Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 15th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Yes, we can accept that later.

Mr. MacDonald.

[Allan MacDonald, Director General, Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non Status Indians, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

I can answer some of those questions, Mr. Russell. Thank you for the questions, and thank you, Chair, for the opportunity.

In terms of the LMN claim, that really is a claims answer that someone else in the department is going to have to give you. That's been before the department, I think, for 15 years or so. We'll have to get that answer back to you on where the Labrador Métis claim is within the system and what's next, what's happening on that.

In terms of where Métis rights policy generally is going, as you're well aware, the Supreme Court affirmed what many of us knew back in 2003, which is that Métis did have aboriginal rights. The federal interlocutor's office got authority back in 2003 to begin to explore Métis rights policy options. The first thing we had to do over there--the really urgent thing the Supreme Court said we had to do--was to begin a process of identifying Métis harvesters, identifying who had those rights. So for the past two or three years we've been working with Métis organizations, national organizations, and regional affiliates to do just that, and to put in place harvesting arrangements on the ground, both at the national level and working very closely with their provinces.

We have to come back and give longer-term recommendations on Métis rights based on what our research has found. We're prepared to do that, I think, in the course of the next few months.

In terms of the practical steps and trying to answer some of your questions around socio-economic policy, there is very limited Métis-specific social programming. So there is no Métis-specific post-secondary education; there is no Métis-specific health care or other programs that you happened to mention.

That said, though, the federal government invests about $1 billion for an office of aboriginal programming, which Métis people and Métis organizations can access. So while there isn't Métis specific programming in those areas, there are opportunities where Métis people and their organizations can draw down some of those federal programs.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Can I have a follow-up, just very quickly?

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

“Very quickly” would be the key words.

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

Yes, you stole my time.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Lemay. You're great. We had a great bargaining session.

Does the Government of Canada recognize Métis aboriginal title to lands?

[Allan MacDonald]

That's a legal question. I don't believe the government has made that determination.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

That's a fair answer, and I think it's all you're going to get, so I'm going to move to Chris Warkentin, please.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate your coming today. Thank you to every one of you on the panel.

I want to go to slide number 8, with respect to the planned departmental spending. The number that's been allotted for government is $865 million. Could you give me some clarification as to how many dollars are going to actual self-government costs and how many dollars in that particular allocation are going to the process of negotiations? I assume the lion's share of the process of negotiations' spending would go to lawyers and those types of services, but could you give me, if possible, some idea of where the money is being spent there? That is one question I have.

The other question I have concerns the development of market-based housing. I see it mentioned there. I'm wondering whether it's something for which the department has a plan with respect to developing market-based housing on reservations, or exactly what type of plan is in place.

I'm assuming market-based housing would be the development of housing projects that would allow first nations people to have title to their homes and be able to generate some type of equity, so that they'd be able to have something down the road. Am I right in assuming that?

Please just answer those questions.

[Paul LeBlanc]

Thank you.

Perhaps I'll start with your last point, and my colleagues may want to come in on that point. Then we'll finish with your first point about the breakout.

Market-based housing has a couple of dimensions. In the simplest dimension, it's really about reducing the public contribution and increasing private sector moneys, marketplace moneys, into the housing plan. You can go a long way in doing that without affecting the issue of who ultimately owns the house, the band council or the individual. So market-based housing can be pushed without actually pushing private ownership, if you see what I mean. It's just a simplistic dicing up of this issue.

Market-based housing pushed to its more natural conclusion means, in our view, working on both those axes. There would be a much bigger place for marketplace moneys, matched with private ownership, which is really the full expression of that kind of model.

There are some excellent examples across the nation of first nations who have utilized land resource flexibilities that my colleague described, in terms of some of these legal and innovative approaches to better managing land combined with bold and imaginative financing models that go from an 80% or 90% Government of Canada-paid house to one that uses relatively few public dollars and heavily leverages the private sector, converging to the ultimate end: individual members owning their homes. The band then, instead of having this kind of dormant asset of houses that have to be maintained, that are a drain on resources, etc., now has membership that is owning houses; the individual owner is taking care of the upkeep.

The house has the prospect of lasting 100 years, rather than 15 or 20 years, and it's one of the key opportunities for turning around a major challenge in first nation housing.

That's the simple objective, and there are many examples of it working extremely well in places across the country.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Yes, I've heard of several examples, and that's why I posed the question. I know from stories from within my own community that probably the number one requested item is that individuals living on first nations land, within first nations communities, be able to have some mechanism to establish equity and long-term ownership.

I guess we all maybe take for granted the amount of flexibility we're offered once we own a home, and certainly that's the message I've been getting. I'm happy to hear there's a plan in place to move that forward.

[Paul LeBlanc]

Home ownership, essential in its own right, is also the most common step-off point to individual entrepreneurship.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Absolutely.

[Paul LeBlanc]

The equity that people have in homes is often really the determinant for the kind of minimal capital that's necessary to realize their entrepreneurial ambitions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Does that complete the answer?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I think there might be some numbers in the second part.

[Caroline Davis, Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

With regard to the second part of your question, there are currently 17 self-governing first nations. There are also grants and contributions to sectoral self-government. For instance, the Westbank First Nation has a self-government agreement.

In the estimates, I would note just briefly, about $190 million is going to self-governing first nations. That would be a mixture of self-government costs plus the implementation of comprehensive claims costs. It doesn't include the cash payments for the settlements of claims.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

So the remainder of that particular chunk would go toward some of the negotiation processes that are outstanding.

[Caroline Davis]

That's right. We usually take the guess that we spend around $130 million a year on negotiations.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Okay.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

We're going to move on to Mr. Merasty.

[Gary Merasty, Liberal, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

We've had quite a few good questions here. I think you did a very good presentation.

My first question is on lands and trust services, or LTS. Has there been, or will there be, a review of the current policy framework and legislation that's currently there with respect to the Supreme Court decisions of Haida, Taku River, and Mikisew Cree with respect to traditional lands? What responsibility do you think the Department of Indian Affairs has in this area?

The second question relates to Jean Crowder's question. There were 17 national recommendations for child and family, with huge problems converging upon the first nations. The provinces will make policy changes to the child welfare act, for lack of a better term, but the funding doesn't allow the bands to respond, to catch up. There have been situations in Saskatchewan where there is very little on kinship, for example, and prevention.

Stretching the socio-economic issue to funding of elementary and secondary, would the department look at funding schools to actually provide space for special education? You provide the funding for the program and for the teacher, but no space. There's also the issue of the expansion of high school course offerings so that we graduate more than just generalists from some of the high school programs.

Regarding capital, I know that in Saskatchewan and in other areas there's a provincial policy to raise social assistance rates, and usually the department will mirror what the province has done. That money is then taken from somewhere. Does this put in jeopardy capital and the potential for keeping it to build new schools, upgrade them, renovate them, expand them? Then there's the status of the ISSP and PSSP review, which is absolutely critical at this point.

As my last question, off-reserve band members vote for their on-reserve chief, but it creates a real split in the ability of the first nation to provide services, because with voting comes the expectation of services. There's conflict between the interlocutor role, urban funding from the department, and the role of the first nation.

Sorry; that's a whole bunch.

[Paul LeBlanc]

Ms. Stewart is going to start us off and then we'll roll from there.

[Audrey Stewart]

With respect to the response to the Supreme Court decisions in the Haida and Taku cases, there is policy work under way to help the federal government develop appropriate approaches. For those who may not know, these are a couple of cases that have identified interests of aboriginal people, either based on aboriginal rights or treaty rights that exist off reserve lands. I'd also like to point out that this is an area that requires action from provincial governments as well as the federal government. Some of the provinces are very actively moving towards policy responses to deal with the consultation requirements that may come out of those two cases.

Mr. Chairman, if I may, I hadn't realized there was a question about the status of review of the Labrador Métis claim. I do actually know the answer to that, so perhaps I can provide it here and now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

She's not even here; she's missed out.

Does anybody else want to hear that? Do you want to hear that? No. Okay.