THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, December 10, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples met with videoconference this day at 6:45 p.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: [Innu-aimun spoken]
Thank you to the Anishinaabe people for welcoming us to their unceded land. Every day, you allow various nations, Inuit, First Nations and of course all other peoples to walk on your land. [Innu-aimun spoken] Thank you so much.
[English]
We need to take care of those amazing people who are translating and interpreting for us. Let’s make sure that the earpiece is not too close to the mic. If we don’t use it, we can keep it on the sticker we have on the desk. It is very important for the job and the work they do for and with us.
My name is Michèle Audette. I’m a senator fromUashat mak Mani-Utenam, Quebec.
[Translation]
I am the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples. I now invite my colleagues to introduce themselves.
[English]
Their French is very good now.
Senator Prosper: Paul Prosper, Nova Scotia, the Mi’kma’ki territory.
Senator Pate: Kim Pate. I live here on the unceded, unsurrendered, unreturned territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe Nation. Thank you.
Senator McPhedran: Marilou McPhedran from Treaty 1 territory and the homeland of the Red River Métis, Manitoba.
Senator McCallum: Mary Jane McCallum, Treaty 10, Manitoba region.
[Translation]
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement from Ontario, Cornwall specifically, which is on the traditional land of the Mohawks of Akwasasne.
[English]
Senator Francis: Brian Francis, Epekwitk, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas, Alberta.
Senator Greenwood: Margo Greenwood from British Columbia. I’m Nêhiyaw, originally from Treaty 6 territory.
[Translation]
The Chair: [Innu-aimun spoken] Thank you very much.
Honourable senators, today we are continuing our consideration of certain elements of Bill C_15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025. We will begin by focusing on Division 35 of Part 5 of the bill by considering the repeal of sections 195 and 196 of the Naskapi and the Cree-Naskapi Commission Act. We will then go back to Part 4 of Bill C_15 by considering the proposed new amendments to the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act.
I would now like to introduce our first witness panel. With us today are officials from Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada: Élizabeth Pigeon, Director General, Modern Treaty Management, Modern Treaties, Consultation and Intergovernmental Relations Sector, and Benoît Chartrand, Manager, Modern Treaty Management East, Modern Treaties, Consultation and Intergovernmental Relations Sector. We also welcome Julia Redmond, Counsel, Negotiations and Northern Affairs, CIRNAC/ISC Legal Services.
Thank you for being here and for your testimony this evening. You have been informed that you have five minutes for your introductory remarks, to be followed by questions and exchanges with my fellow senators.
Please go ahead, Ms. Pigeon.
Élizabeth Pigeon, Director General, Modern Treaty Management, Modern Treaties, Consultation and Intergovernmental Relations Sector, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you very much for inviting us here this evening. We are very happy to be here.
I’m Élizabeth Pigeon, Director General of Treaty Implementation at Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada.
Our team is responsible for the management and implementation of modern treaties in Canada. One of those treaties is the Northeastern Quebec Agreement, signed in 1978, to which Canada, Quebec and the Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach are party.
In recent years, the three parties have negotiated an amendment to Chapter 13, which pertains to police services, to modernize it. This chapter had not been updated since the agreement was signed and came into force. That in turn led to the amended chapter coming into force last May.
That amendment nonetheless created inconsistencies with the Naskapi and Cree-Naskapi Commission Act with respect to the territorial jurisdiction of the Naskapi police. There is an inconsistency in that regard. Under the amended treaty, the territory covered is actually larger than what is stipulated in the act.
By seeking to repeal the sections in question through Bill C-15, we want to rectify this inconsistency between the treaty and the act. Although we are appearing with regard to Bill C-15, there are no financial implications to our proposal. We are really trying to resolve a more technical issue.
Thank you. We will be pleased to answer your questions.
[English]
The Chair: I also understand that we were supposed to have a representative from the Naskapi Nation, but, because of the weather, they cannot be here. They did send a letter supporting your statement. Are there any questions or comments?
Senator Prosper: Thank you for being here and providing your testimony.
To get into the subject matter of the inconsistency, from what I understand, does it exclusively, or in part, deal with specific, designated lands under the treaty upon which the jurisdiction rests with the policing service itself?
Is that essentially the extent of the inconsistency, or are there further inconsistencies beyond the jurisdictional area upon which that service is being provided?
Ms. Pigeon: Essentially, the inconsistency is related to the lands at stake. In the treaty, the extent of the jurisdiction was extended to another type of land, whereas in the legislation it is still limited to only one of the Category IA-N lands precisely, which is the Naskapi land, committee lands. So the revised chapter provides for broader territory.
Senator Prosper: Thank you for that answer. I read further within the information that there were ongoing negotiations related to a self-government agreement. Is that correct?
Ms. Pigeon: Yes.
Senator Prosper: Could you share any linkages between those negotiations and the current agreement reached on policing services? Is it an extension or a replacement of that? What is the relationship between the two?
Ms. Pigeon: We know there are some self-governing negotiations under way. Unfortunately, I will not be able to provide any details given that it is confidential since it is in negotiations.
However, I can say that while it may have a connection later, it is not related. This is unrelated to the self-government negotiations because, in the end, the chapter was amended, and we’re trying to prevent any problems in the future.
I will turn to Julia to see if she has anything else to add.
Julia Redmond, Counsel, Negotiations and Northern Affairs, CIRNAC/ISC Legal Services, Department of Justice Canada: No, I think that covers it. The self-government negotiations are ongoing, but the treaty still stands. The treaty is still in force, and this amended chapter on policing is in force now. That is what we’re here to deal with today.
Senator Prosper: Thank you.
Senator Francis: According to section 158(1) of the Naskapi and the Cree-Naskapi Commission Act, the Cree-Naskapi Commission is to consist of a maximum of three individuals appointed by the Governor-in-Council on recommendation of the Cree Nation government and the Naskapi band.
As of May 27, 2025, the Government of Canada indicates that three vacancies remain at the commission.
If the commission membership remains vacant, what body will oversee the implementation of Complementary Agreement No. 4?
Ms. Pigeon: Thank you for your question, senator. Unfortunately, we are not prepared to discuss this today.
I can say, however, that for the commission, from my understanding, the nominations come from the Cree and Naskapi parties themselves. I could return with an answer, but I understand that work is under way to resolve the vacancies. Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: Actually, if you could send us the question and answer in writing, that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks very much.
Senator Clement: I understood your answers. No one will be coming to testify, so I would like to know what kind of discussions you have had with members of the nation, or what process you followed to arrive at the changes you are presenting.
Ms. Pigeon: A number of years ago, probably in 2022, negotiations began between Canada, Quebec and the Naskapi to modernize Chapter 13. The negotiations went on for a few years.
The result was an agreement. In order to amend the agreement, a complementary agreement is needed. A complementary agreement was adopted, Supplementary Agreement Number 6, to be precise.
When the agreement comes into effect, it will amend the treaty. It is really the result of collaboration among all the parties. Repealing the legislation is really the last step in this modernization process, which is really a priority for the Naskapi.
Senator Clement: So the government is still in contact, in communication with —
Ms. Pigeon: Yes.
Senator Clement: Tell us what that looks like.
Ms. Pigeon: The relationship between the treaty partners, government to government, is really an ongoing relationship. It depends on the partner relationship, but it is really a perpetual relationship, so we are in constant contact. It varies from one partner to another, but it is very important to us. We are working toward the implementation of the treaties, but we are really in a relationship with the Indigenous partners.
Senator Clement: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: I would like to suggest that, because we were supposed to have the Naskapi Nation as a witness, knowing that we have time when we return, it would be important we hear from them also, if you agree, so you are not uncomfortable answering something.
I know you can answer on behalf of your government. But the Naskapi Nation government may have another position. The letter is not translated, so that is why my colleagues did not receive the information.
I want to be transparent that it is very good that we also hear from the people who will be involved, affected or improved. It is good to hear from them. Are we comfortable with that? Yes.
Senator McCallum: I think this might be beyond that. I’m just curious about this: How would enforcement and prosecutions work? I ask because with other First Nations across Canada, the RCMP refuse to enforce the bylaws of the First Nations, and because of that, they cannot prosecute. They’ve said, we’re not doing any more bylaws if they are not going to be prosecuted. They are at a standstill. I hope it is dealt with. They make their own laws. Is there any oversight body that looks after that or do they do it themselves? The reason for other First Nations is because the RCMP say they don’t know if they are Charter compliant. I am just trying to see how this group dealt with that.
Ms. Pigeon: Thank you. In this case, there is the Naskapi Police Force. I will turn to Julia, if you do not mind, to speak more about the jurisdiction in terms of policy in this instance.
Ms. Redmond: Thank you for the question.
The Complementary Agreement No. 4 that Élizabeth mentioned covers what the parties have agreed to in terms of how the Naskapi Police Force will be funded and how the jurisdiction is to be exercised. The treaty explains that. That is what the parties had discussed and negotiated, both in the policing chapter and then in the treaty as a whole — in the case of this treaty’s bylaws. I say “bylaws” because there are still ongoing self-government negotiations, as we mentioned earlier, toward a self-government agreement that would complement the treaty.
I do not have much to say right now about an oversight body. There is a Cree-Naskapi Commission as well. But I don’t think that provides a lot of helpful detail here when we are talking about policing. Again, I think the chapter speaks for itself.
Senator McCallum: But you did not answer the question. I’m trying to see if this program will actually work. I guess that is what we would have to ask the Chief and council. Because you have said that they look at the jurisdiction to be exercised, but you do not talk about what the jurisdiction is.
Ms. Redmond: I appreciate the question. My apologies for not giving a full enough answer. The jurisdictions set out in the treaty are quite broad. I have a copy of it here with me. It is quite a thick document that covers the full scope of what the parties have all agreed to. What I will add is, as mentioned before by my colleague, that this amended chapter was negotiated between three parties: Quebec, Canada and the Naskapi government.
Senator McCallum: Right.
Ms. Redmond: I think that having a representative from the Naskapi Police Force might give you more detail as well to answer some of your questions.
Senator McCallum: It would be good if the province were there as well. The prosecutions are within the provincial jurisdiction.
How did they arrange it? I’m curious because I do have two PMVs on enforcement and prosecutions. I thought that if there is a model out there that works, then we should look at it. That is where my questions are from.
[Translation]
The Chair: Before handing it over to my colleague Senator Prosper, I would like you to clarify something. Since this is happening in Quebec, I assume Quebec’s police act applies? Perhaps that is something we can ask the Kawawachikamach police, the Naskapi Police Force.
[English]
Senator Prosper: I would like to get a bit of clarity on the nature of negotiations because, as I understand, the treaty was signed in 1988. Is that correct?
Ms. Pigeon: 1978.
Senator Prosper: 1978, sorry. That is quite a while ago. It is an extensive document, as referenced. It was also mentioned that self-government negotiations are ongoing. It is trying to implement the treaty that was signed back in 1978, correct? Am I wrong on that?
Ms. Pigeon: The treaty itself came into effect almost 50 years ago. That is also prior to Canada’s policy on self-government that came into effect in 1995. At the time, self-government was not an option in treaties. However, some Indigenous groups have chosen, in addition to their treaty, to negotiate a self-government agreement that does not replace the treaty itself but complements while adding self-government.
Senator Prosper: Could you go through that again?
Ms. Pigeon: The Northeastern Quebec Agreement came into force in 1978, before Canada’s policy on self-government that came into effect in 1995. Back then, self-government as part of a treaty was not a thing yet. Since then, policies and ways of conducting business have changed. What some groups have chosen to do is to keep the treaty itself, but to negotiate a self-government agreement. It does not replace the treaty. It will replace some provisions in terms of self-government, but it is a complement to the treaty. We have instances where that has been the model. This is exactly what is taking place here. Self-government would not replace the provisions of the treaty. It would really just increase the powers of the Naskapi government eventually.
Senator Prosper: Thank you.
Senator McCallum: Federal programs support Indigenous policing on the basis of policy and do not recognize policing as an essential service, in contrast to policing in non-Indigenous communities in Canada. Generally, what does recognizing policing as an essential service mean? Why is Indigenous policing not recognized as an essential service? What are the impacts of not recognizing policing as an essential service in Indigenous communities such as the Naskapi Nation?
Ms. Pigeon: Thank you for your question, senator.
In terms of the status of essential service for policing, I don’t think that we would be the right people to answer this question. Perhaps our colleagues at Public Safety Canada would be best placed, because that is not something that I am familiar with or that is in the range of my mandate.
Senator McCallum: That question keeps coming up with the group I work with in Manitoba. They have been fighting to have it as an essential service, and the government is refusing. But it is essential in other areas.
Ms. Pigeon: Thank you.
The Chair: It is a good question, knowing that you work in silos. But in a community, everything is interconnected or has a strong connection. Maybe if we ask the question: Does your department speak with and have exchanges with the other department that does the public safety to ensure that it is not a pilot project for 40 years, I would say, but a real commitment where the nation can have, with your department and the other department, a real essential service like municipalities or provinces and territories do?
Ms. Pigeon: At CIRNAC, we often coordinate the implementation of modern treaties. However, implementation remains a whole-of-government responsibility. We work closely with our colleagues in other departments. For instance, in this negotiation for the treaty modernization, it was our colleagues at Public Safety who were leading the negotiations, and, of course, CIRNAC was part of the negotiating table. However, in my experience, how it works is that should that concern be brought to me by a treaty partner, of course, we will address it. But to my knowledge, this is not something that has not been brought to my attention.
The Chair: In a good way, I will mention that we invited Public Safety Canada, and they declined. So I’m glad you are here. I’m sure they are listening when we say that we believe conversation is a must.
Senator McCallum: Can we invite them again?
The Chair: We’ll try.
Senator McCallum: Say that we need to hear from them because this is vital information.
The Chair: Good point.
Senator McCallum: We cannot leave First Nations in a gap.
When you meet with them, I’m surprised you don’t fully look at everything together to make sure that there are no gaps like this and that you all know what is happening in each department and how you are going to work together.
The Chair: Thank you. Since we are coming back in February with the Naskapi government, we’ll make sure that we also invite Public Safety Canada again, and we’ll say that you came and there is some information missing.
Senator Pate: Thank you very much. That line of questioning gives rise to some other questions for me. The three of you are here dealing with this part of the budget implementation act. How many people in your department and across government are involved in oversight, supporting or dealing with this Cree-Naskapi agreement?
Ms. Pigeon: Good question. Thank you, senator. I could come back with a more thorough answer. However, the way we operate is that I don’t have one person solely assigned only to one agreement. So it is really a team effort. For example, there is a team that implements the treaties in Quebec. There is another one that was involved in the negotiation. Especially with limited resources, we align ourselves as we go depending on the priorities.
For example, there was a small team that worked on the negotiations of the treaty amendments. Once that came into force, of course, efforts and resources were aligned toward another priority. That is often the case in terms of negotiations. If you would like a specific count, we could get back to you, but it would be probably more of an estimate than a very precise answer.
Senator Pate: I would be interested in an estimate and also the costing of that estimate. I would also be interested in how often each of you have visited the territory.
Ms. Pigeon: I have never had the chance to visit the community of Kawawachikamach; I would very much like to. However, personally, I have had the opportunity to visit many other communities across Canada. We go whenever we are invited as well. I would be very pleased to visit the community. I don’t know that any of you have visited either. I think you joined a bit after the negotiations as well.
Senator Pate: In some other discussions that some of us have been in earlier today, it strikes me that one of the best practices — not that we are giving advice to the department — might be to have people who champion particular treaties, negotiations or agreements to help address this siloed issue as well. It strikes me that you are less likely to have those gaps if you go into the community and see the gaps, what is not working, and you meet with the community and hear from them. I don’t know if any of that happens at all or if you operate that way.
I understood that the Naskapi Nation was operating pretty independently. That’s also why I’m asking how many people are involved in this oversight or support. I would be interested in how you describe those functions because they are operating pretty independently, so why are there so many government resources going to this hovering — I don’t want to say control — but how many are involved in that process.
Ms. Pigeon: Thank you for your question. To the first part of the question regarding visiting the community, in general, we also try to send the employees who are directly working with the employees. So in this instance I know that, at the time, there was one of our employees who had the opportunity to visit Kawawachikamach. However, given costs, et cetera, we keep travel quite limited these days.
However, to the second part of the question, it really varies on the group that works on a given agreement. The role of implementation also varies. In instances where we have amendments, negotiations will be a bit more of a group effort. However, in this instance, the group is quite small. We support the negotiations of self-government. But treaty implementation is an ongoing business in the sense that we are also responsible to flow the funds under the treaty. There are often some enhancements that are provided to partners, so that would also be a group that takes care of that. We need to have people who work on those funding agreements.
Senator Pate: How many people from the community would you be paying to help with that process?
Ms. Pigeon: We have funding agreements with treaty partners, and especially in this instance, you have grant agreements, and the groups can determine their priorities and allocate as they wish. But we have funding agreements that are negotiated. We don’t directly fund people to work on the implementation.
The Chair: When you say “group,” do you mean the nation or government, or is there a specific group within the government?
Ms. Pigeon: I mean treaty partners.
The Chair: Thank you. I wasn’t sure.
Senator McCallum: You said the questions I asked would be better answered by Public Safety Canada and that you do a whole-of-government approach to this. What are the other different government bodies that are involved besides Public Safety and CIRNAC and people from modern treaty? Which other groups? I am asking because if this is siloed — it seems to be — could you please describe the degree and scope of consultation that occurred leading up to repealing? Who was consulted? What did the consultation entail? What were the questions asked to make certain they were going to give informed consent?
Ms. Pigeon: Thank you for your question. Which other government departments, or OGDs, that we work closely with depends on the subject matter of the different treaties. Often, for example —
Senator McCallum: For this one.
Ms. Pigeon: For this one we have, for example, NRCan would be involved in the lands. I’m trying to think.
Benoît Chartrand, Manager, Modern Treaty Management East, Modern Treaties, Consultation and Intergovernmental Relations Sector, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada: Public Safety.
Ms. Pigeon: Public Safety was a major player. Justice is a key partner on many fronts.
Senator McCallum: Let’s look at those. Were they all involved in designing the consultations to ensure there were no gaps? Do you have the questions that you asked them, and would it be possible for us to get them?
Ms. Pigeon: For the question of consultation, I will turn to Mr. Chartrand, who was involved in the process of bringing the treaty amendment to fruition.
Mr. Chartrand: Basically, what happened was that we had no negotiation tables. The First Nation was represented by officials they appointed. After that, yes, we agreed upon a text, draft complementary agreement, and then we had this process that they had to internally check with the council, for example, to determine if the council approved the new agreement. Then they provided a PCR or a piece of informational paper explaining that the First Nation agreed with the agreement itself. After that, we went through the parliamentary process. We did this process to ensure that everyone agreed.
Quebec also had its own process to get the agreement approved, as well as ourselves, which was the last step.
Senator McCallum: So you did the agreement and then you presented it to the First Nation?
Mr. Chartrand: It was not us. It was the officials appointed by the First Nation.
Senator McCallum: Were they given choices about how it could have worked, and then they decided, which, of course, involved consent?
Mr. Chartrand: I don’t know their internal process for Kawawachikamach, for example, but I understand that they were mandated by the First Nation. It could be the council or the general assembly. It depends on how they work internally.
[Translation]
The Chair: My understanding is that the Naskapi or Kawawachikamach government went to court a number of years ago to express concerns about the treaty between the Naskapi and the federal government not being upheld. Is what you are proposing today to remedy that so they do not have to go to court again? Is that correct?
Ms. Pigeon: Yes. There was a dispute a number of years ago, and ultimately it was resolved. A new tripartite agreement on police services was negotiated. That is where we are now. It is really the end of the long process that was the result of a dispute.
The Chair: When you say tripartite, you mean the Quebec, federal and Naskapi governments?
Ms. Pigeon: Yes. Tripartite negotiations, yes, with Quebec.
The Chair: Okay, but there are also cases between the Innu community of Mashteuiatsh and Supreme Court of Canada with regard to Quebec, the Crown and the Innu.
Just to reassure us, we will certainly invite the Naskapi to come and explain all of that to us, because there are definite silos. This is nothing against you, but we want to understand. They are very good questions. We want to make sure that we do not find ourselves here again next year or in a few years as a result of a treaty violation. We do not have that power, but we hope that this agreement will be honoured.
Thank you very much. Are there any other comments?
[English]
Senator McCallum: If section 195 of the Naskapi and the Cree-Naskapi Commission Act is repealed, would a statutory framework govern the police force of the Naskapi village municipality and the policing of Category IA-N and Category III land under section 13, policing, of the Northeastern Quebec Agreement?
Ms. Pigeon: The framework is already in the treaty. The repeal is such that we are not removing anything because the revised treaty already specifies the details of the policing jurisdiction and territorial application.
Senator McCallum: Revised treaty or self-government?
Ms. Pigeon: No, the revised chapter.
Section 13 has been recently amended and already provides for those details that are being repealed.
Senator McCallum: When you look at what you are offering the First Nation, can you say with confidence that it will work, that you would not hesitate to go through with it? That’s where the questions are leading to, because we have seen self-government agreements that haven’t worked. I just want to make certain that the Naskapi are not being offered something that would not work for them, that they are going into it believing that this will work.
Ms. Pigeon: The new chapter, the amended chapter, is really a reflection of the will of the Naskapi Nation. It was collaboratively negotiated with them. Furthermore, the specific repeal doesn’t change anything to what is really in application today. It is a very technical territorial application.
Perhaps I can turn to Ms. Redmond to explain the functionality of what we are proposing.
Ms. Redmond: Thank you. As my colleague has mentioned, the repeal of those sections in the statute is to harmonize that act with this amended chapter of the treaty that was negotiated in a tripartite way with the Naskapi support, and I’m sure when we have Naskapi representatives here with you, they can speak to that in more detail as well.
The Chair: The root cause is because they went to court. We have to remember that. It’s very important. The hope is that we don’t go to court. It is not that I want to finish this conversation with this example, but for me, the truth is important, or my perception of what the truth is. It is beside my community Matemekush-Lac-Jean. I was there a month ago, and I’m proud to see young women who are police officers, but also I’m sure that they are overwhelmed with social issues and realities such as suicides, poverty, homelessness, encampments and so on, but they are still standing. I hope you will honour this relationship with the Naskapi and other modern treaty or treaty governments.
[Translation]
I want to thank the witnesses.
We will continue our consideration of Part 4 of Bill C-15.
[English]
By video conference, we welcome our old friend Manny Jules, Chief Commissioner, First Nations Tax Commission; Chief Derek Epp, Tzeachten First Nation; and Chief Gord Bluesky, Brokenhead First Nation.
You will share 15 minutes in total. We need to ensure that my colleagues can ask questions. As I said to the other panel, we have the power to ask good questions. I am sure we have a good panel to listen to, as well.
Manny Jules, Chief Commissioner, First Nations Tax Commission: Thank you. It is good to see you, even though it is on video. Good evening. Thank you for the invitation to appear before the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples as part of your study of Bill C-15. I have appeared before Senate and the House of Commons committees well over 50 times. It is always a pleasure to engage in meaningful dialogue with parliamentarians on issues of mutual interest and concern.
My message has been consistent and persistent: Parliament took away our right to collect taxes almost 100 years ago, in 1927. This led to our poverty and dependence. As stated on April 4, 1927, by Peter Kelly from the Haida Nation when he was asked at a parliamentary committee hearing what would happen if we lost our tax powers and title:
Then the position that we would take would be this: That we are simply dependent people, then we would have to accept from you, the government, just as an act of grace, whatever you saw fit to give us.
This challenge has been my life’s work. In 1998, I led the predecessor to the fuel, alcohol, tobacco and cannabis, or FACT, sales tax that we are discussing today. I proposed the FACT sales tax in 2018 and have been working with proponent First Nations like those of Chief Epp and Chief Bluesky ever since. I strongly support the tax legislation and want it enacted soon.
However, I wish to propose some amendments so that we can go another step farther. We must ensure that our communities have the option to develop and pass the FACT revenue expenditure laws pursuant to the First Nations Fiscal Management Act. This means that they can be transparent and accountable to their members who will be paying these taxes. This means we can start to implement a new fiscal relationship in which our jurisdictions are paid for by our tax revenues. This is true self-determination.
I will send this committee a draft of our proposed amendments after this hearing. If you support the passage of the FACT sales tax legislation with the amendments that I have proposed, you will help expand the most successful First Nations-led legislative initiative in history, not because it is good for First Nations, but because it is good for Canada.
Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much. The next witness is Chief Epp.
[English]
Chief Derek Epp, Tzeachten First Nation: Good evening, everyone. It is good to be back. I, too, wish I were there in person. Thank you, Manny, for starting us off in such a good way. I have been Chief of the Ch’iyaqtel First Nation, sometimes called the Tzeachten First Nation, in B.C., for almost a decade. I am also the chairperson for the First Nations Finance Authority and the co-chair of the Strategic Initiatives Table with the First Nations Tax Commission. I am grateful to do so much work with Manny over the years.
Thank you for the invitation to appear before your committee to speak in support of the fuel, alcohol, tobacco and cannabis sales tax legislation in the budget implementation act.
I love talking about expanding First Nation tax powers, and I will tell you why. Like many First Nations in the 1990s, we used to rely heavily on federal transfers as our primary source of revenue. We estimate that, at that time, 90% of our revenues were federal transfers, and around 10% to 15% were from our own-source revenues. Since then, we have implemented all our tax powers under the First Nations Fiscal Management Act. We have also implemented all our land laws under the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management Act.
Last year, I’m proud to say that we reversed that statistic from the 1990s. We received 10% in federal transfers, and 90% of our budget is own-source revenue, with a budget that is at least 15 to 20 times higher than it was in the 1990s.
We have shown what can be done by implementing our fiscal and lands jurisdictions with the support of our institutions.
However, I believe we need to speed up this work. We need to help more First Nations do what my community has done sooner. This is why I am asking this committee to support a new approach to implementing our jurisdictions that can start with First Nations FACT sales taxes.
A dollar of tax revenues for First Nations is much more valuable to all of us than a dollar of transfers to First Nations. This is why I would like this committee to support the removal of the revenue-sharing framework in the FACT and replace it with a new fiscal relationship. This way, instead of us keeping 75% of the revenues generated from FACT sales on our lands, we would keep all of them. We would use these additional revenues to build economic infrastructure on our current or new lands. This would lead to even more growth and benefits for all of us.
I think we all agree that, in this way, we would create more economic growth with that additional revenue than the federal government would.
We could implement the new fiscal framework to do this in the Fiscal Management Act through our expenditure laws, standards, and other checks and balances. We would use the First Nations Infrastructure Institute and the First Nations Finance Authority to help with this. This could serve as a model for implementing First Nations jurisdictions faster while generating more economic growth. This is what we all want. This will happen faster if we remove the revenue caps on our fuel, alcohol, cannabis and tobacco, or FACT, taxes in exchange for more jurisdiction over our economic infrastructure and lands.
I strongly support the FACT tax legislation, and I hope you will support my proposal to make it even better as well.
Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, Chief Epp. Chief Bluesky now has the floor.
[English]
Chief Gord Bluesky, Brokenhead First Nation: Thank you, and good evening, everybody. I’m Gordon Bluesky. I’m the Chief of the Brokenhead Ojibwe Nation, but I also get the honour of being the chairperson and spokesperson of the Treaty One Nations in Manitoba. I’m also a director with the First Nations Finance Authority, or FNFA, and a director with the Lands Advisory Board. I do a lot of fun work across the country.
My community is located about 50 kilometres north of Winnipeg, and I was elected last year by acclamation for another four-year term. I’m going into four years now. We are home to the South Beach Casino & Resort, which opened in 2005. We have a land code under the Framework Agreement initiative and the First Nations Land Management. We have property taxation under the First Nation Fiscal Management Act, and we recently added — well, we have 400 acres total — 60 acres recently turned to reserve into our jurisdiction just north of Winnipeg in the Rural Municipality of East St. Paul.
We are part of the largest urban reserve — some of you may know Naawi-Oodena — in the city of Winnipeg. Our intention is to use the First Nation Fiscal Management Act and Framework Agreement to develop our lands, to generate fiscal benefits and implement jurisdictions. This is what Chief Commissioner Manny Jules has led, and this is what Chief Epp did with his community as well, and we are going to be the first First Nation in Manitoba to follow this model, but, of course, we are going to do our best to do it better.
I support this legislation in principle, but I want to advance some amendments for your consideration. I support the amendments advanced by Chief Commissioner Jules and Chief Epp. In addition to their ideas, I think we should also expand the FACT tax to include casinos and, of course, our automated teller machines, or ATMs, within them. This would mean significant revenues for my community, and it would also be easier for my community to implement.
As you know, the 5% on FACT products would apply equally to all consumers. This would require significant communications with our communities. I’m not sure if you know, but First Nation members already pay the GST in our casinos and on the use of the ATMs. This is because GST is not collected on cash on each slot or bet at each casino or on each withdrawal from the ATM. It is estimated — as tax people like to say, “imputed” — based upon expenditures from casinos and from financial institutions for ATM. This means that the section 87 of the Indian Act exemption does not apply for on-reserve casinos or ATMs.
Since 2005, this meant that the federal government has been collecting millions of dollars in GST from our members and all status First Nation members who use our casino and ATMs. I’m not sure what the federal government did with this revenue, but I know we would have grown our economy faster to benefit us all, and all of Canada, if we had these taxes. This is why I’m asking you to amend the FACT legislation and add casinos and ATMs.
If we did this, it would be much easier to implement in my community and every First Nation with a casino or ATM. These amendments would provide a path to expand our own tax jurisdiction in other FACT products. It would be a step toward including our governments in this federation.
Thank you, meegwetch.
The Chair: Thank you for your presentation.
Senator Tannas: I will start with the question about amendments. We are not constitutionally barred from making amendments on financial budget bills, but we are, for all intents and purposes, barred from doing that.
We are in a pre-study phase here. The bill has not arrived. It is somewhere over in the House of Commons.
My question to all three of you — because you are looking for amendments — is this: Have you provided your amendments? Have you had any kind of negotiation or discussion with the government on your amendments while the bill is in the House of Commons? I ask because that is where — frankly, from my point of view, and others may disagree — you will either get them or not. What has been the status of the conversations in all three of those?
The other question that I want to ask, and get clarification from Chief Bluesky on, is this: Are you saying that, for every dollar that is bet, five cents goes to the federal government for GST? Is that what you are talking about, Chief Bluesky?
Those are my two questions. Thank you.
Mr. Jules: Senator Tannas, we have had a number of discussions with the Department of Finance Canada going back now some considerable time, even with the previous government, talking about the FACT tax. We always advocated the inclusion of casino revenues as part of the equation. We have had a number of working groups that have been established with First Nations right across the country.
We have not seen the actual legislation that is going to be tabled in the House, but we anticipate it through our discussions with the Department of Finance officials, and that is why we’re proposing a number of amendments during this phase. We will be sending those to you in anticipation of the legislation, which will be tabled very soon.
Senator Tannas: Thank you. I am still not sure. It is hard for me to imagine that for, every dollar that gets bet, the Canadian government is taking five cents of it off in GST. I do not know why the provinces would stand for that.
Are we chasing money that actually does exist?
Mr. Jules: I will let Chief Bluesky give the response to this, but, senator, we have been having to deal with this particular issue with First Nation casinos ever since they’ve been established.
In casinos, when you go and pay money into a slot machine, you do not get an exemption. When you use an ATM, you do not get an exemption, so all of those coffers go to both the federal and provincial governments.
There was a recent court case about ATMs in the Enoch Cree Nation in Alberta, which the Enoch Cree Nation lost. That is one of the reasons why we’re advocating for an amendment to this particular legislation so that those revenues that are collected can stay within the community to better the community’s standards in terms of infrastructure like sewer, water, potable water, better roads and the like.
Senator Tannas: I understand ATMs, because there is a fee there, but I am surprised about the others.
Maybe we could ask our Library of Parliament analyst to get clarification for us.
Mr. Jules: When we first started dealing with this, it was at the casino on the St. Mary’s Reserve in the Kootenays here in British Columbia, and so this has been an ongoing situation.
Senator Tannas: And 5% is sent to the federal government; is that right?
Mr. Jules: That’s correct.
Senator Tannas: They would take 5% of every dollar bet and send it to the federal government?
Mr. Jules: Well, it’s a hidden tax. It’s like an excise tax, except within the casino sphere.
Senator Tannas: Thank you. Thanks, Manny, and nice to see you. I am still a proud owner of an original Manny Jules piece of art proudly displayed in my house.
Mr. Jules: Thank you, Scott.
The Chair: It is officially known.
Senator Tannas: It’s a piece of art. I will guard it with my life.
Senator McPhedran: My question is to Chief Epp. This may seem like an odd question, but I am hearing a wide degree of agreement, certainly among our witnesses. Who among the leadership does not want to see these changes? Do you have any other First Nations, or anyone else among the leadership, who does not think that this is a good idea?
Mr. Epp: Not in our circles. I cannot list a single individual who would be opposing this. The reason is because these are optional. These are not mandated tax authorities that every single First Nation across the country would have to implement. They are optional tools that communities like mine have benefited drastically from.
I like to share that we’ve been able to do what we’ve done with a limited economic toolbox. What I want to do now, and what I’m passionate about doing, is expanding that toolbox so that we can be self-determining and self-sufficient. I don’t think any First Nation across the country can disagree with that. Again, it goes back to the root of these being optional, part of the First Nations Fiscal Management Act, or FMA, framework that provides those standards, samples, templates, transparency and accountability that both parties look for in these transactions. So does our membership. Our membership really appreciates the transparency of these economic tools, the reporting that is required by me as a leader to my membership as well.
I do a lot of engagement with communities that I help in my spare time — if I have any — and try to go and meet with communities across this country, sharing the power of taxes. Every time I meet with communities, I don’t get the message, “Oh, that’s not for us,” or “We oppose that.” It is always, “That is a good option. We are going to keep exploring that.” Thank you for the question, though.
Senator McPhedran: Yes. I would extend it as well to the Chief Commissioner and Chief Bluesky.
Mr. Jules: Yes. As I mentioned, I first started working with the Nisga’a on this issue way back in the 1990s, when they were involved in the early discussions with the Ni’isga Treaty. As Chief Epp correctly points out, this is optional legislation. This isn’t something that communities take lightly. There are always community consultation and community buy-in to be able to move forward. This isn’t a decision that a Chief and councillors just make on their own. This is a decision that the collective makes.
Let me reiterate that tax exemptions are a collective right as opposed to an individual right. The collective has to make the decision. The process is individually drawn. I have been involved in many of these discussions. It is usually done in community membership meetings, leading to a membership vote.
Yes, every time taxes are raised, it is an issue. What I like to say is that when I first started doing this work I was six foot, three.
Mr. Bluesky: Thank you, Chief Commissioner. Yes. That is a great question. It is the easiest thing for me to answer, and you captured it in the previous speakers. In my community and the Treaty 1 First Nations, insofar as we have Canada’s largest urban reserve in the heart and centre of Winnipeg, I don’t have much choice but to understand the mechanisms and instruments we have available right now.
Of course, great examples are Chief Epp’s community and other First Nations that are already practising taxation, so I will be taking the same road as Chief Epp. I don’t really have many conversations on the negative side of things, but I do have conversations on how we advance, mirror what is going on in the adjacent jurisdiction and benefit from the opportunities we have right now. Currently, in Manitoba, we’re just starting out. We’re probably 20 or 30 years behind many of our B.C. relatives in terms of their advancement into these jurisdictions.
We have a bit of work to do. At the end of the day, I look across even to Brokenhead, and our whole Treaty 1 territory is covered by municipal lands and jurisdictions. Things are being imposed on us, all around us. It is about time for us to evolve and to start taking advantage of the legislation and instruments that are available.
For me, it is a conversation about how we want to advance and then utilize those resources. I could talk for hours about the conversations that I have had with the bureaucracy of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, stating that if we had the ability to maintain and keep these resources in our First Nation, we would be able to take many steps on our own versus having to wait for funding agreements or programs to become available.
Mr. Jules: To further expand on the answers, the First Nations communities have used these revenues for better infrastructure, better sewer systems, potable water and higher education.
As all of us know, the number of dollars that the First Nations receive from the federal government is not enough to cover all of the educational costs, specialized costs, health care for the elderly and for other community members. These are the kinds of investments that First Nations use these revenues for. Also in the case of my community as well as Chief Epp’s we were able to purchase lands that were not reserve lands, turn them into productive lands so that we can reap a benefit from them.
Mr. Epp: Can I share a quick story of the importance of this? I apologize, but I want to share it because I think it is critical.
Here is what these tax powers and the access to infrastructure has enabled my community to do in partnership with our local municipality. I started this about ten years ago when our mayor would not even entertain a conversation with First Nations because it meant that maybe they had to commit to doing work with us.
In those 10 years now, we have gone so far that our city now is coming to my community and others and saying, can you buy land, unlock it, and can we co-design what the future of Chilliwack looks like in partnership? Can we look at expanding our wastewater treatment plant in partnership with the city of Chilliwack? But it takes further tax jurisdiction to do that as well. It has flipped the script of a relationship that used to be adversarial. It used to be that we were “less than,” to be frank, now to the point where we actually offer services to the surrounding city of Chilliwack, and we offer residential, commercial and industrial services like recreation space, programs and services. That is the impact of creating this new fiscal relationship. It makes a drastic difference.
The Chair: It’s a small world. The reason I didn’t stop you is because my granddaughter lives in Chilliwack.
Mr. Epp: No way.
The Chair: I was asking where you are from. You gained a couple of feathers.
Mr. Epp: Thank you.
Senator Prosper: Thank you to all of the witnesses. This is a fascinating subject.
I have questions for each of you. I do not think that I have enough time to ask them to each of you. I will start with Chief Commissioner Jules.
I remember when you were six foot, three, but you have appeared before this committee many times for greater First Nation tax powers as a path toward First Nations economic self-determination.
Do you mind explaining why First Nation tax powers unlock First Nation and Canadian economic growth as well?
As a follow-up to that, could you explain how the proposed First Nation resource tax could create a better climate for resource investment in Canada? If we could start with that.
Mr. Jules: Thank you, Senator Prosper. Since 2016, there has been $4.96 billion in private investment on First Nations lands in British Columbia according to the BC Assessment Authority. The assessed taxable value of B.C. First Nations lands is now well over $16 billion just in British Columbia alone, $18 billion right across the country. Our primary estimates using StatCan’s methods are that this private investment and taxing First Nations have generated at least $80 billion for the Canadian economy.
Again, when tax jurisdiction is enabled for First Nations, it unlocks the wealth, it unlocks the private enterprise, it unlocks the ability to be able to make decisions at the local level. For the First Nations resource tax, one of the reasons we are advocating for this jurisdiction, particularly in light of Bill C-5, is because it gives First Nations a jurisdictional role and direct benefit as a government for the exploration and tapping of the mineral wealth of this country. Right now, First Nations, yes, can get a benefit from impact and benefit agreements, but that’s a business decision that private enterprise enters into with First Nations. What I’m advocating with the First Nations resource tax is a governmental power so that we benefit just like the federal and provincial governments benefit from tax jurisdiction.
For every dollar, senator, that is collected on our lands, the federal and provincial governments get $15. So that imbalance has to be corrected. The only way that is going to happen is through a constructive legislative approach to make sure that we all play on a level playing field and put the “G” into government, not the “P” into poverty.
Senator Prosper: Chief Epp, the story of your community, as you mentioned, is truly inspirational and a model for others. What do you think is the most efficient way to transfer the success of your community to other First Nations who may be interested? As a follow-up to that, what is the difference between the fiscal relationship you are suggesting for the FACT tax revenues and the fiscal relationship used now? What is the difference between those two, Chief Epp?
Mr. Epp: Thank you, Senator Prosper, and good to see you again. It is important to note that the FNMA FA framework provides the standards, samples and templates that make it really simple for First Nations to begin this process and go down this journey. Importantly, in my community we have sent a lot of our staff — we have the most graduates, actually, from the Tulo Centre in Kamloops, which is our centre of economics for First Nations — there who have graduated, and it builds the capacity to come back to your community and implement the FNMA FA faster and more efficiently. That helps build that internal capacity.
We also host Leading the Way annually, and it really helps share the successes. We invite all First Nations from across Canada to that event as well to try to create interest, build that capacity and make sure it is a place to start.
As I mentioned in my opening remarks, Manny, I and many others travel across the country and engage with many First Nations who are starting their journey and try to encourage them on where to start. Looking at these standards is a starting point as is being patient with ourselves. That’s how I always encourage nations: This doesn’t happen overnight. This is a journey. It takes time to build the capacity and implement all these jurisdictions efficiently.
To your second point, it mostly about the taxes, just the foundation of a government and a starting point for that fiscal relationship. Having these exclusive tax jurisdictions should help fund exclusive jurisdictions to grow our economies, improve services and infrastructure, and implement self-determination. My community is a perfect example of that. We left the treaty process a number of years ago and decided to go down what I like to call “the economic treaty.” We have taken the choice of continuing to build our economy and assert jurisdictions. That is exactly what we want to do with this proposal: to enhance our tax jurisdiction so we can begin to assert more jurisdictions from Canada and be self-determining and self-sufficient.
Really, it is about getting away from the transfers that inherently don’t create wealth and getting away from being punished from growing our economies. What we see with the current arrangements is that if I begin to create too much tax wealth, I get punished for that, and that gets taken away from me as well. It is about ensuring that I have the ability to continue to grow, evolve, meet my members’ evolving needs, and so should every single community. That’s what Manny and Gord and I all do: try to support nations to do this same.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Greenwood: Thank you to the witnesses for being here this evening. I’m interested in all that you are talking about. I’m thinking of small rural and remote communities. What is the opportunity for them? I know that for bigger communities that have a casino, there are many people to draw from, but some small rural and remote communities do not have that. What would be the benefit for them? Would they be taxing people who maybe don’t have a lot of money? So I’m just trying to get my head around that. Can you talk to me a bit about that and what that could potentially look like for a small, rural and remote isolated community?
Mr. Jules: We, as a tax commission, deal with all different sizes of communities, from rural communities that have a tax base of a few thousand dollars to those with $75,000. The reason that these communities get involved in taxation is for jurisdictional reasons so that they can provide better services and offset their governmental costs. When you are dealing with exemptions, First Nations communities can provide exemptions on their own, using their own jurisdictional powers. If this is the tax room that they have, they can provide it themselves through better services like health care, better education, sports activities, cultural events and the like.
When I think about a time when we had all of the tax jurisdictions, that was up until 1927. That’s why the quote about Peter Kelly was so critically important. What happened since 1927 is that the federal government has made us completely dependent on them and their programming for us. What this does, and what we are advocating, is that those dollars collected by the federal government right now — and they are collected by the federal government and provincial government on our lands whether you are a small rural community or a large community — should remain within our community, and our government should have governmental jurisdiction just like the federal and provincial governments.
Mr. Bluesky: Thanks, Manny. I wanted to touch on that a little bit. Our First Nations in Manitoba have a lot of opportunities in regard to treaty land entitlement, and they have been acquiring lands throughout their territory, so within urban and municipal settings. Some of those communities that you are referencing in terms of being smaller and more remote are now acquiring lands.
I want to point to a little fact of history as well, and I know Manny likes that. One hundred years ago, when Na-Sha-Ke-Penais signed Treaty No. 1, which is the one that signed on behalf of my people, he probably didn’t expect a million people to show up within that span of time, and that is what has happened. When you look at global trends, and if you look at ideal locations to immigrate to, First Nations that are considered remote and isolated right now, maybe in 100 years will not be.
We should be getting this jurisdiction established now and having ourselves practising what we should have already had in the first place, although I’m not going to get too much into that.
When you look at my community, there is potentially $13 million to $20 million currently leaving my community under all forms of taxation that is within my community and income tax. I have 283 employees at my casino, and probably, 75% to 78% of them are non-status people. All those resources are leaving my First Nation. When I lobby for schools or safe roads in terms of the highway through our First Nation, or for active transportation to keep people off the highway, these are always debates I have with the government and the bureaucracy in regard to saying, “Where can we do this?” The response I receive is, “Sorry, Chief, we don’t have the resources for that.” So I say as follows:
I bet I know where you can find it. Stop taking the $15 million or $20 million from my community, and I can reinvest that into things that I need to focus on in my jurisdiction: my people and my population’s safety.
Every time I am confronted with that, I’m asked, “What about our provincial health care? You benefit from that.” Many of our people are fearful of that health care because of the way they are treated.
The way I look at the jurisdiction itself right now is that we start to utilize these resources that are currently being generated in some of the communities, and yes, there are remote communities that may not see the initial impact of that. I agree with Mr. Jules that it doesn’t matter much, whether it’s $50,000 or $100,000, we could all use it. The scale doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter if it’s $15 million or $20 million. Every community needs as many resources as they can have in their First Nations.
For me, it’s about the other items we are not here to talk about, like the resource charges and remote communities. When you look at where they are, instead of having municipal jurisdictions throughout the territory like I do, they also have other industries, such as mining and all those types of things happening throughout the territory that could also benefit from First Nations having some form of jurisdiction. The idea is that you can start to reallocate these resources to other priorities. Obviously, at the same time, the federal and provincial governments, unfortunately, do not always have the same priorities we do. The most important thing for me is to be able to start telling my First Nation so that we can start taking these resources and start allocating to things we find important. That has been my main focus and drive in getting involved in this.
Mr. Epp: Those two summed it up very well. Mr. Bluesky nailed it at the end. It’s getting ready and building the capacity. The resource tax is interesting for those more remote communities and can help them begin to build that economy and to be ready for when they are able to assert and collect significant taxes so they don’t have to catch up as they are doing that as well.
The Chair: Thank you. I want to say something about how passionate your response was, Chief Bluesky. We have to say thank you to the translators and interpreters. They were able to catch most of what you said. Very passionate. I want to say, thank you.
Senator Pate: Thank you to all the witnesses. It is great to hear from you. I would like to ask you about what impact this kind of economic autonomy will have on issues like social issues and education. You talked a bit about education and addictions. How do you see this autonomy positively, I presume, impacting those areas and preventing people from being in a situation where they face more dire consequences? Related to that, because it’s a particular area I’m interested in, with First Nations having more autonomy, how many people from your community end up incarcerated or in the child welfare system?
Mr. Jules: One of the things that we have undertaken is monitoring the wellness index, if you will, on reserves that have got all of the economic tools at their disposal and use the majority of them. In every one of those cases, because they have got tax jurisdiction and land codes, they are able to deal with addictions better because they have health care facilities and programs available. In my community, we are building a healing centre for community members. We have a policing agreement. One of the things that we utilize is an agreement with the RCMP that polices three of our Shuswap reserves. Through that working relationship, we are able to concentrate a lot on the social policy issues.
When you deal with the economic issues, it puts you in a position where you can deal more adequately with the social policy ills that are within the communities. Without the independent revenues, you are completely dependent on somebody else to try to provide that funding. Of course, you see the ills of chronic diseases in many communities because they don’t have the economic tools at their disposal and are not utilizing them.
Treatment centres, education, sports activities: all of these lead to a better health care system so that they can begin to take care of themselves better. If you have pride in yourself, your health, your community and your community members, it is going to lead to a healthier community.
Mr. Epp: Thank you.
I can share some stats. We have gone from having far too many kids in care to none. We don’t have a single child in the care of the ministry anymore. Something I’m very proud of in the last 10 years of being in this role is that we have reduced the number of people who need housing from 150 to about 23 in my community. Most of that was done independently. Some of it was in partnership with B.C. housing or other communities, but a lot we have done ourselves.
We pride ourselves in investing in our students’ post-secondary education. We work with Stó:lo Education. They collect some of the federal funds, but that is limited in scope. We have non-status band members, because we have a custom membership code. At the end of the year, we make sure we write a cheque to Stó:lo Education and cover every child’s post-secondary education so they can be empowered to be what their best self is. We do Elders meal plans, we have Elders’ physiotherapists and we do Elder care. We have two specific staff who spend their days with Elders. That’s all they do. We have everything from cultural programs to land-based learning. We’re starting that this spring. We are looking to build a cultural hub that would be rooted in that land-based learning and making sure our kids know who they are and know their identity as they are growing up.
My background is social work, so prior to being elected as Chief, I was a child protection social worker. I hated it to be honest. My focus was on prevention and making sure we were doing everything possible to give our children, our youth, our parents and our Elders their best chance at life.
These expanded tax powers enable me to do this in partnership with my community and make sure we have the ability to continue to close gaps in infrastructure and recidivism, keep kids out of care and make sure we are doing the best we can with all the resources we have. We are very proud of the work we are able to do with the resources we have.
Mr. Bluesky: I don’t have a lot to add to those statements. One point is that our First Nations and communities and governments know the best way to support their people. The programs available currently through Indigenous Services Canada, although I am grateful for a lot of those supports, the same exact point applies, which is that we only make so much own-source revenue, and there is only so much subsidizing of those programs I can do before I start heading into red. That’s the biggest issue I have.
There need to be contributions here. I have gone through this over and over again with Indigenous Services Canada. Our casino didn’t receive one dime from the federal or provincial government. Our water treatment plant didn’t receive a penny from the federal or provincial government. Our gas station: we built that on our own. Our medical clinic: we built it on our own. Our grocery store: we built it on our own. For every one of those facilities I’m referencing, there are external governments taking money from them. I have these needs in my First Nation that are well beyond my ability to support with the own-source revenue we are currently generating.
Like I said before, if we could have the ability to maintain and keep those resources within our First Nation, I can guarantee you, regardless of all the rhetoric you hear out there that is negative to our First Nations people, I think the vast majority of us do reinvest those own-source revenues, or in this case, jurisdictions of tax resources, back into the needs of our community. That’s the biggest thing I focus on: How do we make these opportunities we have, but also what do we look at? What’s leaving our community? What’s leaking from here? But we must also learn from places like Ch’íyáqtel and looking at how I can utilize my 500 acres that I have in the city of Winnipeg and start to build and generate those much-needed revenues as well.
I see the future as being very bright, under the support and working together. We used to have that. I have listened to Manny for many years. This is not something new to our First Nations. It is not new that we collected together, supported one another and shared resources that we had collectively throughout our whole existence. This is nothing new; it has just been disrupted.
Mr. Jules: Just to wrap up, senator. You can see the common thread in all of the discussion that we have provided this evening: We are here to make sure that we look after those who are unborn and those that we will probably never meet. That’s the responsibility of leadership.
The Chair: Thank you. We might use that for the report, Manny.
Mr. Jules: Thank you.
The Chair: Okay. I’ll be a tough chair now. We have a few senators and a few minutes left and lots of passion on this panel. Let’s ensure that we answer within a few minutes.
Senator Clement: Good evening. Thank you for your testimony. You guys are fantastic. It has been a long day here in the Senate. I can’t believe that my brain is actually fired up enough to ask you guys a question. That’s a testament to how good you are at using examples and explaining.
I want to ask you, Chief Epp, because you were talking about collaboration and joint projects and co-designing. I used to be the Mayor of Cornwall, Ontario, which is on traditional Mohawk territory. The federal government divested the port jointly to the City of Cornwall and to the First Nation Akwesasne reserve. It is part of, obviously, a reconciliation process which we are trying to work through.
One of the problems is that the city has a taxation capacity, and Akwesasne has a different type of capacity, or less capacity. So we cannot harmonize to be able to develop that project. I wonder if what we are talking about tonight would help that or address that issue, because co-development projects are super important for confidence building, building relationships, reconciliation and just pure good economic development for the region.
Mr. Epp: I’m glad you asked that. It is extremely good timing. What we have done is taken the municipal rates — the mill rates — and have adopted those for our property taxation regimes. We mirror the municipal rates as well to make parity, to ensure that there are equitable tax rates for individuals who live in my community and who live in the city of Chilliwack. We have people who live on my reserve and who go to our city hall to pay their taxes because they don’t know they live on a reserve. They are told, you have to go back to Ch’íyáqtel to pay your taxes. We have a great relationship.
It has gone so far that we have municipal-type service agreements where we have tax-sharing agreements for services and we trade services for taxes. But now we are talking about how nations like mine provide public infrastructure through public schools, public recreation sites, which we already do, such as ice rinks, soccer fields or whatever it may be but also residential and commercial sites. What comes with that is that the relationship I have built with the City of Chilliwack is so transparent that we are able to sit down and actually have a conversation about things like this: If we are going to unlock 200 acres of land in an urban centre and be able to co-develop it under our jurisdiction, not the city’s, what would that tax relationship look like? What would that municipal-type, revenue-sharing agreement with the city actually look like? Open book. Now we are having these dialogues in partnership with the city. I know that single-family detached homes are typically a tax net negative, knowing that higher-density residential developments create more tax wealth. Commercial and light industrial creates more tax wealth.
Okay, well, we talk about that and are very open about that dialogue to know that we have to prosper and so does the city. We are having these dialogues to co-develop public infrastructure, public residential developments and commercial and light industrial. Whatever the city needs today and in the next 20 years, we are having those dialogues. It is pretty special.
Senator Clement: Fabulous. Amazing. Thank you.
The Chair: You too, senator. You are amazing.
Senator Prosper: Similar to Senator Clement, I’m fired up with all this dialogue and your vision, which has spanned many years. If you don’t mind, I’ll just leave these questions to be answered in written responses because of our limited time.
One is the cap. Apparently, you cannot be too successful as a community. There is some formula within the tax administration agreement, the bilateral agreement, that looks at the nature of where the revenues are derived from comparable to status versus non-status. I believe this is one of the formulas they use. I’m curious about your thoughts on that in writing.
My second inquiry rests with enforcement. We talk about jurisdiction. When I think of jurisdiction, sometimes I think of laws under a land code or bylaws if you are under the Indian Act. It is great to develop them, but it is a major issue getting into enforcement. If you have an opportunity to provide answers or insights on those two particular areas, I would appreciate it. Thank you.
The Chair: I love the way you finished your question: a written submission, which means that we will receive something in writing. So no response, but if you do have time and you want to add something, and I’m sure you will. I want to make sure that Senator Tannas asks the last question. We will also then give the final comment to you.
Senator Tannas: I believe that the steering committee has a series of amendments they would like to put forward. It would be great, as soon as we are back, to deal with that in the first meeting if it’s possible. I don’t know when we have to report for the pre-study. Is it February 13?
The Chair: February 13.
Senator Tannas: So we would have time. If we could ask the government folks to come back in, we can show the amendments in advance, and they can tell us all the reasons why they are great amendments and they are going to recommend to the government that they adopt them or whatever. But we should at a minimum do that.
If you can send them to us as quickly as you can so that we can share them and invite the folks back, that would be great. I’ll leave that with you.
Thank you very much. It was a nice ending for us on a long day to have such wonderful witnesses. I appreciate it as always.
The Chair: Thank you so much. I have to say to the witnesses, you don’t see the smiles or their sparkling eyes — if we say that in English — but it was needed. It was quite a fall and beginning of winter in the chamber. So it is a good way to end.
If you have two or three seconds maximum to say something, the three of you, before we say [Indigenous language spoken].
Mr. Jules: Thank you, senators, for this opportunity. First of all, I want to wish you and your families all the best during this holiday season. It is important to reflect on the importance of family. Remember that family includes all of us in this great country.
The other thing is a little bit of wisdom from Winston Churchill: “Destroy the free market and you create a black market.” I want to make sure that our entrepreneurs are part of the global markets.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Epp: I want to say thank you. It’s always an honour. This is my third time appearing in the Senate. It was an honour to present and share time with all of you. I look forward to being with you in person next time and bringing back further work. Thank you for your time. Enjoy your holiday season; it’s well earned, I’m sure.
Mr. Bluesky: Thank you very much. I would like to add in a couple of things. It was not that long ago that my people were signing treaties, agreements and trading goods with the Scottish, the French, the English, all around the world.
Within the past 150 years or so, we have been reduced down to what we are now in terms of presenting to committees about opportunities and jurisdictions we once already had.
I would like to leave one message, as I do with every other group I have the opportunity to speak to: The land acknowledgments are nice, but I would like to see us transition to acknowledgment of our governance and jurisdictions.
I also wish everyone here happy holidays and say, look after one another. Meegwetch.
The Chair: [Indigenous language spoken]
Because of your wisdom, we will not have any in-camera portion; we will do it when we return. With that, thank you so much, honourable colleagues. This concludes this beautiful committee. Goodbye.
Manny, you are not tall, you are not small, you are just awesome.
Mr. Jules: Thank you, Michèle.
Mr. Epp: Thank you, everybody.
Mr. Bluesky: Meegwetch.
(The committee adjourned.)