Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on March 5th, 2008

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

It is often a matter of prioritization. We are spending this year, as an example, a record amount of money. This is the highest the estimates have ever been for this spending in the department, but even at that rate there are competing demands, including increasing demands for education, but not just those. Depending on particular bands' needs, they may say they need help with housing or, if it's a high-risk community, for water quality, for example, or for other things such as sewage treatment. You never know what it might be.

There are other demands right across the country for assistance. Again we prioritize it. We realize kids' education is extremely important. That's why it is always a priority. At times, we have transferred funds in contribution agreements to first nations, and at times that priority—their children's education—has to take priority over some other infrastructure project or whatever else might be a high priority but not as high as children's education. In those cases, it's part and parcel of priority setting, and once health and safety issues are dealt with, it's hard to have a higher priority than children's education.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Bruinooge, seven minutes.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister Strahl, not only for coming today, but for announcing yesterday a historic piece of legislation, Bill C-47, which will finally address the long outstanding issue we have in Canada, on-reserve matrimonial real property. I know aboriginal women across the country are looking forward to having the same rights that so many other people take for granted. When a marriage breaks down and the assets are normally distributed between the two members of the family, unfortunately we haven't seen that happen on reserve. I know this bill will address that, so thank you.

In relation to the supplementary estimates today, I would like to talk a bit about the Nunavik land claims agreement. This was an agreement that was passed unanimously by the House of Commons; all the parties voted for that bill. When I had to go to the Senate to defend this bill, ironically there were a number of Liberal senators who wanted to vote this bill down. Thankfully, it looks like it has recently had royal assent.

I was wondering whether you could give us some indication as to how these estimates will in fact enable this legislation, and perhaps some of the benefits that might flow to the people of northern Quebec.

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

I have a couple of comments quickly, because it has been referenced a couple of times.

I want to touch on Bill C-47. I invite committee members to have a look at it. I realize it's not at this committee as yet, but it has been tabled by committee members. It really was an extensive effort to get the best bill we could for aboriginal women particularly, and families, who right now don't have any rules, if you will, that govern the distribution of matrimonial property in the case of a marriage break-up.

This bill was put together. We had extensive consultations with the AFN, with the aboriginal women's groups, and a special ministerial representative travelled the country. I think they had over 97 meetings to consult on this bill. There were a lot of recommendations that I think strengthened the bill. Just like Bill C-30, it's a better bill now because of those consultations.

I think it's a very good package. I realize there was reluctance to pass it today at all stages, but I'd urge all members to have a good look at it. I think it does an excellent job of balancing the collective rights of first nations, which is common land management and things held in common, with the rights of individual first nations who have to live on that land.

It is a bit of a tricky balance, but I think we've done a good job, with the help of a lot of first nations organizations and people who helped us craft a very good bill.

I'd urge all members to have a look at that, even before it comes to committee. If you have any advice for me, please let me know. I think it's a very good bill, which was made better by that consultation process.

With respect to Bill C-11, again, I was in Quebec City for a ceremony on that. This is a very good move toward self-government for the people in the region. One of the first meetings I had was in Kuujjuaq. I think it was the first week I had in this new job. We had discussions about moving it ahead. It was held up for a period of time in the Senate, but it's now moving ahead. All parties are supportive, and I think all concerns have been addressed.

Again, we're moving ahead. Really, all Inuit claims have now been settled. When you think of it, that's quite an accomplishment. I thank honourable members for their help to get that bill through. It's been a very good process for the Inuit and in working with the Province of Quebec.

As far as the actual estimates, Michael, could you address that?

[Michael Wernick, Deputy Minister, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

I think we're getting Nunavut and Nunavik crossed. Nunavik is the northern Quebec agreement. Nunavut is in the estimates. That's the $2.4 million that's going to the regulatory bodies in the Nunavut territory. There's nothing about Nunavik in these estimates that I can recall.

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

I'm certainly talking about Bill C-11 in Nunavik. I think that's what we were both talking about. There's nothing in the estimates for that particularly. I think the only dollars were for Nunavut, and we can talk about that, but it's a different thing.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

I'll move on and ask you for an update in relation to high-risk water systems throughout the country. I know there are a number of initiatives that have been taken, and perhaps you could give the committee an update as to some of the new systems that have been improved upon.

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Thank you.

I don't think we have a lot of time here, but I'm happy to follow this further in other questioning as well.

I did table a progress report in the House of Commons on the status of drinking water for first nations communities. I hope members had a chance to have a look at that, because it does kind of lay out where we've been spending money, how we've been training first nations operators to make sure they're qualified and have a 1-800 number--a hotline, if you will--if there are any problems with their drinking water system. And we've also of course allocated in our budget a good amount of money to make sure that this good progress continues.

I also want to assure you that one of the things that was noted by the Senate committee when they talked about the water situation is that they encouraged the government to come forward with an independent audit of the situation on first nation reserves from coast to coast. That hasn't been done for a good number of years. So we are making a request for proposals on that to make sure that we have an independent audit so that we can speak with authority about the status of the number of communities that are affected, how they've been improved, and so on. So that is an independent engineering study. It needs to be done. It hasn't been done for many years. And that will give us a good idea of where to set our priorities, and make sure we're spending money where it needs to be spent. And I just--

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Go quickly, please.

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Should we just correct this? Just correct the record on the Nunavik dollars here.

[Michael Wernick]

I'm sorry, you have a sharper eye than I do, Mr. Bruinooge. There's a reprofiling amount on Nunavik, which is under the northern Quebec agreement. Because of the delays in the legislation, we'll be moving money into next fiscal year and spending it in 2008-09. I think that's what probably caught your eye.

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

I think it's safe to say it would have been spent on last fiscal year if it had gone through the Senate quickly. As it is, you can't spend it now before the end of March, so it's reprofiled, as they call it, so that it can be spent in this next fiscal year. There's not really more money involved; they just had to move it over because of the delays in the Senate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Right. Thank you, Mr. Minister.

That's the end of round one. We'll start round two, which is five-minute turns.

Ms. Keeper, I understand you may be splitting with Mr. Russell.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Yes, I'm going to split my time with Mr. Russell.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Minister, for presenting today.

I'd like to ask you a question. There were a number of areas on which I wanted to ask you questions, including housing, water and sewer, child and family. But I'd like to focus on education, because you did say that family is a priority. Your party has claimed family, women, children are priorities, as indeed is keeping families together.

In Manitoba, in many of the communities in my riding that have local control of first nations education, they have not had adequate funding in comparison to provincial education systems. I'd like to ask about the $70 million, because you talk about families and communities being a priority.

I want to tell you a little story about a girl in one of the communities in my riding. She is in a first nation, and she's deaf. She has started school, and she now should be entering grade one. The first nation had developed a plan to keep the child in the community, in the first-nation-controlled school, and had developed a plan to support the classroom, the family, and the child. INAC refused to pay the cost of that proposal but told them they would be willing to pay the cost of sending the child away from the community to a school in Winnipeg, which would cost more than double the amount that it would have cost to keep the child in that system in her school.

So I have a very difficult time understanding, when these things are happening, the $70 million that you talk about in the tripartite agreements. Rather than supporting first nations education systems that are intent on keeping the children in the communities and educating them in the communities, instead of forcing them to send their children away, which is really what the residential school system was about.... I'd like a bit of an explanation of exactly what these tripartite agreements mean in terms of the $70 million.

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

The $70 million is to encourage something similar to what we've signed in a tripartite agreement with British Columbia. I think what is clear is that it's not just about money. It's partly about money, but it's also about the system we've allowed to develop in this country.

What's evolved over the last number of years is a schoolhouse model whereby individual first nations are doing the best they can with the money and facilities they have, often in a system that doesn't take advantage of what every other school system in the country does, which are economies of scale, working together--

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

If I may respectfully interrupt, Manitoba has a first nations education resource centre, which I know Mr. Bruinooge has visited. It provides second- and third-level service delivery to 53 first nations in Manitoba. That is the service centre they work with, and it's much like the model you've talked about in B.C. Yet we continue to have instances when children are being forced by the department to leave the community.

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

I can't comment on your case. Obviously it's always best that the children stay in the community, but I can't comment on what might have happened in an individual case.

I can tell you I met the minister last week when I was in Winnipeg. We talked about the status of the four pilot projects that we have, which is an effort. We picked four communities, two in the far north that are isolated communities, and two farther south, which are more typical southern communities that have greater access to typical facilities. We've funded these four pilot projects to see how we can work together to have better results, both in isolated and in other situations. Everything in that is being analysed. It was just started last year.

The hope is that by following through on the results from these pilot projects and working with the Province of Manitoba and the first nations, we can see what's working and what isn't. Again, sometimes it's as simple as the lack of funds or a lack of the ability to do an evaluation of children entering grade one.

If there's no evaluation done and if resources aren't available to do an evaluation, then the kids come in and you don't really know what their needs are. They get put in a sausage maker of an education system that tries to crank out students, but it hasn't done an evaluation as to what those kids might need as far as special needs and help, like this girl you're talking about.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

In Manitoba, 80% of the high school kids in first nations are going to school off reserve, and when they are going to school on reserve they often have equitable graduation rates to provincial schools and to Canadian students.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you, Ms. Keeper and Minister.

Mr. Albrecht, for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being here today.

I am certainly encouraged by the number of initiatives you and your department have taken in terms of bringing equality and human rights to first nations people across Canada.

The one thing I'd like to follow up on briefly is the issue of water. I would find it difficult to agree with the statement by the member opposite when she commented that education was more important than water. It would seem to me that one of the basic requirements for good health is to have safe drinking water.

I would like to comment on page six of your statement, Mr. Minister, where you commented on the number of high-risk drinking water systems being down from 193 to 85. I think that's a huge accomplishment, and I commend you for that.

I notice you indicated $330 million over the next two years have been committed to improving access to safe drinking water. I'm wondering how far that $330 million will go in terms of diminishing the remaining 85 communities to zero.

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Thank you.

There has been good progress, I think in part because by concentrating on safe drinking water and making it a priority, the government and first nations together have been able to lop off the low-hanging fruit.

We've spent quite a bit of money on it. It involves things like the circuit rider program that trains first nations on how to operate the facility. It makes them qualified operators and gives them a 1-800 number so that they can move quickly in case there's a crisis. Sometimes a small problem nipped in the bud means that you haven't polluted the entire system, which costs a huge amount of money and contaminates it perhaps for weeks or months.

A lot of work has been done. We're increasing the number of people who can train and qualify first nation operators, doubling the number of trainers over this next year. All these things are good measures, but the truth is that it's always easier to do the relatively simple ones, the ones in which the chlorinator is not working quite right or the operator is not qualified and now he or she is. It's always easier to move more quickly, and that's why, through our concentrating on it, a significant reduction occurred pretty quickly.

I hate to say it, but the truth is that getting the number down to zero as you're describing will probably never happen, because it never happens in non-first nations communities either. Something will always come up. All of a sudden the ground water might become contaminated or the piping starts to rust out in a system that was perfectly good two years ago. It will never get truly to zero, but the $330 million investment means that on an infrastructure basis, this takes priority.

You can't have economic development without good water. You can't send your kids to school. Your health costs go through the roof. An awful lot depends on good water, so I think it needs to be a priority and certainly we don't apologize for making it such with that kind of an investment.

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

No; I think, Mr. Minister, that the committee would certainly support your initiatives in that regard.

The other point I'd like to follow up on is your initiative as it relates to economic development. Sprinkled all through your comments are initiatives to create economic opportunities in the north: geological mapping, new jobs in the commercial fishery, and so on.

I recently read a book by an aboriginal author, Calvin Helin, called Dances with Dependency. He certainly argues in that book for government's responsibility in terms of encouraging economic development.

I've also spoken personally to a number of aboriginal entrepreneurs--

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

You have one minute.

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

--and I wondered what kind of uptake you are sensing with the initiatives of the government as we try to make economic development opportunities one of the primary focuses of our government.

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

I'll quickly just say that I think first nation communities and first nation organizations have clicked to the idea that although education is important and a bunch of things are important, there is no solid future without economic development.

I remember talking to Chief Louie, for example, who's well known in first nations circles and to Canadians generally. He finally gave a talk at an Assembly of First Nations meeting here. I think it was just a couple of years ago, because it was the first time they had focused on economic development. A lot of the other focuses were on quality-of-life issues such as housing or child and family safety--a bunch of things--but he says that until or unless you get economic development, the rest of it isn't sustainable. I think that has come on in spades.

Phil Fontaine, for example, spoke yesterday. I'm just delighted to see they signed an agreement with the Mining Association of Canada talking about working together to provide jobs, because, as Phil Fontaine says, if you don't have access to resources and access to jobs, then a lot of the other things we might want to help and fix just aren't going to get done.

I see a big uptake. I see the leadership in first nation circles saying they're ready to work and become part of the mainstream business community in Canada. That goes for whether you're talking to the national Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Mining Association, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, forestry people, or in some places high tech. You name it; people in the first nations community are urging that we get excited about economic development.

That's why we're putting some more emphasis on it and gathering the resources from other departments as well--transferring things from Industry Canada, for example, back into INAC so that we can talk in terms of one-stop shopping for infrastructure, for economic development training and opportunities, and for other things that we can help coordinate with first nations people.