Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 4th, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Please be brief.

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

Within the structure of the inquiry, did you set up a requirement for regular reporting or regular monitoring? Are you keeping a very watchful eye on it, or did you set it up so arm's length that the ability to intersect with what's going on is very limited?

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

It was very important that the commission be at arm's length. That said, it is supported by the Privy Council Office, and we are in regular touch with them. As minister, I need to know what's going on in that I am responsible, but I cannot interfere with the work of the commission.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Thank you.

The questioning now goes to MP Romeo Saganash.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would also like to welcome the minister.

I want to begin with what you ended with in your presentation this morning. You talked about meaningful reconciliation with first nations and indigenous peoples in this country. You talked about a poll in which 79% of non-indigenous youth said they believed they would see meaningful reconciliation in their lifetime. I want to start with that, because I find it intriguing and troubling on one hand that you would say that—and your government has been repeatedly talking about reconciliation—yet on the other hand you continue to fight a compliance order by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. We are in the 464th day since the tribunal rendered its decision and talked about your government racially discriminating against first nations children. We're in the 464th day since that decision.

How is that attitude with respect to the tribunal consistent with reconciliation? How is approving the Site C dam, in spite of the opposition of first nations to it, consistent with reconciliation?

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

It's a great question, and I think that as we go forward, particularly on the issue of the tribunal and the compliance orders, we are really serious about honouring the commitment to overhaul the child welfare system to honour the compliance order of needs-based funding. We are doing that, we are listening, and we know that we have to change how we do this. As Grand Chief Ed John says, having $30 million go to lawyers in Vancouver—

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

If that's the case—

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

—to apprehend children....

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

If that is the case, Minister, why are you challenging the authority of the tribunal?

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

At no time are we.... We welcome the advice of the tribunal, and we are going forward based on theirs. We were thrilled to be able to go to the last hearings, and with the agreement with the northern communities on a remoteness quotient, we are making significant progress on this. We put the money in place; now we have to get the reforms done. It is not okay that more and more kids are still being apprehended and kids are dying. It is unacceptable, and for the deal that we have right now in Ontario, where the agency in Sudbury was able to say, “Please give the prevention dollars to communities, not to agencies...”. And that's what we've heard coast to coast to coast. It's about jurisdiction. It's about communities knowing best about how to look after their children. This is not about an agency-driven approach; it has to be about communities and communities being able to look after their kids.

In some communities, such as Beausoleil First Nation, none of the kids have been apprehended. At Cat Lake, when we were there, it was really sad to hear about the number of children who have been taken out of their communities. We have to find out what's working well and help communities prevent their kids from ending up in the system at all. That is the way that we're going to fix this and prevent these tragedies.

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

Well, I think a lot of people, especially those who continue to oppose the Site C dam, for instance, do not understand or do not really appreciate your talking about reconciliation when they continue to oppose projects like that. I think they're right in saying that that attitude is not in keeping with reconciliation with indigenous peoples in this country.

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

Romeo, I think it's really important that as we go forward with reconciliation, we recognize that indigenous people don't speak with a unanimous voice and that there are going to be some projects that certain first nations approve of and others don't. That's how we're going to work: nation-to-nation, government-to-government, in a way that is about recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership. There will be issues on which there is not unanimity, and we have to find the best way forward in that respectful approach going forward.

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

I think I have two minutes left.

I want to talk about this. The National Association of Friendship Centres made very clear requests prior to the 2017 budget for long-term, sustainable, predictable funding for 118 friendship centres across this country. They play an important role in our cities and urban areas across the country. We just finished a study of suicide among first nations, including indigenous youth and children, and we noted very clearly the important role these centres play in this country.

From 2014 to 2016, the government provided annually $51 million dollars to friendship centres, to the urban indigenous strategy. The 2017 federal budget committed an investment of $118.5 million over 5 years. If my math is right, that's a decrease of about 50%. We're talking now about $23 million per year. Can you reassure us today that the friendship centres will continue to get that sustainable, predictable, long-term funding at the level they used to get?

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

Yes, they will have $53 million per year ongoing, and we are very interested in this committee or members of this committee understanding that in the reforms to the urban programming, the friendship centres and their programming are essential. But there also were, as you know, concerns about distinctions-based programming, and some that needed to be Métis, Inuit, as well as other programs. We also know that in a whole-of-government approach, things like housing, early learning, child care, and all of those are also important, but the friendship centres, I think, know they will be able to continue their important work.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Thank you so much.

That ends that round of questioning, and we move to MP Michael McLeod.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the minister and her staff for the presentation, and for giving us some time to ask questions.

As the minister knows, we have been very busy in the north, and some very good things have been happening in working forward with the aboriginal governments on land claims and self-government discussions. We probably have an historic high number of discussions going on, and I'm very excited about that. There have been some new approaches the minister has brought forward, and I have to thank her for doing so.

There are still some concerns. We're getting some really good recommendations and advice from people like Mary Simon, who has provided her report. I haven't been able to digest all of it, but at first glance there are some good recommendations. She flagged some issues that have been concerning me and other people in the north for some time. There are some areas that are very blurry and continue to be blurry.

For example, the discussions at the different tables that were set up for the Kelowna accord talks do not include, for the most part, the Northwest Territories, and do not include the Métis. Our Métis don't belong to any national organizations. Most of the first nations also state that nobody speaks for the Métis at the national table. They need to find a way to get them to the table, and I think we need to work that through.

An issue I have raised several times, which Mary Simon flags also, is the blurry way funding is allocated to the north for aboriginal people and northern communities. We don't have reserves. We have public communities, but they're all made up of mostly aboriginal people, except for the larger centres. Even the larger centres have large aboriginal populations.

We have a hard time tracking what is coming forward and what's available for us to qualify for. Over the last couple of budgets we got better. We distinguished between on reserve and off reserve. However, it has also created additional concerns, because now other departments are pointing to money that is going to the indigenous affairs department and saying that the responsibility is there now. However, if we look at the money they've allocated historically, most of it in the north doesn't come from indigenous affairs. Housing, for example, does not come from indigenous affairs, and it's one of our biggest challenges. The last budget provided $36 million over 11 years, which is a little over $3 million a year. In the north, this is probably six houses, and maybe good for only repairs, yet it's one of the biggest issues that has been flagged as a cause for what's happening in our communities on the social front.

I wanted to ask the minister if she would commit to talking to her colleagues and doing an internal review in her department on the funding formulas in the government that apply to the north? Mary Simon has also pointed out that maybe the Arctic needs to be a little better defined; the three territories and some of the aboriginal governments that are out there should be budgeted a little differently. Maybe you could talk about how we could try to provide better clarity on funding for aboriginal people.

The mandate of indigenous affairs is mostly restricted to reserves, and we don't really have reserves. We have two reserves, and we have problems with funding there too.

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

Thank you so much. I must say that the northern members of Parliament in the indigenous caucus have done an amazing job in explaining to both the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Infrastructure this reality of not having reserves in the north. Certainly the parliamentary secretary is clear that north of 60 doesn't work anymore, because she lives at 58 I think.

It's a matter of our making sure that we're clear about a northern Arctic policy framework, and that's the serious work that begins now. How do we close those gaps that you're articulating in terms of a whole-of-government approach to the north with the territories and the provinces that have these concerns, and work towards the future together?

As you know, in the territories, where there are self-governing land claims, groups like the Inuvialuit in the Northwest Territories receive their own allocation for funding and for housing. We're excited that now the Northwest Territories and the Inuvialuit have signed a memorandum of understanding.

Again, it's a matter—not even within territories—of how you deal with what the land claims organizations and the territory are able to plan and the priorities they are able to set together for the good of all the people.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

I have a quick final question. I think there needs to be a meeting of minds to try to find a way to satisfy the territorial governments, the aboriginal governments, the municipal governments, and the different populations in the north. Maybe what Mary Simon is suggesting in her report—to have a meeting with all the northern premiers, the indigenous leaders, the Prime Minister, and key ministers to talk about a new way to do things—would be a good start.

Can you talk about that a little bit, and see if you could maybe commit to doing so?

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

Absolutely. We need to know whether the work needs to be done separately and then come together with a summit as we move towards that Arctic policy framework, or whether we start with a big meeting and then divide up into working groups. I look forward to advice from the Northern Development Ministers Forum, which Quebec is hosting this year. I also look forward to advice about where we could do this work and what the structure would be to actually get this right so we have a forward plan over the next decade or decades that will really look after the north.

Indigenous tourism is another area where we really feel that with the Northwest Passage, we have to have a coherent plan as to what happens on that coast.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Excellent. Thank you.

Questioning now goes to MP Arnold Viersen.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being here today. It is much appreciated. I know you have a busy schedule, and it's early in the morning.

Minister, you and your government have often referred to a renewed nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous people. I know that right on the party platform web page one of the buttons refers to “a new nation-to-nation” relationship.

However, I put in an Order Paper question to your department, and they couldn't say what this nation-to-nation relationship was because, in their words, “Indigenous and Northern Affairs...does not define who is a nation.”

How are you supposed to have a renewed nation-to-nation relationship if you don't know who they are?

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

That's a great question. At the very first meeting with the Prime Minister, the Inuit said they didn't want it to be nation to nation, but to be Inuit to crown. Straight out of the gate we know that we have to be listening to how this should be.

The Métis nation sees itself as a government, as a nation, and that is pretty straightforward. In terms of the 634 Indian Act bands, there are ongoing conversations as to what is a nation. When you go to Haida Gwaii, I think you are able to clearly see that it is a nation, but in the 41 negotiating tables we now have that sort of aggregation—

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

So you would say that “a new nation-to-nation” relationship was a misnomer?

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

No—

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

You shouldn't have said that in the campaign.