Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Feb. 25th, 2020

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

I have another question.

You say that your policy explicitly states that rights cannot be extinguished, that treaties and other agreements can evolve over time and that negotiation mandates will be built through dialogue and collaboration between the parties. You say that you are making efforts to advance reconciliation.

I know that the situation is very difficult, even critical, right now. Are you still contributing to the advancement of reconciliation?

[Jean-François Tremblay]

Always. The obstacles are there, as they have been in the past. Canada has its grey areas. It's not all just the nice story we sometimes like to tell ourselves. This has led to a great deal of frustration over the years. Reconciliation requires certain issues to be addressed. It is definitely not easy, but, yes, we are still working on it.

I think my colleague is more responsible than I am on this, and he's way better.

[Daniel Watson]

I would like to add that it is important not to consider all of the nearly one million indigenous people in Canada from the same perspective and through a single action.

There is a broad spectrum of situations in the country. There are situations that are going very well, situations that are giving rise to serious concerns, and there are even concerns that are related to conflicts. We are working on all of those situations.

We are continuing to negotiate a number of agreements successfully. Even this week, people from various first nations, Metis and Inuit communities, talked about important issues that they have resolved.

Of course, there are other situations, as mentioned in the news, that must be resolved. Dialogue has always been a key element for addressing all those differences and understanding the perspectives brought to this conversation. Yes, we are continuing to work on this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Thank you.

Next we have the member of Parliament for the New Democratic Party.

Ms. Qaqqaq, please go ahead.

[Mumilaaq Qaqqaq, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Mat'na.

I have a couple of comments, and then some very basic questions.

To start, I'm pretty disappointed with the lack of mention of the Inuit and Métis in both of these presentations.

Eighty-five percent of my constituents are Inuk, and my colleague from the Bloc Québécois also has a lot of Inuit in her constituency. We continually see the lack of services for Inuit and Métis. It's hard to talk about things like training for maintaining water system infrastructure when that infrastructure isn't even there to begin with.

There is also a lot of inconsistency with the wording in the document. Sometimes it refers to “indigenous peoples”, and sometimes to “indigenous people”. Sometimes the word is capitalized; sometimes it's not. I would recommend going by the UN declaration and mimicking whatever wording is used there.

I would like to know from both departments how many individuals in each department are indigenous, and how many of those indigenous peoples are in actual leadership roles where decisions are being made.

Then in both departments, are there definitions for things like, what is reconciliation? What is reconciliation to the Department of Indigenous Services and Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs? How do both departments define a reserve, a first nation, an Inuit or Métis community?

I will leave it there for now.

[Jean-François Tremblay]

Maybe I can start.

First all, if we didn't reflect first nations, Inuit and Métis as much as you would have liked, I'm sorry. I must say, though, that if you look at the period since 2016, you see many initiatives that never existed before that are distinction-based, which before were only “first nations”. For example, we developed a first nation, Inuit and Métis housing strategy that for the first time included 10 years of funding for the Inuit organizations, as well as the Métis one.

The last budget also included a post-secondary education or PSE strategy that included specific funding dedicated to the Inuit as well as the Métis. We never had one that way before.

On Jordan's principle, we're working now with the Inuit with the child first initiative in the north. We also try to make sure that as much as possible the kids are getting services. This year we're starting and have already addressed 5,000 cases through this strategy.

We are thus really first nation-, Inuit- and Métis-focused, much more than we were before. That said, there's been traditionally a role for the federal government—this answers a bit your questions about reserves—that has been focused on first nations communities or first nations reserves.

The reason is that under subsection 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867, the reserves are Indian land and are federal territory, basically. That's the way the lands that were provided to the first nations—or “Indians”, as it was written at the time.... It raised an issue of the fiduciary role and the responsibility that the federal government has.

There is also the fact that provinces, most of the time, don't fund infrastructure in those communities. Exceptionally they do, but most of the time they do not. The fed is directly there. That explains, or it's one of the reasons that a significant percentage of the budget would be dedicated to the first nations. It's not because we are not first nation-, Inuit- and Métis-focused per se. It's also because of this traditional, historic role that we have.

On the issue of the people in the department, as I mentioned before, 28% of my staff are indigenous. It's by far not enough. In terms of people in positions of authority, I don't know; I would need to find out. I need to also know exactly how I would define it. I can tell you, however, that we have among probably seven assistant deputy ministers three who are indigenous. At the director and DG level, we have some.

As I said before, however, it's actually more difficult at the executive level. I would be very frank with you: the most difficult issue is the language barrier. When you come to be in a position of managing people, the law says that you have to speak both official languages. This is an issue that we have. We're trying to make programs, as much as possible, for people to learn their French or English, but this is one of the challenges.

[Daniel Watson]

May I add to that, Mr. Chair, very quickly?

I take your point on the remarks.

There are a number of things that we're doing. Remembering that we are the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, there are a number of different angles. I will list a few that we're working on at the moment.

One important thing we're working on is devolution in Nunavut, which will have a significant impact on Inuit control of various conversations and regulatory decision-making in Nunavut through any one of a number of different structures.

We are in the process of resolving a number of the overlapping claims that come out of the Nunavut Final Agreement and that deal with other parts of overlaps into the Northwest Territories and Manitoba and other places.

The minister's mandate letter talks about responsibility for working on an Inuit Nunangat policy, which is something that the Prime Minister has tasked her with continuing to develop. That will obviously be of great significance to people not only in Nunavut but throughout the Arctic and the North.

The Arctic and northern policy framework document, while not specifically related to Inuit, will have a significant impact over time. A lot of work continues to be done on it, although the framework is out now. We think this is an important step.

Significant steps have been taken in nutrition north, which again is not specifically an Inuit program, but Natan Obed and others from ITK have had an awful lot to contribute to it. The harvesters grant that has been announced is a very important contribution to recognizing things that Inuit people have been saying for a considerable period of time and that we will do.

The final item that I would note, Mr. Chair, is the implementation of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. It's obviously critical, and the department has significant responsibilities for it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Thank you.

That's our time on that round. We go to the five-minute round and come back to the Conservative member Mr. Zimmer.

Go ahead, please.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Watson, I'm glad you brought up the devolution agreement. I'm just looking at the minister's mandate letter to “Continue to work on the Nunavut Devolution Final Agreement”.

We all know it's been going on for the last 20 years. Some territories have had more success than others. Nunavut is still an outstanding...and it hasn't been finalized or, it sounds like, even come close.

That's my question: where are we? It's a policy that we've supported and we believe that it's key to the economic success of Nunavut and its people.

One reason it is current this week is the article titled, “No more protected areas until devolution, Nunavut premier tells Ottawa”, which states in part:

The Government of Nunavut won't support any new marine protected areas, or any other federal conservation areas in the territory, until after a devolution deal between Canada and Nunavut is completed, says Nunavut Premier Joe Savikataaq.

The reason this is a particularly sore spot for me, as a member of Parliament for northern B.C., is that we just saw a huge tract of land—700,000 hectares in northern B.C.—close with little to no consultation with the local indigenous and non-indigenous people in my area. We tried. We tried to have a seat at the table, to have some input. We said if they really wanted to see caribou populations increase, they needed to talk to us.

I understand. I can completely relate to the premier's concern about this, and that's my little statement there, you could say, but the question is, where is devolution at? If this is what's holding up so many things in Nunavut, where is devolution at, from your perspective today?

[Daniel Watson]

I can at least say that on August 15 of last summer we signed an agreement in principle with the Government of Nunavut and NTI, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, representing the Inuit. I think that's very important. It's a critical step and as you say, the negotiations have been going on for a considerable period of time.

Agreements in principle, both historically and in my experience, are the ones that are the hardest to get because that's the point at which you decide that a number of things that all the parties hoped they would have, maybe at the beginning, are not going to be possible and they have actually landed within a zone where it's really figuring out the details from there to the end.

I obviously can't give a time frame—it's a multi-party event—but that very significant milestone has been crossed, and the important thing is that it involved all three parties—the federal government, the territorial government and the Inuit—and that leaves basically everybody who needs to be in agreement around that there.

I think—

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

My challenge to you is on the bureaucracy that implements what the government wishes to do. My challenge to you would be to listen to the people on the ground, both indigenous and non-indigenous, and listen to what they're trying to say.

What we had was a prescriptive document that said, “This is what it's going to look like, whether you like it or not.” There was a ruse that they were going to listen to what we had to say. Nothing was substantively changed in the document, which we wanted to change. I just challenge you to listen more closely to the people on the ground.

I'm going to pass the rest of my time, if there is any, to Mr. Schmale.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Zimmer.

I'll just keep going with you, Mr. Watson, if I may.

Based on your experience at WD, you're very familiar with economic activity and how to spur that. Having said that, I'd like to get your thoughts on economic development as a whole.

Is it really a thing in your department? By that I mean would Finance not be better suited to handle such things as infrastructure for other agreements that your department might not be best suited for?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

We have a minute for that answer.

[Daniel Watson]

We don't handle infrastructure agreements, but—

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Right, but promoting economic development is what I meant. Sorry.

[Daniel Watson]

I'll speak for 20 seconds and then I'll leave my colleague with 40 seconds because he has a program.

One of the critical things is certainty—and with absence of certainty there is very little prospect for economic development—and support. Those are two key things.

Agreement after agreement that we've worked on over the country has tried to create certainty and has tried to create the conditions that allow people to feel comfortable supporting things. To me, that would be a key ingredient.

Economic development programming is with my colleague, so maybe I can leave the other 30 seconds to him.

[Jean-François Tremblay]

Quickly, first, Finance is always involved because they see everything that goes through the budget, and at the end of the day it's a budget ask.

I think at the end, to be fair, there are a lot of first nations, Inuit and Métis business people and associations and organizations so, over the long term, we should actually make sure that they do it by themselves.

When you look at the biggest successes we have on economic development, those come from some of the first nations institutions that have been created over the years; for example, the First Nations Management Board, and others that have been created. I think that's, for me, where it should be, because they have more capacity and more knowledge about economy than my departments would ever have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

We're in a five-minute round. I apologize. We might be able to pick that up next.

We do have, from the Liberal Party, Ms. Zann.

You have five minutes.

[Lenore Zann, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Thank you very much for being here and for your presentation. I'd just like start by telling you something, and then I want to ask you about it.

Maurina Beadle was a Mi'kmaq mother and a friend of mine from Pictou Landing First Nation in Nova Scotia. She's the woman who took Canada to court over Jordan's principle, and she won, in an effort to help her disabled son, Jeremy. Sadly, she died recently, but not before she made a huge impact on this country.

When Canada told her to place her young son Jeremy, who needed round-the-clock care, in an institution because of his high special needs while she recovered from a stroke, Maurina famously said, “No way!” Instead, she tried to get services through Jordan's principle, and her case landed in Federal Court, where a federal judge agreed that Canada had a duty to help pay for medical care for Jeremy at home.

The legal precedent foreshadowed the finding by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal that sparked the delivery of over a quarter million in Jordan's principle services, and that was in 2016. She received the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal in 2012 in recognition of all of her work. I really miss her. She was an amazing woman.

I want to ask you about Jordan's principle. Minister Miller's mandate letter includes a commitment to continue to fully implement Jordan's principle, and it was determined that we need a renewed approach. In 2016, the Government of Canada was told that the way it was looking after services for first nations children was discriminatory.

Can you tell the committee more about what the government is now doing to ensure the continued proper implementation of Jordan's principle?

[Jean-François Tremblay]

We have put in place everything needed to make sure that we are able to respond quickly to any demands. As you know, in many cases we have 48 hours, for example, to respond. This means that the number of demands is skyrocketing, which is good. This proves there's a gap, and the gap needs to be addressed. We are probably now at more than $500 million this year on Jordan's principle. I suspect it's going to continue to grow.

I think that, for us, what is needed now is a discussion with first nations on how to do it in a sustainable way. I'm not talking about funding. I'm talking more about the way we do that, because at the moment we respond to demands. We don't anticipate the demand. If you have, for example, a problem at school, and kids need breakfast in the morning, it's not about program for providing breakfast, but a list of names for whom I have a decision to make to provide breakfast.

When we see those gaps now, more and more, I think that phase two would be engaging with first nations on a sustainable way of doing it and making sure that we're not just responding to the gaps, but actually addressing the gaps in terms of services. For me, that will be the most important thing with Jordan's principle over the next few years.

I would say that we're discovering it as we go, not because we didn't know when we saw it ramping up, but it continues to ramp up, and I think, like all partners, we'll discover at the end what exactly should be the way to address it.

Most of the demands now are community demands. They're group demands. They're not necessarily individual. We still have significant numbers of individuals, which is quite demanding, but more and more, what you see are communities or groups coming and saying that they need funding for mental health to address the needs of so many kids.

[Lenore Zann, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Thank you. I have one more quick question.

One of our most important priorities is reducing the number of indigenous children in care. I was pleased to see Bill C-92 receive royal assent in 2019.

Can you tell the committee how C-92 will return jurisdiction over child and family services to indigenous communities so that they can decide what's best for their own communities?

[Jean-François Tremblay]

As I said before, the legislation is part of a larger reform, so they don't necessarily have to use jurisdiction. They have the authority to do it if they want to exercise their jurisdiction. If they decide to do so, they can do it without telling me, but their law will be under the provincial one at the end. They won't necessarily have the...I don't remember the legal term we use, but they will not necessarily have the first. They're not going to win before the court in-between a provincial law.

We're suggesting to them if they want to have the primauté of their legislation, they have to tell us and they must have at least one year of agreeing with provinces and us on the coordination for the implementation. It's not because we question their jurisdiction; it's to make sure that the kids will not fall through the cracks. After a year, if we've done that in good faith, they can go directly with their legislation. That's the way to do that. It's only if they choose to go with this legislation. A lot of them are looking more at taking prevention services, for example, not necessarily the in-care services. A lot of them are looking for solutions that are more about how you make the ones who manage their kids more accountable at this time and how you get the information for family reunification.

There's really no one-size-fits-all for this. It's first nation by first nation, Inuit by Inuit and Métis by Métis.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Thank you.

These are five-minute rounds now.

Mr. Viersen.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our guests for being here today. It's good to see you all again.

Mr. Tremblay, one of the concerns that keeps arising in my riding is about band elections and due process for band members when they feel there is an irregularity or a change of date, these kinds of things. In one case where there is no quorum because people have resigned from the band council, they're unable to make quorum anymore and there's an expectation that INAN will step in to fill the void. Because they can't make quorum, they can't sign cheques and people aren't getting paid. I'm speaking about Kapawe'no First Nation.

What is the process for allaying some of these concerns around due process when it comes to elections?

[Jean-François Tremblay]

For those managed under the Indian Act, there's a process whereby they can contest an election. The federal government continues to be the one making sure there's an investigation. The minister or delegated authority under the minister conclude if the election was valid or not. In those cases it's Elections Canada.

A lot of first nations choose to get out of the Indian Act for their elections. In their case, it's their own law and rules. As far as I remember, they have to go through court, like anybody else, if they want to contest an election.