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

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

Those are fair questions, although I don't agree.... I think your assumption is that after 2006-07, these things will come to an end and that--

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

I'm sorry, Mr. Minister, I wasn't assuming that they would come to an end. It's just that there's no money in here, and so I wonder how the government is going to deal with that, because I also think these organizations need some degree of certainty that there will be a continuation. And when there is no money in the budget.... If I were working for the B.C. Treaty Commission and saw no money allocated, I would wonder about government commitment.

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

That's a fair question--really, two questions--you're asking. One is about the Indian Specific Claims Commission, and the other is about the B.C. Treaty Commission and process. Let's deal with them one at a time.

The Indian Specific Claims Commission budget is included in these estimates. I don't have the number in front of me, but as I recall, it was $5.5 million for the administration of the Indian Specific Claims Commission.

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

And it is only to 2006-07.

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

It is only to 2006-07 because that's the purview of this budget.

The Indian Specific Claims Commission is one of the bodies that is under review as part of my commitment to retool the specific claims process. The commission is fundamental to that process. As you know, it's a commission I sat on for 10 years as a commissioner. I have some very strong views about the valuable role the commission plays. It has been criticized more recently with respect to whether it has bumped up against a glass ceiling or not. But leaving that issue aside, the Indian Specific Claims Commission will either have to evolve into a more fulsome claims body, or it will have to be wound down. That is one of the issues that the Senate is currently exploring. We will see what the Senate has to say about that in the days ahead.

These estimates only take us out so far, and then we'll have to renew approvals and proceed from there. So that's the Indian Specific Claims Commission.

With respect to the B.C. treaty process, the Auditor General, in this November report, will be including a chapter on the British Columbia treaty process. This started 15 years ago. It was, at the time, quite an exciting new process, which was created by Prime Minister Mulroney and Premier Harcourt in 1992.

Since that time, as a nation, we have invested $750 million in the B.C. treaty process. There are 48 tables currently at work. This weekend we just signed the first agreement, the very first one to get over the finish line. There are another two to six moving along through the final agreement stage.

So we are making progress. As I said earlier, I regarded what happened in B.C. on the weekend as a very important chapter in Canadian history. Again, we have to wait and see what the Auditor General recommends with respect to the B.C. treaty process. Certainly I am committed to the continuation of that work in B.C. That's why I was there with Premier Campbell signing the treaty on the weekend.

I am immensely encouraged by the progress we are making. There are some tough issues at the table. Allocation of fish resources is a difficult issue. Something called own-source revenue is an issue. The financial self-government arrangements between first nations and the government are an issue. But a lot of the heavy lifting has been done.

It's quite heartening, actually. If you look at a map of the comprehensive claims work that has been done in Canada, really, over the course of the last 40 years, starting with the James Bay Cree agreement in 1975, it's actually pretty remarkable. We've succeeded largely in clearing away the comprehensive claims challenges the country faces. There still is outstanding business, for sure, but there are actually only a couple of large claims north of 60 that are left--the Dehcho and the Akaitcho--and really, the work, the unfinished business in our country, is not restricted to but is heavily focused on British Columbia.

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

In terms of that implementation, Mr. Minister, certainly if you talk to people from Yukon, they're not happy with the implementation process and the way dispute resolution hasn't been entrenched in a way that works for people and the fact that they haven't been able to get this next series of agreements negotiated and signed.

Again, in these estimates, there is a downward trend in those two key areas that support treaty and land claims processes. I haven't heard you address those two issues.

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

There's no intent to have a downward trend in terms of our commitment to the treaty process in British Columbia. That's something I certainly intend to see through to conclusion. All that work will not be finished on my watch, but I intend to make sure the process is working properly. On specific claims, I've been as frank as I can be as a Canadian, saying that it's unacceptable that we have a backlog of 800 claims--from the former government, I would point out. It's not acceptable, and I'm going to retool the process to change that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you.

Mr. Bruinooge.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Minister, for coming forth today.

I want to talk a bit about housing again. I really appreciate the things you're talking about in relation to the model under which housing currently is being administered within many first nation communities and how you see that as something that needs to be further discussed, with the idea of making it more efficient and more effective.

I'd like to start, though, with a place that I think you find very important and very interesting, and somewhere I also took time to travel to in my first days on the job, and that is Nunavut, specifically Iqaluit.

One of the things I learned on the ground there, as soon as I got off the plane, basically, is about the shortage in housing. I know this is an area that you found to be very important, so perhaps you could talk a bit about how the people of Nunavut, especially the government, have received your plans and directions on housing.

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

Much, of course, has been said about housing investments and the importance of that. I think it is important to pause and take stock of what has already been accomplished in the short term of this government. That is, in respect of Nunavut, we put forward $300 million for northern housing in the very first budget. This is more than was previously put forward by anyone, at any time, north of 60°, and it was done immediately. It was done under the first Conservative budget.

In the case of Nunavut, $200 million has already been disbursed to the Territorial Government of Nunavut. So these are not empty promises to build housing units. This is $200 million, which Premier Okalik has in a trust account. I met with him actually yesterday. He's very pleased with that. They have started work already. The housing units are under construction. They will be expending that money over, as I recall, the next three to four years.

Housing units are expensive in the north. The cost of a typical housing unit was $250,000, and they believe that the money we are speaking of will allow them to deliver 753 housing units, as I recall. They are in the process of building those across Nunavut and targeting the expenditures. Obviously there are logistical challenges, as well, to putting housing units on the ground north of 60° because of the climate and the weather and the short construction season. So all of that is under work.

That does not, in and of itself, resolve all of the issues in Nunavut, but Premier Okalik--I know he can speak for himself--has been very pleased with the immediate steps taken by this government to deal with the housing circumstances north of 60°.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

I'd like to talk a bit about some of the things that Mr. Merasty was saying in relation to leasehold elements of community-owned housing, but I think you have covered that off somewhat and I do want to defer to my colleague Mr. Albrecht.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair; thank you, Minister Prentice, for being here today; and thank you to my Liberal colleagues for recognizing the fact that I have a chance to speak today.

First of all, I recognize in your presentation, Minister, some key elements in terms of empowerment and responsible self-government, and I certainly applaud those moves.

Also I noticed your comments about dealing with land claims as a matter of justice, respect, and reconciliation. Those are certainly key elements. I would be interested in hearing, at some future date, some of the ideas you have on working forward on those land claims.

But my question right now is related to the estimates. On page 48, there is a line dealing with the International Polar Year. I notice that there is a significance increase from this budget year to the next two budget years. Could you comment on Canada's commitment to the Canadian Polar Commission?

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

This is a very exciting story. It goes back to what the Prime Minister has said about the assertion of Canada's sovereignty in the north and taking steps to ensure that Canada's footprint in the north is not only well established, but that we have the infrastructure in place, public governance in place, and we have the necessary investments in terms of the Canadian Forces to be able to exercise Canadian sovereignty in the north.

One of the most exciting things that's been done in that respect is the approvals for the International Polar Year, which begins this fall and is a multi-year program. What the Government of Canada will be doing is investing $150 million over the next several years on international polar activities. These are activities that will be centred in Canada's north. It is International Polar Year and there are other activities that will happen relative to the southern pole. In terms of Canada, a very specific program has been developed that involves scientific research supported and encouraged by the Government of Canada that is focused on Canada, our north, the exercise of our sovereignty in the north, and the science of what is happening in the north. It's all immensely exciting.

A very extensive program has been developed. There's an International Polar Heritage Committee that will be working on this. The mainline expenditures will surface in the estimates over the next two years in terms of the $150 million. At this point the expenditures are more modest as we tool up, but the dollars have been budgeted, they have been set aside, and the calls for scientific research are being prepared and sent out. We hope to encourage international research, but in particular to foster centres of excellence and research in Canada about the north and about what is happening in the north.

The public governments in the north are immensely supportive of this. In dollar terms, compared to the overall expenditures of the department, the $150 million is something that is targeted on the north, and we're really quite excited about it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Mr. Minister, I know you have to leave and I know that the expression of a few of the committee members was that we'd like to speak to you more. Maybe you'll have an opportunity in the future to reschedule another opportunity.

For my understanding, Mr. Minister, you do have to leave?

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

I'm always anxious to accommodate my parliamentary colleagues. Certainly I can speak for another half hour. I have to be at Treasury Board, but I can put that off until 10:30.

Carry on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Russell.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thanks, Mr. Minister, for extending the time. I do appreciate your skills, abilities, and your expertise, there's no doubt about that. I don't always like your party's policies, but I'm sure you fight the good fight somewhere in the rooms that we don't get into very often.

International Polar Year is a great Liberal initiative, and it's nice to see your stamp of approval on that.

Around the Métis issues, I see the expansion in the RPP from last year to this year saying we want to deal with Métis issues, we want to improve the socio-economic conditions of Métis, and one of the indicators is education. But there's only one program identified in the estimates for Métis off-reserve or urban aboriginal people. It goes from $40.8 million in 2006-07 to $8.7 million. How do you square wanting to do more for Métis people in general and expanding programs and services with the budget decreased by 80%?

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

That's a fair question. Quite a large, significant number of structural changes are being made to ensure that the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs is able to discharge its responsibilities and improve the lives of aboriginal citizens on a go-forward basis. To some extent, we are refocusing, redirecting some of the administration.

One of the things that happened—what I'm leading up to—is that the Office of the Federal Interlocutor has essentially been brought into the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. It previously wasn't organized that way. It has basically come to me as the minister, as has, for example, the residential schools file. The administration of the entire multi-billion-dollar residential schools agreement was previously a separate department. It has now been brought over to INAC. Madam Tining is the assistant deputy minister responsible for that.

On the Métis issues, a lot of changes will have to take place as a result of that restructuring. Quite a number of approvals will need to be reapproved over the course of this next year at Treasury Board, cabinet, and so on, and we're working on all of those things.

The situation is not as you're suggesting, in the sense that we are working on the Métis programming and re-evaluating where it goes from here. I would personally like to see it very much focused on economic development opportunities. I can tell you that some things there will be announced very shortly and will be indicative of progress. But from what I hear from working with Métis Canadians, they really want to focus on economic development opportunities and the road ahead.

The budget did include specifically $300 million for aboriginal—as opposed to first nation—housing south of 60°, and that's being administered through the provinces, of course. Our expectation has been that a significant amount of those housing units will be available for Métis citizens and aboriginal Canadians. I think it is also fair to say that a lot of the aboriginal-based urban CMHC housing initiatives are directed toward aboriginal as opposed to on-reserve status first nation citizens.

Your caution is well taken, and I respect what you're saying.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

On the structural change, am I understanding that with maybe new authorities or new guidelines or what have you from Treasury Board, some of the programming that's currently within INAC would be opened up to Métis? When I taught post-secondary education, which Métis don't have any access to under the current post-secondary education program, the deputy minister, the guy responsible, Allan MacDonald, said they were not even contemplating opening up that $300 million program to any new recipients or applicants, or what have you.

I'm not saying we should divide the pie even more, but we should make the pie bigger, put more meat into it. If you structurally change it, does that mean more access to programs?

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

All those issues are up for discussion, although the jurisdictional basis for what the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs spends continues to be responsibilities to status first nation citizens on reserve. That's where the education dollars are directed, and I don't really see that changing.

By April 1 of this year, the urban aboriginal strategy will have to be reapproved, if it is going to be reapproved. That's something I'm working on right now. You're not the only one who has asked me questions about that. At a town hall meeting in my own riding this weekend, I had an exchange with someone who was very concerned about that issue.

Particularly in western Canada—and I know it's not limited to western Canada—in the cities of Regina, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Edmonton, and Vancouver, there are very significant urban aboriginal populations that are becoming a very important and vital part of the urban context, so the urban aboriginal strategy is something we need to focus on.

I'm quite happy to talk about education and what we're trying to do there. As I recall, the department spends $1.4 billion on essentially first nation education. There is a fascinating study that I would recommend to every single person here. It was published recently by the Caledon Institute, and it's on first nation education. It's quite remarkable, because what it shows—and I digress a bit—is that aboriginal Canadians who get through high school have, from that point onward, success at precisely the same rates as other Canadians. In fact, they have even higher earning power. But the challenge is getting children, particularly first nation children, through high school. That's where we have the problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you.

Could we move on to the government side? Mr. Blaney, please.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, I'd like to start by thanking you for participating in last week's First Nations Socioeconomic Forum. Five other parliamentarians, myself included, also attended this gathering.The broad issues that you talked about in your presentation were all discussed, in particular education, an area in which you have taken concrete action, the rights of aboriginal women in communities and, of course, housing, a favourite topic of discussion and the flashpoint in terms of people's will to act. You also stated clearly to forum participants that taking a different approach to investing in housing was very important with a view to ensuring that we don't end up with a deteriorating stock of housing in need of early recapitalization.

My question is tied to the estimates. Can you share with us your vision of sustainable housing for First Nations? What steps can the government take to ensure that investments are sustainable, particularly investments in communities, and that healthy, viable housing capable of standing the test of time is built, so that future investments represent a step forward, not backward, for First Nations and a much-needed initiative on the housing front?

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

That's a fair question, and I'd like to thank Mr. Blaney for participating in the Forum socioéconomique des Premières Nations. I thought you acquitted yourself with great confidence and dignity at that forum, and I received many positive comments.

With respect to housing, we need a policy that is not based simply on the delivery of social housing. If 100% of the housing stock in each and every first nations community is social housing, that is a limitation on the future of many people in those communities.

There's been much written by economists and international figures about capital and the basis of wealth creation. I have long said that first nations citizens on reserves in this country are denied the opportunity that any other Canadian has to own their own home, acquire equity in it, and build up their own wealth. This is not fair. No one is suggesting that the reserves themselves should be broken up. That's not the point. But if first nations citizens cannot own their own homes, build up their own equity, and get ahead in life, like all other Canadians, then that's not fair and it's counterproductive in our society.

There are many first nations citizens—I see heads nodding—who leave the reserve environment and go where they can own their own home. I know of no business owner in my home city of Calgary who did not start that business by getting a bank loan tied to their home. They all started their businesses by putting some of their own equity at risk. So how can we possibly countenance a situation where 500,000 status first nations citizens are deprived of this opportunity?

It's going to take a certain amount of courage. It's going to take some structural changes. It's going to take a vision to move forward on something that was not embedded in the Indian Act. But the Indian Act was put in place 150 years ago. This statute was a compilation of pre-Confederation British imperial statutes. It is no way to run a modern legislative framework for 500,000 Canadian citizens who have the same dreams and aspirations as the rest of us. I know there are philosophical issues we don't all agree on, but we have to find a way to move forward to modernize the Indian Act.

In the context of Quebec, our government in the first budget invested $17.5 million that has resulted in 600 new housing units and the development of 450 new residential lots for first nations. I know this doesn't solve all the problems. There's still much work to be done. There are some communities still in serious need of housing, but we are moving forward.

If we're moving in the direction of a private alternative to social housing on reserve, we have to work with the Assembly of First Nations and its regional affiliates to create the delivery models by which this can happen.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Mr. Lévesque.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Minister, for this opportunity to speak directly to you primarily about the votes presented today. On page 7 of your presentation, you stated that $450 million will be allocated to provide Aboriginals with clean drinking water and improved on-reserve housing.

Many of my constituents are members of two communities not recognized as reserves. What status have you assigned to them? I'm talking about Kitcisakik and Winneway, two communities that have neither reserve, nor off-reserve status. What status have you assigned to them and what do you intend to do for them in these areas?