THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 1, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples met with videoconference this day at 9 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.
Senator Brian Francis (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Ublaahatsiatkut, good morning. I would like to begin by acknowledging that the land on which we gather is the traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg people, who have lived in this area since time immemorial and still do so.
I am Mi’kmaq Senator Brian Francis from Epekwitk, also known as Prince Edward Island, and I am Chair of the 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, starting with our deputy chair.
Senator Arnot: David Arnot, from Saskatchewan.
Senator Dean: Tony Dean, representing Ontario.
Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle, from Mi’kma’ki, Nova Scotia.
Senator Patterson: Dennis Patterson, Nunavut.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: Good morning. [Indigenous language spoken] Michelle Audette, from Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, senators.
From time to time, committees invite departmental officials and representatives from organizations or communities and others to provide updates on their work and priorities. This testimony helps inform and guide future work and studies.
In line with this long-standing practice and the mandate of the Committee on Indigenous Peoples — which is to examine and report on the federal government’s constitutional treaty, political and legal responsibilities to First Nations Inuit, and Métis peoples and on other matters generally relating to the Indigenous peoples of Canada — today we will hear from Indigenous Services Canada and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada. Tomorrow, we plan to hear from the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, ITK, the Métis National Council, the Assembly of First Nations, and the Native Women’s Association of Canada.
I would like to introduce the witnesses joining us this morning. From Indigenous Services Canada, we have Valerie Gideon, Associate Deputy Minister; and Paula Hadden-Jokiel, Assistant Deputy Minister, Regional Operations Sector. From Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, we welcome Daniel Quan-Watson, Deputy Minister; and Paula Isaak, Assistant Deputy Minister.
Please note that each department will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes, which will be followed by a question-and-answer session of approximately five minutes per senator.
Both departments have brought additional officials to help answer questions from senators. In the event these officials wish to provide testimony, I ask that they take a seat at the table and state their name, department and title.
I would now like to invite Ms. Gideon to give her opening remarks.
[Translation]
Valerie Gideon, Assistant Deputy Minister, Indigenous Services Canada: Good morning. [Indigenous language spoken] I would like to introduce myself. My name is Valerie Gideon and I am an Associate Deputy Minister at Indigenous Services Canada, and I am also a Mi’kmaq from the Gesgapegiag Nation in the beautiful Gaspé region of the province of Quebec. Thank you for inviting us here today.
[English]
Today, I am speaking to you from the National Capital Region in Ottawa, on the traditional, unceded and unsurrendered Algonquin Nation territory. It is the territory of our Deputy Minister Gina Wilson, who, unfortunately, could not be here today. She sends her regrets. She very much would have wanted the opportunity to be here to speak about our departmental priorities.
[Translation]
I am pleased to appear before this committee to discuss the priorities of our department, a department that is still relatively new, having been established in 2017, but which has already accomplished a great deal of work, but before us.
[English]
Indigenous Services Canada works collaboratively with partners to improve access to high-quality services for First Nations, Inuit and Métis. Our vision is to support and empower Indigenous peoples to independently deliver services and address socio-economic conditions in our communities.
Broadly, the priorities that inform our work are to advance self-determination, close socio-economic gaps, and eliminate systemic barriers, including racism and discrimination, that Indigenous peoples in this country face.
In response to a Charter challenge and to redress historic inequities, we are working to introduce legislative changes to the registration and band membership provisions of the Indian Act. Our proposal includes immediate legislative amendments to remedy the issues of enfranchisement, the ability for individuals to deregister and women to re-affiliate with their natal bands’ membership, and the elimination of outdated and offensive language from the Indian Act.
[Translation]
The department is also continuing to implement Bill C-92, which deals with child and family services and covers First Nations, Inuit and Métis. We are continuing initiatives to strengthen the jurisdiction of Indigenous people across the country.
[English]
We are working with many Indigenous governing bodies to negotiate agreements for partial or full jurisdiction over child and family services.
We are currently engaging on the development of new water legislation for First Nations. We anticipate this proposed legislation will establish national principles for drinking water and wastewater services on First Nations land.
[Translation]
This bill will also support us in exercising the inherent right of self-governance.
[English]
It will also codify collaboration with First Nations on regulatory and policy development, and help make it easier to reach agreements on water management.
[Translation]
Another priority for the department is improving health services for Indigenous peoples. We launched an engagement process for Indigenous health legislation at the beginning of 2021.
So far we have received 35 reports resulting from engagements that were coordinated by Indigenous partners. Based on the feedback we’ve received, we are working on a national summary report. Common themes include the need to eliminate systemic racism against Indigenous peoples, to recognize their right to self-determination, and to build capacity in Indigenous health human resources, which are experiencing a significant shortage that the entire country is currently facing.
[English]
Also in the area of health, a priority is to support distinctions-based improvements to mental health and problematic substance-use services for Indigenous peoples. Our work has included engaging the partners and communities in the areas of innovative community-based approaches such as mental wellness teams, life promotion and suicide prevention, Indigenous youth perspectives, on-the-land healing and substance use prevention and treatment, including harm reduction.
We have also been progressing in the area of emergency management, which is extremely important in the context of the impacts of climate change and adaptation. We are seeking collaborative emergency management agreements between First Nations and provincial partners. These tripartite agreements will help improve emergency management across all levels of government, enable long-term strategic planning, greater voices of Indigenous partners as well as meeting immediate operational needs.
Our department works closely with our sister department Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs to support communities in locating possible burial sites at former residential schools. We are working on this issue very closely with survivors and community leaders to ensure that their wishes are respected.
Housing, as I’m sure you will hear from our partners, is a key priority of theirs and ours as well. We have invested significantly. For example, in Budget 2022, the government announced an additional $4 billion in funding for Indigenous housing over seven years to accelerate work in closing Indigenous housing gaps, including $2.4 billion over five years to support First Nations housing on reserves.
We also continue to provide support to communities and businesses to assist in their transition out of the COVID-19 pandemic, recognizing that the pandemic is still here with us. But this funding is very important to ensure that Indigenous communities are well situated to grow their economic foundations at the recovery and, hopefully, the prosperity stages.
We look forward to answering your questions.
Meegwetch, qujannamiik, marsee, thank you, wela’lioq.
The Chair: Wela’lin, Ms. Gideon.
We invite Daniel Quan-Watson to give his remarks.
[Translation]
Daniel Quan-Watson, Deputy Minister, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada: Good morning. [Indigenous language spoken] Before I begin, I want to acknowledge our presence on the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg people, the people of my dear colleague Gina Wilson, who regrets that she cannot be here today.
Thank you for welcoming me to the committee and giving me the opportunity to explain the current and future priorities of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada.
The department has a broad mandate to advance reconciliation with First Nations, Inuit and Métis.
[English]
The department is responsible for the federal government’s response to address the history and legacy of residential schools. This includes implementing 15 of the 94 Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action and reporting on progress on the 76 Calls to Action that fall to the federal government.
Our thoughts are with survivors, their families and communities as the heartbreaking truth about residential schools, unmarked burials continue to be revealed. Funding is available to support communities, survivors and their families on their healing journey through researching, locating and memorializing those children who died while attending Indian residential schools.
One of our top priorities is addressing the national tragedy of missing and murdered Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people.
[Translation]
The department continues to lead the federal government’s efforts, through more than 25 departments and agencies, and to coordinate efforts across Canada with Indigenous partners, families, survivors, organizations and the 13 provinces and territories.
[English]
The federal government is committed to accelerate this work on MMIWG through investments, programs, policies and initiatives aimed at addressing the root cause of the violence against Indigenous women, girls and Two-Spirit plus people.
We are increasing our collaboration with Indigenous families, survivors, partners and organizations — as well as with the provinces and territories — to implement the 2021 National Action Plan and to address the national inquiry’s Calls for Justice.
We are working collaboratively with the Assembly of First Nations and other First Nations organizations to reform the specific claims process, and have recently begun engagement and co-development discussions on identified reform options.
[Translation]
The department is also working with First Nations to modernize tax mechanisms to improve economic conditions. This involves modernizing the First Nations Fiscal Management Act and working closely with First Nations fiscal institutions. It also involves working with Indigenous governments that have comprehensive and self-government agreements to ensure that they have sufficient resources to achieve their vision of self-determination.
[English]
It is also our intention to add to the already significant efforts being made to resolve modern treaty claims, particularly in British Columbia. We believe that we have a historic opportunity to reach a conclusion at several long-standing negotiations that are part of the British Columbia Treaty Commission process. In that regard, I want to recognize in particular my colleague Joe Wild, who is here today and has personally contributed enormously to that process and to much of the success that we have seen today. He may be able to answer a few of your questions later on.
[Translation]
For the northern portfolio, the main focus will be to work with partners to implement Canada’s Arctic and Northern Policy Framework.
[English]
Nutrition North has been steadily improving and expanding its programming to better support northerners in isolated communities; in doing so, NNC works directly with northern and Indigenous partners to understand and better support their food security needs and priorities.
[Translation]
The program has continued to expand to include support for improving access not only to store-bought food, but also to traditional and locally produced food.
[English]
We continue to support sustainable growth and will undertake remediation work in large, abandoned mines, ensuring that local and Indigenous communities benefit from these projects including through procurement, skills training, capacity-building and job opportunities.
[Translation]
We will also continue to develop a joint Inuit Nunangat policy and accelerate its implementation.
Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee. Meegwetch. Qujannamiik. Marsee. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Quan-Watson.
Before questions, I wish to remind everyone in the room to please refrain from leaning in too close to the microphone or to remove your earpiece when doing so.
If any other departmental officials wish to respond to a question from a senator, I remind them to please take a seat at the table and state your name, department and title before proceeding with your answer.
I will start off by asking the first question to Ms. Gideon.
Ms. Gideon, I’m interested in the progress of the bill on Indigenous health care. What are the goals of the legislation? Will there be standards in the bill? Will funding be a part of it?
Ms. Gideon: Thank you for the question, senator.
We are just at the point of receiving the engagement reports from partners. We have been very cautious about presuming what the scope of this legislation will be.
There are very important distinctions between what First Nations, Inuit and the Métis Nation may see as value.
Some common priorities include the elimination of systemic racism, better access to improved quality health services, a more holistic approach and the recognition of traditional approaches to health and wellness. These are core values and interests that we have been hearing over and over for many years. Whether you can accomplish that by developing, imposing or enforcing service standards is up for debate and further discussion.
The leverage points that we have at the federal level in health care are relatively limited. Certainly, we have some very important responsibilities in primary health care and public health on-reserve. We really rely on provinces and territories for a large majority of access to health care services. That is funded partially through health transfers through the Department of Finance.
A whole-of-government approach would be required, including provincial and territorial governments, as well as First Nations governments, Inuit land claim organizations and Métis Nation governments and representatives in order to make that happen.
Hopefully, we can get some collective will to recognize that, without better health care, the downstream impacts are costing Canadians a significant amount of money. We have greater premature mortality. There are many preventative conditions and diseases that we could address if we all work together.
The Chair: Thank you for that.
Senator Arnot: With respect to Indigenous Services Canada, I’m wondering how you plan to resolve the compensation for First Nations children and their families who experienced discrimination. What steps are you taking to comply with the tribunal’s order? How does the department expect to get an endorsement from the tribunal in the federal court related to that agreement?
Ms. Gideon: Thank you very much for the question. It’s a very timely question, as you know.
Last fall — actually, about a year ago last week — we did obtain a mandate to negotiate an agreement in principle, as the first stage with respect to compensation, by December 31, 2021, which we did accomplish with the Assembly of First Nations and class-action counsels, which the Chiefs of Ontario and Nishnawbe Aski Nation also support.
We did negotiate a final settlement agreement on compensation which was signed on June 30, 2022. It has been presented to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. They held a hearing in mid-September. The First Nations Child and Family Caring Society did oppose the motion for the tribunal to agree that that final settlement agreement satisfied its 2019 compensation order. We did receive their decision on October 24, which indicated that they were not prepared to accept the motion that had been submitted by the Assembly of First Nations with support from Canada.
We are now at the stage of looking at what the options are for moving forward. We are awaiting the final reasons of the tribunal. We are not sure exactly when those will be coming forward, but we will be having discussions with the parties to the final settlement agreement and also with our ministers with respect to what next steps should be taken.
Senator Arnot: That litigation dates back 15 years, which is very unfortunate. How are you assessing the risks that families and children have as we await the settlement being properly negotiated and finalized?
Ms. Gideon: We have made significant investments with respect to the First Nations Child and Family Services program since the tribunal’s merit decision in 2016. Even in March 2022, we made a significant investment with respect to some immediate measures to address the discrimination, which was agreed to by the tribunal; it was submitted through a consent order by all parties to the complaint.
It has resulted in a 270% increase in funding for prevention this fiscal year. It has resulted in expanding access to post-majority supports for individuals up to the age of 26. It has resulted in the expansion of First Nation Representative Services, which was a program only accessible in Ontario and is now accessible across all provinces and in the Yukon, to specifically support families that are going through the process.
So we are continuing to make investments. We have not waited for this issue to be addressed in order for that to happen.
We have also consented to a capital infrastructure order, which is enabling capital projects to be funded in the area of First Nations Child and Family Services and Jordan’s Principle.
Finally, I will note that in Budget 2022, there was a substantive investment in Jordan’s Principle over the next four years that actually enables us to continue to address requests. We have had over 2 million requests approved through Jordan’s Principle.
All of those measures are available today while the compensation issue continues to be negotiated.
Senator Patterson: Welcome to our witnesses. I would like to ask Ms. Gideon about the Nunavut Recovery Centre.
For some background, as you know, when the cannabis legislation was passed, there was no treatment facility in Nunavut. There is an acute need there. Sadly, we have opioids, alcohol access is increasing, there is a growing population and 50 Nunavummiut who were willing to leave the territory were going out of territory for treatment.
There was a commitment made and the work has gone exceptionally well between the tripartite committee: the government of Nunavut, your government and NTI. Everybody has got skin in this game. They are putting money into it. They are developing enhanced community programs on the land — healing camps. They are committed to Inuit personnel in the new recovery centre, and the recovery centre itself is going to be Inuit-led and trauma-informed, which is just what the committee recommended.
That is all going really great.
I want to tell you how delighted I am with the progress. They found a beautiful site on the land between Iqaluit and Apex.
It’s all very good, except that, as you probably know, post-pandemic costs have soared. I understand that, right now, the project is based on the better estimates that have come forward — the Class ‘C’ estimates — this year as of July. There is a $13.9 million cost increase, which we all understand is related to inflation, supply chain shortages, et cetera. It is more acute in the North.
I really would not want to see the scope of the facility reduced, which would be required if there isn’t a contribution of money from all the parties.
My very specific questions are these: Are you aware of this funding shortage? An MOU was signed recently, anticipating this problem; is your department committed to working with the partners to address this inflation problem?
Ms. Gideon: Thank you very much, senator.
I’ll share with you that when the funding decision came for that centre, a few of us had tears in our eyes because we were so committed to championing it and so incredibly pleased that what would typically have been a discussion about jurisdictional issues or responsibilities was not a factor there. Everyone wanted to see it happen. It’s also a core recommendation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
I was not aware of the specific estimate of the cost increase. It’s not a surprise to us. We are seeing that across the country with respect to a multitude of infrastructure projects.
So I would say that our commitment is absolutely to continue to work with partners to make that project a success. I can’t confirm with you right now, today, the funding source for that, but I can certainly confirm that we will continue to work with partners on that.
Senator Patterson: I know that your Minister of Finance has stated no new money in some public utterances, and this may be a difficult time to ask for new money. But we have to make this project work. I understand that if the shortfall cannot be met, the scope will have to be halved, roughly, and it’s been very carefully planned to meet the needs of all Nunavummiut.
I’m going to put a pre-budget submission in to Minister Freeland that, based on inflation — and everyone has to adjust for inflation, including governments — we can make this project a real success by continuing the vision that’s been so carefully developed by all three partners.
So I thank you for that commitment, and I’ll be staying on top of this closely, because you can tell it’s a very high priority for me. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: Thank you very much for your presentations.
On a more personal note, it is always interesting and beautiful to see that members of the first peoples of your team come to testify before us. I salute you and thank you for being with us.
I also thank all the people from the different Canadian cultures for being here.
There were several things in your presentations that stirred my interest me or raised old or still very present passions. I don’t expect to get answers today. Rather, I expect engagement on your side, with my office staff or with my fellow senators.
I really need to sit down with people in your office who are knowledgeable and well versed in the whole issue of registration. I get phone calls and emails from people all over Canada, because I guess it’s a gateway for them. So I don’t expect to get an answer today, but I do expect to engage in a fairly urgent dialogue about where I should direct these people who deserve answers.
Innu Nation communities and chiefs, including a female chief, will soon be sending you a letter about the housing shortage. Where should we direct these people? This is a crisis that is directly related to the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.
The cause of missing and murdered Indigenous girls and women, as you know, is one that I will carry in my heart until my last breath. I hope that in the federal culture, we will see more and more community organizations applying or receiving funding. Women and families must be at the heart of this funding. I don’t know what you can tell me about that. Many nations don’t even speak English. So how do we make sure that the nations that live in the provinces and territories, who don’t speak English as a second language, will be part of the investment? I say reparations must be made to Indigenous peoples.
Ms. Gideon: I can start answering the question about registration, and then I’ll turn it over to Mr. Quan-Watson on missing and murdered Indigenous women.
With respect to registration, we have done a lot of work over the past few years. In 2018, we received $40 million in support to address these issues and improve our service standards.
This fall, if the application is complete, we have six months to validate that application and respond. About 10% of the cases are even more complex because we need to do genealogical research, and it takes more than six months. In general, we meet our service standard deadlines. It takes about 12 weeks to receive the more secure certificate, which allows us to cross borders.
For individuals who register under Bill S-3, approximately 22% of applications are outside our service standards. We are always trying to improve the quality of our process.
A few months ago, I asked the team to work on our service line to improve the process. At the moment, if you call our general phone line, you will not be automatically directed to the team working on registration. It’s important to improve this process to reduce the number of calls you get to your office.
We now have a process for online applications. We are working hard on the technology aspect to simplify the process for individuals.
We will follow up with your office staff to assign you a contact person, and it will be the same for housing. I have indicated that housing is a priority. Significant investments have been made, but more needs to be done. The government remains committed to closing the infrastructure gap by the year 2030. It is clear that the pandemic has had an impact on the progress of capital projects, but we are not discouraged and we continue to work on this issue.
In terms of proposals to provide services, I would like to clarify that in urban areas we have the Urban Programming for Indigenous Peoples, and we are accepting calls for proposals until December on the service and infrastructure side.
We can also send this information to your office. I know that supports are needed in the community, but I wanted to raise this point as well.
Mr. Quan-Watson: I would like to add a comment. I think that community groups will do a very important job. One of the most important things about the National Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls Inquiry report was to hear the perspective of community groups. That’s why, in part, our department has made one of the largest contributions to the development of cultural spaces, given everything we’ve heard in the communities. We need places to share culture, language and so on. Everything that was talked about in the report is important at the community level.
We are very aware that we will not be using the interlocutors we normally deal with. We have also set aside another $36 million over five years to fund the capacity of organizations to do just this kind of work. We expect that regional, provincial and territorial groups will work with other community groups to help them prepare and submit their funding applications. We hope that this will happen for all of these projects.
[English]
Senator Coyle: I would like to follow up on the questions that have been asked around the Arctic and also around housing, and kind of put the two together. Senator Patterson chaired a committee that I was fortunate to be a part of, the Special Committee on the Arctic. One of the big issues we heard everywhere we went across the Arctic — not just in Nunavut, but especially in Nunavut — was the critical issue of housing.
Assistant Deputy Minister Gideon, you have mentioned housing being a priority, you’ve mentioned reserves and you’ve just mentioned urban areas, which I was glad to hear because we know a large percentage of the Indigenous population of Canada live in urban Canada.
Could you, or anyone who is in a position to speak to that here, speak a little bit to the North, and particularly the Arctic?
Mr. Quan-Watson: I would be happy to respond to that, Mr. Chair. Obviously, that is a critical need and one of which we’re very well aware. Both the Minister of Northern Affairs and the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations are very much seized with that in regular conversations, not only with community groups in the North, but the premiers regularly speaking to this issue as well.
In Budget 2018, we put more than $400 million over 10 years into the three Inuit regions and then we had the fourth region, Nunavut, receiving written investments through CMHC. But then in Budget 2022 we had put in not far under $1 billion, about $845 million, in distinctions-based funding for all four regions of Inuit Nunangat. Dealing with Inuit Nunangat in the way that ITK has asked us to do was a significant departure from the past. It recognized what they had asked us to do and we had developed these investment approaches in partnership with them.
This is a considerable amount of money. We recognize there is much more work that remains to be done, but also recognize that it is a critically important start. We recognize the challenge of supply. We recognize the challenges of getting housing built. We recognize the fact that there is a built-in lag between the time money is announced and the time houses appear, simply because you have to plan at least a full year in advance to get things on barges and other forms of transportation to get it to these communities, unlike some of the other places in the country where a truck could deliver it this afternoon if you needed it to.
Senator Coyle: Thank you for that. I realize there’s been a significant investment. If you could also address how far this investment is predicted to go in terms of meeting the very significant gap that is there, just tell us this is the gap as has been presented and here is what this is intended to address. I would like to hear about that.
Second, we all know there are huge challenges, but where there are huge challenges there are usually creative solutions. I know you and others in the Arctic region are working on creative solutions to overcoming those challenges. If there is anything you could share with us on that as well, I would like to hear about it.
Mr. Quan-Watson: In terms of the gap, we know that there is an enormous gap and that is well documented. We know that this is a substantial step in that direction, but we also know that if you magically managed to build all $845 million worth of housing in a couple of years — which we won’t be able to, but even if we were — we would still be back looking at similar amounts to address the next chapters of this. So this is something that we want to make sure we address in a significant way, but we recognize that the gap will continue for a considerable period of time.
Also, the longevity of housing in many of these communities is different than it would be in other parts of the country, simply because of the issues of climate and circumstances in which they are weathered and often relating to issues of overcrowding that we’ve seen in the past as well. So we factor that into our thinking about what the lifecycle is. I don’t have a specific metric that I can tell you that would represent a number by way of a gap, but we accept that this is a significant gap but also that this is a significant step forward.
On the challenges, one of the things that is very different about a lot of the funding that CIRNAC delivers in this context is that we deliver it to Indigenous governments that have claims with us. So instead of seeing them as a traditional partner with which we have a contribution agreement in which we have 17 annexes of specific requirements in which you will do it the way we tell you to or we will audit you and not pay you, it is set up so that they will make the decisions about the priorities in their communities. I think that is a critically important piece. It goes back to the question that Senator Audette asked on the issue of MMIWG: Who is actually making the decisions as to what the priorities are? Is it people connected to the community and who understand those needs? We are in the position to fund those groups directly that deal with their own priorities in their own communities and take the approaches that are working best for them. That is an important step forward.
The Chair: I have a question for Ms. Gideon.
How is ISC dealing with the issue of second-generation cutoff in the registration provisions of the Indian Act?
Ms. Gideon: At this point we are tackling the enfranchisement challenge within the context of the Nicholas action, which is in abeyance, but we are continuing to work with First Nations to engage on the remaining issues with respect to the Indian Act, including second-generation cutoff. There are also other aspects to work on, including voting thresholds for section 10, the script and cross-border issues. Those are also commitments that we have made to engage with First Nations on to seek further amendments to the Indian Act.
Because this particular challenge is quite time sensitive, we did not want to wait and we wanted to move forward to advance on these particular reforms of the Indian Act relating to enfranchisement and the impacts of that, which should enable at least 3,500 individuals to be registered.
Senator Dean: Thank you to our witnesses.
It’s my practice to thank public servants, whenever I have the opportunity, for the work that you do every day on behalf of the people in Canada and, in many cases, beyond Canada, but in this case I can think of no more difficult and challenging work anywhere, in any level of government, than the work you undertake every day. So I thank you in particular for the efforts that you make in that respect.
I will have another question later about the Arctic and Northern Policy Framework, but I want to start with this intervention on drinking water. It strikes me that some pretty significant strides have been made in the last several years. I watched the creation of a delivery unit in the Prime Minister’s Office, and this became a very significant priority. I was briefed on that and wondered how it would go. It seems to have made some difference. It seems to me some big strides have been made and perhaps a little bit of a wall has been hit now as you engage with the more difficult and complex situations.
Please remind us of the strides made so far in terms of the numbers of communities that now have access to clean water and the scope of the challenge that remains.
Ms. Gideon: Absolutely. Between 2016 and up to 2024, there will be $5.6 billion, and close to $6 billion, really, when you look at all the initiatives that will have been invested in. We have 230 short-term drinking-water advisories that have been lifted and prevented from becoming long term and 136 long-term drinking water advisories that have been lifted. There are 31 long-term drinking water advisories that remain in 27 communities, but 35% of those will be lifted by March of 2023 — at least that is what is being targeted and predicted — and 985 projects have been funded in a recent investment of $2.7 billion, 50% of which have been completed.
We’ve got many investments that have been made on operations and maintenance. Lifting a drinking water advisory is a key milestone, but maintaining the safe drinking water requires stable capacity and ongoing training for individuals and communities.
We have been able to go from funding 80% of operating and maintenance costs to 100% of those costs. That has been a significant threshold to cross in terms of the strategy. We have been able to do that thanks to the $1.5 billion investment in the 2020 Fall Economic Statement that was made. That will essentially lead to a four-time increase in the funding available for operations and maintenance by 2025.
We also fund training. We fund the Circuit Rider Training Program and other training initiatives up to approximately $24 million annually.
Paula Hadden-Jokiel, Assistant Deputy Minister, Regional Operations Sector, Indigenous Services Canada: Good morning. I’m the assistant deputy minister for the regional operations sector at Indigenous Services Canada, which has responsibility for infrastructure, including water and wastewater. It is a pleasure to be with your committee again. I would like to acknowledge that we are on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg people.
The other thing to note in this space is the significant investments we are doing in operator training as well as in monitoring. We have significant activities around service transfer in this area as well as our commitments around the class action settlement, including the commitment to establish a third-party administrator. That process is active and ongoing, and it’s all online, and you can subscribe. There are lots of publications around that, and people can submit requests up until March 2023. The other significant activity that we’re undertaking is the development of new safe drinking water legislation, which is actively being pursued, as well as engaging with partners on this issue.
There are a number of areas we’re working on in water and wastewater, not simply the financial investments in the physical plants, but lots of engagement with partners and communities around operators, operations and maintenance and ongoing monitoring.
Thank you very much for your question, senator.
Senator Arnot: My questions are directed to Crown-Indigenous Relations. I have two questions, and the first is around self-government.
Mr. Quan-Watson, I believe your department is overseeing 169 negotiations on self-government in Canada. What are the priorities that are being identified by First Nations, and how are you able to respond to the priorities that they identify? In particular, I’m wondering about this issue: Earlier this year there was a self-government agreement potentially applicable to 30 First Nations in Ontario, but it took 30 years to negotiate. What are you able to do in identifying priorities with the purpose of accelerating the creation and the implementation of self-government agreements in a much more aggressive manner in the future than in the past?
Mr. Quan-Watson: My colleague Senior Assistant Deputy Minister Joe Wild spends all his days doing exactly that. If I could quickly switch spots with him, he will be pleased to answer that.
Joe Wild, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Treaties and Aboriginal Government, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada: I’m Joe Wild, the Senior Assistant Deputy Minister at Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada responsible for treaties and Indigenous government.
This is the question that I think about all the time. I never stop thinking about this question, which is how we can find ways to make it both easier for First Nations in particular to find whatever their vision of self-determination would be that would take them beyond the Indian Act, but also for Indigenous peoples in general. How do we help and be true partners for implementing whatever their visions of self-determination are, including self-government?
You’re absolutely correct; we have a high volume of tables. This is the number one topic of conversation, along with discussions around the implementation of Indigenous rights and title. There are a number of issues that we’re trying to tackle in terms of how to accelerate. The biggest issue that we have been working through is how to ensure that we are providing more timely funding for the development of what we would call governance capacity. To put that into plainer terms: Every government needs a public administration. It needs one that is professional and has the tools necessary to do the job. It’s easy to forget that, when you’re talking about self-determination, you’re really talking about the work to revitalize governance systems but also, importantly, to help build actual public administrations that are going to provide the necessary supports for whatever that form of government is that the particular Indigenous community is adopting.
Our traditional approach had been that it’s the kind of funding that flows to the very end, after you’ve signed an agreement. It’s trying to figure out how we make that investment earlier in the process. A lot of what goes on in these negotiations and why they sometimes take such a long time is because the support funding that we’re providing through the process is also being used to build up the governance capacity so that when one does take control, when one has the authorities in place for lawmaking, that they have all the tools that are necessary to engage in that very important act of lawmaking. You need experts, you need to be able to draft the laws and publish the laws, et cetera. There is enforcement. There is a whole set of issues that comes with that.
If you think back to 2018-19, the biggest innovation that we were able to do was to sit down with the 25 modern treaty self-government agreement holders in the country and work with them on a collaborative basis to design a fiscal policy that actually addresses the needs for self-government. In other words, we had been kind of going along for many years without truly understanding the costs associated with an Indigenous government having to actually implement its roles and responsibilities under a modern treaty, but also just in general terms of whatever it is they’re being asked to do to address really big socio-economic gaps and how to close those gaps in their communities.
We worked for two years with those 25 Indigenous governments to design a policy that is needs-based and that looks at the actual expenditure costs associated with running an Indigenous government. This is work we never would have been able to do on our own. We had no clue what this looked like on the ground. It was really through that partnership that we were able to understand what it looks like.
That led to a significant investment of about $1 billion over 10 years in government-to-government transfers to ensure that those in self-government have the necessary resources for their needs and to actually run their governments.
That policy and approach have shaped how we’re doing all of our work with those that are on a self-government path. It is very collaborative. It is very much about working with them in terms of their priorities, the areas of self-government they want to advance first and how we work with them in order to make the necessary investments.
I realize I’m taking too long to answer this, but with that work, we are seeing some accelerations. I’m always going to be cautious about that, because at the end of the day, I think our obligation at the Government of Canada is to try to be able to meet the pace that the Indigenous partner is setting. It’s all about needs identification, trying to meet that same pace and not being the basis for delay. Those are the things that we’ve been working toward.
Senator Arnot: This question concerns the Office of the Treaty Commissioner in Saskatchewan. I believe the office is asking for an expanded mandate, particularly on lands, resources and other issues.
I’m asking this question in the context of a recent Throne Speech in the Legislature of Saskatchewan, where the Government of Saskatchewan is talking about pushing more control in their direction on natural resources, but it appeared that the government, in the Speech from the Throne, wasn’t giving proper priority to the treaty relationships and the fact that the treaties were created under the model of the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and came well before the creation of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
I’m wondering what your thoughts are on those issues.
The Chair: Could you be a little more succinct in your answer, in the interests of time?
Mr. Wild: I will, I promise.
Treaty Commissioner Culbertson is doing absolutely amazing work in helping to educate all kinds of people across Saskatchewan on the importance of treaty and reminding everyone that we are all treaty people. I think that is something that tends to be forgotten, particularly in non-Indigenous pockets of the population.
The treaty commissioners play a very important function. We’re always open to dialogue around whether the way in which those offices are set up and their scope is appropriate. It is certainly a dialogue in the context of Saskatchewan, in particular, that we have with the FSIN on a regular basis. I’m happy to continue to engage in those questions.
The question that you’re raising in regard to the numbered treaties and what we call the pre-1975 treaty era, they’re important questions that we think about a lot, especially in that context I just spoke about around self-government. That’s very much a work in progress for us. We have a lot of work to do to build better relations, particularly with numbered treaty nations across this country. There is important dialogue we are having around questions like annuities and how we have better approaches to self-government. We had a recent tax policy announcement by the Department of Finance that the section 87 tax exemption would continue on reserve lands as well as former reserve lands. That opens the door to a different conversation than we’ve been able to have in the past on self-determination. I will also just note that even eight or nine years ago, we couldn’t even have a conversation about self-government with someone who was a pre-1975 treaty rights holder because we required that treaty to be extinguished in order to have that conversation. We don’t require that anymore.
There are a bunch of things we’ve done that will help to move those conversations forward.
Senator Patterson: I want to ask about TB in Inuit Nunangat. It was significant that Canada and ITK announced a commitment to eliminate TB in Inuit Nunangat by 2030, and there was a $27.5-million commitment to work on that in 2018.
There is a TB crisis. Maybe that word is too mild in Pangnirtung right now. There are 139 active cases. Sick people come down to the regional hospital in Iqaluit, they get diagnosed with active TB and they get sent back to crowded households in Pangnirtung with active TB.
The Government of Nunavut has rented or reserved a facility for responding to this crisis in Pangnirtung. It needs to screen every single person in the community and then apply corresponding treatment, which might include isolation. That was done successfully in the neighbouring community of Qikiqtarjuaq. It was a great project. I happened to visit and see. They had significant cooperation and dealt with the outbreak successfully, albeit as a much smaller community than Pangnirtung.
I understand there is a disagreement between Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., which is holding the funds — some $13 million — on behalf of ITK and the Government of Nunavut basically over privacy issues and the publication of information about cases.
The $13 million has been largely unspent since 2018, responding to this crisis in Pangnirtung.
That is your money; it is your department’s or your government’s money, and it’s not being spent. Things are not getting better in Pangnirtung. It is a very serious crisis. And Pangnirtung is not the only community dealing with TB in Nunavut.
I asked Minister Miller about this in Question Period in the Senate some months ago, and he said it isn’t something we can wash our hands of as the government.
Are you aware of this problem? There was a series of stories on this in The Globe and Mail. Minister Hajdu said she was concerned. Are you going to do something or try to do something to get this situation resolved and get treatment started in Pangnirtung?
Ms. Gideon: Thank you for the question.
Yes, we are aware of the situation. Without disclosing some of the confidential discussions that are happening among partners, I would say that we are looking at options to help facilitate a dialogue between the partners on this issue.
There was some funding spent for the clinics that you mentioned earlier prior to the pandemic. There was a lot of collaboration with respect to setting up these screening clinics in communities, so some of the funding that was allocated in 2018 was spent to be able to organize those efforts during the pandemic. There was a concern that we would see rising TB rates in some communities subsequent to the pandemic because of the fact that these screening clinics were not taking place as actively, again, because of COVID and the measures that were being undertaken.
Yes, we are seized of this issue. Yes, we are concerned about it, and we are talking to partners about ways to facilitate a resolution of the issue. I would say that we are also very cognizant of the importance of continued funding in this strategy so we can reach the goal that the minister and President Obed had agreed to back in 2018.
Senator Patterson: This is a bit of a delicate question, and I applaud the Inuit-Crown Partnership Committee and the results that have focused on priority issues in Nunavut, and Natan Obed is a very successful advocate. I would never want to criticize the output of that committee.
But here we have an Inuit-led government in Nunavut. It is also an Indigenous government, for all practical purposes, that happens to be a public government. It is not at the table when these important discussions are made, not even as an observer. Money gets allocated to Inuit organizations and in the Inuit-Crown Partnership Committee. But the Inuit-led Government of Nunavut has the jurisdiction to implement. It’s the Government of Nunavut that has nurses, doctors and health centres, for example, with respect to TB.
There seems to be, at times, a disconnect between the money granted and the spending of that money. Money is given for capital, but they don’t think about operations and maintenance — O and M — at the Inuit-Crown Partnership Committee, so there is confusion about who takes care of it. Is the Government of Nunavut expected to take care of operations and maintenance for capital facilities when they weren’t there when the agreement was negotiated?
Is there a need to find a way to involve the Government of Nunavut even as a passive observer in these talks so that these disconnects don’t happen? We have been waiting for funding in Pangnirtung to deal with the TB crisis now going on four years, and we don’t need these kinds of problems with these crises that we’re dealing with.
Ms. Gideon: I would just say, senator, that there has been a Nunavut Partnership Table on Health that has existed even prior to the tuberculosis funding being allocated, and I sat at that table. One of my colleagues sits at that table. It was struck specifically to ensure that there would be tripartite collaboration on a number of health priorities.
I would say at the time there was not a lot of inclusion of Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated — NTI — in decisions being made by the Government of Nunavut or by the federal government with respect to health funding. It was a recognition that the Inuit land claim organization would have a voice in being able to determine what the priorities are and how funds would roll out. Although a lot of the health program funding continued to flow bilaterally to the Nunavut government, we had negotiated at the time a memorandum of understanding that essentially sat on top of it so that there was an understanding between NTI, the Government of Nunavut and what was at the time the First Nations and Inuit Health Branch — which then transitioned to Indigenous Services Canada — as to how those funds would be utilized.
In the context of the tuberculosis funding, it shifted in the sense that Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami — ITK — through its work accessed the funds and then made decisions through their board around how the distribution would happen at a regional level. But there was also an Inuit Public Health Task Group that, again, pre-existed and actually led to the evidence required to be able to secure those funds. At that working group, there are Inuit and territorial and provincial government representatives at the Chief Public Health Officer table, and that is actually how the monitoring of the funding and the recommendations that were evidence-based around approaches to allocation were actually determined.
I wanted to mention that there is quite a bit of history that led to that point. It doesn’t necessarily address the challenge that currently exists, but it is a reminder that there was a strong foundation of collaboration and partnership. At times the Government of Nunavut held the money. Now NTI holds this money, but at the end of the day it really is about moving forward in a partnership approach so that these challenges can be addressed.
We remain hopeful that we can work with partners to resolve this issue and continue the excellent work that has been done.
Senator Patterson: Thank you. I think that’s urgent.
The Chair: If the officials could indulge us for another two or three minutes, I will ask the senators to keep their questions as brief as possible. We all know you are very busy, and we really appreciate you taking the time.
Senator Coyle: Let me also join my colleague in thanking all of you for being with us here today. We know that you have very important things to spend your time on, but this is helping us to do our jobs as legislators. We appreciate you being with us, and we appreciate the work that all of you are doing.
I realize that none of you work for Environment and Climate Change Canada, but there are great overlaps. I heard Assistant Deputy Minister Gideon mention climate change and emergency management.
Deputy Minister Quan-Watson, I know you have got that big, northern portfolio. Maybe I missed something, but I only heard so far today mention of emergency management, which, of course, is critical in the response to climate change. Climate resilience, adaptation and opportunities related to mitigation — all of those are, I’m sure, things that each of your departments are seized with.
My first question, though, is for Mr. Quan-Watson, and that’s around the loss of permafrost. Without even going into what’s going to happen to the increased carbon in our atmosphere and the horrible cycle that is going to create, what, if anything, is the plan particularly around infrastructure and permafrost thawing? That is the first question.
The second question is for either department, and that is: On the other issues related to climate change mitigation, resilience and adaptation, et cetera, is there more you would like to tell us about what you are doing? As we are now on the verge of going to COP27, I want to hear what you might have to say on that.
Mr. Quan-Watson: Thank you very much for the question.
The permafrost issue is, obviously, critically important, especially in places like Inuvik and Tuktoyaktuk, where the infrastructure is built and very much depends on permafrost. It’s not the only place in the country; there are many.
Obviously, too, the issue of so many communities — particularly in Nunavut but not only there — that are within a couple of feet of sea level concerns us all greatly.
The adaptation is a part of our thinking when we deal with the infrastructure funding. It’s a very clear conversation. I know my colleagues at Indigenous Services Canada, particularly when it comes to flooding, pay great attention to the changes in patterns and frequency with which that is happening. But my colleague Paula Isaak, who is the Assistant Deputy Minister who works closely on the northern issues, may have some other thoughts on the permafrost in particular and mitigation.
Paula Isaak, Assistant Deputy Minister, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada: Thank you for the question. It is indeed a really important issue for our department both in the North and the South. The department delivers five programs both in the North and the South to address the adaptation issues that you raise, which are extremely important, and also the mitigation pieces and also to help communities move from diesel dependency to other forms of energy. Significant investments have been made over the years under these five programs.
We’re also working very closely with Environment and Climate Change Canada to support Indigenous climate leadership. They have the solutions. They are driving things like infrastructure and mitigation and adaptation activities in their communities. We want to support them to increase their capacity even more.
So we’re working very closely with our partner departments on a number of pieces to address the issues you have raised.
Senator Coyle: Thank you. We don’t have more time, so I won’t dig too deeply.
The Chair: Thank you.
Ms. Gideon: Since 2016, we have invested just over $120 million on 102 infrastructure projects that specifically relate to adaptation and structural mitigation. That has assisted 106 First Nations representing about 116,000 people. In 2019, we also received $12 million a year for four years to support structural mitigation projects in addition to those infrastructure ones. However, the need is great. I just wanted to mention that as well.
We also have an environmental health-specific climate change and adaptation program that actually supports community-based projects to look at the impacts on food and the environment. It is very community grassroots based.
There was also a national survey conducted on food, nutrition and the environment with academic researchers and First Nations representatives, which offers a lot of wonderful information about the impacts of climate change on communities.
Senator Coyle: Thank you very much.
Senator Dean: The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence and Veterans Affairs just returned from a cross-Arctic tour. I will say that we were struck by the capacity of young Indigenous leaders across the North who are predominantly forward-looking and entrepreneurial. Indeed, we saw a very significant contract for the North Warning System won by the Nasittuq Corporation while we were there. We were also helped considerably by Senator Patterson.
There seems to be an assumption, appropriately and understandably so, that the significant commitments in terms of defence spending in the Arctic will cross over to areas of community infrastructure and support. That may well be true with the extension of runways and roads and perhaps clean water and cleaner energy infrastructure. But defence spending isn’t going to cover all of it, is it?
There are some things that cross over. One hopes that broadband might be assisted by defence spending, but it might not be. Other pieces of community infrastructure may be supported by defence spending. Which department and who has oversight of that bigger picture of what might and might not be covered by various levels of investment and planned expenditures? Who has eyes on where the potential overlaps and gaps might be? Where is the accountability for that?
Ms. Isaak: I’m happy to take that question. I think you were leading to that a moment ago when you mentioned the Arctic and Northern Policy Framework. This is actually an opportunity to talk a bit about that. You rightly point out the number of players in infrastructure and the overlap between the number of investments.
The Arctic and Northern Policy Framework was designed, in fact, to bring all the parties together to talk about these things and figure out how to leverage investments and make choices in regions. Regional governance has recently been established across the North, driven by partners — territorial and Indigenous governments in those areas — to determine how they come together, talk about all of these issues and, very importantly, talk to Canada about the issues. We as the public service organize ourselves collectively through our own governance to have those conversations. To your point around defence or infrastructure spending, we know there is a lot of it. We know there are great opportunities for multi-use expenditures and multi-use infrastructure.
I would say both inside the government and externally with partners, we have good governance now to be able to work together to ensure there is leveraging and that there aren’t gaps.
The Chair: I guess as chair I get to ask the last question.
This question is for Ms. Gideon and Mr. Quan-Watson. According to recent news reports, only 18% of federal government employees have taken any Indigenous sensitivity training. Chris Aylward, National President of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, said the union wanted to make such training a mandatory part of the collective agreement but was told no by the Treasury Board. As a Mi’kmaq, I find this report very troubling because the federal public service helped design, implement and maintain the residential schools and other harmful initiatives.
To avoid further harm and advance reconciliation, all employees must develop the competencies necessary to be sensitive and responsive to the particular rights and needs of all Indigenous peoples. So in that context, could you describe what actions ISC and CIRNAC have taken to respond to Call to Action 57? What percentage of your employees have completed training through the Canada School of Public Service and for how many hours a year? Can you confirm whether your departments will make ongoing training related to Indigenous peoples mandatory for all employees?
Ms. Gideon: Linked to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal complaint, we worked with parties to the complaint to develop a mandatory cultural competency training policy. It has been mandatory for about two years now for all our employees to complete a minimum of 15 hours of cultural competency training. It is part of our performance management agreement, so they do have to speak with their manager and be able to report on how they have completed those hours.
We have not mandated content because there is a lot of diversity. We have many Indigenous employees in our department, and they are at a different place in terms of their learning journey than someone who just joined the department and is not Indigenous and would not have had exposure to Indigenous priorities and peoples in the past.
We absolutely leverage the material that the Canada School of Public Service has developed, and many of us have contributed to that content. Keith Conn, our champion of Indigenous employees in the department, as well as Deputy Minister Gina Wilson, have worked with the school for years to develop that content and make sure it is credible. We have also developed content within our department with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal parties. As well, our regional offices have developed significant training programs and content with local regional partners that is more specific to the communities they serve. So those are examples.
We also have a baseline cultural competency survey that was developed with the parties so that we will be able to capture information around our organizational cultural competency. We are currently reviewing it. It’s not at all about a specific individual and measuring and penalizing that person. It really is about measuring our progress over time in an evidence-based way.
Mr. Quan-Watson: As two departments, we work very closely together on these things, so our answer is similar. Within Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, 100% of employees are required to take, at minimum, as my colleague said, 15 hours of training a year. In many instances, we expect it to be far more than that.
One of the things I have done as deputy minister is to require that every single executive in the department answer this question in their performance agreement: Where have we underserved Canada and Canadians because of who we have not brought to the table? That is designed to require a very deep and practical reflection on the actual impacts of not having Indigenous people in particular in our department. The requirement this year going forward is to identify one of those things and to actually bring concrete results for it. This is taking the training of cultural competence above and beyond and into the actual performance of the job, identifying concrete gaps and making managers personally responsible for resolving them.
The Chair: Thank you both for that. With that, the time for this panel is now complete. I want to thank you all for joining us this morning. We really appreciate it.
(The committee adjourned.)