INAN Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Thursday, June 11, 2026
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
[English]
I call this meeting to order.
Welcome to meeting number 37 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. We recognize that we meet on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee is studying the subject matter of supplementary estimates (A), 2026-27.
Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. Members may be attending in person in the room and remotely by using the Zoom application. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For those on Zoom, at the bottom of your screen, you can select the appropriate channel—I think we have some pros online, but I'm going through this, anyway—floor, English or French. As a reminder, all comments should be addressed through the chair—that goes for everyone, please.
Please be mindful of the interpreters. When you're not speaking, make sure your mic doesn't have the red light on. Usually, the tech happens, but sometimes people double-click or whatever, and that provides feedback. Make sure that only one person speaks at a time. If two or three people turn on their mics and try to speak, it pops in their ears too. This is about the health and safety of our wonderful interpreters behind the window.
Good morning, and thank you for being here.
Before we proceed to the witnesses, a budget for this study in the amount of $500 has been distributed. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt it?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: I would like to welcome our witnesses.
First, we have the Honourable Mandy Gull-Masty, Minister of Indigenous Services.
Welcome, Minister. We're glad to see you.
From the Department of Indigenous Services, we have Julien Castonguay, assistant deputy minister, Jordan's principle and Inuit child first initiative; Jennifer Wheatley, assistant deputy minister, regional delivery sector; Richard Goodyear, senior assistant deputy minister and chief financial officer; and Nelson Barbosa, director general, community infrastructure branch.
Minister, you have five minutes, please.
Wachiya. Kwe kwe. Ullukkut. Tansi. Bonjour.
[Witness spoke in Cree]
[English]
Let us be thankful that we see another beautiful day today.
I'm pleased to be back here, before the committee, to speak about the priorities of my department and how they're supported by the 2026-27 supplementary estimates. These estimates advance critical priorities for indigenous people, with $899 million in additional funding for mental wellness, child and family services, indigenous governance and capacity, nursing services and many other key investments.
[Translation]
My department is committed to working in partnership with the first nations, Inuit and Métis communities to improve access to quality services. This work is based on their partnership, guided by the right to self‑determination and led by the communities themselves, as they build their own future.
Over the past few months, we've announced renewed funding for key sectors so that proven programs—
[English]
I'm going to pause temporarily while we check the interpretation.
Should we go from the top, or would you like to continue from where you were?
[Translation]
Over the past few months, we've announced renewed funding for key sectors so that proven programs can continue to deliver results.
[English]
In February, I confirmed an investment of $1.55 billion to support requests, through Jordan's principle, from April 2026 to March 31, 2027. This includes $775 million in new funding. I also announced $115 million to extend the Inuit child first initiative through March 31, 2027. These investments provide immediate stability for families and allow communities to continue delivering essential supports for children, without interruption.
As the wildfire season begins, our government understands that supporting communities on the front lines of natural disasters and extreme weather events is a critical priority. This is why Indigenous Services Canada is allocating an additional $55.6 million to the emergency management assistance program in 2026-27. This funding is going to support community capacity, preparedness and mitigation, and that includes initiatives like FireSmart and emergency management coordination. We know that, during wildfires, flooding and other events, there can be devastating impacts on communities, and this is why we continue our support in this space.
We've also renewed $283 million over two years, starting in 2026-27, to support indigenous governance and capacity programs. This investment supports first nations governments with the resources to build governance structures, plan for the future and strengthen their communities.
[Translation]
I would now like to take a moment to discuss the priorities for the coming year.
One of my top priorities is really to support indigenous children and youth. I've heard the service needs expressed by families across the country. I've really understood that we need to work together to ensure that children can grow up safely, receive support and maintain strong ties with their culture.
[English]
In addition to the investments already mentioned in Jordan's principle and the Inuit child first initiative, I've also proposed a new path forward for long-term reform of the first nations child and family services program. The Government of Canada is committing $35.5 billion starting in 2027, for seven years, and an additional $4.4 billion annually after that to advance first nations-led approaches.
This funding will support first nations in exercising their right to care for their own children. It will do so by strengthening prevention-focused services, supporting families and enabling communities to design and deliver programs that are rooted in their own law, cultures, priorities and languages.
The coming into force of the Ontario final agreement at the end of last month has been something that is truly transformative. It is change in a space that is critical. I'd like to thank Regional Chief Benedict and Grand Chief Alvin Fiddler for their hard work and collaboration, as well as the many members and participants who were with us on the historic day as we welcomed this working relationship through ceremony.
[Translation]
One of my other top priorities is based on water. Access to clean and safe drinking water is essential for health and dignity.
[English]
In budget 2025, we've continued to build on progress, committing $2.3 billion over three years, starting in 2026-27, to renew the first nations water and waste-water enhancement program.
[Translation]
These investments will support over 800 projects, help communities modernize their systems and train more water system operators. The investments will help build local capacity and prevent the need to issue new drinking water advisories.
[English]
Our shared goal remains unchanged, which is ending long-term water advisories. We've also made real progress in this space, lifting 156 long-term drinking water advisories since 2015. There is more work to do in this space.
Most recently, on May 27, Okanese First Nation lifted its drinking water advisory. I'd like to congratulate Chief Stonechild on this important step forward for his community.
However, as I mentioned, we know that every community needs to ensure that they have lasting access to safe drinking water. Passing the first nations clean drinking water legislation is a crucial step in achieving this. Our goal for our government is a commitment to introducing water legislation before the end of spring. This is a commitment that I intend to keep.
I will have more information to share with the committee members about this very soon.
[Translation]
A key factor in all this work is the importance of the partnership. As minister, I've built relationships with communities across the country. I'm encouraged by our joint progress in finding solutions that respect indigenous people's contributions and leadership and that enable communities to shape their own future.
Projects are being carried out. However, we know that they aren't enough on their own. We need to make real and lasting changes. This means continuing to listen, fulfilling our commitments and improving Indigenous Services Canada's way of working in partnership with communities on a daily basis.
Meegwetch, tshinashkumitinau, qujannamiik, marsi, merci, thank you.
[English]
Chi-meegwetch.
Now we go to the six-minute round. First up for the Conservatives is MP Morin, please.
Thank you, Chair.
Good morning, Minister. Miyo-kîkisêpâyâw.
I have an easy one. You mentioned water as a priority. You mentioned before the spring. The government has missed deadlines of its stated goal of the fall before the end of the year. The Prime Minister promised the spring. It's now the summer. I guess I'll give you a technicality in terms of this session being the spring session or whatever we brand it.
An easy one is, will you commit to getting the water legislation tabled before next Friday—before the House rises for the summer?
Thank you.
Good morning. It's nice to see you, MP Morin. It's a pleasure to come here and a pleasure to speak to this.
As I said in my opening statement, this is a commitment. We heard the Prime Minister himself make this commitment at the Assembly of First Nations, and—
I am responding to the question. The Prime Minister made the commitment. I intend to uphold that commitment. The last time I checked, spring ends at the summer solstice. That hasn't arrived yet. We're still in spring.
Next Friday is summer. We are still in spring. Have we introduced it in spring? This is what we intend to do. This is the commitment that was made.
I do have another question, Chair.
The estimates include the operations of your department. Going through your department and its departmental plan, it's a $25-billion budget, and the first thing you cited was health of children and health of families.
The first thing in your departmental plan is “Percentage of First Nations adults living on reserve who reported being in ‘excellent’ or ‘very good’ health”. For the last three or four fiscal years, it's been 37.8%, 37.8% and 37.8% in your actual results. Then it has an asterisk next to it that indicates that even though it says the last three or four fiscal years, these are actually from 2015, and your target is 44%.
How can you justify a departmental plan for $25 billion on the health of families and children that just copies and pastes results for a goal?
Thank you for the question.
I'm very proud to be a minister who operates the second-largest budget in government, and there is a significant commitment in the health space. One of the targets that I've come to understand in working in this space is ensuring that we meet communities in the space that they're in. Looking to modernize and to improve has always been what I have presented as a minister; ensuring that we respond with in-community health care, virtual health care or any services that are online is the next—
—step that we want to take to ensure that we can have a larger sample for how we want to track things. One of the mandates that we received in the budget was to modernize health care delivery in the north. I think this is going to present an accurate portrait and frame. If you wish to have additional information on this, I'll turn to my department officials and ask one of them to supplement my response.
I don't wish that. Thank you for the response.
The next question that I have is on the “Percentage of health infrastructure with a condition rating of ‘good’”. In 2023, it was 84%; in 2024, it was 80%, and in 2025, it was 84%. Your goal is to lower the percentage of “good” health care infrastructure to a target of 75% in 2027.
Why is your target for health infrastructure to get worse in your departmental plan?
Thank you for the question.
In response to the Auditor General's report of a few months ago, in which she indicated that there was a need for improvements to health facilities, the department committed to assessing each health facility on a tri-annual basis, or every three years. Those are the important measures to determine the efficacy of a piece of infrastructure, its lifespan, its needed repairs and its replacement. That process is under way. We committed to doing that, and we tabled that at the public accounts committee.
Thank you for your question.
Thank you for the answer.
Minister, I think you can agree that poverty affects indigenous people disproportionately. Would you not agree with that, especially in the remote and rural communities?
I can attest, meaning that I have also endured that, growing up in a community while being raised by a single mother and living in poverty.
Thank you for that.
Some of these results are projected to go down. A lot of them, in my opinion, were copied and pasted. I don't think the answer was sufficient in terms of why these numbers are copied and pasted for a $25-billion budget. They are very clearly copied and pasted, because they're the exact same numbers. In fact, a lot of these goals and these targets come from KPIs.
As the first indigenous Minister of Indigenous Services, I hope you do change this, but would you not agree that paying bonuses for these types of KPIs and results is wrong?
—because you hold the ultimate pen over this authority of paying bonuses for these types of results.
I want to clarify that a portion of the bonus, as you frame it, is holdback pay. This is pay that we provide to staff for their performance when they reach the measures of the role that they're playing within the department. The numbers that you've quoted online, through other measures and trying to communicate to Canadians, are actually inaccurate.
If you want additional information on what that means, I can turn to my officials and ask them to clarify.
We don't have any more time. We're going on to the next round.
We have MP Lavack for six minutes, please.
[Translation]
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Minister, thank you for joining us this morning. Thank you for your remarks and for your excellent work at the head of this vital department.
In your remarks, you often talk about the importance of self‑determination for the first nations. In fact, you spoke about this topic this morning. The first nations must remain the central focus of decisions that affect them.
The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has asked us to reform the child and family services. The plan introduced last December focused on regional agreements. You said that the final agreement with Ontario had just been implemented.
Could you talk a bit more about the impact on child care services for the Ontario first nations? How will this actually play out in these communities?
I would like to start by saying that I'm quite proud of the work carried out in Ontario. Reforming the process for taking care of children during the most vulnerable period of their lives is no easy task.
Regional Chief Benedict and Grand Chief Fiddler have played this role in the field. They worked with members of their community, young people, elders and people employed in this field. I think that this discussion is quite challenging, but quite important. They established the process to redefine this space to make sure that the children remain connected to their community, that they have access to their language, but that they also have ties to their community members. This is something quite important.
I also want to emphasize that our current work in this area is really about engaging communities and nations. We're working with them to define this space to meet their needs. We know that there are many distinct nations in Canada, many languages and many relationships with ancestral territories. As minister, I want to take this type of approach to reinforce this. We aren't here to find one process for all the nations in Canada. We're really here to work with the first nations using whatever approach they choose.
I'm proud of the amount invested in this area. I'm proud to know that a number of nations decided to move their cases forward, that they're at the table, that they're talking with us and, above all, that they're doing the work requested by their members. That's important. That's really what we're focusing on with this matter.
At the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, I heard the request to carry out this work. I know that you were there, Ms. Lavack. Thank you for supporting the nations of Manitoba to ensure that their voices are clearly heard around the table and that they're the ones who want to carry out this work.
Can you talk a bit about the progress on other agreements that will be signed across the country? You just said that my home province of Manitoba intends to carry out this work. Have you started any discussions or conversations with Manitoba and other provinces? What progress has been made on this matter?
I just returned from a quick visit to Manitoba. I continued my conversation with Grand Chief Kyra Wilson and also with a number of other chiefs in attendance, including former national chief Ovide Mercredi. He spoke at length about the government's approach.
One thing that I found encouraging about this meeting is that our approach to moving forward and supporting nations in making decisions really hinges on reconciliation. If we really want to take care of children and ensure that they continue to stay connected with their nations, we really need to give nations the space needed to determine the parameters of this approach.
In Manitoba, we've had some good news. We're currently working with the Treaty No. 8 territory. I'm in discussions concerning Treaty No. 6 and Treaty No. 7. I'm starting discussions in British Columbia. It's the same thing in Atlantic Canada. Some communities are interested in this area. I've had discussions in Quebec. In Ontario, the process has been completed.
I want to make sure that we don't take a one‑size‑fits‑all approach. We're really here to work with the communities and to take their needs into account in this process.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister.
Thank you to the entire team for joining us today.
First of all, I'd like to say I haven't experienced the same reality you have. That said, I'm the indigenous affairs critic, and I've always believed that it's really different from being the critic on other issues, because, as you said, indigenous people have to make their own decision.
Early on in your opening remarks, you talked about your priorities for the current supplementary estimates, but also for the first year. You also talked about 2027. As critic, I'd like to talk about the requests or concerns first nations have forwarded to me, particularly those in my riding, where there's a vibrant Innu community, as well as a vibrant Naskapi community.
But first, there's something I want to touch on. You talked about children. There are many children in indigenous communities, and we want them to have everything. The committee's been working on Bill S‑2 for months, and I think it's a priority. I know it's a bill, but any bill will have an impact on the budget. We agree on that.
This is urgent, because we have until June 14 to respond. Using what I heard both in this committee and elsewhere, I was able to make sense of things. Obviously, we always have to rely on the main source to know what's going on. Senator McCallum, for example, when she appeared before the committee, said it was a flat no from the government. That's why I'd prefer to ask you the same question. Apparently, you would have said the Prime Minister didn't want any Senate amendments and that it meant the bill was rejected.
The reason I consider this topic to be a priority when it comes to children is that all the witnesses we heard from said the government is making the decision on children's identity. It's up to first nations to decide, Métis and Inuit as well, of course, but Bill S‑2 specifically targets first nations. The question is: Why are we not giving children the right to have their own identity?
You talked about culture, language and self-determination. Even chiefs are telling us their children won't even have their own identity and won't be able to benefit from the community itself, the culture and the language. This issue is very important to me.
You said the issue of children was a priority, but this bill has enormous influence not only on those young people, but also on the future of communities, such as the Uashat-Maliotenam community on the Côte‑Nord. We can see what it'll look like in 40 years. The community is dwindling, although the number of children is increasing.
I'd like to know what's going to happen to Bill S‑2. Will it become a government priority? Are we finally going to give these children the right to be themselves, the right to be part of their nation, the right to develop and promote their culture and language, and the opportunity to have their rights respected?
Thank you very much for your answer, Minister.
I want to start by talking a bit about Senator McCallum's testimony. I think she's represented indigenous nations and indigenous women exceptionally well. I'm very grateful for her service and all the work she's done on this file. However, with all due respect, I don't see things the same way she does. I was a bit surprised to hear her statement at committee about what she thought the Prime Minister had said. I have no recollection of that. However, I'm not here to talk about how she presents things in committee.
I want to be clear by saying that, when I started working on Bill S‑2, it was really to work on the issue of enfranchisement. There are 3,500 people who were forced to give up their status, for a number of reasons.
I also want to clarify that you obtain status to get a benefit. It's not to strengthen culture, identity and language. That's done with the community. The community is there—
I have to interrupt you, Minister, because if the witnesses were here, they would probably disagree. They said their children were cut off from the community, that they didn't have access to community services, that they didn't have relationships with the community. They said it's already as if they were excluded from their own community. I think it's being excluded from culture, from the linguistic aspect, and even from the territory, which is eminently important.
That's work you do with children so communities can take care of them in very difficult situations, as you said. You say you don't want standardized measures.
I think there's really a link to identity, culture and language. Not being excluded from your loved ones is very important.
Thank you, Minister, for being here for this very important conversation.
Looking at your budget.... We just had a question from my colleague, Billy Morin, who was talking about the quality of health care and people who feel mentally well on reserve. The numbers have stayed static. Your department has failed to update their targets, other than keeping it static. Why is that?
Thank you for the question.
One of the challenges I want Canadians to understand is that, when you're receiving health care delivery in the north, you have to travel great distances in some instances. That can really have a further impact on health care—
—and delivery of service.
I am trying to introduce some of the variables that are unique and explicit for first nations—
Let's hear what she says, and then I can make a determination, but I can't do so if you're speaking when she's speaking, so please....
People on reserve or in northern, remote or isolated communities sometimes travel for up to seven or eight hours to receive health care services, including for a basic ultrasound if they're pregnant. They have to travel a great distance.
I want people to understand that we, at Indigenous Services Canada, are trying to enhance the access and the delivery. There are key variables.
I do think that one of the things we also have to introduce into this conversation is ensuring that the additional work that I'm doing as a minister—
Can we have one person speaking at a time? Do you remember what I said about the—now I'm doing it.
We'll have one person speaking at a time because it's tough on those interpreters right there. I can see them nodding their heads and agreeing with me, so please....
—all of these things impact mental wellness. We, as a government, have announced and introduced funding of services, not only to address mental wellness but to support mental wellness services inside and outside of community—
I'm going to move on, because clearly, your numbers aren't getting better, and you won't answer the question.
Let's go to graduation rates on reserve. For secondary schools, in 2017, it was 41%. In 2018 it was 40.5%. In 2019 it was 39.9%. In 2022 it was 26%. In 2023 it was 30%. In 2024 and 2025 it was 30%. Your numbers keep going down, and you did say, in your own words, that you have one of the biggest budgets in this government. How are you not getting better results?
This year, we made significant additional investments in education. At Indigenous Services Canada, we are responsible for K to 12 and community service delivery. We also do post-secondary.... We also support all the areas that are wraparound services in education. That includes spaces like Jordan's principle, supporting children in care and supporting children who are trying to pursue additional areas of study.
One of the biggest targets I've seen achieved at Indigenous Services Canada is the 10% increase in graduation rates across the country in the past 10 years—an area that was historically underfunded and capped. It did not provide the results, the necessary infrastructure, the support services, the teaching staff or the additional infrastructure that's required to support those teaching staff who come into—
Thank you, Minister.
Your own departmental report is showing your numbers. You're saying you get an injection of money, but your numbers go down.
You're talking about all this money. That's fantastic. Your results keep going down. Intimate partner violence on your website in 2023 was at 7.5%. It's up to 16.9%. Do you know what your department's target is for this year? It's 16%. Is that acceptable?
Why isn't the number zero the target for intimate partner violence? Why is it okay for your department to say that 16% is an okay number?
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister, for being here today.
Happy Indigenous History Month.
We've had a lot of good conversations around getting rid of the second generation cut-off. Bill S-2 has been a great spark for the conversation around that. We've had compelling witnesses come in and talk about how it's necessary for their children. We've had other witnesses come in and say that it's an incomplete document because it's not thorough enough.
Where Bill S-2 falls short, I feel, is that it narrows indigeneity and the question of who is an Indian person to being about only ancestry.
One of the things I reflect on, given the responsibility I have as a member of Parliament, is that 40 years ago, in 1985, there were people in Parliament who believed they knew best for first nations communities who should and who shouldn't be a member of their community and who should be a status member of their community. I often reflect on whether we repeat the mistakes of the past or whether we enable, through legislation, first nations to decide for themselves who is a status Indian in their community.
I have an overall question about our approach. I know you've said that you're committed to this. I want to ask you on the record how confident you are that our government will be the one that tables legislation removing the second generation cut-off. Can you outline your approach to this?
Thank you for the question, MP Battiste.
I first want to address something that I want to be absolutely clear, on the record. The second generation cut-off is not only something that we need to address and that we will address; we also have to clarify how we address it.
As much as I've heard the testimony, the attestation before the committee about many communities wishing to pursue a one-parent rule, I've also had engagements from nations that want to ensure that their voice, their solution for citizenship, is one that is determined by them.
Even though a number of valid presentations have been brought forward, there are still a number of nations that have stated that this is a nation-to-nation agreement and that we have to respect their rights and ensure our duty to consult.
In fact, I want to quote from the Confederacy of Treaty No. 6 First Nations a letter that I received from them on Bill S-2, stating, “The current Bill S-2, an act to amend the Indian Act, has an absence of engagement and consultation...concerning the direct violation of Canada's duty to consult with S-2 impacts on nations and First Nations members.” It also says in this letter that there are national IOs, but they are not the representation of that community, so they have the right to ensure that they're consulted appropriately. Moreover, “the chiefs of Treaty 6 call upon the federal government to engage in adequate consultation with first nations to ensure that their input priorities are reflected in the amendments in the Indian Act Bill S-2.”
They also want to ensure that they have direct implication in the conversation of determining membership and citizenship.
There are many who wish to pursue a one-parent rule, which I accept; if that's what they feel fits their nation, then this is the path they should pursue. There are others out there, such as the Confederacy of Treaty No. 6 First Nations, who've been very clear in writing this letter to me that they should be involved in the conversation, that they should determine for themselves what that criterion is. I think this is really important.
I'm also going to respect that as a minister because, at the end of the day, when we speak to a second generation cut-off, the only point that is critical in that conversation is that we as a government do not predetermine for them and then consult. We should actually engage them and ask them, “What is the right solution for your nation? What is the solution that you wish to validate, to engage your community members in? What kind of feedback are you looking for? What kind of alternative solution do you wish to propose?”
This means that we respect the differences of over 640 nations in Canada, providing them the opportunity to decide for themselves, because they know who their members are. Engagement at the community level in framing that is important, critical work. This is why we have the collaborative consultation process. This is one of the first decisions that I made, that I expedited.
Consultation means providing a proposal, asking the question and giving the opportunity for discussion and feedback. As much as I want to respect the amendments that were put forward in Bill S-2, as a minister, I would not be responding appropriately to those nations that have come to me—and there are many, and not just from Treaty No. 6. A number have come to me and asked me to create space for them to take the time to speak to their members.
It's not just the leadership that is sitting now. We have to ensure that we do the engagement of speaking to first nations youth, who are going to live with the impacts of the decisions we make. It is my position that we have to do the work of second generation....
[Translation]
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I might add, Minister, that indigenous peoples are already living with government decisions and are already experiencing the impacts of those decisions. Even if Bill S‑2 were rejected, that's already the case.
I'd like to address another topic regarding children.
Last week, I was joined by Manawan's chief, Sipi Flamand, whom you know, and representatives from Amnesty International. They came to talk about childhood, among other things. Having access to housing and being able to live in dignity is a human rights issue. They pointed out things from a study they'd done. I know you're aware of this, because it's nothing new. I've already talked to Mr. Miller, for example, about this. The fact is that, for children, housing is also a matter of safety, health and education. It also has an impact on violence, a topic we discussed earlier. In short, children, in particular, are feeling the consequences of the lack of housing.
My colleague Gabriel Ste‑Marie said that, obviously, amounts are included in budgets, but at the end of the year, in the corresponding column, we see the money hasn't been spent, even though needs are urgent. In Quebec alone, there's a shortage of 10,000 housing units, 8,000 housing units need renovations and 4,000 housing units need serious work to be sanitary.
What are your thoughts on that? Should that be a priority as well? We don't hear as much about this. There shouldn't be money left on the table at the end of the year when there are people who don't have a place to live or who live 17 to a house.
I want to start by recognizing the incredible work of Chief Sipi Flamand. I had the opportunity to meet him through his advocacy on a number of issues, which he's raised not just federally, but also provincially. I want to highlight all the work he's done for his nation. When Chief Flamand was here on the Hill, I had the opportunity to talk to him and look at the issues affecting his community. We talked about housing, infrastructure and road access. I know what getting around in communities is like. The roads are similar in the nation I'm from.
In response to your question, there's something I want to point out. In my first six months as minister, we've invested $830,000 to support on reserve housing, but we've also worked on 422 housing projects. That's 451 new housing units and 1,573 renovated units.
[English]
Thank you.
You can submit the rest of the numbers in writing to the committee for its consideration, as well. We just ran out of time.
Now we have MP Morin.
You have five minutes, please.
Minister, I want to point out some things that you said in regard to Bill S-2.
We've heard the excuse from the government that we want consultation. I think there's a double standard here, because on Bill C-5, the government didn't do anything to consult, but they passed that with a speed not seen in generations.
On an extinction bill, you've arguably been doing consultation since 1985, and according to your own website since 2023, and now you're doing even more consultation. I'll also point out that the bill itself has a one-year extension for implementation to do even more consultation. I do find that timing and consultation is being used as an excuse by this government. I do ultimately see the good actions of talking with communities, but I do find that it is a strong excuse for an extinction bill.
On the bill itself, also, being an extinction bill, we've heard the testimony of thousands of people, at the end of the day, about how it keeps children away from their families and it kicks people out of their own communities.
Do you commit to getting this bill done in this Parliament, yes or no?
First, I just have to make a comment. I'm really surprised by your statement about the “good actions of talking with communities.” I don't think that's the appropriate framing for the engagement that we are required to do on consultation.
As I've stated on numerous occasions, citizenship needs to be determined by first nations. That is nation-specific. I can quote the letter again, if you wish. There are many nations out there that feel that while the one-parent rule may be appropriate for some nations, there is no consensus in the entirety of the country that it is the only pathway forward. The consultations that I expedited when I became minister were really to ensure that we were able to represent and report the positions of first nations communities and the solutions that are framed for now.
You know, when government wishes to undertake—
I want to respond on the component of the question for Bill C-5—
Minister, that's okay. He's satisfied with the answer so far. He's going to ask another question, please.
Thank you.
Your government also says that citizenship should be defined by the nations themselves. They already have that through section 10. This is a question of status and the individual relationship and the rights of individuals with the government. Citizenship is already legislated through a process, through a section 10 band, so I also find that it is another excuse at the end of the day.
Chair, I'd like to move a motion in regard to Bill S-2. I'd like to read it into the record.
Thank you.
It is:
That the committee conclude the study on Bill S-2, An Act to Amend the Indian Act and proceed to clause by clause on the Bill no later than Tuesday, June 16, 2026, to expedite resolution regarding uncertainty in Nicholas v. Attorney General to end further delays and advance legislation that has been agreed to by 511 individual First Nations and is supported by thousands of Canadians calling for its passage.
Yes. We have a tweak on the interpretation, but it's a small tweak.
A voice: It's sent.
Billy Morin: It's been sent.
It's circulated. It's in the record as a notice of motion.
You may continue. You have a minute and 30 seconds.
I'd like to hand it over to my colleague Mr. Stevenson. He has a question as well, and I will share my time with him.
Thank you, Minister, for being here today.
I believe you were paying attention last week when I made a member's statement regarding a tragedy near the O'Chiese First Nation. I want to follow up on that.
I recognize that this particular road is not necessarily in your department's jurisdiction, because it's a country road, but it does lead to the nation. I want to make sure that you did get the letter I sent last week and that you'll be working with the other departments to get full funding towards this project.
Have you had any discussions so far with regard to the letter I sent?
Thank you.
The letter has been received. Thank you. I appreciate that.
I think it is really important that when we are trying to support communities, they are an engaged partner. I am more than willing to ensure that I undertake the work with my ministerial colleagues to respond when files arise that are cross-ministerial files. In fact, it's one of the things I really value, as a minister.
As the first indigenous Minister of Indigenous Services Canada, one of my personal priorities is to ensure that I engage my colleagues in fully understanding that every minister sitting in cabinet has a duty to ensure that they provide service and responses on first nations files. It doesn't fall only under the prerogative of Crown-Indigenous Relations, me or the Minister of Northern and Arctic Affairs, but we are all there to serve in cabinet, in all aspects of the service we give, because first nations are part of the Canadian population—
Qujannamiik, Iksivautaq.
Thank you, Minister, for appearing before the committee.
I want to start by asking about the ICFI and the $115 million that you mentioned in your presentation.
I want to note, as well, that Gloria Uluqsi is the new president of NTI. I send my congratulations to her.
In one of her first publications to Nunavummiut, she has called on the federal government to make ICFI permanent. I'm wondering if you've heard from NTI about whether you'll accept that recommendation to make ICFI permanent.
Thank you, MP Idlout. I'm happy to work with you in this new role.
This is really a space that is so important to me. It is important to me because, as the MP also representing the territory of Nunavik, I have the opportunity to work with 14 Inuit villages. I'm somebody who has also lived on the border of the Inuit, of Nunavik, in my husband's community, which is half Cree and half Inuit. I've experienced personally the cost of living in the north and the amounts of planning and resources needed. A young, pregnant mother of two kids really understands what it means for a household to provide service to kids in terms of having access to school and to healthy food. My husband is a hunter. He was able to supplement in that space, so I'm really supportive of the work that's being done across multiple programs.
With ICFI, I was really pleased to be in Nunavik to present $115 million in renewed funding for the Inuit child first initiative. This really ensures that we provide the resources needed to access essential health, social and educational services. I'm also very supportive of the national school food program, because I want to be sure that we have these long-term mechanisms in place.
We have renewed this for a one-year period, and we are undertaking the work of doing engagement with communities to be sure that we hear from the people who are using ICFI to understand how this program can become long-term: What kinds of supports do we, as a government, have to use? The cost of living is incredibly high. The cost of providing the appropriate support beyond just food security is important to me. I commit to doing the work with my fellow ministers and supporting all aspects of enhancing life for people who live in the north.
Thank you so much for that response.
I also wanted to ask a question about mental wellness and substance use treatment services. I've noted that in the supplementary estimates there's $311.1 million. I need to ask this question in particular because I'm hearing from my constituents that they're concerned about cuts being made to mental wellness programming.
I think we all know how important it is that we ensure indigenous peoples are getting their wellness through healing. There are concerns that we're always hearing, from across Canada, about how we still have too much intergenerational trauma. I wonder if you can share what your department is doing to help in that area as well.
Thank you. I appreciate the question.
This year, we announced $630 million for mental wellness. We've also committed to investing in the space of family violence prevention. I had the question earlier about whether that should be zero. Yes, we have to be committed to getting it to zero, but we have to ensure that we're working with communities for them to do the engagement, to determine the pathway and to respond to the historical traumas, the discrimination and the racism they've endured in this space.
I really want to take the clear position that we make investments in this space with $63.5 million over five years. This is a long-term plan. This is meeting the communities in the space that they are in, having them develop the pathway and determine it for themselves, because, as I've clearly stated on the record, I'm not here to determine for communities. I'm here to create the space for them, to support them, to provide them the funding and to ensure they support their members in the work they're doing.
I also want to say that it is imperative that we, as a government, not only address the historical harms and the real-life experiences that people have today but also do the work of supporting them. Mental wellness is not one single program. It's about working with the individual and the household. It's about health determinants. It's about social support. It's about supporting the community. It is so much more than just saying, “You should be at zero.” It's about saying that we respect you enough to know that on your path to zero we are going to provide you with the tools and mechanisms you realistically need to get there.
Thank you.
Thank you very much. That brings us to the end.
I'd like to thank you, Minister, and your staff, for being here today to go through some very important things that are in the supplementaries. I appreciate it.
To the committee, thank you all for your questions.
We will suspend and get ready for the next panel.
I call the meeting back to order.
I would like to resume the meeting with our second panel and make a few comments for the benefit of the new witnesses.
Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking.
For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking.
When we have multiple lights on, it's very difficult for the interpreters. It's about their health and safety. Let's please be mindful. One person should speak at a time. That is really important, because it's very difficult for them.
I would like to welcome our new witnesses.
We have the Honourable Rebecca Alty, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations. We also have the Honourable Rebecca Chartrand, Minister of Northern and Arctic Affairs. We have two for one on Rebeccas. That's very good.
From the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, we have Jimi Onalik; Stephen Traynor, vice-president of policy, planning, communications and the northern projects management office; and Sean O'Donnell, chief financial officer and director general of corporate services.
From the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, we have Valerie Gideon, deputy minister; Manon Nadeau-Beaulieu, assistant deputy minister and chief financial officer; Darlene Bess, assistant deputy minister of resolution and partnerships; Georgina Lloyd, assistant deputy minister of northern affairs; Gorazd Ruseski, director general; and Bruno Steinke, senior director of the consultation and accommodations unit.
We will begin with five minutes for the Honourable Rebecca Alty.
Please proceed.
First, I would like to acknowledge that we're meeting on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe.
It's good to be here to speak about the work under way at Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada.
[Translation]
I often hear that the challenges we face as a country hold real opportunity, if we walk together, and we respect and recognize the leadership of indigenous peoples.
[English]
Across our work, we're seeing a consistent pattern. When we work in partnership with indigenous peoples, we see real, measurable results.
I'll start with additions to reserves. Supporting communities means making sure that they have the land base they need to grow and plan for the future. Since being appointed, I've approved 76 additions to reserve. There were 57 approvals in 2025-26, and there have been 19 to date since April 1, 2026.
[Translation]
That includes an addition yesterday for the Timiskaming First Nation, in the riding of Abitibi—Témiscamingue.
[English]
In total, these ATRs represent over 136,000 acres nationwide, which is roughly the same size as the city of Ottawa. These results represent real community expansion, creating space for housing, services and long-term growth.
The Atlantic region has shown how a collaborative approach can deliver real results, with 13 ATRs approved in the last fiscal year. In Nova Scotia, recent ATRs are creating economic momentum. For example, the four additions to the Membertou First Nation, totalling more than 400 acres, doubled their land base and created space for housing, services and first nations-led economic development. This means new jobs, businesses and affordable housing.
It's important to note that these benefits aren't just for first nations. They are also for the wider community, benefiting both indigenous and non-indigenous people alike.
On specific claims, we're continuing to make progress. Over the past fiscal year, we've resolved 27 claims. Recent analysis shows that roughly $1.7 billion in settlements each year supports more than 7,000 jobs, for $469 million in labour income and $740 million in GDP.
First nations are using these settlements to drive growth and build prosperity. On average, half of the settlement funds are invested and nearly a third goes toward community infrastructure and economic development. For example, the Peter Chapman Band in Saskatchewan is investing its specific claim settlement in its future and strengthening the community for generations to come. Projects already under way include a new band office, a public works garage, sports fields and a subdivision with 28 houses.
My department has also continued to address claims relating to the historical abuse of indigenous children. Early this year, we reached a settlement agreement with former students of the Île-à-la-Crosse School in Saskatchewan. I'll take this opportunity to remind members of the committee and Canadians watching at home that applications for the Île-à-la-Crosse settlement are open until this time next year.
[Translation]
Consultation is another important part of our work. As major projects move forward, indigenous communities need to be able to participate and benefit fully. That is crucial not just to advance major projects, but also to ensure that they are carried out in a manner that respects indigenous rights and helps to build a stronger Canada.
That is why we are continuing to support the federal initiative on consultation, which includes funding for jointly developed consultation protocols and indigenous-led resource centres. In budget 2025, the government allocated $10.1 million over three years to support this work, creating three new consultation resource centres in British Columbia, Ontario and Manitoba.
[English]
A few weeks ago, I was in Manitoba, where I announced $1.8 million in funding for two of three consultation centres, which are going to help build major projects, such as that of the port of Churchill. We're updating the consultation and accommodation guidelines as well, which will support federal officials in meeting the Crown's obligations.
We're also taking steps to improve access to capital for first nations communities. Changes to the First Nations Fiscal Management Act will allow special purpose vehicles—indigenous-owned corporations—to borrow through the First Nations Finance Authority when backed by a federal or provincial loan guarantee. The majority of first nations—385 communities—have opted into the act, and the First Nations Finance Authority has lent $4 billion for infrastructure and economic development projects.
This is helping first nations across the country gain access to affordable capital so that they can build their local economies. For example, thanks to a loan from the First Nations Finance Authority, Batchewana First Nation was able to acquire 100% ownership of Bow Lake, a 58.3 megawatt wind facility located on the eastern edge of Lake Superior. These kinds of investments build long-term wealth and prosperity for nations.
To that end, we've also doubled the indigenous loan guarantee program from $5 billion to $10 billion, and we will continue working directly with nations to ensure that indigenous people are able to fully participate in building Canada strong.
Taken together, these initiatives reflect steady, practical progress across Crown-indigenous relations, progress that's delivering tangible results for indigenous communities and for Canada as a whole.
There's more work ahead, and we'll continue working alongside indigenous partners in a way that is respectful, collaborative and focused on results.
Thank you. Merci. Mahsi cho.
Kwe kwe, ullukkut, tansi, bonjour and hello. Good morning, everybody.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the members of the committee here today. I'm pleased to appear today to discuss supplementary estimates (A) and how these targeted investments support our work with northern, territorial and indigenous partners.
In the north, affordability, infrastructure, food security, climate resilience and sovereignty are deeply connected. When transportation is limited, food costs more. We all know that. When housing is scarce, communities cannot grow. When infrastructure ages, supply chains become brittle. When communities are not properly connected, Canada's Arctic sovereignty is weakened.
These estimates include targeted funding in three areas: $30 million for nutrition north, approximately $6 million for CanNor, and $3.5 million for Polar Knowledge Canada, the Canadian High Arctic Research Station.
Through CanNor, we are helping northern businesses, indigenous partners and communities turn opportunities into jobs, capacity and long-term growth. In 2025-26 CanNor investments supported an estimated 1,200 jobs and leveraged more than $126 million from partners. That work is especially important in the Northwest Territories, where the diamond sector is entering a serious economic transition.
Earlier this year, CanNor and the Government of the Northwest Territories signed an agreement to better align work on critical minerals, major infrastructure and project coordination. We are also advancing priorities through the Major Projects Office, including the Mackenzie Valley highway, Taltson hydro expansion and the Arctic economic and security corridor. Alongside this work, we are advancing the Arctic infrastructure fund, with approximately $1 billion over four years for dual-use transportation infrastructure, including roads, airports, ports, runways and sealift infrastructure. These investments strengthen sovereignty and defence readiness while improving the movement of food, fuel, building materials, medical supplies and people across the north.
To help northern and indigenous partners prepare for these opportunities, CanNor is delivering SNID, the support to the northern infrastructure development initiative, to strengthen project readiness, planning, consultation capacity and meaningful participation.
Housing is also central to affordability and community strength. Through Build Canada Homes, we are advancing up to 750 homes in Nunavut and up to 500 homes in the Yukon. We are also supporting modular and prefabricated housing capacities so that more work, jobs and benefits can stay in the north.
Food security is another area in which pressure on families is real. Nutrition north Canada supports food security programming in 124 isolated northern communities. Through these estimates, we are providing $30 million to renew the subsidy program and respond to demand-driven cost pressures.
However, nutrition north Canada is only one part of a broader approach that includes harvesting, food sharing, community food programming, local production, indigenous-led research and stronger northern food systems. That is why I brought together elders, harvesters, youth, indigenous leaders, community organizations, researchers, retailers, suppliers and partners through virtual and in-person meetings. The goal is to lower costs today while building food systems shaped by northerners and rooted in regional realities.
I also know that we have a strong interest in Giant Mine and northern contaminated sites. Canada currently manages more than 160 northern contaminated sites, including eight major abandoned mine projects. Responsible remediation protects the environment while creating jobs, training, indigenous business opportunities and long-term community benefits. Giant Mine is one of the largest and most complex environmental remediation projects Canada has undertaken. It left hundreds of thousands of tonnes of toxic arsenic trioxide and other hazardous materials for Canadians to clean up, underscoring why modern mine projects require rigorous environmental reviews and remediation requirements.
At Giant Mine we have signed benefit agreements with the Tlicho government, the Yellowknives Dene First Nation and the North Slave Métis Alliance. A northern indigenous firm was also awarded a contract worth more than $10 million for the work in the core industrial area. Nearly 2,000 people were employed in 2024 and 2025, and the project remains on track to meet its procurement targets.
At Faro mine, our work with the Ross River Dena Council and the Dena Nezziddi Development Corporation on the Tsē Zūl work camp is creating accommodations for 275 workers while building indigenous capacity and economic opportunity beyond the cleanup project itself.
Finally, through Polar and CHARS in Cambridge Bay, we are supporting Canada's Arctic science capacity. The proposed $3.5 million will help maintain essential operations at the Canadian High Arctic Research Station and support research that informs decisions on climate change, infrastructure, energy, food security, environmental stewardship and northern resilience.
We are lowering costs where we can. We are building infrastructure that lasts. We are strengthening food systems. We are cleaning up legacy contaminations. We are supporting indigenous and northern economic leadership, and we are ensuring that Canada's Arctic presence is rooted in partnership with the people who live there. These main and supplementary estimates help us keep that work moving.
Meegwetch. Qujannamiik. Marsee. Merci. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My first question is for Minister Chartrand.
The Prime Minister said last year, “Canadians will hold us to account by their experience at the grocery store, when they are paying their electricity bill, when they or their children are looking for a place to live”. Northerners took him at his word, and so did they take his predecessor at his word.
Last week, at this committee, Joseph Murdoch-Flowers, executive director of the Qajuqturvik Community Food Centre in Iqaluit, testified that yearly meal counts have grown from “58,000 in 2022 to almost 91,000” in 2025, a 57% increase in three years. As of June 3, 2026, the centre had already served over 37,000 meals. That's this year.
According to Statistics Canada, 58.1% of people in Nunavut live in food-insecure households, the highest rate in the country and more than double the national average. In Nunavut, a jar of jam costs $35, a jar of pickles costs $66 and a six-pack of applesauce costs $58.
Minister, your government has been in power for 11 years, and hunger in Nunavut is worsening. When is life going to finally get more affordable for northerners, as Prime Minister Mark Carney promised?
As you know, nutrition north is a food subsidy program. We know that a food subsidy program itself is not going to solve the food insecurity issue in northern Canada. Although the program isn't working the way some people have defined, I want to point out that you've referenced the cost of food.
Milk on Baffin Island is $12.14, and the subsidy has brought it down by $15. Without that subsidy, the cost of milk would be $27.14.
We have held regional engagements with the 124 communities that are supported by nutrition north. These engagements are creating the opportunity to ensure that the communities most affected by food insecurity are helping to define the solutions—
This isn't her time; it's mine.
I know she doesn't want to answer, because there is not really a good answer for northerners.
Mr. Zimmer, let me speak, please. Thank you.
This is another question. Is that correct? Are you going to your next question?
Minister, your government's been in power for 11 years, and things have gotten worse, based on promises of the previous prime minister and the current Prime Minister. More promises make people feel better, but they don't fill their stomachs. I know that northerners are expecting the Prime Minister to fulfill his promise, and I hope that's forthcoming.
Minister Alty, according to Statistics Canada, the Northwest Territories' crime severity index, which weighs crimes by seriousness, rose to 526.9 in 2024. That's up 35% from 389 in 2019. It is the highest crime severity index of any province or territory in the country.
The Auditor General reported in March 2026 that the Northwest Territories RCMP division carried a vacancy rate of 22.9%, which is the highest in the country. One in four policing positions in the Northwest Territories is empty.
In the same supplementary estimates (A) that we are examining today, the federal government is spending $203 million to confiscate the firearms of law-abiding Canadian firearms owners, who rely on these firearms to feed their families or for protection in the backcountry.
Minister, do you personally think it is a good use of police officers, police resources and $200 million to go after law-abiding firearms owners' firearms?
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I haven't heard concerns from the RCMP regarding their workforce's working through the compensation....
However, I would like to thank the members for their service across the Northwest Territories.
We are working to fill the vacancies.
Minister, with respect....
Maybe I'll ask you this personally, because you're from Yellowknife. You see people who hunt and go into the backcountry—
They are, actually. There are hunting rifles being banned. Your predecessor Michael McLeod, after one of these committee meetings, came to me and said, “I know.” He said that they're banning some of the hunting rifles they hunt bison with in the Northwest Territories. Your colleague previously voted against this legislation.
I'm just asking this for the people of the Northwest Territories: Are you willing to do the same? Are you going to stand up for law-abiding firearms owners in the Northwest Territories?
The compensation program is available for those who would like to return any licences that are currently deemed prohibited. However, the ones that are—
Okay. Personally, you're not going to stand up for your constituents, as your predecessor Michael McLeod did. He voted against this legislation. Even Brendan Hanley, who's sitting with us today, voted against this legislation. It basically targets law-abiding firearms owners.
Are you going to stand up for your constituents and oppose this gun confiscation program, yes or no?
Our focus is on getting the 3-D guns that are on the streets. Those are the ones we're focused on.
The RCMP are doing their jobs in the Northwest Territories, and I would like to thank them for their service on that.
We are providing compensation to any residents who have firearms that are prohibited, if they would like to turn those ones in.
Qujannamiik, Iksivautaq.
Thank you to the Rebeccas for joining us this morning and for sharing with us the work that each of you is doing.
I would like to ask my first question of Rebecca Alty regarding the Inuit-Crown Partnership Committee.
I know this was created by the previous Liberal government. I'm wondering if you can share with this committee what your commitment will be to keep that relationship going.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and MP Idlout, for the question.
Yes, the Inuit-Crown partnership is continuing. So far we've had two meetings. We had our first in July in Inuvik. The Prime Minister and at least a third of cabinet were there for that, as well as all the presidents and chairs of the Inuit treaty organizations and ITK. We held our second one in November here in Ottawa. We'll be holding our third at the end of June in Kuujjuaq.
The commitment is to continue. There are two meetings a year with elected officials. One meeting has the Prime Minister and the president of ITK co-chairing, and the other meeting is with myself and the president. There are also technical working groups, and those continue.
In 2022, through the ICPC, the Inuit Nunangat policy was developed. It had a five-year commitment of $25 million. That work continues, and that funding is able to fund the work plan.
The other thing I would like to note is that the ICPC is a great forum for policy developments, such as the one for urban, rural and northern housing. The ICPC is able to work through how to allocate that funding. I appreciate the leadership and everybody who comes together in that collaborative spirit.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
My next line of questioning will be for Rebecca Chartrand.
This is very much based on my previous work with regard to nutrition north and on how much we've seen the changes needing to happen. I've been very appreciative of your leadership, Rebecca, in moving towards reforming nutrition north—and not just reforming it so that it continues as a subsidy. It's also about the focus you're putting on it to make sure we're shifting to food security and a reliance on hunters.
I wonder if you can share with us what work you will be doing following the gathering you held here in Ottawa and what the plans are to initiate that reform.
Thank you.
Thank you, MP Idlout.
I appreciate working with you. I appreciate that you were at the engagement sessions and the summit that we had.
We're going to continue to build on the data we've collected—specifically, the data in which we brought the 124 nutrition north communities together. This was unprecedented, and I think it was very important. That is one of the things highlighted by those who were present.
It was a huge opportunity to work collaboratively across communities to envision what solutions could look like. What we heard clearly is that communities want local or regional solutions, which could be communities clustering together to define those solutions. They're also interested in accessing data, so we're hard at work on that. We're creating a repository to identify which communities have cold food storage hubs, for example, and food processing facilities that can continue to build on what is working in nutrition north.
We heard clearly what is working and what is not. We heard that the harvesters program and the community food program are working really well. Once we enable them with the data, they can start to determine what solutions can emerge with the data that we provide for them.
At the end of the day, we're hearing that a food subsidy alone will not solve the food insecurity issue. We envision moving from a food subsidy to a food economy. What I mean is that we want to continue to empower the north. We want to empower food entrepreneurs. We want to support new supply chains that are defined by northerners. That's the direction that we'll keep moving in.
We will support self-determination in the way that is needed and continue to build on the recommendations that we heard in these engagement sessions.
Thank you.
Thank you so much for that.
I'll shift now to what you mentioned regarding Arctic sovereignty.
I wonder if you could share with us what you're doing regarding Arctic sovereignty, including the work that you've done at the Arctic Council.
In terms of Arctic sovereignty and the work that we're doing, it's important to recognize that this work is really about people, partnerships and presence. We have to recognize that there are people who are living in the north who need to help define what Arctic sovereignty looks like.
That is where the term “dual-use infrastructure” comes in. While we're looking to secure national security and build infrastructure in the north to connect the north and south and to secure our sovereignty, our strongest assertion comes from supporting the people who are there. It comes from working with northern communities. It comes from supporting indigenous and territorial governments. It comes from growing the economy and from actively engaging with other Arctic governments.
My role is to ensure that northern indigenous voices are central to Canada's Arctic agenda. We want to advance economic opportunities and support northern infrastructure.
We can also look at it through a scientific lens. We want to ensure that we're using the best data that we have from the research, which we have gathered through Polar Knowledge or CHARS. We're working closely with indigenous rights holders and territories to keep advancing that work, including our international partners.
I have personally been meeting with people from some of the Nordic countries to look at ways in which we can share our data and continue to support the Arctic Circle.
Canada's leadership is multilateral. We continue to engage in various forums, such as the Arctic Council.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to thank the ministers, Ms. Alty and Ms. Chartrand, and their teams for being here.
I represent a northern riding, certainly one of the largest ridings in Quebec, comparable to some territories, albeit smaller. For that reason, I'm concerned about an issue that the budget fails to address in the usual way, or addresses in a roundabout way, if you will. I'm talking about the airports and ports the government is looking to sell.
We talked about food sovereignty and about the land use and empowerment of first nations and communities. I have to tell you, in my riding, 15 critical infrastructure assets are affected by the Prime Minister's announcement. I reached out to Mr. MacKinnon, the transport minister. This definitely has repercussions for northern communities. I'd like to know what the government's plan is for those infrastructure assets.
For example, my riding has about 500 kilometres of coastline, but the area has no road. People get around by snowmobile in the winter, when the White Trail is there. It's important to understand that, because of climate change, we don't always have the White Trail. Supplies come in by boat, that is when the boat is able to dock, since major repairs are needed to bring the infrastructure up to standard. Supplies are also flown in, for both indigenous and non-indigenous communities.
We know the big airports, or even the Sept-Îles airport, may find buyers. We're concerned about the small airports, because we need them to access health care. They connect us to what we call the mainland, because even though we're part of the mainland, we don't have a connecting road. The situation worries us a lot. What's going to happen? Should we conclude from the government's disengagement that it isn't all that interested in land use, because of the investment this infrastructure requires?
That's a real question we have. I didn't get an answer from the minister or his parliamentary secretary. However, I wanted to bring this to your attention, Ms. Chartrand, because it has a huge impact on your department. You talked about nutrition north earlier. I wish people from Quebec or my riding could have participated in the forum that took place and explained the challenges they already face. How can they pursue development? First nations in my riding want to develop fisheries, but they're losing their ports. We have a lot of questions about that.
Obviously, I'd like to hear what you have to say about it, but I'd also like you to be our voice on this issue or even to advocate on our behalf, because the situation is a real worry for us. We are talking about nearly 25 infrastructure assets. There may be buyers for some of them, but others obviously won't appeal to any buyers, because there are no profits to be made. I hope the government won't divest them or turn its back on communities in my region, Minganie and Lower North Shore residents.
[English]
Thank you for that question.
First, I want to point out that Canada's defence policy does include $38.6 billion over 20 years to strengthen northern defence and operational capacity. That is the 2% NATO commitment that we've made. We know that we're increasing that to 5%.
We're also well aware that there are other infrastructure priority projects from each of the territories. For example, when we met with ICPC last year, there were 17 projects we continued to support—
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
I actually had two questions, but the incredibly interesting points you're raising don't provide the information I'm looking for.
You're talking about additional spending, and I'd like to know—
[English]
[Translation]
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I was actually saying that, given your priorities, there are already 15 infrastructure assets in my region that are in jeopardy. Obviously, that involves your department. It's all interconnected.
I'm not talking about new defence capacity or an accounting of how you're going to hit the 5% target. I'm talking about actual infrastructure the government is considering selling. If no one buys those assets, is the government going to walk away from them?
I realize you may not have the answer, but I'm asking you for a commitment on behalf of our communities, who struggle as it is to get around, pursue development, and access food and health care because of the infrastructure situation. We want empowerment and food sovereignty for them.
I'm asking you whether you will also commit to communicating with Mr. MacKinnon. You're a team. I repeat, this is all interconnected. You can make him aware of the issue, while giving indigenous and non-indigenous populations in my region some reassurance. They're wondering what they're going to do if the government disengages and they lose their ports and airports. Will they have to shut down the town? That's really what they want to know right now.
[English]
I know that early discussions are happening right now. I can understand the concerns that it might impose, but I think it's very early to determine what that will look like. I will continue to talk to my colleagues about this to see what it looks like. Consultation will be a part of the process if we continue to move in that direction. I look forward to ensuring we have conversations on that moving forward.
[Translation]
[English]
I have two quick questions, and then I'll pass it over to my colleague Jamie Schmale.
Minister Alty, I have a quick question.
On the Giant Mine remediation project, are you currently benefiting or have you personally benefited from the project?
Thank you.
Minister Chartrand, the Giant Mine remediation project has grown from a once-budgeted $467 million to $4.4 billion. Of that, $200 million has been paid to consultants. Of the training paid for by the project, fewer than 50% of the people getting training dollars are actually working on the project.
It's so bad that this committee voted to have the Auditor General audit the entire project. What are you doing, Minister, to get the project back on track?
Thank you for that question.
I know that this is one of the most complex environmental remediations. Our focus is on protecting the environment and public safety. As you know, there are 239,000 tonnes of arsenic dust, which is the by-product of diamond mining.
Our focus is on making sure the measure of success is not only whether we're on time, but also that we're achieving the results that we intend to—that is, ensuring that we are keeping people safe and the environment safe, as well as that we continue to monitor this.
According to the Giant Mine Oversight Board, we are on time and on budget with this. We continue to see benefits for northerners through procurement through the project—
Thank you. I'll try to be fast.
Minister Alty, you'll be aware that British Columbia has adopted UNDRIP into its legal framework. We call it “DRIPA” in British Columbia.
You'll also be aware that the B.C. courts are quite willing to enforce that as positive law, immediately justiciable. I think that is the language they use.
You'll be aware that Premier David Eby was quite surprised with that and promised to amend or suspend DRIPA. Then he faced a caucus revolt and backed off from that.
In addition to all that trouble around UNDRIP in British Columbia, he is now facing an additional challenge, and that is the challenges from U.S. first nations groups. In September 2025, the Washington-based Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation filed a lawsuit in B.C. Supreme Court, saying that B.C. has the duty to consult with them around mining projects. Then, a couple of months later, the Southeast Alaska Indigenous Transboundary Commission and its 14-member Alaska native tribes did the same.
Minister Alty, are you or your government at all concerned that B.C.'s form of UNDRIP is a threat to Canadian sovereignty?
For sure, and I can pass this to the deputy minister to explain a little further what we're monitoring in regard to the U.S.
We had the Desautel court decision, which provided us with a bit of guidance around what we needed to consider in terms of our consultation and accommodation guidelines federally.
We've not had to engage with U.S. tribes in any kind of significant way at this time, but we did bring forward some advice to government at that time about how we would approach that and how we would measure the possibilities for impact. We've not had any type of active conversations at this time.
Shouldn't you be having active conversations with the Attorney General of British Columbia around this? It is a direct threat to Canadian national unity and sovereignty that we have out-of-country first nations threatening to hold up national projects.
We work very collaboratively with the B.C. government on a number of measures. They come to us if they require any advice, support or participation with respect to any discussions they are having, but we have not been engaged in those conversations at this time.
Good morning, Chair. Thank you.
Good morning, colleagues.
Thank you to our witnesses for being here today.
My first question is for Minister Alty. It is in a similar vein to that of my colleague opposite a moment ago.
As you're aware, in British Columbia, there have been very active discussions about questions pertaining to aboriginal title. I'm hoping, Minister, that you can speak to the recently signed agreement between Canada and the Musqueam Indian Band.
As you're aware, this agreement strengthens the Musqueam's role in fisheries stewardship and marine emergency management on the British Columbia coast. This agreement represents a major step toward reconciliation and the implementation of the Musqueam's aboriginal rights under section 35 of the Constitution. However, we have heard, unfortunately, a great deal of either confusing information or, in some cases, misinformation in British Columbia.
I'm hoping you can explain for the committee, Minister, and perhaps for Canadians watching, what the Musqueam agreement achieves and, equally, what it does not mean. How does this agreement reflect and entrench the rights of the Musqueam, while maintaining the rights of Canadians under the Constitution as well?
I think it's easiest to start with what it doesn't do. The first thing is it does not affect private property. There are three agreements, as you said. One is an agreement on fisheries and stewardship; there's another one on marine emergency management, and then there's a framework for collaboration, which is about how we can work government to government with the Musqueam. The importance of this is sitting down at the table and working through the details, as opposed to litigation, whereby the courts decide and can leave a bit of confusion or uncertainty.
Really, the importance of these agreements is how they respect the rights of indigenous peoples, establish how Canada and the first nation will work together and how they will increase certainty for both indigenous and non-indigenous communities, businesses and people. Being able to sit down and work together on fisheries and marine stewardship is a really important part of these agreements.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much, Minister. I appreciate that response.
I'll quickly turn to Minister Chartrand. Thank you for being here with us.
Prior to being elected last year, in my previous career, I was an academic focused on questions of Arctic security and defence, so your portfolio is very near and dear to my heart. It's something I've taken a great interest in for many years.
I'm wondering if you could please elaborate, Minister, on how you see the government's Arctic defence spending commitments as being integrated with the interests and needs of communities. Specifically, what are the best opportunities for the government to make defence investments that will best support northerners in all the other aspects of their life as well?
[Technical difficulty—Editor] the people who live in the Arctic. I don't know if my mic was on.
In Inuvik, for example, CanNor is supporting the Nihtat Gwich'in Council to prepare local workers and businesses for defence-related issues, cybersecurity readiness and skilled employment. That is one example. That means more northern suppliers—
Minister, I apologize for interrupting. Before you go to the second example, the bells are going on for a call for a vote, so I'll ask the committee if we have unanimous consent to continue. I see nodding heads. I have a thumbs-up. Okay, we're good.
I apologize for interrupting. I stopped the time.
Continue with your second example. That's where you were.
Thank you.
That means more northern suppliers are ready to compete, more local workers will be trained and more benefits will be staying in the region. CanNor is working directly with the Major Projects Office to ensure that we're supporting from the bottom up and the top down. In fact, CanNor has supported 61 projects in the Yukon, 38 projects in the Northwest Territories and 42 projects in Nunavut.
All of these projects are supported to ensure that we're creating the workforce we need for the north, but that we're also supporting the infrastructure that is needed. Whether it's supporting corridor planning for the Mackenzie Valley highway or supporting the SNID program to Grays Bay, I believe we're working across all territories to ensure that there are benefits for northerners.
Thank you very much, Minister. I appreciate that response.
Mr. Chair, I'll share the remainder of my time with the honourable member for St. Boniface—St. Vital.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, colleague, for sharing your time.
[Translation]
Thank you to the ministers for being with us today.
My question is for Ms. Alty.
The missing and murdered women crisis is still horrific. The Giganawenimaanaanig organization in Manitoba is doing some great work through its pilot.
Can you tell us about the progress on the codevelopment?
[English]
Thank you.
Yes, as mentioned, it is being co-developed, and it is indigenous-led. Through the supplementary estimates we are providing $300,000 to continue that work and launch the pilot.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a slew of questions, but the first one is for Ms. Chartrand. It's about the Canada Revenue Agency, but it involves your department as well. We talked about nutrition north Canada and the outrageous cost of food. That's when the food actually gets there and isn't past its best-before date, and when people actually have choice, which isn't always the case. Most of the time, there isn't much to choose from.
I became aware of an effort to provide relief. Mr. Hanley introduced a bill that sought to index the northern residents deduction because it hasn't been indexed. It was Bill C‑401, if I'm not mistaken. In your view, could that also be a helpful measure? I know it involves more than just your department. This, too, is a cross-cutting issue. It always is for northern and indigenous affairs. Is this something you think would be possible? The deduction hasn't been indexed for years.
It could provide a bit of relief to local populations, who want lower food prices.
[English]
If I understand your question correctly, I would say that we're looking at other ways to support nutrition north across the work that we're doing as government, and we'll continue to do that. I think that, with nutrition north, we have to take a whole-of-government approach, and that is exactly what we're doing.
[Translation]
I may not have been clear, Minister. I'll rephrase my question, so you understand what I mean.
I was referring to the cost-of-living supports for communities.
Of course, there's nutrition north Canada. We are eager to see the independent report you received. It'll tell us how nutrition north Canada can be improved, especially since you already want to reform the program. We haven't seen what the report says yet, though.
Then there's the whole Canada Revenue Agency component. The agency could index the northern residents deduction, which hasn't been indexed for quite some time. The government will obviously be indexing a number of programs, but we think this one should be indexed as well. It's something remote northern communities have been calling for. Are you in favour of that change, which is merely an indexing of the deduction or an updated measure that would help local populations?
Yes, nutrition north Canada is one way to help, but there are others. Again, you could be an advocate for us and remote communities and speak with the Minister of Finance and National Revenue.
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
I'll share my time with MP Schmale.
Minister Alty, to follow up on our previous line of conversation, I'm surprised that the federal government hasn't been more proactive in these B.C. cases, which are a real and direct threat to national sovereignty. This is certainly a federal matter and could be a threat to the work that the Major Projects Office is trying to undertake as well. They have a big task, of course, having to consult with Canadian first nations. Now they may also have to consult with United States first nations.
Minister, could you at least commit to instructing your department to look into this to see how they can work together with their counterparts in British Columbia to curtail this—as I would call it—foreign interference in our business?
On the duty to consult, we continue to review the legal cases and the precedents. As major projects advance, we continue to modify or update our duty to consult and accommodate, if necessary. When it comes to the Crown, it's at the federal level, as well as the provincial level. We continue to work with our colleagues across Canada on the duty to consult and to make sure it's being held and done properly.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Shouldn't the answer have been “yes”? If we have non-Canadian nations trying to intervene in Canadian projects, shouldn't the answer have been, “Yes, I will direct my department to investigate this further and get on top of it”?
We've already started the work. That would be the answer. We continue to review the legal court cases as they come, and we update our duty to consult and accommodate, if necessary, based on court decisions.
Your deputy minister said the opposite: that you were in contact with the British Columbia government. Who's correct here?
Thank you, Mr. MP.
We continue at both the federal level and provinces. We review every legal court case that comes. We update our duty to consult and accommodate, if necessary, based on any of the legal precedents that come. We appeal decisions if we don't agree with them—
This is a pretty serious threat. We have non-Canadian entities trying to get standing in our decisions.
For the duty to consult, we review all the legal decisions that come. We appeal them if we disagree. We update our duty to consult and accommodate based on the legal precedents.
I have a million other questions on this, but I'm running out of time, and I do want to touch on the K’ómoks Treaty.
You have everything that's happening in British Columbia with the Quw’utsun and how the government in 2018 failed to defend private property. You have the Musqueam agreement. You have neighbouring nations saying they weren't consulted. Now you have the K’ómoks Treaty, and you have neighbouring nations saying they weren't properly consulted and that, in fact, the treaty signed by Canada is impacting their claim.
When you sign a treaty that's a living document, with co-governance, without proper consultation done, how does this add certainty to the process in British Columbia with everything I just mentioned, plus what's going on with the U.S. tribes?
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the question.
Voices: Oh, oh!
Hon. Rebecca Alty: Sorry. Thank you, Mr. MP, although that's through the chair to you.
There are three treaties currently in B.C. going through the ratification process—the K’ómoks, Kitselas and Kitsumkalum treaties. I do want to put it on the record that for all three, the lands covered by the agreements are already owned by either the first nation or the Crown. There's no aboriginal title, no private property—
I didn't say anything about private property. My question was about neighbouring nations saying that the land signed over in this treaty and ratified in the British Columbia legislature, soon to be here with implementation legislation, impacted land that they are claiming.
You have Quw’utsun, and you have Musqueam. Now you have another one, with confusion everywhere. You have U.S. tribes trying to get standing in our jurisdiction. British Columbia has just become a mess, because the government doesn't seem to be standing up for one jurisdiction in either case.
That's your time. Thank you very much.
For the last question and answer period, we have MP Hanley.
You have up to five minutes.
Thank you, ministers, for being here. Thanks also to all the officials who are in the room and who have contributed to the preparation.
Minister Alty, I want to start with you. It's been a big week for Yukon territorial chiefs, Yukon territorial government and the many chiefs here in town for Yukon Days in joint meetings with several ministers, including you. As you know, 11 of the 14 Yukon first nations are modern treaty nations. The other three are on different pathways towards self-determination. We've seen the effect of modern treaties through the many successes in the Yukon. We've seen self-government agreements as well that create stable and effective governance and stronger local economies.
I wonder if you can provide an update to this committee on the progress of developing and implementing Canada's collaborative self-government fiscal policy and how that helps to ensure long-term sustainable funding arrangements to support self-governing indigenous governments in delivering programs and services to their citizens.
Thank you, MP Hanley, for the question.
Yes, the collaborative fiscal policy is a great example of working together with modern treaty partners. It's co-developed and predictable funding that respects jurisdiction. The policy is available online if anybody would like to read it.
To date, we've concluded the policy formula for the governance and administration infrastructure—phase one. We're currently in the process of finalizing the languages and cultures infrastructure—phase two—and land and resources. Once we conclude that work to create those formulas, we'll move on to housing and economic development.
It's something I hear in the Yukon, as well as in my home territory, the Northwest Territories. All modern—
I have a point of order.
There's a minister answering a question, but I'm having a difficult time hearing because of a conversation in the room.
Thank you.
One thing modern treaty partners really appreciate is having predictable funding so that they can ensure that they deliver priorities to their communities.
I thank modern treaty partners for their work on this as we continue concluding the other models.
Thank you.
Thanks very much.
I'll go to Minister Chartrand for the remaining couple of minutes I have.
You mentioned, in your opening remarks, the remediation projects that are under Northern and Arctic affairs. I'd like to go back to one of the examples you mentioned, the Faro mine remediation in Yukon territory, which is a long-term commitment and a long-term economic opportunity. Much of that opportunity has enabled Ross River Dena Council citizens, as well as the Dena Nezziddi Development Corporation—both of which were represented here during Yukon Days—to.... I know you met with Chief Loblaw in Ross River nation, as well as the CEO of the Dena Nezziddi Development Corporation.
It's a good time to ask this question: How do you see and support the indigenous procurement opportunities provided through remediation projects such as the Faro mine?
Thank you for that question.
If we're looking at northern contaminated sites, the Faro mine remediation project has completed the Yukon environmental assessment process and is now preparing to submit applications for water licence and Fisheries Act authorization. The Faro water treatment plant tender was cancelled in 2024, and CIRNAC is working with Public Services and Procurement Canada to explore new procurement and additional water treatment options.
We're continuing to work to support indigenous procurement. It's one of the most effective ways to help grow economic reconciliation in the north. The goal is not simply to award contracts. It's also about growing jobs and capacity. We're working with the other initiatives we've been rolling out.
For example, we're looking to grow up to 100,000 new Red Seals. We're doing a scan of the north and working with territorial governments to get a sense of readiness in terms of uptake and to support that. Do we have enough training opportunities, and the bricks and mortar? Can we get bums in seats? What are ways we could do that? We're continuing to look at all the possible options to ensure that we keep building on the Faro mine remediation project, not only to clean it up responsibly but also to look at procurement opportunities and economic development opportunities. That is a huge commitment we have.
Publication Explorer
Publication Explorer