Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 7th, 2019

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

Does this bill focus on the outcomes? You talked about the outcomes being in focus. Does this bill focus on that or do we need to make a couple of amendments?

[Natan Obed]

I think that very generally it is focused on outcomes. I think it imagines the agreements that can be made between indigenous governments and the Crown as being key facilitators to those outcomes.

The challenge of funding is one that we've talked through all the way. In different statutes, funding is handled in different ways. Sometimes it is written into legislation, and sometimes the regulatory process is the time and place for those funding conversations.

We believe that the outcomes of the child, the rights of indigenous children, the right to self-determination and the way in which indigenous children have to be treated within a system and their families and their communities all will get us to better outcomes

There is such massive complexity within the existing hodgepodge of systems that I'm not surprised, then, by the concerns that have come up, many of which are new to Inuit, because first nations and Métis in care and the systems across the country are very, very different, which is why we also wanted to focus on a distinction-based approach. We feel that there are provisions that protect the distinctions-based approach within this legislation as well.

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

You pointed out a very good point: the lack of foster homes up north. We have a lack of foster homes everywhere in this country, but you're unique in your situation up there. It's so vast. The distance between communities and the lack of foster homes is something that is certainly on the radar for your people. There's no question about that. Thank you for bringing that up.

Grand Chief, you made a remark about who would judge the best interests of the child. Who? That's the question. We've talked about jurisdiction and all of that, but that was an interesting comment you made.

[Grand Chief Constant Awashish]

That's a very good question. Who would judge the interests of a child? If we think of how a child was brought up right to this moment, before they created this legislation, this was judged by the mass of the people. As for the authority, the court system in place right now, most of the time that doesn't reflect our values. It doesn't reflect our reflection.

I don't want to have to bring that up, but if we look at the Boushie case, that's one good example of what the court system does to us. So how are they going to interpret the best interests of the kids? That's a big question. Maybe we have to clarify this piece and work on the wording to ensure that the interpretation is given to the first nation or the provider of services.

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

I'll turn now to Sandy Bay, if I may, Madam Chair.

We've heard a lot from Manitoba, but this is the first administrative report that we have seen in committee, which is good. Thank you for this. The funding that you get now is forty-sixty. I think that was a good education for everybody around here. The feds are at 40% and the Province of Manitoba is at 60%.

Manitoba probably has more issues than any province in this country. You've brought that out. One of your statements was this: Is the reserve the best place to raise children? If not, why not?

[Richard De La Ronde]

Shall I...?

[Chief Lance Roulette]

Yes, you shall.

[Richard De La Ronde]

Yes. I can sum it up in one word: socio-economic conditions. When your community has no housing and has no jobs, when those kids turn 18 and are no longer the responsibility of an agency, they will fail and they are failing. Those are stats that are often blamed on child welfare delivery agencies. You always see in the media that child welfare is failing first nations kids, but when you're attempting to place them in an environment that puts them against these great odds of success, those are going to be the results.

Our approach to that is placing children in environments where they can be successful, where there are universities. Many of our children in care are in Manitoba post-secondary institutions that we pay for. They are not funded but we find a way. Again, we bend rules to make things like that happen. The outcomes are phenomenal. When the province comes knocking and says, “Hey, you can't do that” and then looks at our outcomes, they turn them into pilot projects. Sandy Bay has been in four projects in the last year or so.

I hope that answers your question.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Thank you.

We have to move on with questioning, but I see that Tim Catchaway wanted to participate.

[A voice]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Perhaps the other MPs will give you a chance to participate.

The questioning moves to MP Rachel Blaney.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you all so much for being here with us today.

This is a piece of framework legislation. I think what concerns me about it—and other witnesses have brought this forward—is that while we understand that putting a dollar amount to funding doesn't make sense right now, there should be clear principles in the legislation around funding to ensure there's a good service delivery model as it comes.

I'm wondering if you could speak to having principles around funding in the legislation. Do you think that's important or not? Could I start with you, Grand Chief?

[Grand Chief Constant Awashish]

Thank you.

Yes, I think it's very important to have those principles. I don't know exactly which wording we should put in there, but of course we already know about all the financial stress that's happening in communities and also with our service system. Already in the near future we will be seeing more financial problems if the government doesn't engage itself to properly fund this piece of legislation. In the end, what's the good of having this piece of legislation if we haven't provided for our people?

I think it's very important that we mention it in this legislation to make sure that it's clear and engages the federal government to participate in taking care of our children. I want to remind everybody here that our children will be the ones who are going to be protecting Canada later. They have to feel that they belong here.

As I said earlier, they have to feel a sense of stewardship of this country. It doesn't matter which party you come from; that's what we have to think about. We have to think 50 years ahead, not only four years ahead but 50 and 100 years ahead. We need to put the money in today to make sure that our children feel good and that we overcome all those different traumas that came behind us. That's all we need.

[Natan Obed]

ITK is in agreement that clarification around funding would be effective and a positive change in this piece of legislation.

In the legislation, “substantive equality” is mentioned. The caring society's case in the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal rulings and the effect that has on this conversation have to be considered. If governments can find ways to not implement CHRT rulings, and especially around the funding, then writing it into legislation is a really positive way to get to the desired outcome.

Having the idea of substantive equality in a piece of legislation provides us hope within the regulatory process that the funding will be there, but provisions in legislation that make it clear would be helpful.

[Richard De La Ronde]

My colleagues hate it when I say this, but I've never gone to a government and asked for more funding. I've always asked for flexibility in the funding. For Sandy Bay, that's what is important. If you go to Manitoba and look at family enhancement, which is a service delivery model and a sort of prevention model in Manitoba, you'll find that every agency has a surplus because of the restrictions on how the funding can be used. It makes it impossible to spend money.

You can give me all the money you want, but if you inhibit the way that I can spend it, it's not going to do anything for me. When you talk about funding, be mindful of having the flexibility to use that funding in certain ways, and do not tie it and restrict how it can be used, because it doesn't get used and it doesn't help us at all.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you.

I really appreciate that comment. I think it's very important for everybody here to hear that, because if we're going to get to the next step, which is really about reconciliation, it means acknowledging and getting out of the way when we need to get out of the way.

On one of the other things that we've heard a lot about, I really want to come to ITK. We've heard from some of the more remote communities about the challenges of being remote, and they say that when we look at this legislation we should be considering geographical areas a little more comprehensively. The example given was that the next community is 700 kilometres away. When you think about how you connect the children with their communities, those challenges are really significant.

I'm just wondering if that's something we should be looking at in the legislation and if there are any potential solutions in terms of legislation that we could propose.

[Natan Obed]

The first and foremost challenge is infrastructure and service delivery. If there isn't the essential infrastructure in a community, such as was already mentioned—foster homes or the ability for there to be housing for families—then it puts people in really difficult situations that then come into contact with family services.

It's the same for food security and poverty. No matter what is in this legislation, we still have to do more to ensure that our children have enough food to eat, that families are not in poverty and that we have housing and other essential pieces of infrastructure in our communities. That would go hand in hand with the provisions in this legislation. If that isn't focused on, we will continue to have the challenges that we're facing.

Remoteness is another really challenging piece. In many of our 51 communities, the connection between that community is one that is probably not even within the jurisdiction but is a flow-through to a southern-based jurisdiction, whether it be Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec or, in Nunatsiavut, Newfoundland or parts of Labrador. We haven't figured out how to ensure that services are delivered in a culturally competent way even with that reality that has been a reality for 50 years now.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Okay.

The questioning moves now to MP Robert-Falcon Ouellette.

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

Thank you very much to all the witnesses who have come here today. I really appreciate the opportunity of hearing many of your comments.

I was wondering if you could talk a bit about customary adoption. I know that the Inuit practise customary adoption still today. Many first nations in the rest of the country do it a little less so in the southern parts. I am one who has also done customary adoption of youth and members in my own family, which means adopting a young child through a ceremony to a new relationship. It's sometimes very difficult to interact with the Canadian state in order to regularize that.

I was just wondering if you could talk a bit about some of your experiences and about whether that should be mentioned at all within this legislation, because I don't think it's currently mentioned in very much legislation anywhere in Canada.

[Natan Obed]

Currently there is customary adoption within legislation in the Northwest Territories and in Nunavut. It is still a widely practised custom of adoption and it is very different from the adoption that most southern Canadians would know.

I think it plays a very significant role within the well-being of Inuit children within Inuit communities. However, when you put it within the framework of federal or provincial-territorial legislation, there are constraints, especially in relation to funding and the ability for the rights of the children to be upheld by the families who are taking responsibility for those children.

Customary adoption is much less regulated than its alternative, and that is deliberately so, but there are still some challenges that come up because of that practice. With both customary adoption and also traditional midwifery, those are two areas that I think should be respected more as indigenous rights or as Inuit rights within a larger legislative structure and framework to protect those rights.

As far as its application in Bill C-92 is concerned, I think we would have to have further deliberations with our regions before giving you a more thoughtful answer.

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

Chief Awashish.

[Grand Chief Constant Awashish]

Thank you.

We, as the Atikamekw Nation, worked on modifying the legislation in Quebec. We have had success in making sure it respects our traditional ways of adoption.

I don't know about other provinces. I know the Inuit do it differently from us, and that was one of the matters in the beginning. The Quebec government understood that we were all the same—Inuit, first nations, and all that. We intervened and we told them that our way was different.

Let's say someone is adopting a kid. For us, that person will raise that kid, but that kid never loses the link to his original mother and father. That is the ancestral way of adoption in our community.

Even though a child may live all his life with the parent who adopted him, the child will always know who his real mother and father are. That's the way we are; that's always been like that. We always work in a traditional way.

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

Grand Chief Awashish, in Quebec, you attempted to get legislation through the National Assembly, but it wasn't successful.

[Grand Chief Constant Awashish]

Yes, we did.

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

Oh, it was successful.