannabis and other products?
Mr. Almond: Thank you very much for the question, senator. I will start with the second question.
The FACT sales tax arrangements don’t directly support or help jurisdictional matters in the relationship between provinces and First Nations and Indigenous governments on cannabis‑related taxation. However, in terms of the tax arrangements that we have with First Nations and Indigenous governments dating back to 1999 — when the first agreements went into place in British Columbia — our experience is that, first, the community has to be supportive of a First Nation government coming forward to be part of these opt-in arrangements.
From there, because the revenues are determined on the basis of administrative data and the Canada Revenue Agency administering these taxes on behalf of the First Nation, the community doesn’t receive revenue unless businesses are part of the formal tax system of Canada and filing with the Canada Revenue Agency. There becomes an incentive for Indigenous governments to ensure that businesses within their lands are actually filing tax returns and they’re collecting taxes on behalf of the First Nation and then remitting those tax revenues to the Canada Revenue Agency.
I would finish simply by explaining that there is a movement in the direction of First Nations and their businesses becoming more in alignment with the formal tax system of Canada, thereby improving and clarifying a little bit the relationship between Indigenous governments and provincial laws.
Senator Francis: My first question was: How many First Nations were consulted? And I will just add: If you could get us a list, that would be great.
Mr. Almond: Thank you, senator. I would be happy to provide a list of the First Nations that we had discussions with.
I do want to be clear that when we talk about consultation, we’re not talking as much about a section 35 type of consultation, but more engagements and discussions.
I do know that in general — and I’m happy to provide, as I said, further details to the committee — there were approximately 40 different groups and First Nations and organizations that we had discussions with, in particular through interest that was expressed to the department and our group as part of the release of the legislation for public consultation.
Also, as an example, we did work quite a lot with the First Nations Tax Commission and Chief Commissioner Manny Jules. It was a collaborative effort. He also then leveraged the relationship that his organization has with First Nations to further expand the discussion and explanations and to garner interest. But, absolutely, I’ll follow up with a full list of the First Nations and Indigenous governments that we had discussions with.
Senator Francis: Thank you.
Senator Prosper: Thank you to the witnesses for coming here. I have a couple of questions; I think it’s three. Could you tell me a bit about the threshold? What is the mechanism by which First Nations communities could opt in? Is it, for example, a band council resolution, or BCR? Or a vote?
The second question I have is with respect to this applying to FACT: fuel, alcohol, cannabis, tobacco and vaping products. Why isn’t there an appetite to expand upon that to consider other elements on which a community can provide a tax in replacement of the federal tax?
My third question is with respect to the tax administration agreements. I am reading that — and I just want some clarity — for some First Nations communities, those agreements get into the finer details or complexities of a bilateral agreement, as I understand it, with the Department of Finance. Can you tell me what the formula is in terms of tax remitted and taxes coming back to the First Nations? There seems to be a bit of an equation there by which they take into account the types of taxes and the people who are within those communities being taxed? From that, I’m gauging that refers to non-member or non-status purchases on-reserve. I could be wrong on that, but I was just reading into it.
Those are the three components. Hopefully, you got that.
Mr. Almond: Yes, I did. Thank you very much, senator, for the questions. I will try my best to be clear and concise in my answers. Particularly when we get to the details of the calculations, I’ll try not to go too far into detail but to provide an overview, because it does get quite detailed.
Regarding your first question, senator, a band council resolution would be very much a common process for a First Nation expressing interest in becoming a participant in the framework. Again, if it were a BCR, the first step would be that the BCR would form the basis of the Minister of Finance agreeing to add the name of the First Nation to the schedule of the act to participate. But enabling participation doesn’t necessarily lead directly to an agreement because, of course, there is a tax administration agreement that follows. There would potentially be situations where a First Nation expresses interest to be added to the schedule of the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act but doesn’t reach the point of actually entering into an agreement and implementing the taxes.
In other cases, regarding the mechanism for demonstrating community support, in the case of a self-governing modern treaty group, it wouldn’t be a BCR process, of course, because they are not under the Indian Act, but it would be an Indigenous government process as set out in their constitution in terms of confirmation of community support for the addition or their interest in entering into these arrangements.
The key here, of course, is it’s important for First Nations and Indigenous governments, if they’re thinking of this possible initiative, to ensure they have the community support to move forward. Regarding a BCR or other vote of an Indigenous government that’s self-governing, of course that’s a formal representation, but, at the same time, behind that is the importance of community engagement for the Indigenous governments and First Nations in terms of having the support to move forward.
Regarding your second question, senator, we at the Department of Finance would like to continue looking at and discussing different arrangements that might be of interest to First Nations and Indigenous governments in terms of taxation arrangements. Today, we’re talking about Part 4 which includes the amendments to the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act, which is only specific to these five particular products.
These five particular products were considered as part of this framework given, ultimately, First Nations and Indigenous interest in having these products be part of the tax system for themselves.
I admit I’m speculating a little bit, but, generally speaking, it’s because that set of products tends to be more feasible in terms of community acceptance of taxation of those products. But, again, we certainly would be happy to continue discussions with Indigenous governments and First Nations regarding other types of tax arrangements. The core legislation, which is the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act, allows for taxation of the entire GST base. So there are options available, but I do understand that, currently, we’re looking at a base of the FACT tax having five products or the alternative being a tax on the entire GST base of hundreds of goods and services.
In one of the chapters of Budget 2025, the government did include a statement regarding its interest in entering into FACT‑type arrangements with Indigenous governments that are interested in those arrangements, but it also made reference to exploring other types of flexible arrangements that might be of interest to First Nations and Indigenous governments with respect to taxation and tax jurisdiction.
From my point of view as an official of the Government of Canada, we are interested in continued discussions about the different types of arrangements that Indigenous governments might be interested in regarding taxation.
If I have used too much time, I could provide an answer quickly regarding the calculations and the tax administration agreements and how those arrangements work.
The Chair: Continue, please.
Mr. Almond: Okay. The tax administration agreements provide precise details regarding the calculations and how the revenues that flow back to communities are determined. Under the tax administration agreements, it is based on a combination of administrative data of businesses selling those products and filing returns with the Canada Revenue Agency. They administer, at no charge, the tax system of Indigenous governments.
From that, I will call it the gross calculation of tax revenues. A formula determines how much of the revenues are associated with business inputs. For instance, where a business buys fuel and pays a First Nations Sales Tax on that fuel, they are eligible to claim an input tax credit or a rebate of the tax paid. There is a formula that estimates how much of the gross revenue is not actually related to net revenue for any government because it’s refunded back to business owners as part of what are referred to as input tax credits.
Then, subsequently, there are calculations in the formula for a minority of situations where a lot of the revenue or a significant proportion of the revenue is generated from non-member and non-status individuals. There could be situations where not 100% of the net revenue is shared with the taxing First Nation or Indigenous government, and that formula is effectively relative and related to the size of the population of the First Nation or Indigenous government relative to the volume of sales and the dollars of taxation generated otherwise from non-members.
An example might be a situation where a First Nation of 50 individuals ends up generating tax revenues each year from sales to non-members in the tens of millions of dollars — that being generated from non-members — which would be a situation where perhaps not 100% of the revenue would flow back to the First Nation.
Senator Prosper: I guess you don’t want First Nations to get too wealthy in that regard.
Mr. Almond: No, I — thank you for the comment, senator. That is a difficult part of the discussions on this. When we talk to First Nations governments, we have heard those comments. It’s not a design feature that we had in mind; the design feature we had in mind was a safety valve for a situation that just seemed completely outside of the scope of what might be, frankly, acceptable to both Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians in a situation where, again, the Government of Canada continues to have expenditure responsibilities.
I tend to think of it as a safety valve for extreme situations. Thank you very much.
Senator Prosper: Thank you.
Senator Pate: Welcome to our witnesses.
I want to pick up on your response to Senator Francis. I note that the page, which has been archived, talks about the consultations, and there is not a great amount of detail. I’m wondering what some of the themes were that you heard during those consultations. What changes did you make as a result of what you heard? And I noticed you corrected that there were discussions, engagements or consultations, depending on how you define them. What did you change as a result of those consultations? What were you planning to do? How many First Nations are expected to opt in?
Then I have a question related to another section of the budget implementation act that provides the minister with the ability to basically ignore every other piece of legislation except the Criminal Code. Has your department given advice to the minister in that regard? Are there areas you plan to go into that aren’t right now, strictly speaking, in the budget implementation act?
Mr. Almond: Thank you very much for your questions, Senator Pate.
With respect to the discussions and consultations with Indigenous governments and First Nations, what we heard in general was effectively in two or three categories. First, we heard from a number of First Nations that had a really strong interest in moving forward and doing so as soon as feasible because they saw the potential benefits of the tax revenue source for their communities and the public expenditures and investments they would like to make in their communities. There are about a dozen First Nations in that category. They tend to be in the western part of Canada, such as British Columbia; there has been some interest in the Prairie provinces as well.
We do see that number increasing over time as this first group implements the taxation arrangements. We see that as the front-runner group, and they will set the stage for other First Nations to come forward and be part of the arrangements, given the revenue generation component.
In another category, what we heard during the engagements were neutral comments. For instance, there were comments such as “We, in our area or community, are not interested in this. This is not something for us.” Then there was confirmation being sought that this is not going to be imposed on anyone, and the answer is that it’s not going to be imposed; it’s opt-in and voluntary.
Ultimately, in that particular category of discussions or responses we received, it was very clear that as long as it’s opt-in and not something that is going to be imposed, they would say, “We’ll be clear to you at the Department of Finance that this is not of interest to us.” Having said that, they also added that for the First Nations and Indigenous governments that are interested in this, that is fine, but that’s for them to decide.
In other words, I would express that category as being neutral — not supportive or against. It is leaving it for other Indigenous governments to decide for themselves how to proceed if they want to.
I mentioned the third set of comments received. The commentary we received is the importance of the federal government sharing as much of its tax room as possible as part of these arrangements. It’s about making sure the federal government isn’t unduly limiting First Nations and Indigenous governments from generating tax revenues. This links back to the commentary and discussion that we had just a few moments ago.
Senator Pate: In the category of those whom you would describe as neutral — they’re not interested at this time, but they’re not opposed to others — how many would fit into there? Also, how many would fit into the third category of not wanting to be unduly limited in being able to benefit from tax revenues?
Mr. Almond: Yes, in terms of the numbers, I would say it this way: Some of the Assembly of First Nations regional bodies in Ontario and other parts — more in the eastern part of Canada — had expressed views of not being interested in the arrangements and being neutral to them. It’s difficult to say exactly how many that represents in terms of First Nations, but there is certainly a component of First Nations in Canada for whom this is not of interest at this time.
Of course, in general, for First Nations and Indigenous governments that are interested in the arrangements, generally speaking, they want to see the maximum potential revenues possible generated.
It tends to be, of course, the more economically developed and prosperous First Nations, where their potential to generate tax revenues is very high. They’re looking at the concerns of any potential limitations to that as being problematic.
I would be hesitant to put a number on it, but I would certainly suggest that there is a handful of First Nations in that situation. It’s, frankly, a discussion that continues as part of the tax administration agreements and the final design parameters, including part of the discussion with the First Nations Tax Commission.
Senator Greenwood: Welcome to the witnesses this morning. My questions are really simple. I’m just trying to get my head around this. When you made your opening remarks, you spoke of settlement lands. Those were the primary people who were interested in this. We’ve also evolved into it being First Nations overall now, as I’ve been listening to your comments. So this opportunity is not just for modern-day treaty settlement lands but beyond that?
Mr. Almond: Yes.
Senator Greenwood: Thank you. My question is: From your perspective — all of you — what are the relative challenges and what are the benefits of participating in this act for the First Nations? What are the benefits to them, and what are the challenges? I will have a follow-up question after that.
Mr. Almond: Thank you very much, senator. I’d like to pass this question to my colleague Roch Vézina who would be happy to provide details on the benefits and the challenges associated with these arrangements.
Roch Vézina, Senior Tax Policy Analyst, Department of Finance Canada: Thanks. It is a great question, senator. From the benefits perspective, obviously, we have the increase in revenues that becomes available to an Indigenous government, whether they’re an Indian Act band or a modern treaty government. That is a very important component. As my colleague spoke about, for the next step as part of the framework, we get into the design of the tax administration agreements, the estimates and estimating potential revenues. Part of this discussion is very important as part of their decision making as well in order to determine whether this particular framework is useful and whether it is something with which they want to move forward. Those conversations have started and will continue to happen.
From a taxation/tax policy perspective, we do see the creation of a greater link between governments broadly, whether those are federal, provincial or Indigenous, and their constituents when they are subjected to taxation.
As for challenges, obviously, taxation is a challenge. It’s safe to say most Canadians are not super big fans of taxation. That is oftentimes one of the hurdles for these communities as part of the consideration of whether to enter into these bilateral arrangements: How will this go over with their communities?
Senator Greenwood: How do these arrangements run up against Aboriginal and treaty rights and other federal government obligations? It is clearer on settlement lands, as you used the term, but not everybody is on settlement lands. They may be thinking about this. How do they interface?
Mr. Vézina: That is a good question. We do have, obviously, the tax exemption that exists on Indian reserve lands, as specified in the federal Indian Act. The framework is designed to facilitate the imposition by Indigenous governments, specifically Indian Act bands, to exercise taxation on their own lands if they so choose. In fact, the framework enables interested groups to source a tax power from the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act. They actually impose their own tax on their lands.
There are other frameworks. For instance, under the Indian Act, section 83 provides local powers with respect to real property taxes; it facilitates the imposition on reserve lands. Similarly, the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act would achieve this. The role of the arrangements that go hand in hand with the tax laws that are passed by Indigenous partners is we negotiate a tax administration agreement so that, essentially, the Canada Revenue Agency collects and administers the Indigenous government’s tax on their behalf as their agent, facilitating or essentially providing for the framework that’s already there and collecting so that they don’t necessarily have to stand up their own revenue agency, for instance.
Senator McCallum: I’m sorry I was late. The buses were late this morning, so I missed your speech, and you may have covered this.
In proposed section 41, the administration agreement can cover the retention by the Government of Canada of certain amounts. Who determines that? The reason I ask this is taxation has long been an issue that’s used against First Nations by accountants. I’ve had people comment to me about it, personally.
We look at imposing taxes on groups who already have limited income and who already are having a difficult time now with the cost of living. I’m looking at the gas. With gas, there is already gas insecurity when people go hunting. I’m wondering if that was taken into account.
If the government is going to retain certain amounts and then the First Nations find that this is not working for them, I notice there is no opt-out. Is there an opt-out portion?
Mr. Almond: Yes.
Senator McCallum: Okay. That’s good to know.
The other question I have is this: The harmonization ensures the provisions of Part IX of the Excise Tax Act apply, other than those that create a criminal offence. Can you speak a bit about that?
Mr. Almond: Thank you, senator. There are a number of questions in there, and I will try my best to respond to all of them.
The retention by the Government of Canada of certain amounts refers to the issue that I referenced a few minutes ago of a safety valve situation in a minority of cases — not all of the existing revenues that the federal government currently generates from the Goods and Services Tax, or GST, would be fully shared with the taxing Indigenous government.
Again, that’s intended to be something in the minority of situations, and it is a situation where there are very significant revenues flowing to the Indigenous government from their tax system. These would be revenues associated with the taxes generated from non-members.
This is not about limitations on the taxes generated from members. This is regarding the taxes that are generated from non-members.
It’s certainly the case that taxation does lead to the potential for pressures on prices, and we are certainly in a situation right now where there are a lot of pressures on the cost of living and a range of pressure points.
In the case of your question, one of the first points to mention is that these taxes replace the GST, so they’re not an additional burden of tax on non-members. There is the potential that individuals in the community would pay these taxes, so that would be a new tax on the individuals in the community. That revenue would fully go to the Indigenous government, but it’s true that from an individual point of view, it has the potential to put a limited burden of tax on individual members and families.
Again, it’s for communities to look at the math and the calculations of these arrangements, and in many cases, if it’s a situation where a community can generate — I’ll use a hypothetical example — $5 of revenue from non-members for every $1 they generate from members, some communities see that very much as a net benefit for their community. The community members also see that as a net benefit for their community.
But it is a consideration for all communities and their governments and the membership to clearly think through and accept before they enter into these taxation arrangements.
With respect to the harmonization of tax laws and enforcement laws except for criminal matters, that’s a reference to the fact that in Canada, only the federal government has the authority to levy criminal offences constitutionally. It’s the federal government that has that authority. Provinces don’t have that authority, and that authority as such isn’t delegated to taxing First Nations or Indigenous governments. It remains in the sole purview of the federal government.
Again, to the extent that there’s a situation where criminal offences are leviable against someone for some grave issue related to the administration of the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act, the federal government can use those powers on behalf of the First Nation to ensure that the First Nation’s tax laws can be enforced equally as federal tax laws.
The goal is really not to impose anything on particular First Nations or Indigenous governments but rather to enter into a collaborative relationship where it’s truly opt-in and truly the interest of the particular Indigenous government or First Nation to want to be part of these arrangements, as well as their community wanting to be part of a tax system to generate important revenues for their community.
Thank you.
Senator McCallum: Who brought forward this taxation stuff? Was it the government or was it the First Nations that wanted this?
You know what it is: Living under the Indian Act and looking at legislation, I have great distrust of things that happen because a lot of times, there is hidden stuff in there. That’s why I’m trying to wrap my head around what is happening here.
I’ve been involved in a court case with the GST and the Canada Revenue Agency, so I guess I’m distrustful. Who was it that thought of this?
Mr. Almond: Frankly and very candidly, it started with Indigenous governments and First Nations interest in the revenue potential of implementing their own tax systems.
More specifically, the Chief Commissioner of the First Nations Tax Commission, Mr. Manny Jules, has been a strong proponent of tax and tax jurisdiction for Indigenous and First Nations communities as a means to advance economies and participation in the overall revenues associated with their lands.
I would also say that from my point of view as a federal government official and from a policy point of view, we have an interest, or we see the positive aspects associated with Indigenous and First Nations governments levying their own tax systems. They’re levying their own taxes and generating their own revenues. We see that as an important element of a new fiscal relationship where First Nations and Indigenous governments are able to generate what we would call own-source revenue.
I don’t want to take the words out of the mouths of any Indigenous leaders, but they could generate their own revenues and move away — or try to move away partially, at least — from all the transfer and funding relationships with the federal government and with the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada and Indigenous Services Canada.
I think it is really important for me to actually share my own view, which is that if there were something hidden here, I wouldn’t be here today bringing it forward for discussion as part of this hearing at this Senate committee. I’m not of the view that there is anything hidden here. It’s certainly not our intent in being part of this initiative. I think it really is about an arrangement that’s voluntary and opt-in, and it has to work for the Indigenous governments and communities that choose to opt in.
We’ve made, I think, very valid and valuable attempts to collaborate and receive input and work closely with proponents to advance this framework.
Senator McCallum: Thank you very much.
The Chair: If I remember, Mr. Almond, it was from 1998 to 2001, and Bill C-7 was the bill. Many of us, including Sharon McIvor, thought the bill had many things missing. The concern was also that if we go ahead slowly, we might become municipalities. It was also a concern in those days. Today, regarding who signed or who is involved, it belongs to the First Nations, but history sometimes is important, too. Thank you for that question.
Senator Prosper: This is hopefully a quick question, just running through a scenario. By BCR, a community indicates their willingness to opt in. They go through the extended process of negotiating a bilateral agreement: a tax administration agreement. They are all set; it is negotiated. How does one address enforcement of the tax administration agreement within the respective community, given that it is the will of leadership to opt in and utilize this tax? Thanks.
Mr. Almond: I will start by quickly commenting that it is very important for communities and membership to be supportive of this before entering the point of a BCR and negotiating the arrangements. That initial support is extremely important. Also, it helps support enforcement. But I will quickly pass this to my colleague from the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, who may be able to provide some comments in a short period of time.
Anne Ellefsen-Gauthier, Director, Public Service Bodies and Governments Division, GST/HST Rulings Directorate, Legislative Policy and Regulatory Affairs Branch, Canada Revenue Agency: Thank you, senator. Yes, the enforcement part does belong to the CRA for any tax legislation. That would be the same for the FACT sales tax, if, in fact, the Indigenous government would enter into that agreement. The general messaging is that the CRA is mandated to enforce tax legislation in all locations. It would also be for the location of the Indigenous government that would enter into the agreement.
But I would specify that, generally, from the CRA’s standpoint and from an audit standpoint, we do use a multi-factor, risk‑based approach. We really do look at the higher risks when deciding to audit. A lot of components are examined from that perspective. That would apply all over the country but also taking into consideration the scope of the legislation and to whom the tax is applied.
However, as my colleague mentioned a few times during the last hour, in terms of the First Nations Sales Tax, such as the FACT sales tax, and given the mechanism of the framework and the revenues that are collected and going back to communities, we believe there is an incentive for businesses to comply.
Overall, we have noticed and observed that for the First Nations tax and the First Nations Goods and Services Tax, there is a high degree of compliance from that perspective. We are looking at the risk-based approach and the fact that, generally, in such a framework, there is a desire from businesses on compliance, given that the revenues collected are going back to the community. There is generally a desire from the businesses in the communities that need to comply to the tax. Generally, it is — if I may say — a win-win and there is an incentive, given the framework and the mechanism, to be compliant. Generally, that’s what I would say works.
My colleague has mentioned the input tax credits in the general mechanism of a sales tax. Regarding businesses getting a credit back from administering and collecting and remitting the tax on behalf of the government, those businesses are entitled to input tax credits on the goods that are taxable. From that perspective, there is also somewhat of an incentive. There is zero cost for the businesses to comply.
The Chair: That completes this panel.
[Translation]
Thank you for joining us, Ms. Ellefsen-Gauthier, Mr. Almond and Mr. Vézina.
[English]
Can we have more on the consultation, or can we get it through the website? Can we see it and read it? I’m like this; I really need to read and see what people said or what the leadership said so that we can understand the rationale behind it.
[Translation]
If you could send us this information, it would help us. Thank you.
Colleagues, we’re finished with the first panel. If you have anything to add or comments to make in writing, please send them to us.
[English]
Kwe. [Indigenous language spoken] Allow me to introduce our second panel for our study on the subject matter of Part 4 of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025.
Please welcome to the table, from Tyendinaga Mohawk Council, Ogema Chief R. Donald Maracle.
You have five minutes to speak to us, and we will have a question-and-answer session after your presentation.
Chief R. Donald Maracle, Tyendinaga Mohawk Council: Good morning. Thank you very much for seeing me this morning. I am the elected Chief of the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte. I’m starting my thirty-third year as the Chief of the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte. I was re-elected on December 6.
Part 4 of Bill C-15 gives the First Nations governments another tool to work with to collect tax to raise revenues to address unmet needs in the community. I note that it mirrors the 5% rate of the federal Goods and Services Tax, or GST, which is already being collected by the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA. This taxing power only applies to reserves or settlement lands, and participation is voluntary.
Bill C-15, however, must be understood in the broader political and fiscal context of Budget 2025. The budget provides limited new Indigenous spending, largely avoids long-term base funding increases and includes restraint measures across multiple departments, including those that serve First Nations. At the same time, the federal government has been under sustained pressure to demonstrate progress on reconciliation, self‑determination and Indigenous economic empowerment. Narrow taxation frameworks are politically and fiscally easier than large‑scale fiscal reform or treaty-based revenue sharing.
This measure allows the government to point to a visible change and label it as supporting Indigenous fiscal autonomy. However, it does not address the core funding inequities or structural limitations in the Crown-First Nations fiscal relationship.
Federal officials will likely argue that this framework recognizes Indigenous governments as governments capable of enacting their own tax laws and raising public revenue. This is a departure from purely program-based funding. Ottawa may emphasize that FACT tax revenue is not proposal-driven or time‑limited, allowing participating First Nations to allocate funds according to their own priorities. Ottawa will stress administrative efficiency. By harmonizing with the GST, retailers and governments avoid duplicative systems, and the CRA already has compliance capacity.
The government may frame the tax as socially responsible, suggesting that revenues from harmful products can be reinvested in health, safety, policing and addictions prevention. Despite framing it this way, it does not recognize inherent taxation authority. It is a delegated authority created by Parliament and limited by federal statute. The tax base is narrow, the rate is effectively predetermined by GST alignment and the administration remains under the control of the federal government. Future parliaments could amend or repeal these provisions unilaterally. This reinforces a long-standing pattern in which Indigenous governance authority is treated as flowing from federal permission rather than from pre-existing sovereignty.
Taxation is a fundamental expression of sovereignty and self‑government. For Indigenous nations, fiscal autonomy and authority existed long before Confederation and was never surrendered through treaties or legislation. By situating Indigenous taxation authority entirely within a federal statutory framework, Bill C-15 risks recharacterizing inherent rights as delegated administrative powers. Participation in this framework could be misinterpreted over time as the acceptance of limits on Indigenous fiscal jurisdiction, unless participation is clearly stated to be without prejudice to inherent rights, treaty rights and section 35 of the Constitution.
This bill does not reference section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, nor does it reference the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP. This omission reinforces the concern that the framework is technical rather than rights-based. For treaty nations, this framework must be weighed against the original treaty relationships. Treaties contemplated the ongoing sharing of land, resources and economic benefit, not dependency on narrow consumption taxes to fund basic services.
Canada retains full taxation authority over most land and resources within traditional territories, including resource royalties and corporate and income taxes, offering limited consumer taxation authority over most land and resources within traditional territories, including royalties and corporate and income taxes. Offering limited consumer taxation authority on‑reserve while retaining control over the major tax base risks entrenching a two-tiered fiscal system that is inconsistent with treaty intent.
A critical concern is how FACT tax authority will be treated in federal funding formulas. Historically, Canada has encouraged First Nations to generate own-source revenue and then treated that revenue as a justification for reducing transfers and limiting funding growth. Bill C-15 contains no explicit protection against this outcome. Without a clear commitment, there is a real risk that revenues raised under this framework could be counted against First Nations when negotiating contribution agreements or program funding for critical issues. This would shift the fiscal responsibility onto First Nations while leaving Canada’s obligations unchanged and unfulfilled.
FACT taxes are inherently regressive. They disproportionately affect lower-income individuals and communities that already experience elevated rates of substance use and related harms and poverty. Relying on these products as a revenue base creates moral and practical tension, particularly where addictions and mental health services remain underfunded. Even where revenues are earmarked for healing and prevention, communities may question the long-term reliance on harmful consumption to fund essential services.
Effectively, taxation requires legal, financial, administrative and communications capacity. Most First Nations face chronic undercapacity due to underfunding and staffing shortages. Bill C-15 does not clearly provide dedicated funding to support First Nations that opt in, raising concerns that this framework downloads new responsibilities without resources. Without capacity support, only larger or economically active First Nations may be able to participate, potentially widening inequities between First Nations.
Any participation should be explicitly without prejudice to inherent rights, treaty rights and constitutionally protected Aboriginal rights. Revenues must not be treated as own-source for the purpose of reducing federal funding. Adequate and ongoing capacity funding must accompany any implementation. Canada must commit to future discussions on broader, rights‑based fiscal authority beyond FACT products.
Bill C-15 does not fundamentally alter the fiscal relationship between Canada and First Nations. At best, it offers an optional and limited revenue tool. At worst, it risks shifting fiscal responsibility onto First Nations while entrenching underfunding.
Its acceptability depends entirely on the inclusion of safeguards protecting inherent Aboriginal and treaty rights, preventing funding clawbacks and committing Canada to meaningful fiscal reconciliation.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you. Honourable senators, do you have any questions or comments?
[English]
Senator Prosper: Thank you, Chief. I want to recognize your leadership. You have said it’s over 33 years.
Mr. Maracle: Well, I am told that I am the longest-serving Chief of the Mohawk Nation.
Senator Prosper: Wow. I think that’s a testament to your leadership, Chief. Certainly, given that experience, when you’re looking at this bill and the subject of taxation, what I’m getting from your testimony is it is really not recognizing the inherent authority and jurisdiction of First Nations, whether it be through treaty or Aboriginal rights. I think you referenced it as delegated authority that is being provided in this regard.
With that aside, could you just outline one or two of the fatal flaws or the tangible benefits? Do the benefits outweigh the inherent flaws within this particular piece of legislation?
Mr. Maracle: First of all, most people in the Haudenosaunee communities and a lot of other First Nations believe that there is an inherent right to not be taxed. As a matter of fact, in our treaty, which I circulated here, on page 2 there is a reference there that the Crown:
. . . behoof of them [referring to the Six Nations] and their Heirs for ever freely and clearly of and from all and all manner of Rents, Fines or Services whatsoever to be rendered by them the said Chiefs Warriors Women and People of the said Six Nations to Us or Our Successors for the same . . . .
That means the relationship between our people and the Crown, after having provided military service in the American Revolution and all the wars since then. As a matter of fact, without our people’s help, there would not be a Canada during the War of 1812.
These rights are fundamentally understood to be solemn promises made by the Crown that last forever as long as the grass grows, the water flows and the sun shines. This is the understanding of most of our people. To impose a tax regime and call it “tax,” they would see that as an infringement on their treaty rights in the original relationship made between our people and the Crown.
I believe there are other administrative instruments that could be implemented by Canada. A simple revenue-sharing agreement could be entered into with the administrator of Indigenous Services Canada. Canada collects $3 million a year from Grand River Enterprises, which manufactures tobacco at Six Nations. That revenue is not shared with the First Nations. They get less in the contributions coming back from the federal government. The federal government takes out more than what they take in. Those cigarettes are also sold on the shelves in our communities — 600,000 cartons of it. The tax collected on those 600,000 cartons could already be the subject of a revenue‑sharing agreement with our people.
Likewise with the fuel that is delivered to our communities, it could be that there are taxes already paid on that. If it crosses the border onto reserve land, it is tracked by the fuel companies. That revenue could also be shared with an administration agreement without a tax bylaw. We could have less turmoil in our community if we did it that way. If the First Nations implemented a tax law, they would be ousted on their ears in a big hurry, and it could trigger protests.
A few years ago, when the government harmonized the GST with Ontario, there had been a long-standing convention that our people would be tax exempt at point of sale. The Chiefs fought hard to maintain that convention in Ontario, and any disruption of that would upset the community members. We’re trying to avoid that kind of turmoil. Instead of calling it taxation, maybe we could simply call it an administrative revenue-sharing agreement of the excise taxes and other taxes.
Likewise with income tax paid by non-Natives who work in our community, that money could be left there or reimbursed back to the community because it is already being collected by Canada without this tax law. Canada keeps it all, and we have to go to a number of federal departments to get revenue for our community. Really, we get about $46 million a year in revenue from the federal government: 30% of our revenue comes from Indigenous Services Canada; $3 million from Health Canada; and $29 million from other federal departments, which would be for large major infrastructure projects, like Infrastructure Canada.
There is chronic underfunding that is really felt in the large First Nations communities by the underfunding of formulas that apply to our communities. It has been the subject of a joint study with Indigenous Services Canada and the large First Nations that have a population of more than 5,000 people, but that funding formula has not been reviewed or corrected.
Senator Greenwood: Thank you for being here today. I think you answered my question, but I will ask it in case there are other things you want to add.
I was really interested in the alternatives to this. You talked about the administrative revenue-sharing agreement for the people. I guess my question comes from the one I asked the previous panel of witnesses. What could be the potential benefits of taxation and what are the challenges? It follows up on Senator Prosper’s question, too. Do the benefits outweigh the challenges, or do the challenges outweigh the benefits?
Mr. Maracle: As I stated before, there is another way to accomplish the goal without calling it taxation. If we call it that, it will upset the community, and I would almost be 100% sure we would end up in a protest situation. When the people get upset, the trains have been stopped, and they have blocked Highway 401, so I don’t think there is any sense of doing something that would result in that outcome, if we can call it a simple administrative arrangement.
Canada knows there is an infrastructure backlog of $349 billion in First Nations communities. If we could simply have another tool to work with, such as a simple administration agreement where the taxes that you are already collecting could stay in the community to address this without any clawbacks or reducing funding in other areas. It doesn’t benefit the community if you are going to give it to us in one hand and take it away from another pot. We still wind up in the same situation. There is no guarantee in this bill that would protect us from that being the outcome. It would be at the discretion of government.
Different political parties have different priorities, and sometimes our needs matter more to one party than another. We tend to wait on what the mood of the ruling party is in addressing critical basic services like safe drinking water, housing, post‑secondary education for our young people and treatment at treatment centres for mental health and addiction. These are long-outstanding matters, and sometimes the funding implicates both governments in terms of both provincial and federal governments responsible for some of those issues through transfer payments. There does not seem to be a lot of monitoring of progress being made on the transfer payments to the province when the intent is to provide services to everybody who lives in the province. Policing is a good example of that: the chronic underfunding of policing.
Right now, some of these matters on taxation are before the court. The Montour case has been ruled by a lower court, but it may be subject to appeal at a higher court. These matters are currently before the court.
When it comes to the provision of water and housing, the courts ruled that Canada has a responsibility. If Canada has a responsibility, we should not have to implement a tax law to fulfill Canada’s fiduciary responsibility. It exists without a tax law.
Senator Greenwood: If I may, two things in this whole discussion really concern me, and one is the erosion of our inherent Aboriginal and treaty rights, and you’ve spoken to that.
The second concern I have around this is the needs of the people. Many of our people live in poverty, and to implement a tax on the poorest of the poor doesn’t make sense to me at all. So those are the two. If you have any further comments or if not, you have spoken to this.
Mr. Maracle: Well, I would strongly recommend the Senate committee review the social services rates. Indigenous Services Canada pays the Province of Ontario, under the 1965 agreement, 92% of those revenues. You can see the staggering number of people who are in poverty.
I know some First Nations want this tax law, and I’m not against them having it if that works for them, but this would not work in our communities because there are historic treaties and pre-Confederation treaties where the Crown made promises, and our people want to operate under the original agreements made by our ancestors and the Crown.
I support that we need more revenue, but there is another administration agreement that the Minister of Finance could agree to: reimburse the taxes they’re already collecting on First Nations lands. Morally and ethically, that would be the responsible thing for our government to do, if it cares.
Senator McCallum: Thank you for your presentation. I wish you had been the first speaker before the government. That’s why I said I’m very leery, and you’ve brought it all out.
The Chiefs and councils are being slowly moved, and you said it’s purely program-based funding, but it’s also they’re being moved to deliver services instead of doing the work that they do. When you said it’s purely program-based funding, would you expand on this concern? It looks like it’s slowly going toward more hidden colonialism.
Mr. Maracle: Well, what’s been long-standing is an outstanding matter: a discussion on the fiscal relationship between First Nations and the Crown. I don’t want anyone here at the Senate to believe that we don’t already raise our own money.
Our other source of revenue that we generate is $18,134,969. So 12% of our funding is already raised from within our community. This is from mortgage interest rates, rents that we collect, water and sewer fees, garbage collection fees, daycare fees and Meals on Wheels — I think it’s $3 a meal. There are a number of sources, and we already raise $18 million.
But if I need something and we have a good relationship between our businesses, I can ask them for money. I will give you an example.
We had a gala to raise money for long-term care and the Belleville General Hospital Foundation. We raised $160,000, and $35,000 of that came from businesses on the reserve. We get a royalty from the quota of tobacco in the province. We dedicate $3 of that to the Tyendinaga Community Development Fund. They raised $3 million to build a recreation centre for our youth. We encourage the youth in hockey, baseball, music, dance and whatever they’re interested in to keep them away from drugs and a wayward lifestyle.
There are mechanisms already working, and I think if we implement a tax law, it would do more harm than good; it would upset the community. I think a lot of the goodwill that exists now between the First Nations and the business community would erode away because they would feel we are working hand in hand with the federal government to deny their rights.
Senator Tannas: Thank you for coming here, Chief. I appreciate how clearly you’ve laid out your position. I was just looking on the internet, and I didn’t even get “Tyendinaga” typed in when all of a sudden, Google brought up gas stations, duty‑free, et cetera. When our careful Department of Finance folks laid this out, they were talking about the idea of opt-in or opt‑out. Specifically, I suspect you would be somebody whom they would have had in mind who would opt out because opting into this —
Mr. Maracle: We wouldn’t opt in because of the problems it would create. We would not opt in.
Senator Tannas: You would not opt in. There is no way that this works —
Mr. Maracle: I think if we had a community meeting and discussed this, it would create more problems than it would solve.
Senator Tannas: Absolutely. When they talk about communities needing to decide about the $5 of additional revenue versus the $1 that they would be collecting from residents or members, with $5 being from external non-members, yours is actually the opposite, right? Your community exists where people are coming by and you’ve got umpteen gas stations and everything where people are attracted to come and not pay the tax and not be charged the tax. You then have businesses with decent margins and good volumes. It would be crazy to interrupt all of that, right?
On the other hand, what I heard you say is that there is still a lot of money that is leaking into the hands of the government in different ways and if you could only find a formula where some of that found its way back in. Is that fair to say?
Mr. Maracle: You know, before we had businesses, there was 100% leakage into the neighbouring communities. There was no benefit. They very rarely donated to anything that was in our community. There was all of this imbalance of economic wealth that existed.
The creation of businesses created jobs, not only for our people but also other people, such as non-Natives who come and work here as well. It was an economic driver. We would create more problems if we disrupted that.
We don’t support organized crime getting involved and financing businesses. On cannabis, there has been a crackdown, with our council’s support on that. So those issues are now before the court. There has to be a way to legitimatize economic development. With the cannabis industry, if the cannabis law is amended to allow reserve businesses to buy from a federally licensed place, that would solve a lot of problems. We made that recommendation to Bill Blair when the bill was drafted. Instead of listening to the Chiefs, they delegated all the authority to the province, and here we are.
Senator Tannas: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Maracle: Once in a while, they do need to listen to the Chiefs.
The Chair: I think we will call you often and invite you.
Mr. Maracle: Our people want to prosper, and we want them to have a good, safe and happy life with good housing and safe drinking water and opportunity for our people to earn a decent wage and educate their children so that they can participate in the greater economy.
Just last year, through post-secondary education, we graduated three medical doctors, so we now have seven and also a lot of nurses, lawyers and professional people, but it’s only made possible by having adequate funding.
Senator Pate: Thank you, Chief Maracle. I join others in congratulating you on your re-election.
I think I know the answer to this, but I want to ask it specifically. We heard during the previous panel about the number of: First it was consultations, and we’re a little sensitive on this committee to the idea of consultations. Then it was discussed as discussions and maybe agreements. Was your First Nation consulted by the government before these provisions were introduced in the budget implementation act?
Mr. Maracle: No, just when Bill C-15 was there. When the cannabis law was enacted, we did have presentations with the Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians. I don’t know how many people came and already spoke to this Bill C-15 provision, but the consultation has to be at the community level. There has been no consultation at the community level — these are the people it’s impacting and the businesses. The businesses will only pass on the extra cost of that to the ultimate consumer who is already poor for the most part. We would see that as regressive instead of progressive.
Senator Pate: Thank you.
Mr. Maracle: One thing I would like the Senate committee to be aware of is to contemplate the passage of Bill S-2 to end gender discrimination against Indigenous women and their children and also people who were enfranchised through no fault of their own.
I totally agree with people having their rights restored, but the federal government has to provide funding to go along with it because they will expect services.
When Bill C-31 was passed, back in 1985, the impact on the communities was underestimated. It created a big backlog in housing and all the other services. It puts the First Nations front‑line workers and our staff under tremendous pressure if there is not enough funding to provide for the basic needs of housing, safe drinking water and education. And sometimes children are subject to going into care because they lack essential services, like an affordable place to live. It’s well known throughout Canada that there is a backlog in affordable housing, affecting many people on and off the reserves.
Senator Tannas: I’ve raised this issue with Minister Gull‑Masty: More and more, cut-off generation kids need schooling. They’re in the communities. I asked, “While you work on this second-generation cut-off, what are people supposed to do? What are you thinking about for funding with respect to these children who are now no longer status and their community’s government is not getting funding for education and medical?” Her answer was, “Every community should come and talk to me about that.”
Mr. Maracle: And I think the minister is open to conversation with the Chiefs, but she doesn’t have the money to deal with what’s there. And we don’t know — the world situation with Trump’s tariffs and the wars in foreign countries seem to take priority, and our issues get pushed lower on the priority list in terms of funding.
As Canada is sinking further and further into debt because of what they have to support — with what’s going on in the broader geopolitical situation — there doesn’t appear to be a light at the end of the tunnel. And compounding the problem and making it worse is not a good solution, and denying rights is not a solution either.
For example, our school right now is overcrowded. It was built 50 years ago to house 267 children. There are 335 who go there now, with 67 being schooled off-reserve. So there is a backlog with schools in the Ontario region. The Ontario region of Indigenous Services Canada still has the largest number of unresolved boil water advisories. There is a huge wait-list in First Nations for affordable housing. We can’t keep pace with the growth.
There are a lot of unknowns about people who would come back to the reserve and what their needs are. And how can we plan if we don’t know what their needs are? So there has to be a lot more funding if this is going to work properly.
Canada looks good in the eyes of the world in that they ended gender discrimination, but they need to also assess the impact at the community level.
The Chair: Thank you so much. I want to mention also that you provided us a good, historical document. The description is “Copy of grant of land to the Chiefs, Warriors, Women & People of the Six Nations, for land on the Bay of Quinte.” On the record, I want to make sure that it is official. It will be translated into French for me, and I want to say thank you.
Mr. Maracle: If you need a copy of our budget, I brought that. I can hand this in to the chair, and it can be copied for the members. You can see that we already do raise local revenue.
The Chair: This is where I want to go, Chief, because many people think, “Oh, we give them tax and income tax and they do nothing.” You were able to officially remind us that much of our leadership does magic with little. I want to acknowledge that.
Mr. Maracle: The other thing is: Prior to the amendment to the Canada Pension Act — and the Canada pension came out in 1966 — First Nations who worked for their band up until 1988 were denied the right to pay into the Canada Pension Plan. A lot of these elderly people don’t have other pensions. It took over 20 years of fighting to get that amended so that there would be some fairness and some equity. The only people who could pay into the Canada Pension Plan who worked on-reserve were federal public servants. If you had a federal school, they were employees of the federal government, so they could pay into the Canada Pension Plan, only because there was a provision in the legislation that governs public service where all public servants could pay in. But once these programs and services were transferred to the band, they couldn’t pay into it. But if they had been a federal employee, they could, doing the same job.
The denial of this pension right is a long-standing issue that’s affected many people who are now retired seniors who worked in providing the delivery of federal programs and services. There’s a lot of realities that affect First Nations which I don’t think are clearly understood by the Canadian government or the Senate.
The Chair: Thank you so much.
(The committee adjourned.)