Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 31st, 2006

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

We can expect to hear back from your department, then, on a specific plan around that.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Yes.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

I want to flip over to treaties for a second. As you are well aware, I come from British Columbia, where the treaty process is long. This is a suppositional question, but say, for example, the Province of British Columbia were prepared to alter its current position on own-source revenue and fisheries. Would the federal government be prepared to also move forward? My understanding from talking to people is that really this is about political will, and that if we could get both levels of government to come together on those two particular issues, we might see some treaties actually move forward fairly quickly in British Columbia.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

That's a fair question. I can see you're well briefed on these issues.

There are 47 treaty tables at work in British Columbia, and as I recall there are five or six that are nearing one of the early stages of agreement in principle.

Own-source revenue is an issue in particular for the federal Crown that needs to be addressed. It's not solely an issue I have control over, but it is an issue that the government will address.

The subject of fisheries is also a very difficult subject in B.C. I'm sure you know as much about that as I do. We need to work together. We need first nations and non-aboriginal Canadians, sports fishermen and commercial fishermen, to work together first to conserve the resource and make sure the fishery resource is strong and that there is a focus on conservation. Beyond that, we need to have significant discussions about how we're going to share that resource. I would say we're at a very early stage in those discussions as a nation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you.

It's the government's turn, and as the chair I'm going to take the privilege of asking a question.

Mr. Minister, one of the things the Auditor General discussed in her report was red tape within the department. I know there are some challenges with the Indian Act, and it's a challenge with the first nations, as you mentioned, to develop their own properties. In simple things like land conveyance.... In my former life as mayor we turned over a road right-of-way to the first nations in our community who had reserve lands, and for just a simple land conveyance they were talking about two years. That's not acceptable for a department, and it's very frustrating for the first nations people when they want to move forward.

Actually, this particular piece of property is the first development of Wal-Mart on first nations land, and they still haven't got under way because of the department.

I want to know whether you have any comments about any administrative infrastructure in your department that you're looking at trying to streamline in order to deal with aboriginal issues in a more timely fashion.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

The new government has spoken about accountability, and of course the new proposed Accountability Act will apply to first nations—other than first nations that are self-governing, and they're scheduled in the legislation.

What I've heard generally is a willingness on the part of first nations to function within that system, but I've also heard them say loud and clear that my department needs to be accountable as well; that accountability is a two-way street; and that if they as first nation governments are going to be held to account, they would expect the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs to similarly be responsible and would expect to see progress.

They ask why it is necessary for a first nation to file approximately 150 reports on an annual basis. Most of the first nations in this country are reasonably small communities, and I think they fairly ask the question why they need one or two full-time people filling out forms that are submitted to the department.

The regime we'd like to move towards is one that has streamlined accountabilities, and in particular where we take advantage of another innovation that's developed over the course of the last 18 months, which is the organization that has been put forward by Harold Calla and was once again sponsored by legislation last year in the House. It allows for first nations registered financial officers. These would be certified financial officers who are properly trained and who would work at first nations. The first nations would achieve a degree of certification; they would have such a financial officer working.

In that circumstance, I don't see why we need 150 reports filed on an annual basis. Maybe we need 20. Maybe it's 30; maybe it's 12. I don't know. We need to have that discussion. But if we have suitable financial and accounting officers in place, and clear accountabilities, we can presumably eliminate some of the paperwork, and I hope the department can do so as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you.

Madam Karetak-Lindell, please.

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the Minister.

This is my first opportunity to have a conversation with you, because I haven't been able to get a meeting with you. I envy some of the other members who have been able to access your office.

You talk a lot about what you have inherited as far as the status of the country, but I think you need to acknowledge that you also inherited, as a government, the best fiscal situation a new government has ever come into.

I wasn't with the group in 1993, but I know they came into government with the country almost bankrupt. Nonetheless the Department of Indian Affairs was the only department that did not undergo cuts and it was actually the only department that had an increase in budget when we were cutting programs everywhere else in the country. I think that speaks for the determination of trying to improve the lives of aboriginal Canadians.

I know we're not one of the five priorities of your Prime Minister, but in light of the issues we are faced with as aboriginal Canadians, I think it has to be one of the priorities of your government, because the reputation of Canada is in balance by the great world status that we have. Once we put in the aboriginal people's conditions, that standing in the world goes down very low. And I think we all agree with that.

You keep talking about the non-partisan work we need to do. Encouraged as I am by those words, the actions speak otherwise. Kelowna is one example where we're questioning whether the government's refusal to go with that is on who made the deal--which government. I'm hearing from people who.... You just mentioned legislation passed before the election but they're having great difficulty in getting the legislation implemented right now.

I come from an area where natural resources could really be the way that we improve the lives of Inuit people and northerners. Northern development is back within your whole Indian Affairs department. We're having difficulty trying to find that it is a priority.

There is a lot of development going on. You mentioned the pipeline. There are possible mines to be opened and yet it's all been put back under one department instead of Northern Development being focused on northern development. So those are probably more--

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Could you summarize your questions so the minister would have an opportunity to answer your questions, please?

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Can I get my 30 seconds back, because you just interrupted?

Having said all that, I'm confused as to what you're saying and what the real actions are from your department.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

I think I can clarify that confusion. I have an enormous amount of respect for you as a member of Parliament and it's my hope that we can work together. Now, I won't get into an argument here, but you've asked me to be fair, and I would ask you to be fair.

The budget this government has put forward has, on the face of it, $800 million being invested north of 60. That's never been the case in a previous budget. It has $300 million going into northern housing. I don't think it's fair to challenge this government on its commitment under the first ministers meeting, which called for $300 million over five years. We've done it in 45 days, in terms of a budgetary commitment of committed money that will be spent. So clearly, in terms of the area you represent, Nunavut, we have been very fair. The Premier of Nunavut has been very outspoken in supporting the budget and in saying it is good for northerners, as has the Premier of the Northwest Territories.

There's $2.2 billion for the residential school agreement put forward by this government in this budget. I think that's very fair.

What I'm in part asking of you today is that we work together in a non-partisan way to try to deal with some of these issues, because I think there's goodwill amongst everybody at the table. We may not all have the same philosophical beliefs in terms of what needs to be done, but I'd certainly like to think we all agree that carrying forward in this country with a 150-year-old piece of legislation, namely the Indian Act, as the primary vehicle to govern social services, education, property rights, and matrimonial property rights for 600,000 people in this country is not acceptable. It's going to take the work—

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

No one disagrees with that.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Well, no one disagrees with that, but what I'm saying is that you have a government that is prepared to act on that, and we are looking for parliamentarians with whom we can work, so that we can get beyond partisanship.

Let's talk about matrimonial property. That's been studied previously by the Senate. It has been studied previously by this committee. It has been studied previously by the House of Commons. I ask the question, why do first nations women in Canada not have matrimonial property rights? I am prepared to do something about it. I am prepared to work with the Native Women's Association, the AFN, and everyone else to do something about it. I ask you, are you prepared to work with us to do something about it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Mr. Bruinooge.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Despite the urge to continue with the partisanship, I am going to try to go into an area I'd like you to illuminate a little. The residential school settlement, for the most part, was negotiated by a different department, but you took some real leadership on that. Maybe you could highlight some of the elements of that discussion as it took on a life of its own. Perhaps you could talk about the process on which the two departments worked together to make that deal happen, and where it is now and how it's unfolding.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Of course, the $2.2 billion necessary for the residential school agreement was contained in the budget. Although I was not initially responsible for the residential school file--it actually fell within Canadian Heritage--it's something that in discussions with the Minister of Heritage and the Prime Minister, I became involved in. I worked extensively with Mr. Justice Iacobucci, who deserves enormous respect in this country for the role he fulfilled as the federal government's representative. There were some significant issues that emerged in the closing days relating to that agreement. It was necessary for us to intercede and to spearhead some changes to the agreements. In particular, it was necessary to make sure there were changes relative to legal fees and protecting claimants, in terms of legal fees that would be authorized and paid, and making sure there was a court approval process so that any fees paid to lawyers were carefully scrutinized by the courts. That was one of the changes we insisted on and that we made to the agreement.

In addition, of course, there has been the whole question of interim payments to the elderly. This did not form part of the agreement initially. We became convinced that the request was reasonable and that some of the residential school survivors were passing away. With the signatory of the agreement by all of the parties, the agreement is largely in place. We still have to finish the court approval process, but we felt confident that we should make $8,000 payments to elderly people who are over the age of 65. That has been put in place, and the first cheques, I am pleased to say, have actually been sent to residential school survivors as of this week under that system.

We made great progress. We all hope it achieves the reconciliation that we've talked about.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

You have a minute and a half.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

There's another topic I'd love you to delve into more. I'm not sure you can get into it completely in a minute and a half, but it goes back again to your point about how money is not always the answer. System change, system improvement, and system efficiency are also ways of helping to facilitate improvement in first nations, Inuit, and Métis communities. I know this is an area you're interested in.

Perhaps there isn't enough time to talk about it, but I'll give you a few moments. I am talking about improving the efficiency of delivering programs as a different philosophical approach.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

In terms of accountability and efficiency and delivering services, I think that's critical.

One of the really interesting areas on which we've had discussions, frankly, with one of the provinces relates to how the child welfare system functions. There's been criticism of that system and the way in which it currently operates. What we've seen in discussions with the provinces is that there are provinces that are prepared to move forward on pilot projects to make sure the service is delivered, not only more efficiently but in a manner that is more reflective of modern thinking in terms of the child welfare system. There's been criticism that the system that applies to first nation and Inuit citizens is antiquated and that we need to work together in partnership with first nations and provincial governments to experiment with pilot projects that have more flexibility and that we believe will better serve the interests of children.

What that speaks to, Mr. Bruinooge, is a willingness to try to work together with first nations, the federal government, and provincial governments, in particular, to try to redesign how services are being delivered to make sure they're more cost-effective and to make sure they're better servicing the needs of aboriginal Canadians.

I think what you're going to see over the course of the next 18 months is some significant strides forward with new ways to deliver services. It will be done in partnership with provinces and in partnership with first nations. I've had extensive discussions with many of the premiers about this. There is a willingness to move forward. There's a willingness to work together with the federal government, whether it's in child services--education, in particular--to try to deal with some of these issues. I'm very hopeful that we're going to make significant progress.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you.

Mr. Lemay.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I'll start by focussing on several issues. First, you're right about the following: the cheques are already being distributed. I've received calls from my riding of Abitibi-Témiscamingue, where the Indian hostel of Saint-Marc-de-Figuery is located. It's reassuring to know that some people have already received their cheques.

Minister, whenever I hear the expression “pilot project”, what little hair I have left stands on end. We need to be clear about this issue. If indeed we're dealing with a pilot project, it's important that we sign some kind of agreement clearly defining the time frame for the pilot project. We've seen where pilot-projects are extended numerous times, where old leaders are replaced by new ones and where suddenly, people are told that it was only a pilot project and that the initiative has in fact been terminated.

Moreover, I'd like to know if the Government of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations have agreed to letting a three-member panel of experts hold cross-country hearings on the water question. In conjunction with these hearings, will any funding be awarded to communities to ensure that their water and sewer systems are at the very least operational?

I'd also like some additional details about the Mackenzie Valley pipeline and its impact on the North. What agreement was reached between Inuit communities, First Nations and project officials? Perhaps we could look to this agreement for some possible solutions.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Thank you and congratulations on your efforts involving the hostel claims systems. We are making progress in this area. Judging from what you said, you're more interested in results than you are in pilot- projects. Results are indeed very important.

I think first nations have experienced many situations where pilot projects have been initiated and then have petered out, or have been successful and have then not been continued.

When I talk about pilot projects, I'm talking about something that is a little different. I'm speaking of pilot projects that involve the federal government and the provincial government in circumstances where the province is willing, together with first nations who are prepared to work together with the two levels of government.

I think we all know that sometimes there are jurisdictional difficulties, but I'm aware of circumstances right now in Canada where provincial governments, including the Government of Quebec, are prepared to work in concert with the federal government to make sure services are being delivered to first nation Canadians that are of the same quality as other provincial citizens are receiving. We're talking about pilot projects where we will move forward with those who are willing to make progress on education, social services, housing, and the like.

I agree we have to be careful that pilot projects then translate into reality.

With respect to your question about the panel that has been announced today, part of what we did early on with water was announce national standards. The problem is how you make those national standards enforceable, because there's no federal legislation.

It comes back to what I've said about the need for reform. First nation citizens in this country are the only Canadians living without water standards. They are the only people in this country who lived without water standards, until this government put those standards in place. We've tied those standards to funding, such that if a first nation is going to receive funding for a water system, the water system is going to have to adhere to those standards. We're not interested in funding water systems that don't adhere to national standards.

The next step we're working on together with the AFN is to put those national standards in place by law. The purpose of this panel is to work together with first nations to determine the best way to do that and to bring back to us a recommendation so that these national water standards can be enforceable. That's the work that's going on there.

The third question you raised relates to the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. Great progress is being made there. There are Inuit people—the Inuvialuit—the Gwich'in community, the Sahtu community, and the Deh Cho community, all of whom have territorial lands that the pipeline passes through. All of those first nations are at the table. They're all negotiating access and benefit agreements with the pipeline proponents. They all have the ability to take part as an owner of the pipeline, under a vehicle that's called the Aboriginal Pipeline Group.

The Aboriginal Pipeline Group will own a 33% interest in the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. It's a multi-million dollar investment. This is not a case of first nations receiving minor benefits associated with an industrial project; it will be, frankly, one of the biggest projects ever constructed in Canada, and it will be one-third owned by aboriginal Canadians.

What we're finding as a result is that the Inuvialuit, the Gwich'in, by and large the Sahtu, and certain communities amongst the Deh Cho are very proactive concerning this project. They want to see it happen and they're very supportive. They've worked out their own commercial arrangements with the pipeline proponents, and we expect to see significant progress. It will herald in many ways a new way for businesses to do business with aboriginal communities.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Mr. Albrecht.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Prentice, you mentioned in your remarks and certainly highlighted as one of your priorities the educational needs of aboriginal peoples, and the Berger report highlighted a number of those. Could you outline for us what some of your ideas and thoughts are as to how we could improve and move ahead on these? Are you thinking of possibly moving into areas such as school boards that would run their own show in terms of improving their quality and making sure services are delivered to aboriginal people?

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Well, there are two separate issues here. Let me set aside the Berger report, which relates to the system of education in Nunavut--we can come back to that--but let's talk about education as it relates to first nations.

Again, I put this before the committee as a specific challenge. First nation children in this country are the only kids who don't have the benefit of an education act, the only children in Canada who don't have the legislative protection of a school act that deals with issues such as classroom sizes, curricula, teaching certification requirements, the rights of a child with learning disabilities, the rights of the sort of education that a child with learning disabilities should receive. The only kids in Canada who don't have that protection are registered Indian children. Now, I ask the committee, why is that, and what is this committee going to do about that?

I'm prepared to move on that. I've had discussions with premiers about it. I've had discussions with the Assembly of First Nations. They're prepared to deal with it. A number of the provinces--Quebec included, British Columbia and Alberta--are prepared to move in a proactive way. But it's going to take a government that has the willingness to create an educational framework for registered Indian children, and it's going to take work in the context perhaps of a pilot project, maybe in British Columbia where the premier is prepared to move forward, to have a first-nation-based education system that has community buy-in, has community support, has the sort of legislative protection that we're talking about.

At the end of the day, nothing is more important in all of this than making sure first nation children get the education they need. I think it needs to be a priority for everyone at this table.