Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 29th, 2024

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

I was just going to point out that this budget has a number of investments for modern treaty holders in self-governing nations. We have a number of negotiating nations that are not self-governing or modern treaty holders. I don't see anything that would be in the budget to assist them.

Is there any way that financial assistance can be provided on the same basis as the self-governing nations and the modern treaty holders?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

I think I have very limited time on this. I'll be able to get back to you directly, Mr. McLeod. However, I want to just say that we very much have a perspective that includes the unique situation in the Northwest Territories, and we'll be able to share it with you at a later point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you, Mr. McLeod.

Mr. Lemire, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Once again, welcome to the committee.

First of all, minister, regarding Bill C‑53, you gave my colleague quite an elegant answer. As you know, however, the Bloc Québécois opposes this bill.

When you said that it will be reviewed, do you mean that's the end of the Bill C‑53 in its current form and that a new bill will have to be drafted in order to recognize the Métis communities of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Lemire.

I appreciate that you've been forthright from the outset on this, and we've had a number of conversations. Bill C-53 right now has gone through the committee stage; it hasn't come up for debate. We are at a point of pausing moving forward until we have concluded discussions with the Métis Nation of Alberta and the Métis Nation of Ontario. With respect to Saskatchewan, I think they've made a clear decision on a path for them, and I did meet with president McCallum, and we will continue discussions with the Métis Nation-Saskatchewan.

I think it would be premature for me to say what the next steps are until I have deeper conversations with the two parties that are still part of Bill C-53. There are some technical issues, some legal issues and some legislative limitations. I'm assessing all of them and getting the most informed information before we can advise where we go from here.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I would like to move on to another topic that we have discussed in the past, the Chalk River waste facility. I'm sure you are aware of the issue of water contamination, which has been raised by local indigenous representatives in particular. Do you think that signals an urgent need for action by your government?

We know that indigenous peoples were not consulted on the establishment of this nuclear waste dump. Now that we know it is affecting drinking water, even though not many people are talking about it, it seems that action is needed, specifically an ARTEMIS review, meaning international protection or review to protect the quality of our water. I would point out that if there were a major spill, it could affect water quality all the way to Canada's capital region.

To your mind, is this an alarm bell highlighting the importance of protecting water quality and biodiversity, on indigenous ancestral land in particular?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Thank you once again.

With respect to decisions that are made by independent government agencies, one of the things that I'm trying to do as minister is to have greater clarity on what engagement, consultation and codevelopment actually mean in real life. I think there are different interpretations, and there are also different expectations from first nations communities who, in this particular case, are impacted.

I think the work is on much more of a broader scale in terms of looking at the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the UNDA implementation action plan that was released last year, and then working with the different agencies that have a duty to consult. There is absolutely no question that there is a duty to consult in these situations, but I think that the depth of the consultation and the actual weight that its given, those, I think, are oftentimes.... People are in a different state or organizations are in a different state on this type of...and there's no consensus.

I think what I'm trying to do, with the department, is to be able to have a broader conversation, where there is some alignment and also an alignment with the expectations of first nations, Inuit and Métis, to have a codeveloped strategy that can be applied everywhere. That's not going to happen overnight.

To your immediate question, what I believe we should be working towards, not just in this particular case but across the board, is that we do have the direct cleanup of contaminated sites that both our department as well as Northern Affairs are working on. We have, for example, the Giant Mine in Northwest Territories, which is probably our largest cleanup project, but there are many other smaller ones across Canada that speak to past projects where there's contamination and a need for cleanup. We have a robust program that does look at individual sites to see how the cleanup can take place, and we're, in fact, in the process of cleaning up.

After the fact, it's not ideal. We don't want to do that. We want to be able to do it proactively, and that's the work that I think we still need to do.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I have a lot of questions about departmental responsibility for this matter. When we raise the issue with Environment and Climate Change Canada, they refer us to Natural Resources Canada.

Have you defended the rights of indigenous peoples on this file? Have you appealed to Minister Wilkinson to take direct action, if only to suspend the project so that indigenous voices can be heard, or perhaps even to explore other sites that are more respectful?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Thank you.

I have spoken to Minister Guilbeault. The challenge, I think, in this particular case...because I did have a chance, through you, to meet with one of the communities impacted. One of the challenges I think we face is that these are independent bodies. The ministry cannot dictate to an independent assessment agency what its decision ought to be. That is, I think, where we're challenged, but I also know that there is a litigation in progress on that. My role is to be an ear, to be a conduit for some conversations to take place, and that is, I believe, what I was able to do in this case.

In terms of directly intervening on the decision, it's not something that Minister Guilbeault or Minister Wilkinson is able to do.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lemire.

For our last member on the first panel, I'd like to turn the floor over to Ms. Idlout for six minutes.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Thank you, Chairperson.

First of all, congratulations to you, Chair. I look forward to working with you closely, and I'm sure that we will have a very good working relationship in the future—

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Pardon me. We're not quite getting the interpretation yet. If we can just pause for a moment....

I think we're good to go again.

Ms. Idlout, I'll go back to you.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Yes, you have a very important task ahead of you. Before you sat in that chair, we were sold by comments of others who stated that indigenous peoples of Canada are very important people. I'm sure you will be on board with us. We will be making many changes, so you have a very important role here and we want to work closely with you.

As representatives of indigenous peoples, we need transparent responses. Sometimes our questions don't get answered or we don't get the answers we're seeking, but I am pretty sure that we will move forward smoothly from here on.

To you, Mr. Anandasangaree, thank you to you and your staff for being here. You are a minister and I respect you as a minister. I'm sure you'll do your best to do a good job.

This is the first question I have for you. There was a letter by Yellowhead Institute stating that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission had written an article saying that everything that has been brought forth to the commission so far will take 58 years, all the recommendations will take up to 58 years, because there are so many parts to it. Now you've achieved 80% of the tasks or recommendations that were put forth.

Can you explain to us how you came to estimate the 80% achievement of goals?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Thank you, and I want to acknowledge the work that you do and the great respect I have for you.

The 80% is, I think, sometimes misconstrued. It is 80% of the items that are exclusively in the federal jurisdiction. That's not concluded work. That is work that is either concluded or has started, so it's, in fact, not quite 80%. In many cases, the work has started. If we look at child welfare as an example, child welfare is an area we have moved significantly on. Bill C-92 was passed. We had a court challenge to it. We have seven agreements that have concluded, and we have a number of others that we're working on towards establishing child welfare agreements with other nations.

It is certainly something that is in progress. It is not completed.

It's the same thing with missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, for example. One of the calls to action was that we call an inquiry and that we address the issues. The inquiry was called in 2017. There were 231 recommendations, calls to justice, that came about. We have started much of the work, but there's still a long way to go.

I'm not sure where the 58-year mark comes from, but a lot of the work that we are doing will sometimes take generations. I don't think it's clear that we can do this in a few years. Like languages, for example, languages that took hundreds of years to lose cannot be undone overnight. To me, that's part of the frustration as well, because the path that we're on is the right path, I think. There have been constructive things that have taken place and are continuing to take place, but the destination will not be easy. We can name the issue, but we know that there's more work to do.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

You may send me a response later.

Now I want to talk about contaminated sites. I have heard about current events in Iqaluit, just past Gjoa Haven, that there are some sites that have not yet been cleaned up. Inquiries have been made to the federal government, who in return responded to us that they are not able to clean up those sites.

Are you able to respond to that now or later?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

If there are specific examples, we'll be able to follow up on that, yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout.

With that, we are going to our second round of questioning, and just looking at the time here, we're going to be a bit short. I'm going to propose doing three and a half minutes each for the Conservatives and the Liberals, and then two minutes for the Bloc and the NDP in this round.

Up first, I have Mr. Melillo for three and a half minutes.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's great to see you in the chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being here today.

You spoke in your opening remarks, Minister, about the increase in spending in the estimates. I would note that there has been lots of spending through your department, as well as Indigenous Services Canada, and I certainly take no issue with that on the face of it.

However, I want to turn your attention to a PBO report: “Research and Comparative Analysis of CIRNAC and ISC”. It has found that, for your department and for Indigenous Services, despite this dramatic increase in funding, it has not led to an equal increase in results, in the ability of your department to reach its goals.

Maybe just to start with that, Minister, is that report concerning to you?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Look, we are about obtaining results. In terms of closing the gap, if we look at closing the gap as probably one of the major goals of the work of our government collectively, whether it's ISC or us, it is what we want to achieve. It is closing the gap on education, on child welfare, on outcomes—

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Specifically, Minister, is it concerning to you to see in the report that, despite the spending, it is not leading to that increase in the ability of you and your department to achieve results?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Well, I think there's some—

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

I would hope it would be concerning concerning to you.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

There are some explanations on that, because it's not simply for me to say that it's concerning or not. I think you need to look deeper into the work we do. If you look at correcting or redressing past harms, we have substantial expenses.

In agriculture benefits last year, we concluded nine of them, just under a billion dollars, primarily in the Prairies, that are part of the failures of governments in respecting cows and plows commitments. Robinson Huron is an unprecedented settlement of $5 billion from the federal government and another $5 billion from the provincial government.

Now, those are not necessarily about closing the gap. Those are about redressing past wrongs. A lot of the work that CIRNAC does is about redressing past harms, and unfortunately—

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Minister.

I don't mean to cut you off, but I'm sure you've heard that I have quite limited time on this.

Minister, I appreciate your answer, but given what we know—that the spending is not going where it needs to go—can you name one or two examples of some tangible steps you have taken, since you've become the minister, to address this, to ensure the dollars that are flowing from your department are actually going to the nations and the programs that are relying on it?