Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on April 11th, 2017

[David Yurdiga, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Thank you.

I probably have about—

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Fifty seconds....

[David Yurdiga, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Fifty seconds is a lot.

Anyway, many first nations have a very strong economic program—you seem very successful. A lot of time it's where they're located. These communities do very well. They're very transparent, and you can see what they're doing. However, there are other communities that do not have that luxury, and they have no other source of developing their economy because they're isolated. What can be done to bridge that? Obviously, there's no industry around them to support that. Are there other ways to raise revenue through some kind of economic mechanism?

I'd like to address that to anyone who wants to answer it. You only have about five seconds.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Your time is over, but if somebody wants to take it, that's fine.

[National Chief Perry Bellegarde]

It's important to have a flexible program. One size doesn't fit all. Everybody talks about Osoyoos doing great stuff in B.C., Membertou on the east coast, and the Dakota Whitecap. The Grand Council of the Crees are doing great stuff. They have access to capital, which is one big thing. Removing barriers to access to capital is one big issue. Then, there has to be capacity. Each reserve should have a flexible approach, in every territory, because one size will not fit all.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Okay, questioning now moves to MP Saganash.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the presenters today.

I want to start with Pam, because I know you worked many years as senior director of INAC, and you're fully aware of this policy that we're dealing with today. I'd like you to speak to that experience first and the lessons that you learned from it. Beyond the specific recommendations that you've outlined, I was wondering if you could elaborate on that experience first.

[Dr. Pamela Palmater]

Thank you for your question. It's true, I did about 10 years' hard time in the feds. I'm almost rehabilitated, but one of the really eye-opening things about working at INAC, especially as a director of lands, was that we'd sit around a senior management table and have to make decisions about who gets put into intervention and who doesn't.

One of the reasons I'm no longer at INAC is that more than half of the time, the reasons for putting first nations into INAC's intervention policy were political. Someone was not agreeing on a particular treaty stance, or over a court case, and then that became a clash with INAC. Another reason would be a first nation saying I no longer want to discriminate against my people, and I'm going to provide services to those both on and off reserve. When INAC says, “No, that's going to cause problems for us”, then they get put into intervention.

None of the triggers that you see in the policy, in my experience in 10 years there, were ever used as a legitimate reason for putting someone into third party management. Of course, once you're in third party management, because of the costs to first nations, that just becomes a spiral, and first nations languish in intervention. It was literally individuals around the table making political decisions, not financial management decisions. That's one of the things that has really stuck with me and it's why I wanted to come and testify before this committee. It is not as the policy says it is. It simply isn't.

On the ground, it's far worse in some regions than others. Manitoba is one of the worst, but it used to be that the Atlantic region was one of the worst regions, where that was just a bullying tactic. If you didn't like your contribution agreement, then they were going to put you in third party or they were going to put you in co-management. For every first nation you see that's ever been in intervention, there are at least four more—four times that number—that have been threatened with it to force them to sign an agreement or take a specific political position.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

I have difficulty comprehending.... The mandate of this study is to improve a policy, the intervention policy. That's a bit troubling for me. Is that why you refer to the mandate of INAC? Should this study include that aspect?

[Dr. Pamela Palmater]

That's exactly it, because of everything that INAC is mandated to do. While there are 5,000 employees and billions of dollars appropriated by Parliament, we only get half of that. If the reason is to improve our lives and to improve social and economic well-being, then do it. Everything that's not contributing to that needs to be axed or substantially revised, and this is one of those policies that—if we were to sit in a non-public forum and talk about it—we all know very well doesn't help anybody.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Picard, if memory serves, you used the words “archaic” and “outdated” to describe the policy. I think we are unanimous in saying that the chronic underfunding of first nations is the main reason why they are in intervention situations like the ones related to this policy.

I think you have partially answered one of my questions when you talked about the possibility of using other funding sources for first nations.

Could that go any further?

For instance, I'm thinking of the revenue sharing for resource development on our territories. Perhaps that's one solution.

In your view, are there other solutions?

For instance, we could consider a constitutional amendment to change the equalization formula applied across the country and to include the first nations, the poorest of the poor.

[Chief Ghislain Picard]

First, everyone is turning their backs on the prospect of another round of constitutional discussions. However, there have been missed opportunities in terms of first nations issues and it is important to keep that in mind.

There are a number of aspects to this issue. Access to revenue other than the revenue from the government should not prevent us from having access to what is accessible to all levels of government across the country, and the equalization formula would give us this guarantee.

Everything related to the financial relationship is at the heart of the issue raised today. In your work, you are reviewing the current policy. But this policy should be thrown in the garbage and we should develop a completely new one. The country's policies and laws must be in line with the principles set out in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This may be our opportunity to change the course of history and finally restore to first nations a much more gratifying status.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

The questioning is a little bit shorter than normal.

You can have about three and a half minutes, MP Massé.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

That's a bit unfortunate, because I would have had a dozen questions about this.

I would first like to thank our witnesses for participating in the committee's work; that is very much appreciated.

Mr. Picard, in your opening remarks, you said that you were hesitated to appear before the committee because, although you have made an effort to give testimony here on a number of occasions, not much has come out of it, in your view. I therefore sincerely hope that the committee's work will produce the desired results.

I will first ask you a general question. In your opening remarks, you mentioned that, in Quebec, the region that you serve, a small percentage of communities must resort to third-party management. Could you elaborate on that? What are the best practices? What are the lessons learned? What makes the challenges seem less significant?

You said that some communities are on the brink of intervention, but generally speaking, why are there fewer problems?

[Chief Ghislain Picard]

The question was partially answered by my colleagues here. Despite all the challenges and obstacles, we have kept the solution that provides for a degree of cohesion in the efforts and know-how of our communities, particularly through tribal councils.

As my colleague Norm Odjick said, the directors general of communities meet twice a year, always with a view to pooling knowledge and expertise. That can generate results.

Basically, we are exporting some expertise to our communities, and, at the end of the day, that is important. There are about 15 or 16 communities that are on the brink of intervention, which shows the shortcomings of the policy. Why wait until the communities are knocking at the door before intervening? That's the question I'm asking.

In terms of the only case with a third-party manager, isn't there a way to think of something more in line with the expectations and needs of the community? Accounting firms across the country must not fill their pockets on the backs of the communities. It has been more than 10 years in the case of Lac-Barrière, and we have seen this in other communities before. I think the situation is completely unacceptable and we must do something about it.

I go back to my colleague Norm Odjick's recommendation. Without reinventing the wheel, could we not make an effort to use the expertise we have? The intervention would then be for the communities that feel they need to call on outside expertise to address their situation.

Thank you.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Thank you very much.

That concludes our opportunity. We're slightly over our time. Thank you for coming. Meegwetch.

The opportunity to delve in is limited by the structure of the committee. As you expressed, you've shared this with government before. We must continue to share our views.