Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Nov. 29th, 2007

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

By all means, we'll provide that list to you. We do work on a priority basis.

Complicating it all, of course, is that you think you have a plan for capital expenditure for education, and you think it's kind of rolling out, and then, for example, in Pikangikum and Kiskaciwan, we had two schools burn down this summer.

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

Do we transfer money from existing school projects to those, then?

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

You have to prioritize. You can't just....

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

With a $14 billion surplus, weren't you able to find additional money so you didn't have to take away from existing school projects?

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

We are again this year spending a record amount of money on education infrastructure.

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

I guess it's hard to balance when you talk about education being a priority, though. If education is a priority, you actually have to put money into the bricks and mortar so that students can actually access education.

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

That's why we're putting in a record amount of money. Putting in a record amount of money indicates it's a priority; so it is a priority.

Again, for education, it's partly about bricks and mortar, but it's only partly about bricks and mortar. There's also the rest of the arrangement. For example, the arrangement we have in British Columbia, which helps with the rest of the answer, if you will, deals with everything from being able to recruit and retain professional and high-quality teachers to making sure we have curriculum development that's compatible with provincial systems so these kids can transfer back and forth.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

You have one minute left.

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

It's also about working hand in hand with first nations, because they want control, understandably, of these schools.

So it's not just done by fiat. Infrastructure is part of it, but it's only part of it, and that's why we have a more holistic approach to how to do this. Every once in a while, as I said, you can have your budget all laid out, and if two or three schools burn down, which happened this summer, for example, that then becomes your number one priority, and you have to just make changes as you go to address that new priority.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Bruinooge.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister Strahl, for coming today.

I just have to say that it's been a real pleasure working with you. Right from the first day you took the job you immediately dove right in to some of the most challenging files our country faces. Of course, as you already mentioned, you came out to Winnipeg to meet with a number of residential school claimants, and of course your appearance in Winnipeg was very much appreciated. I know you've taken a real interest in that part of the file. It's one of the most important things our government has done in relation to aboriginal affairs.

I'll just highlight the fact that when some of those erroneous claims regarding the $82 million came out, I think it was you who was the first person who was quick to identify that it actually came from a payment that was made in the previous year to the elders. So again, I just want to commend you for being able to understand that file as well as you have right from the get-go.

This week, there was an incredible announcement of an important modification to the way we deal with specific claims. The Specific Claims Tribunal Act, Bill C-30, which you just introduced, is going to make a dramatic difference in the way we deal with specific claims. When I look at supplementary estimates this year, we have a pretty large dollar amount set aside for claim settlements. Perhaps you could take this opportunity to talk about how we deal with claims right now versus how we will once Bill C-30 is brought in.

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

Thank you very much.

I would love to address the residential schools issue again in a minute, but I think I'd better use my time on your question, although I think the residential school thing needs to be addressed a little further.

On specific claims, I was very pleased to table that. I was also very pleased that the national chief, Phil Fontaine, and several grand chiefs were able to be there for that. They considered this a historic occasion. They were there for the tabling, even though nothing was said in the House. Their sense was that this was a historic turning of the page, the second one of the year, I would say. It was a privilege to be there with Mr. Fontaine for the residential schools one earlier this year in Winnipeg. This one he claimed was almost equally significant, for a couple of reasons.

If a specific first nations claim has been languishing--for example, if they've been trying for three years and haven't got anywhere or if the Government of Canada has rejected their claim--instead of Canada being the judge, the arbitrator, the people with the money bags and everything else, this tribunal will be set up. It will be at arm's length and it will be funded. There will be $2.5 billion in this fund over the next 10 years for specific claims settlement.

First nations can go there. They can know that a set of superior court judges will hear their case and render a decision that's binding on the government and on first nations and get these things settled. This is something for which first nations have been asking for 60 years. Mr. Fontaine was very eloquent about this at the press conference that followed. In addition, we--he and I--signed a political agreement that commits the Government of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations to deal with issues outside the specific claims tribunal legislation. These include things like some of the larger claims, what we do with the backlog of claims, making sure we troubleshoot it in case something comes along. But most importantly, I think, is that we actually drafted the legislation working hand in hand with the Assembly of First Nations.

What this means is that over the summer a task force was set up, and the task force, or part of it, met in every region of the country with the Assembly of First Nations. They drafted the bill clause by clause. We worked together on what was needed and what was wanted. We addressed their concerns, and we were able to come up with a piece of legislation that not only addresses a 60-year-old grievance, if you will, but does it in a way that first nations feel they were not only consulted on but were partners in the creation of this legislation.

It is historic, and it will, I'm hoping, put many of these long-standing specific claims behind us--settle many of them quickly--and allow us to move onto other issues, quality of life issues and other things, such as economic development, that first nations and the government want to move to when specific claims are in our rear-view mirror instead of staring us in the face.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

You mentioned that you wanted to further clarify the Indian residential school issue that came up.

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

We can get into numbers and so on. Altogether over half a billion dollars has been paid out in the common experience payments. There's lots of money going out.

I just want to comment, if I could, on the caution that all of us need to take on this type of an issue. I'm still putting out fires because of that day. In fact, I would say that it's done...not irreparable harm because there are lots of good people working on this. When you think of it in terms of trust and the relationship with first nations, and the truth and reconciliation commission that's going to follow, the effort that's been put into this to try to turn the page on an ugly chapter of Canadian history is immense. I would just urge real caution on everyone's part not to repeat erroneous stories, because it's impossible to pull them back in again, and what's happened around the country right now is a repetition of these stories again and again: the government has stolen the money; the government is not going to treat you fairly; the trust account is in jeopardy.

And the distrust that has already started--I can give you newspaper clippings from my own community. I just think it's very unfortunate when the entire purpose of this was to address a past wrong and to move on to reconciliation. When you're dealing with issues of reconciliation--that's not about public policy, and you can rake me over the coals for public policy--I would urge people not to repeat something that's not true, because the effect of it is to breach trust with people who finally feel they can have some trust with the federal government and with this settlement.

I just want to leave it at that. The numbers and stuff we can go through, but I just urge people to be cautious about that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Ms. Keeper, for five minutes.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Thank you.

Mr. Minister, I'd like to commend you and your government for following through on the former Liberal government's residential school compensation package. Indeed, it has had an enormous impact not just for the survivors and their families in our communities but also for our country. You're right, many things have been said, and our national chief has cautioned Canadians not to speculate about how survivors might be spending their money or how the government might be moving forward. As you said, I think it's very important that we move forward toward a true process of truth and reconciliation.

I'd also like to go back to the Kelowna Accord. I think there were details, and I think that is very disappointing as well for this country. I'd like to add that, because there were 18 months of round tables and all aboriginal communities and leaders were involved with our first ministers' meeting.

Going back to education, the increase in spending in education has not kept up with population growth nor with inflation. You said it's partly about bricks and mortar, but it has to do with other aspects of education.

I'd like to ask a question. Almost 60 first nations schools are locally controlled in Manitoba, and these first nations schools receive far less funding from INAC for their education system than INAC will spend delivering service in the provincial school system. Could you give us some information about why that is so? Why is it that when they are following the provincial curriculum, when they are investing in their students and youth, ensuring that after the whole process of residential schools, where families were torn apart and an attempt was made to eradicate first nations culture...that part of their objective is to ensure that the children in their communities are receiving culturally appropriate education, meeting provincial standards.... Why is it that their systems are so grossly underfunded compared to provincial school systems?

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

Thank you for that. Again, just very briefly, to address the Kelowna Accord, it's not ancient history, but it is history. The Kelowna Accord did not address the claims process at all. We've got a $2.5 billion commitment on specific claims alone that wasn't in the Kelowna Accord. That's very concrete, very measurable. It's a 60-year-old grievance, so we wanted to move ahead on some of those specifics. I realize we're going to disagree on this, so I don't want to belabour it.

I'd like to say a couple of things on education in Manitoba. One is that we have signed and are in the midst of some pilot projects with first nations, several pilot projects in Manitoba, to see how we can work better together with the province and with first nations. I'm hoping it's a precursor to a B.C.-type agreement. I don't want to put anybody in a mould, but I want some agreement with the province to move ahead on that.

Within the last couple of weeks I have met with a couple of the Manitoba ministers, including the Minister of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs, and agreed at that meeting to put together a working group exactly on this type of thing to see how we can work together better. I'm very pleased to work with him. I told him we're keen to do that, and he's very keen.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Is that to move to put more provincial education systems in first nations so that you're moving away from local control? Is that what that shift is?

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

Whatever we come up with will be tripartite. It will be a system where first nations are...whatever they're comfortable with.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Obviously, there is--

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Maybe we can follow up on this in the next round. We're at five minutes.

Mr. Albrecht.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the minister and your officials for being here today.

I was really pleased to see, Mr. Minister, that on the second page of your comments today you highlighted the five priorities in terms of moving ahead. Economic development and land claims are certainly two high priorities for this committee. We've discussed them numerous times in the past year. We've heard from first nations communities that have incredible success stories in terms of economic development.

But we also recognize that often economic development is hampered by a lack of agreement around land claims issues. So I think the bringing together of economic development priorities and Bill C-30, the Specific Claims Tribunal Act, is really a key factor in moving ahead.

I understand that in the supplementary estimates there is approximately $31 million--you pointed out in your comments here--set aside for the Nunavik land claims agreement. To me it seems that this is a way to move ahead for this entire community, in terms of economic development. But recently it's come to my attention that this bill is in the Senate and it's possibly being held up there. I think that's very unfortunate.

Could you just elaborate on the kind of economic development that could happen and whether or not we could move ahead more quickly on this land claims agreement and get it finalized through the Senate?

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

Thank you for that.

I think what you've hit on is that economic development--and this is a truism in any community--is less likely to take place when there's uncertainty. Businesses abhor uncertainty. It doesn't matter whether its first nations aboriginal business or someone else. They need to know the rules. They need to know how to go forward, and they need to know the rules of engagement, so to speak.

One of the advantages of land claims agreements generally is that they do bring some of that certainty to it. That's why we made some real efforts. As recently as last week we announced, for example, some interim land withdrawals up in the Northwest Territories to help move along the Akaitcho agreement. They were concerned about land set aside. We put it with interim land withdrawals. That allows businesses, the Akaitcho, the Deh Cho, and many others to start making plans, knowing where that land is going to be set aside.

On the Nunavik land claims agreement, I realize there's all-party support for this, and it's gone through the House and is into the Senate. Unfortunately, there she sits. The Government of Quebec is on the phone to me regularly about this, asking where this is. Everybody wants to sign off on it. We're eager to sign off on it as a government. The president up there is also keen to sign off on it. We want to move ahead on this.

This is another one of those agreements that was identified when I was in Kuujjuaq as one of the key elements in being able to grab control of their own destiny and move ahead on economic development, education, health--a series of important steps that will make quality-of-life issues and economic development better for them.

My understanding is that there's one senator speaking against the bill. There's one person, as far as I know, in either the House or the Senate, who's holding this bill up. Everyone else, of the 400 or so people who are involved in this at the parliamentarian level, is in favour of it.

I would just urge that senator to consider what is being held up here, consider that it's.... You know, you can't use the expression that “everyone else in the parade is out of step except me”. It just doesn't work. We need to move ahead, and the people in Nunavik deserve for this to go ahead.

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

I appreciate that answer.

I guess one of the responsibilities of this committee is to continue to help us move ahead in addressing these issues.

How can I, as a committee member, help to address this issue? Could I write a letter to this senator? Could we identify who it is? How can we move ahead? This is not fair to our first nations communities.

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

Well, it's not fair, and it should be addressed. I don't know what the committee wants to do. You're obviously masters of your own destiny, but any influence that people have...writing letters, talking to the senator, trying to exert pressure on him.

He needs to get his points out--that's democracy--so by all means put the points on the record and so on. But if there's one person out of 400...and none of the people who are party to the agreement is opposed to it, then it's time to move ahead. Get your points out, but by all means, let's get on with this and give these people what they deserve.