An audience interaction tool was used to offer delegates the opportunity to ask questions in real time throughout the conference from their seat with their mobile devices or computers. Delegates were able to ‘upvote’ questions of interest so the most popular questions, as voted by the audience, could be addressed during question and answer periods of each presentation. A number of the relevant Q&As attained from the tool and discussed at the conference are available here.

Q: Why do we need federal legislation to assert our inherent rights on our lands and financial resources?

A: First Nation jurisdiction must be reconciled with federal and provincial jurisdiction because of the Canadian Constitution. Federal legislation (and sometimes provincial legislation) provides an orderly process for other governments to vacate jurisdiction and First Nation governments to occupy it. Of course, First Nations can assert their inherent right and just assert their jurisdiction, but this almost always ends up in court because there is a jurisdictional dispute with another government. Ironically, the courts often order other governments and First Nations to negotiate mechanisms to reconcile their jurisdictions. These negotiations often require federal or provincial legislation to implement the agreements. In this way, federal legislation saves time and money and provides the institutional support to maintain and advance more First Nations jurisdictions. Stated differently, the legislative approach is the 91.24 path to s. 35 and the inherent right approach is often the s. 35 path to court and then 91.24 clarification.

Q: How do we keep the Rights and Title discussion separate from the one around fiscal jurisdiction? Or do we need to?

A: A fiscal relationship is a very important part of implementing rights and title. The fiscal relationship is how First Nations will pay for the implementation and perpetuation of our rights and title. It is how we will pay for implementation and maintenance of our jurisdictions in our territories. The more fiscal power First Nations have, the more secure our rights and title will be. First Nation rights and title are also an important part of a fiscal relationship. They provide the basis for expanding First Nation tax jurisdiction to title and treaty lands. Taxation is how governments generate fiscal benefits from economic activities where they have rights, title and jurisdiction. Rights and title inform which jurisdictions First Nations must deliver in their territories. Stated differently, rights and title can’t be implemented without stable fiscal powers in the fiscal relationship and the fiscal relationship can’t be stable without the fiscal powers obtained through rights and title.

Q: Why should a fiscal relationship start with jurisdictions? Which ones are important?

A: If we are to have true nation-to-nation relations then both parties must have a degree of independence over their respective authorities. There are two dimensions to that independence. One is having the legal right to act unilaterally. The other is the fiscal means to act unilaterally. If both are not present, the ability to act unilaterally is compromised and a true nation-to-nation relationship is not possible.

It is for this reason that the fiscal relationship needs to be based on revenue jurisdictions and not transfers. This is the only way to give ourselves long-term financial security and the fiscal means to exercise our other jurisdictions, without having to ask for the money to do so.

If we remain transfer funded then we will always be subject to unilateral reductions in funding, the need to negotiate our priorities and conditions, and onerous reporting requirements. It is important to be aware that funding commitments can be changed at any time. It is much more difficult to take back tax room, particularly if it is part of a revenue-based fiscal relationship.

Q: Why do we spend so much time talking about transfers instead of jurisdiction?

A: This is a good question as history has shown that transfers are temporary and unstable because of fiscal pressures and jurisdiction is permanent and provides more revenue stability.

Q: What can we do to help with this process of pushing the fiscal relationship forward? How can we show our support?

A: We need to send a strong message to the federal government and provincial governments that a new fiscal relationship begins with unassailable tax powers. Phrases such as “self-determination” and “nation-to-nation” are meaningless if we don’t have tax powers.

An improved fiscal relationship must also reduce the scope of responsibilities over which other governments will participate in priority setting and / or maintain a condition setting power.

The best way to send this message is by a strong show of support for the First Nations Fiscal Management Act (FMA). Ask questions, conduct research, support proponents, spread the word and tell the government that the FMA must be available in Treaty and self-government arrangements.

Q: How are they proposing to determine transfers and link them to national standards?

A: The federal government is proposing to negotiate transfers rather than use a formula. They have stated that this will allow them to make adjustments that will better reflect the unique conditions facing different First Nations. Please note that this does not imply an increase in the global allocation of funds for First Nations. There does not appear to be any link between transfers and national standards. There does not appear to be any formula. Funding is discretionary.

Q: How can we get average Canadians to understand this is what we want, not to be dependant?

A: We need to support a statistics institute that will tell our story. We have overcome great barriers to build economies and it worked because it got the federal government out of the way so that we could choose our priorities and respond to the opportunities that we saw.

Q: Where can we find more information about the most recent fiscal relationship studies? Is there a website with the report?

A: There are two fiscal relationship studies that were released at the end of 2017: 1) a report developed by the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) and Indigenous Services (IS) summarizing recommendations from engagement from October to November throughout Canada and 2) a BC specific report developed by the BC appointee to the AFN Chiefs Committee on Fiscal Relations, Chief David Jimmie, after extensive engagement throughout regions of BC. The first report can be found on the Indigenous Services website and Aboriginal Financial Officers Association BC website. The second report can be found on the BC Assembly of First Nations website and Aboriginal Financial Officers Association of BC website.

Q: Does the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) support the mandate and work of the First Nations Fiscal Management Act (FMA) institutions?

A: The AFN supports self-determination for First Nations. That is what we are implementing. However, their focus in a new fiscal relationship is not on expanding First Nation fiscal power. Recently, however the AFN supported a resolution for First Nation cannabis tax jurisdiction. This is a positive step.

Q: Are the recommendations contained in the Assembly of First Nation’s New Fiscal Relationship report consistent with the proposals presented by the three First Nations Fiscal Management Act (FMA) Institutions and First Nations Lands Advisory Board (LAB)?

A: There are some elements that are consistent with the AFN’s report. For example, the intent to create greater long-term certainty over funding, reduce the administrative demands posed by the federal government so that First Nations can better adapt their programs to their unique circumstances and opportunities.

There are also some differences. The AFN proposal is more focused on improving the system of grants and transfers. Our proposal is to develop First Nations fiscal power more commensurate with the decision-making authorities we receive.

Our proposal is to gain more certainty over the tax room we have been assigned and to remove more programs from the oversight of other governments.

Q: How can we get a fair share of the value of the resources taken from our traditional territories?

A: There are two dimensions to this issue. First, there is the question of whether we are getting the appropriate price for resources extracted from our traditional territories. This is something that has arisen with respect to softwood lumber. Second, are we getting a fair share of the revenues that are collected? These same questions apply to First Nations with aboriginal title and treaty related rights over their traditional territories.

Regarding the first question: This is going to be difficult. Resource pricing is a provincial responsibility under the Constitution, and determining the correct price is always going to be difficult. However, there are cases where it appears provinces are under pricing resources to serve other goals such as softwood lumber. The FNTC is working with proponent First Nations to identify opportunities to better address this question.

Regarding the second question: We believe the best way to get a fair share and a fair price is an aboriginal resource tax (ART) that would be based on a benchmark world price for products such as softwood lumber. There have been other ART proposals from proponent First Nations related to pipelines and mining. For more information contact the FNTC.

Q: Can you talk about the Aboriginal Resource Tax (ART) and how it could help First Nations that are not near urban areas?

A: The Aboriginal Resource Tax would allow First Nations to adopt a tax jurisdiction that would be applied to new resource development projects taking place anywhere on their traditional territory. We have put forward a proposal whereby it would be charged on resource extraction, processing and transportation projects. This tax would likely provide relatively more benefit to rural First Nations because many of the most important taxable interests are located in rural settings. Please contact the First Nations Tax Commission for more information.

Q: How can we continue to work together as First Nations, Institutions and the Lands Advisory Board?

A: There are many areas where the institutions can work together. First, like this conference they can work together and support proposed changes to help First Nations Fiscal Management Act (FMA) and First Nations Land Management Act (FNLMA) First Nations. Second, they can work together to develop policies and models that help interested First Nations related to financial management, taxation (such as property transfer tax) and improved enforcement processes. Third, they should support joint capacity development initiatives and deliver joint workshops and courses. Finally, this can’t be the last joint conference. There must be another one soon to sustain the momentum for changes to benefit our communities.

Q: How many communities here have a land code?

A: 80 signatory First Nations have successfully ratified their land codes across Canada. In addition, there are 59 First Nations developing land codes. See for a list of participating First Nations.

Q: When will Self-Governing Nations be able to use the First Nations Fiscal Management Act (FMA)? What are the prospects of moving lands back to S.91.24 that have been moved to S.92 under a modern treaty?

A: The modern treaty and self government negotiation mandates for the federal government were established before the FMA. Until that mandate is changed almost all modern treaties eliminate the application of the FMA. Some of these First Nations have expressed disappointment that they have lost tax jurisdiction and access to First Nations Finance Authority (FNFA) debentures because of their modern treaty or self-government agreement. As a result, the FMA institutions are working with interested self-governing First Nations to develop regulations that will allow them to use some or all the FMA. Other First Nations in self-government negotiations are seeking advice from the FMA institutions to ensure their modern treaties and self-government agreements include the FMA.

Additionally, the FMA institutions have proposed an option that could allow the FMA to apply to modern treaties and self-governing First Nations, but the federal and provincial governments will have to change their mandates to accommodate the option and modern treaty templates would have to change as well.

In a similar vein, clarifying that modern treaty lands are 91.24 (federal) and not 92.1 (provincial) would require significant changes to current mandates and templates. As the FMA and FNLMA national meeting has demonstrated such changes could be accomplished through a unified, First Nation led position and institutional support.

Q: How come the Province of BC doesn’t want the First Nations Fiscal Management Act (FMA) available if we enter Treaty?

A: That’s a good question. The Province of BC has historically been a supporter of First Nations property tax and the FMA. BC’s support extended to passing legislation whereby they vacated the property tax room whenever First Nations chose to occupy it. These efforts were crucial for the subsequent success of property tax and First Nation economies. This success has contributed to the development of a lot of cooperative efforts at the regional level.

It would seem logical they would want to build on this success. However, the Province has taken the position that the FMA should not be available under Treaty and / or self-government arrangements and we can only speculate on the reasons why.

One possibility is that they did not realize how valuable this property tax authority would become if it were placed in the right hands. Another possibility is that they are looking ahead to a future where they want more control over our property tax to put pressure on us, when we assert divergent interests.

Q: Why are there not more Nations in Ontario especially in the North participating in the First Nations Fiscal Management Act (FMA)?

A: The number of First Nations from Ontario in the FMA is increasing. Some are joining to enact tax systems (especially those with cottage lessees). Some are joining to access long term debentures at better terms from the First Nations Finance Authority (FNFA) and others are joining to implement certified financial management systems. The FMA is optional and as First Nations join and realize benefits, then more join. This is what has happened in BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan and the Atlantic provinces. The interest is starting to grow more rapidly in Manitoba and will hopefully continue to grow in Ontario. First Nations in northern Ontario may be interested in the FMA because it helps them build infrastructure sooner or perhaps because it helps them assert and implement their fiscal powers.

Q: Why do we need a statistics institute?

A: There are at least nine reasons a statistics agency is needed:

  1. Priority Setting – A statistical agency is going to help First Nations get an accurate picture of the circumstances in their community. This information will support priority setting.
  2. Nation Building – A statistical agency can help compile nation-based data to support nationwide initiatives and develop an understanding of what is happening on the nation’s territory in terms of taxes collected and revenues generated.
  3. Resource Management – Most First Nations have an interest in the management and ongoing extraction of resources from their traditional territories.
  4. Program Evaluation – We need to know whether programs are working. We need quality statistics that pertain to relevant outcomes to do this.
  5. Program Design – Statistics provide information that helps promote good program design.
  6. Investment Facilitation and Access to Capital – Investors and lenders have very precise needs and many First Nations are unable to meet them.
  7. Develop and Operate a Better Fiscal Relationship – Fiscal relationships are based on sound financial statistics and some grants are determined by demographic or social statistics.
  8. Communication with Membership – People want to know how their money is being spent.
  9. Assert Our Interests with the Public and Other Governments – We need statistics to tell our story. We need statistics to showcase the success of our approach to First Nations government and economic development.

Q: What about the struggling First Nations? Have successful bands mentor struggling First Nations.

A: This is an excellent idea and is what the institutions were designed to do – transfer knowledge and best practices to all participating First Nations. Each institution supports a different jurisdiction and provides capacity development. For example, the First Nations Financial Management Board (FMB) helps with financial management, the First Nations Tax Commission (FNTC) with taxation, the First Nations Finance Authority (FNFA) with debentures and the Lands Advisory Board (LAB) & Lands Advisory Board Resource Centre (LABRC) with lands. It is also what the Tulo Centre of Indigenous Economics achieves through accredited training and alumni mentor program.

Q: How do we guarantee these institutions won’t become INACs of tomorrow?

A: They won’t become the INAC of tomorrow. INAC has survived and grown by preserving and expanding First Nation poverty. INAC administers the Indian Act. It is not optional. Its priorities are those of the federal government and to save harmless Her Majesty. Based on statistics and Auditor General reports they provide the worst services, infrastructure and outcome of any provincial government in Canada.

The institutions will survive if they deliver economic growth and better outcomes to First Nation communities. The institutions are First Nation led, optional and accountable to participating First Nations. The institutions must help deliver better services, infrastructure or outcomes or First Nations will seek out better options.

Q: How would the proposed Infrastructure Institution work with the other First Nations Fiscal Management Act (FMA) institutions?

A: The First Nations Infrastructure Institute (FNII) will support improved infrastructure outcomes by building on the success of the FMA. An FMA First Nation can generate local revenue using authority of laws that meet FNTC standards, have their financial management system certified to FMB standards, and then use the proceeds from an FNFA loan to build infrastructure using a procurement process that meets FNII standards. This will enable a First Nation to build infrastructure that is consistent with their own priorities in a timely and cost-effective manner.

Q: Why is it important for First Nations Infrastructure Institute (FNII) to work with the other First Nations Fiscal Management Act (FMA) institutions?

A: The services that are provided by the other institutions are complementary to the objectives of FNII – namely to realize better infrastructure outcomes. For example, local revenue can be used to repay a First Nations Finance Authority (FNFA) loan, the proceeds of which can be used to fund an infrastructure project. An effective financial management system will support the construction, operation and maintenance over the lifecycle of the project.

Q: How will First Nations Infrastructure Institute (FNII) reduce the costs and time for getting infrastructure projects built?

A: Financing the costs of infrastructure over time means that a First Nation community could build their project today instead of waiting until multi-year staggered funding is available. By using a procurement process that meets FNII standards, the project will be built on time, on budget and more cost effectively.

Q: How did the First Nations Infrastructure Institute (FNII) development board come to be?

A: The development board model has been used successfully in the past during the development of the First Nations Financial Management Board (FMB). The FNII Development Board is comprised of First Nation leadership with representation from across the country. First Nation leadership participating on the Development Board have asked the First Nations Tax Commission (FNTC) to provide technical support in the development of FNII.

Q: How will First Nations Infrastructure Institute (FNII) be different than INAC?

A: FNII will be a First Nations led and managed institution designed to support First Nations in developing more sustainable infrastructure. INAC allocates funding to pay for projects that are consistent with Canada’ priorities. FNII will enable First Nations to implement their capital plan that meets their community priorities. FNII will be a centre of excellence for procurement that First Nations can draw upon, so they can use their local revenue, transfers and private investment to implement their capital infrastructure plan.

Q: How is the First Nations Infrastructure Institute (FNII) better and more timely than the current INAC process?

A: Being First Nations led, FNII will be closer to First Nations and will be in a much better position to understand and address First Nation priorities. Financing infrastructure projects over time and using a procurement process that meets FNII standards will support First Nations ability to get projects built more quickly than if they were to wait for INAC funding. Since INAC funds projects that meet Canada’s priorities, if the project isn’t a priority, a First Nation may never get funding for it.

Q: Does this let INAC off the hook?

A: No. Monetizing transfer payments from Canada could be an approach to financing infrastructure projects using the First Nations Infrastructure Institute (FNII) and the First Nations Fiscal Management Act (FMA). Although this idea has been discussed for several years, FNII could be a key part of the solution to managing certain risks associated with construction, operation and maintenance. INAC will continue to provide stable on-going funding with appropriate annual increases. This is similar to the BC First Nations Health Authority (FNHA) whereby the FNHA has taken over the administration of health from Canada, but Canada still has a fiduciary relationship with First Nations.

Q: Will First Nations Infrastructure Institute (FNII) help First Nations with all the planning processes?

A: Similar to the other fiscal institutions, FNII will have a role in both setting standards and capacity development. FNII will focus capacity development efforts around the work required to link a financial plan and a capital plan to a procurement process. FNII will be able to address community planning needs from a social and economic lens thereby addressing the needs of First Nations and ensuring sustainable financing.

Q: Will the First Nation Infrastructure Institute (FNII) help First Nations through the procurement and development process?

A: It is challenging for relatively small governments to develop expertise around projects that only get built once in a generation. For this reason, First Nations may not have a lot of experience procuring a water and waste water treatment facility or expansion of the distribution network. But a national institution will develop this expertise as it provides some technical support to First Nations that choose to use a FNII procurement process. As a “centre of excellence” for procurement, First Nations may be able to consider a spectrum of procurement options, select a procurement approach that is suitable for their project, and then utilize the tools and templates that FNII will develop to make sure their project gets built on time and on budget. This is similar to what the Province of Ontario has done in creating Infrastructure Ontario and the Province of BC with Partnerships BC.

Q: What are the known limitations of the First Nations Infrastructure Institute (FNII) at the legislation level of Nation Governments?

A: As a proposed First Nations Fiscal Management Act (FMA) institution, FNII would be able to work with First Nations as defined by the Act. While this is currently limited to Indian Act Bands, there is work underway to expand the definition to First Nation organizations which could enable FNII to work with broader Nation governments and other First Nations organizations.

Q: There are lots of regional infrastructure initiatives. How will the First Nations Infrastructure Institute (FNII) work with them?

A: FNII recognizes the importance of developing strong relationships and partnerships with regional initiatives across the country. Regional initiatives are at different stages of development and have different objectives in different parts of the country. As such, FNII will be flexible and find ways to work together with regional initiatives to achieve improved infrastructure outcomes. In the upcoming fiscal year, FNII will be extending invitations to those involved in regional initiatives to explore opportunities to establish strategic partnerships to better support the development of more sustainable First Nations infrastructure.

Q: Are the folks working on the proposed infrastructure institution working with the Housing and Infrastructure Council appointed by the leadership council?

A: There has been good communication between the First Nations Infrastructure Institute (FNII) and regional initiatives such as the BC First Nation Housing and Infrastructure Council and the Alberta Technical Services Advisory Group. As a national initiative, FNII will continue to engage with regional initiatives throughout the country and work together to improve First Nation infrastructure.

Q: Wondering about property tax, and how many communities here are taxing?

A: As of May 31, 2018, there are 151 First Nations collecting property tax, including 112 under the FMA and 39 under s. 83. See for a list of property taxing First Nations.

Q: What do you see as the future of First Nation tax powers?

A: We are proposing that First Nations fiscal powers be expanded under the First Nations Fiscal Management Act (FMA) to include cannabis, tobacco, First Nations Goods & Services Tax (FNGST) and the aboriginal resource tax. Each of these proposals is being advanced by a group of First Nation proponents. We have developed proposals and preliminary legislative amendments to accomplish all of these. We look forward to working with proponents and the support of all FMA and First Nations Land Management Act (FNLMA) First Nations to increase First Nation fiscal powers. For more information on any of these proposals, visit or

Q: Do you think your cannabis tax proposal is related to your tobacco tax proposal?

A: There are many similarities between the cannabis and tobacco tax proposals. The following table compares the tax structure of current tobacco taxation and the proposed cannabis taxation framework.

Tax Tobacco Cannabis
Federal ·      Excise Duty

·      Manufacturer at packaging

·      Greater of Flat Duty or Ad Valorem

·      Manufacturer at packaging

Provincial ·      Consumer at retail level ·      Receive 75% of federal excise

·      Could add additional provincial tax at retail level

Sales (GST, PST) ·      Consumer at retail level ·      Consumer at retail level

First Nation jurisdiction could ensure that First Nations receive more economic and fiscal benefits from the manufacture and distribution of these products. And when First Nation communities receive sufficient benefits, they then have access to the necessary resources to support regulation; health, education and other services; and enforcement. The First Nations Tax Commission is working with First Nation proponents of tobacco tax and cannabis tax jurisdiction. For more information visit

Q: What’s the benefit of property tax law in rural communities opposed to urban communities?

A: As the Supreme Court stated, First Nation taxation is an inherently governmental jurisdiction. Whether a First Nation is in a rural or urban location it should exercise tax jurisdiction, or another government will exercise it instead of them. Many rural First Nations have also been able to generate significant property tax revenues from interests on their lands. Rural and urban First Nations, however, should both look beyond property tax and consider increasing their fiscal power to include cannabis, tobacco, First Nations Goods & Services Tax (FNGST) and resources in their aboriginal title or treaty territories. All First Nations need more fiscal power.

Q: How can the property transfer tax be leveraged and are there any restrictions on how the monies can be spent?

A: Property transfer tax (PTT) revenues can be leveraged like any other local revenue. The amount that can be leveraged is based on a formula that reflects the stability of property tax revenues from one year to the next. PTT revenues can be used for any local expenditure as specified in the First Nation Tax Commission standards. The expenditure standards correspond to all provincial, local and some federal jurisdictions and expenditures.

Q: What is the reality of addressing First Nations collecting ALL sales taxes on reserve? This will help with infrastructure dollars and service creation for our communities.

A: Provincial and federal governments collect sales taxes on First Nation lands in all provinces except Alberta where only the federal government collects sales tax. The First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act provides a means for First Nations to collect federal sales tax on their lands. Several First Nations have done this. But many are concerned that this system poses an unreasonable cap on First Nation revenues. The only province that facilitates First Nations collecting provincial sales tax revenues is New Brunswick. Almost all New Brunswick First Nations are collecting that tax; but, it does not have a legislative framework and the agreement is subject to unilateral change by the New Brunswick government.

Many First Nations have expressed interest in collecting sales taxes on their lands and efforts to achieve this could be successful based on the four steps used to establish the original First Nations Fiscal Management Act (FMA) fiscal powers. First, there has to be a group of proponent First Nations to provide leadership to improve the FNGST framework and occupy the provincial sales tax room. Second, the First Nations Tax Commission (FNTC) would have to provide technical support to these proponents to develop policy and legislative options to establish complete First Nation sales tax jurisdiction in their province. Third, the FNTC and proponents would have to work with the federal and provincial governments to advance and pass legislation to secure First Nation sales tax room in their province. This step would also likely involve fiscal relationship considerations if the First Nation is interested in using these increased revenues to support better infrastructure. Finally, the FNTC would work with interested First Nations to build the necessary legal and administrative framework to implement their complete sales tax jurisdiction.

Q: What are the benefits and limits of the new 10-year grant?

A: The benefits of a 10-year grant are that it would allow more flexibility in spending money and allocating it across different time periods. It would free up administrative resources that might otherwise be spent negotiating annual grants.

The downside is that grants and transfers are inherently insecure. The governments that control the money will still need to approve the spending decisions in their annual appropriations. They will still be able to reduce transfers in any given year. Based on our analysis of the history of transfers, we conclude that they are more likely to be reduced than tax room transferred, particularly if that tax room is attached to a service responsibility.

Q: Will there be offsets on the 10-year grants for First Nations revenues?

A: The federal government has yet to release a comprehensive 10-year grant proposal, which makes it challenging to provide a complete answer to this question. That said, the FMA institutions will work with interested First Nations to ensure that these proposed grants do not contain offsets.

Q: What’s your thoughts on the discussion beyond the 10-yr grant?

A: It is clear that we are proposing more fiscal powers than are reflected in the 10-year grant. Watch the Beyond Transfers films for more information on our perspective.

Q: What are the steps for First Nations to get started on developing their Financial Administration Laws (FALs) and tax laws? Is there capacity funding available?

A: For FALs, the First Nation must first be scheduled on the First Nations Fiscal Management Act (FMA). Council Resolution sample templates are available if required. Next a First Nation must agree to work with the Financial Management Board (FMB), choose their team to undertake the FAL process, draft the FAL (sample FAL available), submit FAL for review and then submit for final approval. To view the whole process in greater detail, visit FAL: How it works. The FMB provides capacity funding for the development of a First Nation’s FAL. For more information visit the

For tax laws, again the First Nation must be scheduled on the FMA first. Next the FNTC will work with the interested First Nation in developing its property tax and assessment laws to establish its property taxation system. To view the whole process in greater detail, visit the FMA Toolkit. The First Nations Tax Commission provides capacity funding for the development of a First Nation’s tax laws.

Q: What training is available?

A: Comprehensive training from the Tulo Centre of Indigenous Economics for tax administration, land development and applied land management. There is also other specialized training from the Aboriginal Financial Officers Association and the Land Advisory Board Resource Centre.

Q: What is the Tulo Centre of Indigenous Economics? How does our community get involved with the Tulo Centre?

A: The Tulo Centre assists interested First Nations in building legal and administrative frameworks that support markets on their lands. It was established to deliver education programs and conduct research in the areas of First Nation taxation, public finance, public administration and economics.

There are several ways to get involved with the Tulo Centre:

  • Visit to register for Tulo Centre programs (Tax Administration, Applied Economics, or Applied Lands Management), workshops or webinars.
  • Visit to learn about bursary programs for property tax administrators working for First Nations in Canada or lands department employees working in First Nations in Canada.
  • The Tulo Centre of Indigenous Economics seeks partnerships with institutions and organizations that have an education and training mandate. For more information on partnerships visit
  • The Tulo Centre is a charitable organization and accepts donations to help fund Tulo Centre research and course activities. For more information visit

Q: Will the National Meeting happen again next year and in the years to come?

A: We hope so. It is important to meet regularly to share our knowledge and challenges and to advance our proposals for changes.

Q: Will interested youth be encouraged to attend future conferences? Mentor our future.

A: That is an excellent idea. One of the proposals that we are considering for follow up is to invite all administrative staff who have ever taken a Tulo Centre of Indigenous Economics course as they are the administrators and leaders of tomorrow who will help implement all these proposals.

Q: Can we get electronic copies of presentations?

A: All presentations are available here: