Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on April 30th, 2019

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

MP Ouellette.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I noticed in the schedule that 12:30 to 1:30 is still to be determined.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

I'm sorry. We have tried to condense the day, but this has not been successful. I'll take this opportunity to inform the committee that we need to stay for the final window, because one of our delegations is not able to move up to 11:30, so we will be in committee until 1:30.

Please note in your schedules that this has not been possible. We thought we could—

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Is it possible to make sure that these officials—because I think this is the most technical part, which is quite important—can perhaps stay a little bit longer, if we break for our vote? There are very important questions, and if we only have one group, they can have a chance to speak at length on an issue, but—

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

They could come back at 12:30.

We will try to be as efficient as possible.

Ms. McLeod.

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

The motion is that because we have the bells sounding, we need unanimous consent to stay until 10 minutes before.

I think that, out of respect for the other bookings, we should continue and give them as much time as possible.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Yes. We will stay—

Do we know what time...?

We have 28 minutes before the vote, so we can stay for another 15 or 18 minutes.

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

We're in the same building.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

All right.

Are we all good? Okay.

Where are we now?

Monsieur Robillard.

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs representatives stated that this bill simply maintains the status quo and that it leaves the provinces in control.

What's your perspective on this? How would this bill support them?

[Jean-François Tremblay]

We don't see the bill that way. The bill wasn't drafted with this in mind. The first nations in many other regions also haven't seen and read this in the bill. I can still understand that concerns exist in Manitoba, especially since there has been a desire for devolution over the past 10 years, which hasn't necessarily produced results.

As I've already said, I believe that some parts of the bill meet the expectations of the Manitoba first nations. First, one of their ambitions is to proceed with their own legislation. This legislation gives them the opportunity to do so. The minimum standards in the legislation will exist only if the first nations, Inuit and Métis people don't create other standards. If the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs decides to proceed with its own legislation and standards, it will be supported. This will give the assembly federal legal support that it wouldn't have otherwise received.

In addition, unlike in the past, the legislation also applies off reserve. This is very helpful to first nations, which are mainly involved in historic treaties. They can develop an approach that will affect their entire population, and not just the people living on the reserves. We're more than happy to continue the discussion with the Manitoba first nations. We truly believe that this legislation will be used to support the development of their own legislation. The goal isn't to replace the desire for self-determination expressed by the Manitoba first nations.

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

I will share my time, Madam.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

We have four minutes. I'll take the opportunity, if possible.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Sure. Please go ahead.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Manitoba, unfortunately has—I agree 100%—attempted to devolve the authority to agencies. At that time I was involved with the government as a minister. I think there was an attempt to do the right thing, and the system failed. Children died; the numbers went up.

It's good to hear that there are new models being put forward. One model that I'm very curious to get an update on is the model implemented in Nelson House. In the Nelson House first nation, I understand a new model has come in whereby the children are prioritized and get to stay home, go to school, and be in their community when the parents are provided assistance.

Perhaps you have an official who can update us and maybe describe what has been implemented and the fact that you're getting all kinds of accolades from different people who are watching the progress.

[Jean-François Tremblay]

I would turn to Joanne on this. I don't want to paint an only dark portrait of this region. In Manitoba I've seen some agencies that have reduced significantly the number of kids in care by working with communities and trying to find solutions that are different from the existing system. There are people who are trying to do things differently and the legislation just aims to unlock that potential.

[Joanne Wilkinson]

Nelson House is a great example. There are many examples across the country where new models are being tried. The example you're referring where the children are the ones who stay in the home and the parents are the ones who come in and out of the home itself is a model that's being explored in other areas of the country as well. There has been success seen with that model.

However, as the deputy mentioned, it really points to the fact that this is all about jurisdiction and the answers lie in communities. They don't lie at this table here; they lie in communities, because that community, Nelson House, and others have found solutions that work for them. That really is the goal here, to be able to open the door so that communities can have that discussion, that families can engage in identifying what the challenges are, where the gaps are and how you can look at new models and share that information across nations as well to make sure that people are learning as they go.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

That concludes our seven minutes.

Now we're moving to MP Kevin Waugh.

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

I still can't believe the minister used the word “abduction”. With all due respect, indigenous child welfare workers in this country and the provincial and territorial leaders deserve an apology.

I'm just reading a StarPhoenix article from my city of Saskatoon that speaks of “prevention over apprehension”. I wish the minister would have used that instead of “abduction”.

How are we going to prevent some of this? When I looked at the cannabis bill put forward by this government, they did little or no education when they bought it out. For example, they never went to any schools. They had lots of money but they never went to the core group that in that legislation needed to be dealt with.

Therefore, how are you going to prevent? Where are you going to start and with how much money?

I agree with some members around this table who say it's fine to talk about AFN, Inuit and the Métis nation, but this has to be grassroots. I really have a lot of issues with this bill because I have seen how this government goes forward with legislation where it doesn't get to the grassroots and then we have major problems.

Let's start there, the prevention. Have you thought through the prevention aspect of this?

[Jean-François Tremblay]

We don't only work with AFN, MNC and ITK. We have trilateral tables at the regional level. We have discussions with the first nations, Métis and Inuit across the country.

As I mentioned before, this legislation doesn't try to, and in answer to your question, I have to resist the temptation of deciding what prevention should be. It should come from the first nations, Inuit and Métis. What the legislation is doing is opening this door and creating this space where there would be a discussion about this.

At the moment, we pay actuals. We pay actuals for the first nation system. We don't necessarily give any levers to first nations, Inuit and Métis to decide what type of system they want. That's what we want to force now, to open that dialogue, but it will have to come from the first nations, Inuit and Métis. If it's only devolution of the system as it is, the risk is that we will reproduce what we reproduced before.

It's not the problem of the social workers. It's not their fault individually. It's the system that is based like that and they take into account the rules of the game, and the rules of the game push them to make decisions that are sometimes short term but over the long term have a significant impact on the kids and the families.

What is the magic solution on prevention? I really do believe that actually with all the innovative approach on prevention and the same thing on education, at the end of the day, outside of the principles that need to be there for everybody, it's going to come from the communities and the nations.

The Nelson House case is interesting because it's a different one, but there are cases I mentioned where the communities completely work with the agencies at exploring the best ways to address the needs of the kids and dealing with protection only in the last minute or as a last resort.

I don't know if you want to mention more.

[Joanne Wilkinson]

I'll just mention one other thing on implementation.

The minister mentioned this briefly, but we are working with partners to look at distinctions-based governance models in how to transition. As has been mentioned before, this isn't something that's going to change overnight in every single community. The point is to build on the trilateral tables that exist across the country but to have some distinctions-based governance structure that looks at those implementation and transition issues, including things like funding—how we build from where we are now to get to a new funding methodology. Those areas are the types of things those committees could look at.

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

I thank you for that because a lot of bands in my province are resentful towards the FSIN, and this is very FSIN-driven. A lot of it is in here. They've had major work on this. When I talk to a lot of the bands, they're saying, “That's FSIN. This is us now.”

Meadow Lake Tribal Council, for example, is kind of in disagreement with the FSIN—“That's their perspective. Here's our perspective.” I don't think we have peeled back the onion, if you want me to say that, to these local groups.

Now I see that in my province, as I mentioned to the minister, it's all about jobs. Now the Ministry of Social Services is talking about the jobs that come with this department. Are they going to be let go? What is the issue now with the jobs in the province? I do see this as a big issue with Vice-Chief David Pratt of the FSIN going after the provincial government.

Now in the legislature in Regina, if you don't mind me saying so, it's turned into more about the jobs than what it should be, about the children. I don't think we've peeled back the onion enough to deal with ground roots.

[Jean-François Tremblay]

What you can say to those groups is just that the legislation doesn't impose on them the system that's here. We're not saying that the system in Saskatchewan should be managed by the FSIN or by another organization. We're saying that the rights holders have the right to come up with the solution to the problem they're facing. It's for them to come up with the solutions at the level they want.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

We're going to finish with MP Mike Bossio.

You have a five-minute window.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thank you so much for being here today. There has been some great testimony and great elaboration and clarifications on the legislation.

I wanted to point out one thing. I was fortunate enough to be involved in one of the consultations on this bill in Toronto, where we had all the chiefs in the province of Ontario being consulted on the bill. I would argue that the grassroots were consulted, and their remarks were taken very seriously in laying out the legislation.

Earlier on, you had mentioned there is $1.2 billion worth in transfers to the provinces happening right now for care. From a funding standpoint, as we transition to this other model, instead of those transfers going to the provinces to deal with it, could that envelope not be carved off to deal with the communities that are now assuming responsibility for children's services?