Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2006

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

If I might speak to the subject of water, given the nature of our country, we have first nation communities, reserve communities, that have water challenges. We also have other rural communities that are not first nation status communities, and certainly not reserve communities, where there are water challenges as well because of the remoteness.

When I became the minister, I was very concerned about the circumstances of water, because the Government of Canada has been investing a significant amount of money--I think the program expenditures, if I recall, were something in the nature of $1.6 billion over many years--and the concern we've been hearing was that the results were not present. We were not seeing results in the communities.

One of the first things I did when I became the minister was say to the officials that we needed to get a handle on this situation and I wanted them to overlay all of the scientific information they had about the status of water in the communities. I asked them to look at the maintenance records, look at the data we had on source water, look at the whole question of the capital investments that were needed. They were to overlay all of the scientific data and tell me what the status of things was. They came back to me with information that, frankly, was very concerning. They identified 190 communities where the communities were at high risk. In addition to the 190, they identified 21 communities worse than that, where they said the community itself was at high risk.

So one of the first things we did was direct our efforts towards the 21 communities at risk to make sure we didn't have a repetition of the circumstances that the previous government faced in a northern Ontario community, to make sure that we were dealing with those 21 communities. We've also been focusing on the other 190.

There are 755 first nation water systems under the responsibility of INAC and first nations, so it's a big job. We're doing the best we can.

I can tell you one thing for sure--if there is a problem now, we move immediately. I can't promise people in this room that tomorrow there's not going to be a water problem in a community that none of us is familiar with in northern Alberta. But I can tell you this: if it happens, this department now moves immediately. We put people on the ground immediately. Health Canada is there with us. We make sure that there's no E. coli in the water. We don't sit on that information for months. We move immediately, stabilize the situation, and apply resources to rectify the situation.

We are trying to work together with the provinces and municipalities, where they are prepared to do so, because in many circumstances we may have a first nation water system that can provide services to people off reserve or we may have municipal-provincial infrastructure, and the most cost-effective thing to do is to tie in those systems together. We try to do that wherever possible. It doesn't happen in as many cases as I would like because there just aren't as many opportunities, especially in the remote communities, but there are in places southern B.C.

In terms of communities that are not status Indian first nation communities that are the responsibility of this department, we are prepared to work together with the provinces, in concert, to make sure Canadian citizens have proper drinking water.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you.

I'm going to go to the government, but I have a question myself for the minister. It's with regard to the post-secondary education that we have been discussing as a committee.

We know the department spends roughly $300 million to support post-secondary education. We also were informed that your department is looking at a review of the framework and some of the needs for funding for post-secondary education, and that's going to come sometime next spring.

I know we're talking about existing estimates, but my question is this. Will there be anything in the 2007-08 budget to accommodate the likelihood of more funding needed for post-secondary education?

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

The whole subject of post-secondary education is extremely important. I know there are first nation citizens at the table here, and they, I think, would agree with me. Even in the course of my lifetime, in 20 years of working with first nations, I have seen enormous changes. Education is the wellspring of almost all good things that happen, I think, at the end of the day.

I have seen enormous changes in communities where I know 20 years ago maybe only one or two people in the community had post-secondary education, and now significant numbers of young people are coming back with post-secondary training, whether it's in trades, as apprentices, or college, university, or CEGEP education. It makes an enormous difference in the communities in terms of governance, in terms of moving forward. We need to do everything we can to support and foster aboriginal people, Inuit people, first nations citizens, and Métis Canadians in their education.

I would, however, come back to the Caledon study. What it clearly shows is that the problem is not from high school forward, if you will. The problem is getting young people through high school. From high school onward, to be sure, we need to make sure we have a supportive financial regime and that there is money to carry on the support of post-secondary first nation education, but the real challenge is to get young people through high school.

The lowest graduation rates are probably in Nunavut, where barely 25% of young people are getting through high school. The highest, as I recall, would probably be in British Columbia, where it's about 45% to 50%. These rates are fully 25% to 35% lower than non-aboriginal graduation rates, and there is nothing that any of us do as parliamentarians in this subject that is more important than getting those graduation rates up to be the same level for aboriginal and non-aboriginal kids.

That's why the model in British Columbia is so important. I feel very strongly about it, and I committed to this in June. I can tell you this. I've challenged all of the other provinces to work with us to try to build the same kind of capacity to have a first nation-driven education authority in place in the other provinces. I tell you, there's not a shred of doubt in my mind as the minister, from everything I've seen, from the pilot studies I have analyzed, that the model that has been developed in British Columbia, which is based upon first nations citizens' building capacity to run a first-class school system that is commensurate and interchangeable with the provincial public school system, is the way forward. Mark my words, in 10 years British Columbia is going to be head and shoulders above everybody else in Canada who doesn't have the vision and the courage to go where they're going.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you.

We have about half the time left, about two minutes.

Mr. Albrecht, go ahead, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I certainly am somewhat discouraged by the huge numbers of outstanding land claims, and I think I'd be even more discouraged if I were a lawyer, recognizing how long it must take.

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

Trust me--the lawyers don't understand.

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

Mr. Minister, you said in your comments that you're not in a position to share details of an action plan, but you would like to share some ideas. I'd love to hear, just for the next two minutes, some of your ideas in lay terms that even I'll be able to understand.

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

I know you follow this quite closely. The lawyers have no problems with the current process: it grinds on interminably.

The backlog of 800 claims is not acceptable, and we have to retool the process. We need to look at the way the system functions inside the Government of Canada. We need to look at what happens to a claim when it arrives at the threshold of the Government of Canada, because frankly, right now whether it's a $1 million claim or a $100 million claim it receives the same degree of attention and scrutiny. We need to expedite the way in which claims are processed and evaluated. Perhaps in some cases they can be grouped.

The biggest challenge is that each claim as it arrives at the threshold of the Government of Canada is evaluated endlessly from a legal perspective. I'm not saying the legal analysis is not important; clearly it is. But we are waiting at this point sometimes for seven years from the time a claim arrives at the door of the Government of Canada until the Government of Canada gets its own legal opinion to be able to respond to the first nation and say yes, we think there's something to this, or no, we don't think there's anything to this—seven years. There have been cases where it has been a heck of a lot longer than seven years. So that side of the process isn't working very well.

The Indian Specific Claims Commission needs to be an adjunct to this process, and the role of the commission, the independence of the commission, and the kinds of people who are appointed to the commission all need to be discussed as issues.

The capacity of the commission to make binding decisions is important. At this point the commission has a glass ceiling, because it can only make recommendations, which previous ministers have had before them to either accept or ignore.

And there's the overarching problem in all of this that has been criticized for 50 years now in Canada, and that's the inherent position that the Government of Canada is in if the Government of Canada attempts to be the defendant, the party also providing intervenor funding to the first nation, the party receiving the legal opinion, the party adjudicating the claim, and so on. For 50 years commentators have said that any system that is conceived on that basis with those inherent conflicts of interest can't succeed.

Certainly there are resource issues as well, but fundamentally the system isn't working properly and isn't structured properly. I think we all know that the pressure is building on the backlog of 800 claims, and we have to do a better job.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Mr. Minister, I know we have more questions, but it is close to 10:30. How is your time? Is anybody getting excited there?

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

I have Madame Karetak-Lindell and Madame Crowder, but if you have to go, then you have to go.

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

I'll take one more question, and then I'll go.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Madame Karetak-Lindell.

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

Thank you very much. I appreciate this opportunity.

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

I'm sorry, but on a point of order, my understanding is that I am next in the rotation, Mr. Chair.

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

I'll take two questions, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Go ahead, Ms. Crowder.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a couple of quick comments. One is on the minister's reference to the Caledon report. The presenter actually indicated that the report had to be used with a great deal of caution because of statistical problems with it. As well, my understanding is that there is insufficient data to talk about the numbers of post-secondary students who would be able to access education but can't because of the resource constraints.

The other comment I had was around the B.C. Treaty Commission and the Indian Specific Claims Commission. The reason it was so startling in its report is that, while it's common practice to project numbers into coming fiscal years, there was absolutely nothing in those two cases; that's why it was a matter of concern.

The question I have is around page 21 in the estimates. This particular page is dealing specifically with things like Indian registry and membership and what not. The actual question I have around this is whether or not the department is looking at Bill C-31, subsection 6(2), which has an impact on band membership. There's a report from 1985 by Clatworthy Smith that has done some projections based on subsection 6(2) in Bill C-31 that actually say a number of bands will start seeing a significant decline in population because of subsection 6(2). Given the fact that the estimates are dealing with band membership and plans around registry, could you could tell me whether the department has plans to address Bill C-31?

On a totally unrelated question, you've talked about the B.C. tripartite agreement. I wonder whether there are plans to put legislation into the House. My understanding is that there does need to be legislation.

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

You've put your finger on one of the most difficult issues that the department will face, that any government will face relating to Bill C-31. I have a couple of comments.

In regard to the expenditures that you see relative to the registry and so on, one of the initiatives we're moving on is the creation of a status card that is more secure--

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

Mr. Minister, if subsection 6(2) plays itself out according to Clatworthy and Smith, the status card won't be all that relevant.

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

No, I'm coming to that point. I'm just saying the expenditures you're looking at in the department relate to the creation of a status card that is more secure, that will eliminate some of the concerns about fraud. This is a new initiative that we're starting so that there will be a proper status card for all first nations citizens.

You raise a good question on Bill C-31. It is one of the most difficult and vexing issues. There are two massive court challenges that are winding their way through the court system that will deal with Bill C-31, the results of which are expected next year.

I don't think it is a secret in this room that it is one of the most difficult and controversial areas of aboriginal policy in Canada. We need to see what those court decisions tell us about the way forward in terms of who is entitled to be a status first nation citizen and the level of benefits that they receive as a result.

I don't have the answers today, but no one else does either, because we need to see an adjudication of the law relative to Bill C-31 citizens.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Ms. Karetak-Lindell, please.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I thank you for being here this morning. I know this is a very difficult file, to say the least.

I really can't let the morning go without saying that is what Kelowna was for us, a long-term plan and an opportunity for us to be at the table as aboriginal leaders. I don't see that right now, where the Prime Minister is at the table with our aboriginal leaders.

To be very specific to the estimates, you know that there was a review going on with food mail. I do have many other issues, but I'll keep it short.

The cost of living in the north is one of the most critical, along with housing, because it's hard to separate one from the other. We have not seen a response yet to the review that was done on the food mail. Looking at your estimates, I see the money is the same when the cost of living has gone up. You have $27.6 million for last year, and it's the same for this year. We see the need for it growing, but we don't see the money that is coming in growing.

So there are two questions: the amount of money, and when can we expect a response to the review?

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

Okay. You had a specific question and a general comment, and I'll respond to both.

On food mail, I met yesterday with Premier Okalik, and I discussed that very issue. I understand the importance of food mail. The review is under way. It was under way with the previous government for a long time. I'm looking forward to receiving the results.

I have some questions about how the Government of Canada administers this program. Frankly, there are questions about whether the Government of Canada should be the one administering this program at all. There is a public government in Nunavut, and perhaps the issue--

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

It doesn't only go to Nunavut, though.