THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 15, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples met with videoconference this day at 9:02 a.m. [ET] to examine the federal government’s constitutional, treaty, political and legal responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples and any other subject concerning Indigenous Peoples; and, in camera, in consideration of a draft report.
Senator Brian Francis (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I would like to begin by acknowledging that the land on which we gather is the traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg people, whose presence here reaches back to time immemorial.
[Another language spoken]
Good morning. I am Mi’kmaw Senator Brian Francis from Epekwitk, also known as Prince Edward Island, and I am the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples.
Before we begin our meeting, I would like to ask everyone in the room to please refrain from leaning in too close to the microphone or remove your earpiece when doing so. This will avoid any sound feedback that could negatively impact the committee staff in the room. I would now like to ask committee members in attendance to introduce themselves by stating their name and province or territory. Let’s start on my left.
Senator Arnot: David Arnot, Saskatchewan.
Senator Boniface: Gwen Boniface, Ontario.
Senator Hartling: Nancy Hartling, New Brunswick.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas, Alberta.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: Michèle Audette, Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you and welcome, everyone.
With the goal of informing and guiding our future work, the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples is inviting witnesses, including federal departments, representatives from First Nations, Inuit and Métis people and others, to come discuss their work and priorities. We received such briefings on November 1 and November 2, and this meeting is a continuation and is divided into two panels.
On the first panel, we will hear from President Natan Obed and Executive Director Elizabeth Ford from Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, or ITK. President Obed will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes, which will be followed by a question-and-answer session of approximately five minutes per senator. Due to time constraints, I would ask everyone to please keep your exchanges brief and precise. To avoid interrupting or cutting off anyone, I will hold this sign up when you have a minute left on your allocated time.
I will now invite President Obed to give his opening remarks.
Natan Obed, President, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami: Thank you, honourable senators, for allowing Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami to provide this presentation and to have this conversation.
Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami is a representational organization, which is distinct from that of other Indigenous advocacy, civil society or stakeholder organizations. We are the national organization for Canadian Inuit because we are directed by the four Inuit treaty organizations that collectively represent all Inuit in our relationship with the Crown.
Our membership is the Makivik Corporation in Nunavik in northern Quebec; the Nunatsiavut Government in northern Labrador; Nunavut Tunngavik, which shares the same geographic space as the entirety of Nunavut, but is a rights-based organization within that jurisdiction; and the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, which is in the Northwest Territories. The four elected leaders of those organizations sit as the board of directors for the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, so I am elected to represent the interests of those four board members and treaty organizations rather than elected on my own mandate, beliefs or views about things that should happen. I have the flexibility as a politician to craft the work that our organization does, but it is all based on the direction that is given by our four elected leaders.
Inuit Nunangat, the Inuit homeland, encompasses more than one third of Canada’s land mass and almost three quarters of the country’s coastline. Although we have a relatively small population of roughly 70,000, Inuit are collectively the largest private landowners in the world, and we co-manage much of our territory with governments. It’s about a third of Canada’s land mass and about 72% of the coastline that Inuit work with provincial, territorial and federal governments to co-manage the entirety of that space. We really are our own entity when it comes to governance and when it comes to relationships with Canada and its jurisdictions in a way that I know is aspirational for many First Nations and Métis in this country. We are quite fortunate to have these arrangements with the Government of Canada, which is not to say that they are ideal at all times, but certainly the remoteness of our homelands has allowed for different arrangements with the Government of Canada.
We have a very focused strategy and action plan that guides our day-to-day work. Our strategy and action plan right now is for 2020-23, and the priority areas are poverty reduction; infrastructure; advancing Inuit specific health and social development initiatives; the protection, revitalization, maintenance and promotion of our language Inuktitut; supporting Inuit self-determination in research; and supporting Inuit Nunangat coastal management and marine infrastructure development. In addition to our strategy and action plan, we engage with the federal government on national legislative and policy areas, including through work plans established with federal departments through the Inuit-Crown Partnership Committee, or ICPC, that was established in 2017.
A recent positive deliverable of the ICPC is the federal Inuit Nunangat policy, which we developed with federal departments in order to guide how the federal government approaches the development and implementation of policies, programs and initiatives that are intended to benefit Inuit and may affect our rights.
It is important to pause and consider the type of work that we hope to achieve. It isn’t just about having a big announcement with a one-time federal allocation for some socio-economic gap, housing or infrastructure. It is about changing the way the government does business.
The co-development of the Inuit Nunangat policy, which culminated with the Prime Minister announcing the federal government’s adoption of the policy in April, is the type of work that is just as transformative as receiving a large sum of money on a particular issue in a federal budget. I would say that, over time, it is more constructive because it changes the way government functions.
For our organization, there is such a complex space in Indigenous governance, policy and interpretation that having Inuit specific policy areas clarified allows for us to be much more strategic in the way we spend our time rather than educating members of the public service or politicians every single time an Inuit specific initiative crosses somebody’s desk. This will internalize the way the government imagines how it works with us rather than us having to imagine it together every single time.
In closing, specifically in relation to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP, legislation, we are very pleased to have played a role in developing that legislation with the federal government, and we continue to partner with Justice Canada as a lead on the implementation. An action plan is due within two years of the passing of the act. We are working back and forth with Justice — and with First Nations and Métis — to ensure it is as robust as it possibly can be.
We hope we can work with the Senate on a number of different issues. The implementation of our rights and the way in which our rights are expressed through legislation, policies or the way in which the government acts in relation to Inuit, First Nations and Métis are essential to reconciliation, but also to the way in which we can transform this country for the better. Nakurmiik.
The Chair: Wela’lin. Thank you, President Obed. Before we go to questions, I wish to remind everyone in the room to please refrain from leaning in too close to the microphone or remove your earpiece when doing so.
The floor is now open for questions from senators. I turn to my deputy chair, Senator Arnot, for the first question.
Senator Arnot: Good morning, guests and witnesses. I appreciate you coming here today.
I have a question for President Obed. You identified a comprehensive work plan, which you worked on jointly, on the implementation of the UN declaration, which touches on a number of pieces of legislation. I would like you to outline some of the challenges you see, notwithstanding the good relationship you are building. I fully understand what you are saying about creating a positive, constructive relationship between the Crown and the ITK on behalf of Inuit people, but I’d like you to amplify in terms of what you see as the challenges with respect to that multi-legislation action plan.
I’d like to you comment on this question as well: Are you satisfied with the mechanisms currently available, or to be available, to hold the executive branch of government to account for proper implementation of the UN declaration?
Mr. Obed: Thank you very much for those questions. I’ll start with the major considerations for UNDRIP implementation.
We are quite concerned about recourse and remedy when implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Canada. The Government of Canada — and Canadians in general, I think — are quite comfortable in accepting that Indigenous peoples have rights. I think we are beyond that time now where that was an open question.
Now the question is when rights are not implemented or rights have been violated, what recourse or remedy do First Nations, Inuit, Métis or institutions have in this country in dealing with those gaps in implementing our rights in relation to legislation, Supreme Court rulings or the rule of law in this country?
We had hoped we could create an Indigenous-specific human rights tribunal that would be solely centred on addressing that very challenge. Human rights tribunals in this country have not historically done a good job of understanding and then providing specific direction in relation to Indigenous people’s rights.
It is a complex and confusing space, and one that is constantly evolving. We hope we could create a mechanism that could sit alongside in that space of human rights considerations for a tribunal that would be specific in terms of ensuring that Indigenous peoples’ rights are upheld in this country.
We are also quite concerned about the way in which section 5 could be implemented. It states:
The Government of Canada must, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the Declaration.
That is a huge undertaking and one that is quite complex based on legal precedents and emerging considerations for the implementation of our rights.
I would say those are the biggest challenges. Saying that Indigenous peoples are important or that we are respected in this country, those are all wonderful things. Figuring out how to treat us with equity when it comes to the violation of rights — based on the UN declaration and then all the other human rights instruments that we have at our disposal here in this country — that is the crux of our concern. We hope to work with government to find constructive ways to overcome that.
There are other paths that government sometimes wishes to take, especially when it comes to, say, the creation of legislation like the national council for reconciliation, but that is, by its very nature, one that is external to government. It is created as a not-for-profit society. Its sole weight is that it can provide a report to a minister once a year. It doesn’t have the tools necessary to provide recourse and remedy for violations of Indigenous peoples’ rights. So I would much rather focus our time on those types of initiatives.
With the accountability, I think this gets to your last question as well. We need to ensure that we create legislation and mechanisms that demand accountability from the government on the implementation and recognition of our rights. Often we try to just end with saying these are human rights. Indigenous peoples’ rights are human rights, and it is not another thing that we are creating. It is just a thing we are implementing that we all have agreed to do as nation states and as Canadians.
The Chair: Thank you, President Obed, for your comments regarding accountability mechanisms. This is something our committee hopes to examine in the upcoming months.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: As you know, I was part of a major national investigation, and the challenge was to properly present the realities of this great diversity that we represent as First Peoples, to present the issues that your people are experiencing, such as First Nations and the Métis people.
You talked about accountability mechanisms. There are bills paving the way to that, and they lump us all together. In an ideal world, Mr. Obed, on future occasions, should we present separate national councils for the Inuit, the Métis and First Nations, or should we keep this Canada-wide approach?
[English]
Mr. Obed: Thank you for the question, Senator Audette.
There are times when there are policies that apply to all Indigenous peoples in Canada equally. There are other times when there are specificities within a particular policy area or a focal area — could be geographic — where First Nations, Inuit and Métis have very different ways of interacting with government or approaching a policy issue.
Take the example of the Indigenous languages legislation. We had hoped that the Government of Canada would have Inuit, First Nations and Métis sections within that piece of federal legislation that would be best suited for the needs of each population. For Inuit, our language — Inuktitut — is the majority language in Inuit Nunangat. In a jurisdiction like Nunavut, it is the majority language of the jurisdiction, not just of the Inuit subset within the jurisdiction. In a place like Nunavik, Quebec, the language retention rates and the mother tongue rates are in the 90th percentile.
The idea that the federal government has no responsibility to provide government services to our Inuit populations in Inuktitut, in our homeland, is just a fundamental departure from the way that Canada treats English and French when it comes to majority language status. The fact that we couldn’t have language in that legislation that was Inuit specific that reflected our reality in relation to our language, we found it was largely because many other Indigenous languages in this country are endangered or don’t have the ability to be used as a mechanism for public service delivery. We as Inuit suffer from that other reality. That’s just an example of how I think specific legislation could treat First Nations, Inuit and Métis specifically where we are and how we interact rather than clumping us all together in certain areas and, ultimately, not being able to have that type of consideration that we would otherwise.
Senator Boniface: Thank you very much for joining us again. It is good to have you here. You spoke about the policy framework that you’ve agreed to in the context of “transformative.” It is not a word often heard in the work that you do with the federal government. I would like a little more information around the policy itself, how you identify the areas and how you hold accountability on it. I think about the turnover in and out of departments and the change of people, which is often some of the frustration that different groups find dealing with a government the size of the federal government. I wonder if you can give us a little more insight and why you think it cornerstones some of the issues that will be long-lasting.
Mr. Obed: Thank you for the question, senator. We spent almost three years in development of this Inuit Nunangat policy largely because of the history that we have had in being marginalized within federal policy. Prior to 2015, any time you saw the word “Indigenous” or “Aboriginal” in a federal budget, it was largely synonymous with First Nations on-reserve, linked to Indian Act obligations of the federal government and was never intended for Métis or Inuit. If Inuit wanted to engage with federal departments and try to avail ourselves of some of those funds, we were told it actually wasn’t for Inuit.
After decades of not necessarily having any Inuit specificity within the funding arrangements that the federal government has with Indigenous peoples, the federal government imagining that public governments take care of the needs of Inuit, that the federal government downloads Indigenous responsibilities to Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec or the Northwest Territories, and that ultimately they would be responsible for how they flow funds to the Inuit, we wanted to forcibly disrupt that. It started by having Inuit specificity within federal budgets, and 2016 was the first federal budget where there was an Inuit specific allocation for land claim regions. Now there are Inuit, First Nations and Métis sections of the federal budget that have specific allocations in an Inuit specific way that flow to Inuit treaty organizations rather than to governments. This was in keeping with that transformation.
Now that we have Inuit specificity within federal funding streams, when a department is tasked with actualizing that, they have to write a Treasury Board submission, it has to go to Treasury Board, Treasury Board has to consider it and then it comes back with terms and conditions. But if all of those federal bureaucrats along that chain only have an informal relationship with ITK and with Inuit about how to go about doing this, then perhaps a small peer group within Indigenous Services Canada or Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, or CIRNAC — it is just so situational. It takes so much time for us, as ITK, to try to be positive brokers within those relationships that the full weight of Inuit specificity isn’t realized.
That’s just within the federal funding streams, but with the policy now that has specific considerations for Inuit who are in Canada and how federal governments interact with Inuit when it comes to legislation, policy or program development, it shortcuts all of those informal conversations that we’ve had. It also provides a direction rather than speculation. Federal bureaucrats would often have to weigh the risks of them working with us versus saying that it is all a closed process. Ultimately, it was subjective within each department and for each federal public servant about how they applied Inuit specificity in their work.
Again, this is meant to completely change that consideration. We can then also use the policy to demand government act in a certain way. The most important part of it is that it is not our policy, it is the Government of Canada’s policy.
Senator Boniface: Yes. Thank you very much.
Senator Tannas: Thank you for being here. You mentioned in your remarks that you represent around 70,000 people. How many of those would be in the North versus the South? I am specifically interested in those that aren’t in the North. What kinds of services and supports are offered? How does the envisioned work that you have done in the policy that you reference, but also the work that is being done with UNDRIP implementation, how do those people figure in? How many, and how do they figure into this equation?
Mr. Obed: Roughly 65% of Inuit live in Inuit Nunangat. There are progressively more and more Inuit who live outside of our homeland. Largely, they are clustered in areas that are also the service provision areas for the North and South. We don’t have a university, we don’t have many specific health care provisions, our justice systems are also diffuse and their catchment areas are different. St. John’s, Montreal, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Edmonton and Yellowknife. Those are areas where there are now many Inuit — sometimes many hundreds, sometimes thousands.
Often their life situations — whether it’s a lack of housing, education or other things — have brought Inuit into this area, but there are also just life choices. So it’s not always negative. Many Inuit choose to live in the South, and are quite happy and thriving. They are still proud of their identity, still speak Inuktitut and have communities in the South as well.
We call it “urban Inuit” now. Perhaps that name will change, but that’s just what it’s been because there are many Inuit who live in very small communities in the South. The catchment is still something that we want to have the best possible name for.
Providing services for Inuit outside of Inuit Nunangat is more of a challenge. We have productive relationships with many provinces. We also have a network of community-based Inuit organizations who serve Inuit populations. I think of here in Ottawa Tungasuvvingat Inuit and Akausivik Inuit, which is an Inuit-only health care provider.
In many different southern centres, there are Inuit specific services popping up. However, it is all quite ad hoc. We also need, as Inuit, to ensure that no matter where Inuit live that they have a voice within our regional or national government, and that they feel as though their rights are being respected and their services are being delivered. One of the big challenges we will face in this century is the emerging urban population and how we provide for that.
Senator Tannas: If I may, I think it’s going to become a greater challenge. We run the risk of arriving at equity to have a sub-inequity with First Nations, Inuit and Métis people who aren’t where they’re “supposed to be” and therefore are not getting treated fairly.
Where do you, if anywhere, see the potential for direct payments to citizens in substitute for government structures located far away that will be probably as inept as Canadian governments have been in delivering services from a distance?
Mr. Obed: We haven’t considered that for the provision of equity. We have worked with governments for things like the Inuit specific alternative to Jordan’s Principle. We have programs and services that we are developing or working with government in co-development that allow for eligibility for Inuit no matter where they live. I would think of Jordan’s Principle and the Inuit specific equivalent to Jordan’s Principle as a great example of the way in which the federal government has tried to meet Inuit where we are, especially Inuit children.
For us, it’s also about understanding how to provide the best advice and support to federal government programs and services that are meant to be eligible for Inuit no matter where Inuit live. It is still a huge work-in-progress, and all considerations of how to provide better services and supports certainly should still be on the table at this time.
The Chair: President Obed, what challenges do Inuit face in accessing and using existing human rights institutions in Canada? And how would the creation of an Indigenous-specific human rights tribunal address these challenges?
Mr. Obed: I think of the human rights record in this country and the inequity that has been shown time and time again when First Nations, Inuit or Métis seek justice in relation to non-Indigenous people and the mechanisms that have been created to ensure that justice systems and policing work fairly. These areas have an element of systemic racism embedded within them, and those are things we’re working to change.
We have a memorandum of understanding and work plan with the RCMP. We’re trying to do things with the RCMP to address those challenges of systemic racism.
In the justice system, we work within our jurisdictions and at the national level to ensure that some of the major challenges in access to justice or the way in which justice systems function and deliver services to Inuit are not discriminatory.
In the human rights regime, the way in which tribunals or other entities work to the specificity and complexity of Indigenous human rights is not often captured in terms of how these human rights bodies function, and that’s not really what they were created to do. We have not found many areas where we have been successful in addressing these challenges.
I think about things such as language rights or rights for children. We haven’t been able to find a specific way to work through some of our systemic challenges.
If you look at the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society and the mechanisms they’ve used in order to get justice for First Nations children in care, you will see that it’s become a 15-year battle — I’m not sure of the numbers, but it certainly seems it’s been over a decade.
You can see how challenging using the existing mechanisms for upholding Indigenous people’s rights can be in this country, and how there is a necessity for a simpler way and a way that governments, Indigenous peoples and jurisdictions can all support so that decisions are decisions and the implementation of those decisions is done in an orderly fashion that doesn’t take decades to implement.
Senator Patterson: It’s good to see the witnesses again.
I’d like to ask you about the right to self-government as set out in Article 3 of UNDRIP in relation to Inuit.
You’ve shared what I understand is a draft action plan that has been developed on advancing Article 3. You recommend the provision of legislative and fiscal resources to Makivik Corporation, Inuvialuit Regional Corporation and Nunavut Tunngavik.
I understand the struggle with the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, which politically, it seemed, couldn’t be part of Nunavut. They were stranded alone in the Northwest Territories, and they’ve been pursuing self-government ever since. I also know that although Makivik has some authorities through the Kativik Regional Government, or KRG, particularly in health and education, they have also been working hard to further advance self-government within Nunavik. So I totally understand this recommendation. However, your action plan also recommends a legislative framework and fiscal arrangements for Nunavut through Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.
On the face of it, we have an Inuit-led public government in place in Nunavut, established through Article 4 of the Nunavut Agreement and the Nunavut Act. They get money, and they have a legislative framework.
Could you explain what you envision as self-government powers that you would see Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. and Nunavut Inuit obtaining that the Government of Nunavut doesn’t already have under the Nunavut Act?
If I may, a related question: You didn’t include Nunatsiavut — and I understand it’s a draft — in the draft recommendation to get a legislative and fiscal framework.
Is Nunatsiavut considered to already have self-government?
Mr. Obed: Thank you for the question. It’s very good to see you, Senator Patterson.
Senator Patterson: Thank you.
Mr. Obed: First, I’m in no position to talk about what Nunavut Tunngavik may or may not want in relation to this particular section. It was their position to put this forward in this way in our document. I know there have been conversations at the Nunavut Tunngavik board and annual general meeting level, and there have been resolutions in relation to the considerations for self-government in Nunavut, but that is for Nunavut Tunngavik to express themselves. We at ITK have not been given any sort of direction to provide comment on it.
As far as Makivik Corporation and the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, their aspirations for self-government are now, again, 10 to 15 years into consideration. Makivik has had a number of different lead people on the focus on self-determination and self-government. I know that Duane Smith, the chair and CEO of the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, has talked quite a bit about implementing self-government in tranches or in different waves. It’s certainly great to see the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation pass legislation in relation to child welfare, which is the first piece of legislation they have passed.
Nunatsiavut Government has a fiscal framework with the Government of Canada. It was not included within this particular section because it has a functioning fiscal framework. It is also a fully realized self-government that certainly has a lot more to do for implementation, but it has a constitution, an assembly, a president, elected leaders and is another order of government within the jurisdiction of Newfoundland and Labrador, and something that I, being from Nunatsiavut, am quite proud of. Both Ms. Ford and I are from that region.
Nunatsiavut Government has seats for the Canadian constituency. Within the self-government for Nunatsiavut, no matter where Nunatsiavut Inuit live, we are represented within the assembly. It’s based on population, so there are now two members of the Nunatsiavut Assembly that represent the Canadian constituency outside of Labrador.
Self-government has a way of getting to the biggest challenges of a population or constituency, and hopefully both Makivik and the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation can find their way and be properly supported through that process. With Nunavut Tunngavik, I would leave it to Aluki Kotierk and her colleagues to have that conversation.
Senator Patterson: Thank you.
Senator Hartling: Thank you for being with us. It’s always a pleasure to hear from you and about some of the changes that are happening. In your opening remarks, you talked about a number of things that you’re hoping to change about poverty reduction, language and things like that. You mentioned that you hoped the Senate will work with you, and in particular this committee. What are some of your expectations or hopes that we might put a lens on some of these areas? Are there some things that you hope we can be involved with and move things forward? Thank you.
Mr. Obed: There is a lot of work that we do that goes back to the heart of caring for children and for the health and safety of those who are most at risk in our communities. I just witnessed this last month in relation to suicide prevention, and it was really difficult. It comes back again and again to the upstream investments that we can make to ensure that those who are most at risk in our society get the proper supports and services that they deserve.
For Inuit, it’s often access to health, education and language. It is also in relation to poverty, food security, ensuring that our children have enough to eat and that they’re safe. These are the things that we hope will be the focus of a lot of our work because, ultimately, a lot of those roads lead back to those central considerations. A lot of the dysfunction that can happen in a person’s life or in a society happens not in the moment when a person or group of people are fully realized adults, but when they are in those formative years and things become huge challenges that people have a hard time overcoming later in life. If we can short-circuit that and have people grow up with a world-class education, with security, support and love in their lives and the ability to think about how they can then go out into the world and make positive changes for the community and Canada, it is my hope that we can focus on those things. Certainly, the work you do here in the Senate can help us get to those ends as well.
Senator Hartling: Once again, thank you very much for being here.
Senator Audette: We see governments passing by. Every election we can change when we have a new government. But in our pair of mukluks — and for me in moccasins — we know that we need more than five or ten years of this policy with the Inuit and with your people. What would be the best approach so that the government, no matter who is in power, will honour what you’ve been doing? Do you have any thoughts?
Mr. Obed: Yes. It’s interesting. I reflect on this quite a bit. A lot of the time that I spend on education is implementing the National Strategy on Inuit Education. That strategy was released in 2011, and Mary Simon was the president of ITK when that strategy was released.
I’m proud to still be implementing that. We have amended some of the priorities and we tweaked some of the things that we will do, but there’s a continuity within our governance so that I don’t have to make it myself. That’s what I sometimes find most frustrating when working with successive government. It all of a sudden becomes something almost unmentionable. The five years of work that we just did we can’t talk about anymore, and we have to reimagine something else, even though, ultimately, you get to the same place. We waste years because of that system.
The way that we have thought to short-circuit some of that is to provide legislative or other treaty-type coverage on some of the work that we’re doing. If we can ensure that something like the Inuit-Crown Partnership Committee is a standard way in which the federal government works with Indigenous peoples, or with Inuit in our case, that would be an amazing win. But if this government changed, under the currency scenario, I can’t imagine a new government embracing it. That’s really a shame because it has not become a partisan thing, but a central mechanism in order to work together and be on a path to reconciliation. Practically speaking, it makes sense for Canada and makes sense for Inuit.
Those are the things where we can provide some level of support and not have to be sneaky about it. With some of these things, I hate the feeling as though we’re trying to trick the system in order to do good work. Somehow we have to figure out how to just accept and be supportive of good work when it happens and not make everything partisan. I know that that’s a bit of a naive statement. I have worked here for seven years in this position, but it is still my hope. I still have optimism that we can just do things that function and work well, and just be happy with that.
The Chair: Thank you, President Obed.
The time for this panel is now complete, and I wish to express my gratitude to President Obed for his time here, and Ms. Ford as well for joining us this morning.
I remind everyone that we are continuing to hear from witnesses with the goal of informing and guiding the future work of our committee.
For our second panel, I wish to welcome from the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Yves Giroux, Parliamentary Budget Officer.
Mr. Giroux, wela’lin, thank you for joining us this morning. You will have approximately five minutes to make opening remarks, which will be followed by a question-and-answer session of approximately five minutes per senator. Due to time constraints, please keep your exchanges brief and precise. To avoid interrupting or cutting anyone off, I will hold up this sign when you have a minute left on your allocated time so everyone has an idea.
I will now invite Mr. Giroux to give his remarks.
Yves Giroux, Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer: Honourable senators, thank you for the invitation to appear before you today. I am pleased to be here to discuss my office’s recent analysis related to Indigenous issues.
In accordance with the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s legislative mandate to provide impartial, independent analysis to help parliamentarians fulfill their constitutional role, which consists of holding the government accountable, my office prepares reports and analysis on the state of the nation’s finances and economy, as well as analysis of federal government budgets, estimates and economic statements in addition to preparing independent cost estimates of proposals before Parliament. Further, if requested to do so by a committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or a committee of both houses that is mandated to consider the estimates of the government, my office will undertake research into and analysis of those estimates.
[Translation]
In accordance with the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s legislative mandate, my office has studied Indigenous housing and health and specifically analyzed estimated government spending on Indigenous issues. For our discussion this morning, I’ve prepared a brief presentation that provides an overview of my office’s recent analysis of Indigenous issues.
I can give my presentation for a few minutes and then answer your questions. I believe you received it earlier yesterday or today.
The main point that I’ll discuss in the presentation relates primarily to the analysis of government spending on Indigenous issues. That’s the second slide, immediately after the cover page.
[English]
This slide talks about the funding allocated by the government for Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada and Indigenous Services Canada. The slide indicates there has been a consistent increase in spending allocated to both departments. However, what is not on this slide, but has been the subject of a report, is the fact that both departments have struggled, to say the least, to meet the performance indicators that they themselves have established. Despite the significant increase in funding, both departments generally struggle to meet performance indicators that they themselves set, amend and often postpone the target date by which to meet these performance indicators.
I’ll stop there as I am convinced you have a few questions for me.
The Chair: Wela’lin, thank you, Mr. Giroux.
Before we go to questions, I wish remind everyone in the room to please refrain from leaning in too close to the microphone or remove your earpiece when doing so.
Senator Arnot: Thank you, Mr. Giroux. I appreciate what the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer does in identifying and, in effect, holding to account the executive branch of government. As you point out, it’s a catalogue of failure by departments not meeting their own goals.
I’m wondering what suggestions you have that we could examine or make recommendations on so that these two critical departments actually do succeed in meeting their goals in a much more effective way. How is it that the executive branch of government could be held to account?
My impression is that these fine reports that are created — very independent and very impartial — are perhaps considered but not given enough weight to actually get to the goal, which is a solution to the issue. I’m just wondering if you have any comment on how your work is informed by some of the things you do, which could give us some recommendations so that these two critical departments can actually meet their goals.
Mr. Giroux: Thank you, senator. That’s an interesting question having myself been on the other side as one of the officials who tried to establish these performance indicators collectively with the management table of the department. Usually, the way departments will do that is to have some push and pull. Some proponents within a department will really want to be ambitious and deliver better outcomes for Canadians, while others will try to go for the path of least resistance — that is, set indicators that they know they will attain should unforeseen events happen, should they lose key staff or just to ensure that they don’t have to work extraordinarily hard to meet these. That’s human nature, I guess.
One way to remedy that human characteristic is for committees, such as this one, to ask key individuals in these departments to testify and explain how they establish these performance indicators, the reasons why they change — pushing them not only by asking them what and why, but to explain clearly, in plain language, why these indicators change.
Now, these indicators are not set in isolation. They are often established with the concurrence or the approval of the minister, and very often of the Treasury Board itself. Not only are departmental officials key in establishing these performance indicators, but there are central agencies, such as the Treasury Board Secretariat, which are responsible for overseeing the establishment, the changes to these performance indicators and how they are met. Another avenue is to ask these central agencies to explain why they so often let departments off the hook when these performance indicators are amended, changed or even not met at all.
There is a lot of knowledge within the bureaucracy that could be tapped. In all fairness, they should be asked to explain when they don’t meet these indicators and provide remedies to improve the outcomes.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: Thank you very much, Mr. Giroux, for the visual presentation on the slide you shared with us.
Where I come from, visuals and social response are important. If I were to look at your presentation from another perspective, I might think the “Indians” were given a lot of money again; I don’t accept that word being used.
There are an alarming human deficit, infrastructure deficit and social issues in communities and areas where Indigenous people live. I prefer to say these are issues that affect Indigenous people, not Indigenous issues.
As part of your mandate, are you able to show deficits? People think Indigenous people get a lot of money, but really, they’re just trying to fix something that’s been neglected for far too long.
Mr. Giroux: That’s an interesting question in several respects.
Since I’m an economist by training and my mandate is to quantify things, I’d say that a human deficit is generally very hard to assess and quantify in a tangible way. However, some gaps can be quantified. That’s what was done with the drinking water issues and the investments needed for that. You can’t estimate a human deficit directly, but it’s possible to estimate how many communities need water treatment facilities and what investments are needed to achieve the objectives, so that no one ever has to suffer from not having access to drinking water. Based on our estimates, the capital investments are sufficient in the coming years, but not enough is being invested in operating expenses. There isn’t enough money to operate the water treatment facilities.
We also tried to estimate gaps or shortfalls in affordable housing. It’s hard to assess what constitutes appropriate housing, but you can assess the percentage of income that some households must spend on housing. There are definitions of what affordable housing is, and we see quite a significant gap of about $600 million per year in affordable housing investments for Indigenous people.
In those two examples, we were able to quantify the social issues and human deficit that remain or still present significant gaps. Clearly, that doesn’t address the issue of the suffering all this causes, which is hard to quantify. However, it can put a price or a dollar amount on the initiatives that could be established to resolve these issues, including performance indicators, which, to a great extent, speak to well-being themselves.
[English]
Senator Pate: Thank you, Mr. Giroux and your office, for all of the incredible work that you do, as we have often spoken about, including just your work before this committee. The volume is nothing short of remarkable, and the quality equally so, so thank you for that.
I would like to ask you about the intersections of your office and the Auditor General. You may be aware that, this morning, the Auditor General released a new report that talks about how far behind Indigenous Services Canada is on its commitments; the deficits in terms of accountability and ensuring that the department is acting responsibly; a backlog of some 112 infrastructure projects; the failure to act proactively and therefore the incredible after-the-fact costs of emergencies, both human as well as fiscal costs; as well as the failure to adequately address the chronic homelessness issue writ large. But I’d like you to also speak in terms of the intersections with Indigenous Services Canada.
If you have suggestions as to what this committee could do to try and assist that process, that would be extremely helpful in terms of how we could assist with the accountability component and, obviously, more to the point, as has already been pointed out, in actually addressing the issues up front.
Mr. Giroux: Thank you, senator. I’m often asked the question, what’s the role of the Parliamentary Budget Officer compared to the role of the Auditor General? The way to summarize it quickly is that, generally speaking, the Auditor General will walk into the department, look at the departmental spending and look at what happened and what went wrong, if anything went wrong. They come in after the fact, whereas a Parliamentary Budget Officer is generally mandated to provide a looking-forward perspective. I say “generally” because there are obviously exceptions depending on what committees ask us to do.
Generally, we will inform parliamentarians as to the expected cost or revenue from a proposal that is before Parliament or that parliamentarians are interested in.
In that sense, we have mandates that are complementary. However, we do talk to each other and our two institutions exchange information when it is pertinent and relevant to avoid looking for the same information. An example of that is infrastructure spending, like the big infrastructure plan. We had to gather a lot of information to respond to parliamentarians’ questions. We helped the Office of the Auditor General in doing their own work in that area.
We collaborate to the extent we can. Of course, we don’t have the same level of resources. The Auditor General has hundreds of employees whereas my office has 39 or 40 employees in total — not the same scope, size or resources.
You also asked about how to improve and assess the many failures that have been identified by the Auditor General and by our office. Having the committee ask us to testify and speak candidly is one good way of doing that. Of course, the committee is in a good position to ask us questions.
However, some individuals are well aware that these committees are public, and so anything they say will be heard. I don’t generally see that as a factor in terms of refraining me from speaking candidly, but there could be officials or other individuals who would prefer to speak in camera. It’s totally up to you to decide whether meetings are in camera or public.
As I said in an answer to Senator Arnot, having individuals — be they the Auditor General, her officials or departmental officials — explain clearly and in plain language what it is they do, why they don’t meet their own targets and what the remedies are is a very good suggestion for this committee. Ministers are ultimately accountable, but often the officials know best how things went. Having officials from central agencies, the Auditor General, ministers and myself testify and explain is usually a very good method. In my experience in the public service, if there is one thing that public servants hate, it is to have to explain their own failures in front of parliamentarians. That’s a good way to keep their feet to the fire.
Senator Patterson: Thank you for being here. I would like to follow up on Senator Arnot’s question, but first I’d like to ask this: Your graphs are very much appreciated for those who can read them easily. I’m not one of those. Can you give us a little more detail on what I think you described as unplanned increased spending, which was significant during the study period of 2018-19 to 2020-21? How significant were those increases in spending in percentage terms? Is it easy to generalize about that?
Mr. Giroux: I would probably have to get back to you on the precise number because one thing I’ve learned from my experience and from my staff is that it is dangerous to think that you are good at doing math and percentages on the fly, then it stays on the record and somebody has to backpedal on that.
One thing I can say is that unplanned spending generally refers to proposals that are made in budgets or, for example, fall updates. It can also be emergency spending, but it generally refers to new policy proposals that are introduced after the Main Estimates are prepared and tabled.
Senator Patterson: Your report suggests that there were significant increases in spending, but this did not result in a proportionate improvement to achieve goals. You’ve said that committees should interrogate officials for failing to meet their departmental results indicators.
That is a limited opportunity. I wonder if you could recommend other ways of ensuring accountability. For example, in the private sector, and I think in many other organizations, goals are set for managers and their compensation is determined based on their success in achieving those goals.
Could accountability be built into performance reviews for managers to ensure accountability beyond the occasional appearance in front of a parliamentary committee?
Mr. Giroux: Certainly, and I am about to make lots of friends in the public service by saying that, but it should already be in performance management of executives, at least. For those of you who are familiar with executive pay and compensation in the public service, there is an amount of pay that is at risk. It ranges between zero and, I think, 25%. This is usually tied to key leadership competencies, meeting specific targets as well as people management.
One would expect that a department that doesn’t meet its own target indicators should see a decrease or a lower-than-average proportion of pay at risk for its executives. I don’t think that is the case. There is a mechanism already to ensure that performance indicators are met, but I’m not sure it is seriously applied. That should already be the case. However, for executives and deputy ministers, I’m not sure that their pay and the component at risk of their pay in total compensation are clearly linked to the attainment of these objectives. I think that, very often, how satisfied the minister is with their deputy minister’s performance has a much bigger say in their compensation than whether they met their own performance indicators.
In saying that, I am making sure that I will never again work in the public service, but I think it is probably for the greater good to be candid and honest. It is my opinion. Of course, if you ask others to testify, they may say, “No, it is clearly linked to performance indicators.” But I do not think there is a strong and direct correlation between the achievement of the targets and the at-risk pay component.
Senator Patterson: I appreciate your candour, sir.
Senator Arnot: Thank you, Mr. Giroux. I think the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society case demonstrates an abject failure of the litigation model. There’s been 15 years of litigation and it still hasn’t been resolved.
On page four of your presentation this morning, you have estimated the cost of complying with the two Canadian Human Rights Tribunal orders related to the compensation for First Nations children and their families who were affected by the child welfare system and compensation for the delay and denial of services to First Nations children.
I would like you to describe the estimates for compensation of Indigenous children and their families affected by the child welfare system. I’d like you to explain, if you can, why the preliminary cost estimates from Indigenous Services Canada are different than the calculations your office has made.
Mr. Giroux: Sure. It is the report that we released a little while ago — more than two years ago. There was one in February 2021 and one in April 2020. There are two main sources of difference between what we estimated to be the cost and what the government came up with in terms of estimates.
One part of it is related to the fact that we did not include potential costs arising from a class action related to the Trout lawsuit. If you asked me to indicate in more detail, that’s probably the limit of my knowledge regarding that lawsuit. The other source of the difference, and probably the main part of it, is that we had assumed that the time period for compensation was between 2007 and 2017, which I thought, based on our analysis, is consistent with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruling. However, the government decided to go back to April 1991. They extended the eligibility period. My understanding is that is the main source of the difference between our estimate and the government’s estimate for the compensation.
Senator Arnot: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: Mr. Giroux, as an Innu person, that’s frustrating to me because this affects thousands of people we know and associate with, including my family.
As you will all recall, back in 1996, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples determined that one of Canada’s biggest government departments, the Department of Indian Affairs, had to be replaced and that the mandate had to be transferred to the nations, to Indigenous people. The more time goes by, the more I see the government mandate growing rather than being transferred.
If that’s part of your mandate, in the next few days, could you forward that information to us and tell us how much of all those amounts remains with the departments and agencies that are supposed to address the issues affecting us? Could you also tell us what amounts have been transferred to the communities?
Mr. Giroux: Unfortunately, that’s a question that I can’t answer right away. It’s certainly something we could consider. Also, since that information has to be public, at least we can look it up and then respond to you through the clerk of the committee. I imagine we’ll need a few weeks to dig and find that information.
We should be able to get a good estimate because, as I said, these things must be fairly easy to find.
Senator Audette: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Hartling: Thank you, Mr. Giroux, for being here, and for all your good work with your small staff. Wow, you put lots of stuff out there.
I will go back to the water question. Many Canadians who I speak to in my community and in other places still can’t get their head around why Indigenous and Inuit people don’t have clean water. We heard from witnesses, I think it was last spring, that their children can’t bathe, can’t go swimming or drink the water. This is Canada.
You mentioned that one of the things is that the formula is not right. How will we get that formula right and what does it need to be? Because this is urgent. This is something that can’t wait. Can you speak more about the water issue and how it can possibly be resolved? What do we need to do to make this happen?
Mr. Giroux: Personally, I don’t think it is rocket science in a country like Canada to have water in every community because, looking around, there is lots of water, and that’s pretty much the same wherever we go in Canada. It is not a desert, except for a couple of parts.
The government seems to have allocated enough funds to build the water and wastewater treatment plants and systems, but not enough for the operation and maintenance of these systems. To me, that seems to be a pure failure or mistake on the part of planning. Operating a water and wastewater treatment plant or system is not rocket science. They exist across the country and across the continent. To me, this is just a failure on the part of those who plan and allocate these budgets between capital, operating and maintenance. Switching some of the money from capital to operation and maintenance should do the trick.
I’m not involved in the operation of these departments, but if my small office can see that there is a mismatch, I would expect Indigenous Services Canada to see it faster and be able to fix it quite quickly.
Senator Hartling: So there is an answer to this question, it’s just a matter of political will and change.
Mr. Giroux: Personally, I think the political will has been there, but the bureaucracy doesn’t seem to be getting the message.
Again, I’m making lots of friends in the public service. At the end of my mandate, I may come to you to work for one, all or multiple of you.
Senator Hartling: I appreciate your honesty. Thank you very much.
Senator Patterson: In your study period, two departments had been created from one. Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada and Indigenous Services Canada were created out of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, or any of its many other names. Did you form any conclusions about the implications of the major restructuring in Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada?
Mr. Giroux: We did not come to an overarching conclusion except for the fact that it threw a monkey wrench into the performance indicators and that transferring responsibilities from Health Canada, for example, to Indigenous Services Canada for the First Nations and Inuit health component. That is one example. It allowed departments to change performance indicators, and it led to a period of transition where it wasn’t exactly clear what the performance indicators were that they wanted to adopt.
Even after the transition, it didn’t lead to a significant improvement in the achievement of the targets that they had set for themselves. The departments themselves or the ministers could probably speak about how challenging it was to transfer some employees from one organization to the other, but I haven’t looked at that. I haven’t seen any big conclusions as to whether that led to particular challenges.
Senator Patterson: Thank you.
The Chair: Honourable senators, the time for this panel is now complete. I wish to again express my gratitude to Mr. Giroux for being here today. The committee will now continue in camera for consideration of a draft report.
(The committee continued in camera.)