Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 29th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), we are here to discuss the main estimates 2018-19: vote 1 under the Canadian High Arctic Research Station; votes 1, 5, 10, L15, and L20 under the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development; and votes 1, 5, and 10 under the Department of Indigenous Services Canada; as referred to the committee on Monday, April 16, 2018.

We are on the unceded territory of the Algonquin people, an important measure to recognize as we move through the process of reconciliation.

Madam Minister, I'm very pleased to have you join us today. There is some uncertainty of our time. We wish to convene quickly, so I'll turn it over.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs]

Thank you again. It's great to be back. I also thank you, Chair, for recognizing the unceded Algonquin territory on which we meet today.

I think you know associate deputy minister Diane Lafleur and chief finances, results, and delivery officer Paul Thoppil. We all had our titles changed, so this is good.

As we discussed before, my appearance is in the context of the evolving estimates process. While this important work falls under the purview of the President of the Treasury Board, I can assure you that our work on estimates reform is guided by our belief that parliamentarians and Canadians have the right to know where public funds are going and how they will be spent.

I appeared before you on March 20 regarding this year's interim estimates.

Now I'm pleased to appear on the department's main estimates for this year, which total $3.1 billion. The 2018-19 main estimates reflect a misleading appearance of a decrease of $6.9 billion, in comparison with the main estimates of 2017-18, of $10.1 billion.

However, this is in fact due to the transfer of funding to newly created Department of Indigenous Services Canada.

This decrease should not be considered as a cut to my department; rather, it's a significant and positive step towards reconciliation through the dissolution of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada. In fact, our government's third budget invests an additional $5 billion over five years to close significant socio-economic gaps of indigenous peoples, moves towards recognition and implementation of indigenous rights, and helps build capacity and accelerate indigenous self-determination. These investments build upon the historic investments of $8.4 billion in budget 2016 and $3.4 billion in budget 2017, for a total commitment to date of almost $17 billion of additional federal funding for the priorities of indigenous peoples.

The budget 2018 investments flowing through my department will help nations rebuild and accelerate self-determination and self-government. These include the $51.4 million for the ongoing recognition of rights and self-determination discussions, $101.5 million to support nation rebuilding efforts, and $74.9 million over five years to provide permanent funding to support the permanent bilateral mechanisms with first nations, Inuit, and the Métis nation.

Budget 2018's $51.4 million for the recognition of rights and self-determination discussions is in addition to the already approved funding to support this new approach. Since 2015, I'm excited to report, 65 discussions on the recognition of indigenous rights and self-determination have been launched with over 335 either Indian Act bands or Métis governments, with a total impact, to the indigenous population, of over 753,000 people. To date, 19 negotiated agreements have been co-developed and signed through these discussions, and others will follow in the following months.

Given the overwhelming increased interest of indigenous communities in this new approach, budget 2018's additional funds will facilitate their expansion.

The $101.5 million provided in this year's budget for nation rebuilding efforts will support indigenous-led activities with the objective of indigenous communities coming together as they see fit to reform their nations. The definition of nation will be left to indigenous communities to determine, but may be based on culture, language, or territory.

The new, permanent bilateral processes are already happening. They provide an opportunity for first nations, Inuit, and Métis to express their distinct priorities and a mechanism for us to work together to develop solutions.

Our government has been clear that the relationship between Canada and indigenous people must be based on the recognition and implementation of indigenous rights.

In February, the Prime Minister asked me to lead Canada's national engagement to co-develop a new recognition and implementation of rights framework, which will result in the introduction of corresponding legislation.

To date, we've held over 80 engagement sessions and have met with more than 1,000 people across the country. We are being guided by what indigenous communities, women, youth, elders, and traditional leadership envision as being included in such a framework. The good news is that nation rebuilding is happening. I see this reflected in the renewed excitement from indigenous youth who want governance that will respect and honour their language and culture, restore indigenous control over the welfare of their children, deliver education and health systems of their own design, and recognize traditional legal practices and customs.

We are working in partnership with indigenous communities on a path to vibrant, proud nations that are in charge of their lives and their land. Achieving this is not only in the interest of indigenous people but of all Canadians.

I look forward to discussing these and other issues in more detail through your questions.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

Also, Madam Chair, with regard to the rights recognition process, whether you think that we should either have a breakfast again or come back, I think that before the session ends, it would be good for me to just fill you in on what we've been hearing so far on that, and what people are saying to us should be in that framework that we will go out and test over the summer.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

That's very nice. We'll take you up on that.

Questioning will start with MP Danny Vandal.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Minister, first of all, I want to thank you for appearing today. As a proud Manitoba Métis, I was happy to read about the significant investments in the Métis nation across Canada. I thank you for that. In fact, budget 2018 states, “The Government of Canada is deeply committed to renewing the relationship with the Métis nation based on recognition of rights, respect, cooperation and partnership. Reflecting commitments in the Canada-Métis Nation Accord”.

Can you comment on how your department is working to renew the relationship with the Métis nation in Canada?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Thank you very much.

As you pointed out, there is now $500 million over 10 years, $200 million of which was funded in budget 2017.

The work that we're doing is with each of the Métis nations in terms of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Ontario, and the Métis settlements, as well as the Métis nation of British Columbia. What we are doing is working with each of those nations and governments to develop an agreement that will articulate their priorities on the way that they want to work with us. I think it's very important.

As you well know, we're also working with the Métis National Council on the issue of the sixties scoop and those Métis citizens who were not included in the first settlement with Chief Brown Martel. There are many other things that we're doing. There is also, of course, the work that Minister Joly is doing on the Michif language towards that bill.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Several months ago, the Prime Minister announced in the chamber that we were embarking upon a rights recognition and implementation framework, and corresponding legislation. I'm wondering if you can update the committee on how that process is going.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

I think in some ways, Dan, that's what I was offering to do in a more fulsome way, if we wanted to come together to hear more on that.

In what the Prime Minister described, it is moving from a “denial of rights” approach to a “recognition of rights” approach. For the Inuit, where their land claims have been settled and their rights have been recognized, it's making sure that there's a framework around accountability for implementation. That will apply to first nations, Inuit, as well as the Métis nations.

By moving from a denial of rights approach to the recognition of rights, really we're doing the work that.... A lot of people say that this conversation should have happened 150 years ago in terms of how we would work together. A lot of people feel that really this conversation should have happened in 1982, when indigenous and treaty rights were affirmed and recognized in section 35. At that time, a whole bunch of work was done on sections 1 to 34 of the charter and on making sure that all the laws and policies and practices of Canada were charter-compliant, or in keeping with the charter.

The work we're doing now is actually the recognition and implementation of those indigenous and treaty rights. As we move to a legal framework that would allow communities—when, as the Minister of Justice says, they're ready, willing, and able—to opt in to a different relationship with Canada, which was not offered in the Indian Act, or was ignored in the case of the Métis or in the case of the Inuit, the accountability framework is to make sure those rights are applied. That's the work we've been out listening to. We think we have some ideas around how we would help and would get out of the way for the reconstitution of nations, which means nations who want to work together.

Now we will fund those conversations, but instead of those being based on loans, it means that as they move toward self-determination, we're helping them do that in sectoral ways, if they want—like education, like health, like child welfare. We're also moving to the kind of dispute resolution that was in, say, the Canada Health Act, where there would be a way, without having to go to court, for people to resolve disputes with Canada, with provinces and territories, amongst nations.

Those seem to be the three things we're hearing most, but I'm happy to have a longer conversation with the committee later.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Thank you.

Bill C-262, related to UNDRIP, is weaving its way through the parliamentary process. Can you perhaps offer some thoughts on how that bill will intertwine with or relate to the rights framework you just talked about?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Thank you for the question, because I think that's the other piece we've been hearing from coast to coast to coast, that the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples needs to be a foundation of the legal framework. But it means you have to read every article. As we learned at the child welfare summit, forcibly removing children from their families and their culture is not in keeping with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. As we build the legal framework, we need to build the mechanisms that will allow us to honour all of those articles.

There are many people who say, you know, volume 2 of the royal commission wrote it all out; why don't you get on with that? There are some parts of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action that need to be in this, but basically it's saying that section 35 rights need to be honoured in the way that UNDRIP explained.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Thank you.

The questioning now moves to MP Cathy McLeod.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Unfortunately, I understand the bells will be going at four, so we will be shorted 30 minutes of time, which is truly unfortunate because I have pages and pages of different questions. I will start with one or two and then if there is time I would like my colleague to get in at least one.

I'm glad Mr. Vandal brought up the UNDRIP. Of course we're debating that tonight. We also had a very significant announcement today by your government.

As we debated this particular piece of legislation, I think we had one witness who described it best, that people have different interpretations of free, prior, and informed consent. They range from “free, prior, informed, and maybe we get to consent or maybe we don't”, versus a very definitive “we need free, prior, and informed consent, and every first nations community in a complex project needs to give free, prior, and informed consent”.

Clearly, with the decision that your government made today, you go with definition one. I would like to ask you if you think it's fair that you have failed to be clear in what your definition was of FPIC because the decision today clearly demonstrated what your definition of FPIC actually is.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

I think we've been very clear that FPIC is not a veto and a consensus does not mean unanimity, and that in so many areas—particularly in this one—33 Indian Act bands agreed to participate in the decision that twinning an existing pipeline was a better option than other options, and that their people would benefit from it in terms of jobs and other things.

Where we need to look at how you get a consensus and include the voices of indigenous people is to the north. When the land claims organizations make a decision on land use planning, everybody is at the table and they take a decision together.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Clearly there have been expectations raised in communities across this country. We know we have a number of court cases. We know we have groups like UBCIC, and others stating that they are probably going to take the full.... There could be considerable concern in terms of what happens over the next few months.

As the minister for crown relations, what are you going to do to de-escalate the tension and potential for perhaps even violence as you move this project forward?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

I think it's really important that people understand that the first nations do have different views on this, and people like Chief Ernie Crey have been clear about the advantage that would take place for his people. Even today there is probably going to be an offer of a first nations-led consortium on having equity and being part of, perhaps, owning the pipeline, so—

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

I appreciate that, Minister, but my question was.... Certainly in the area I represent there are chiefs in favour of it, but I think you, as Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, have a responsibility to do something. What is your plan for those who feel so strongly about this project? What is your plan to de-escalate the tension and potential for violence?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

I think it's very important that people listen to one another, that we actually know that this is about a balance of interests and that there are people who feel their community would be best served by participating in this pipeline. They still need fuel for their cars and their trucks. They still need heating fuel. Until we can wean ourselves off fossil fuel....

I just think we have to listen. In my riding, where we have 80 units of crude oil going straight through downtown Toronto, we actually can't have this conversation about pipelines without talking about the safety of trains and transport trailers and all those things.

I just hope that we can listen. I think for a lot of the indigenous leaders who see this, and particularly for some of the communities that have huge investments and quality-of-life issues, it is important to make sure that people are listening to one another.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

It doesn't sound like there is a specific and definitive plan.

I would like to turn my remaining two minutes over to my colleague, Kevin Waugh.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Minister, I want to compliment you on your first statement: parliamentarians have the right to know where the funds are being spent. Thank you for that.

That said, your department has been allotted $337 million for this current fiscal year 2018-19 under vote 40. Some of the budget initiatives, as you mentioned, are $189 million for a “New Fiscal Relationship: Collaboration with Self-Governing Indigenous Governments”, and $71 million for a “New Fiscal Relationship: Strengthening First Nations Institutions and Community Capacity”.

Can you provide further details on what these projects entail? Are they one-offs, or is this funding being broken into different projects? I did not see it in your departmental plan. I see the numbers, but I'm wondering, in this fiscal year, under vote 40, better known as the slush fund, where this money is going.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

A lot of that is in Minister Philpott's Department of Indigenous Services.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

This is yours, though. It's $337 million.

Paul, I think you would agree. You have a new title now: chief financial delivering officer. If you can, with your new title of chief financial delivering officer, tell me where this $337 million slush fund will go.

[Paul Thoppil, Chief Finances, Results and Delivery Officer, Indigenous Services and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Thank you Mr. Waugh, for the question.

It's not a slush fund. It is where the government has decided to put the budget 2018 funds that it has announced through a vote inside the Treasury Board in order to provide, for the first time, main estimates that coincide with, afterwards, the tabling of the federal budget, to provide clarity to parliamentarians when they vote on the main estimates in terms of alignment.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

There's no clarity here, though, and no committee to oversee the money—

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

What happens now is that in order for the parliamentarians to have greater oversight.... This is a transition period, and——

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Thank you. We need to move the questioning to MP Georgina Jolibois.

[Georgina Jolibois, NDP, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Thank you, Minister.

Today, as you know, the report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Parliament of Canada has come out. In it, he specifically talks about the first nations, Métis, and Inuit departments. The headline from one of the papers is, “Government fails to measure gaps on First Nations reserves: audit”.

Now, you spoke about a number of things. You talked about rights. You talked about involvement and the framing. I'm a first nation woman from northern Saskatchewan. When I speak to my own chief, my regional chief, and the FSIN, I don't get a clear answer.

Now, I have heard other first nations talk about the AFN, the MNC—the Métis National Council—and the ITK. Because they're not elected bodies, they don't represent the people: the first nations, the Métis, and the Inuit. They are only selected by their peers, not by the residents on reserves.

How can you safely talk about consultation and how I can frame how the youth can play into how we frame our future when we talk about rights? I see that as the government failing first nations, Métis, and Inuit people across Canada. How can you justify that?