Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Feb. 5th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Good day, Minister, members of the committee and invited guests. This is the second meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

This morning we're delighted to have the minister with us for the consideration of supplementary estimates (B). With the indulgence of members, we're going to start with the minister's presentation. We typically allow the minister a little bit more than the normal ten-minute presentation.

You have 15 minutes, Minister, and then we'll proceed to questions from members.

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to your colleagues as well for inviting me to appear here this morning. Congratulations on being elected to the chairman's role. It's an important role, as all of these committee positions are.

I want to reaffirm my belief in the vital work that all of you do in the democratic functioning of our country. It's particularly important, of course, that I make myself available. I want to share my views, respond to your questions, and of course be held accountable. It's a delight to do that and it's an important part of the parliamentary cycle as well as the democratic situation we're in.

This committee was very productive last year, passing five bills in the 39th Parliament. 2009 also promises to be a busy year. I have already tabled Bill C-5 and Bill C-8 and I look forward to working with this committee in the coming weeks.

As you know, I've come here particularly to discuss supplementary estimates (B) of the department. That's the strict purpose of my appearance, but since we have just begun a fresh session of a nearly new Parliament, I believe it would be helpful for all of us if I went a little further than just the supplementary estimates (B).

I'd like to take this opportunity to quickly share my views, not only on these estimates but also on my department's mission, our recent achievements, our current priorities, and the concrete steps we intend to take in the weeks and months to come.

At the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, we are really focusing on six overarching tasks: working with our partners to resolve outstanding land claims; helping first nations communities achieve genuine self-government; investing in schools and education services for young members of first nations communities; protecting vulnerable members of first nations communities and empowering aboriginal Canadians generally to overcome the distinctive challenges they face; spurring economic growth in first nations, Inuit, and Métis communities while strengthening the foundation of these communities through investments in their basic infrastructure; and leading the development and implementation of an integrated northern strategy that focuses on Canada's sovereignty, protecting our environmental heritage, promoting economic and social development, and improving governance so that northerners have greater control over their destinies.

In the three years that this government has been in office, we have made good headway on these broad themes. Progress on these matters has always been a springboard for the federal government to go beyond the strict confines of its traditional tasks and take action that will have a long-lasting impact on the lives of aboriginal Canadians on reserve and off, in all regions of the country.

Two examples of our government's progress come quickly to mind. The first is the decisive steps we took to resolve lingering differences between many aboriginal Canadians and the crown. The Prime Minister's apology to former students of residential schools and the approval of our government of a final Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement are the most vivid expressions of Canada's desire to heal old wounds, wounds that have not only soured relations, but also have hindered efforts, I believe, to carry out vital work.

By taking these historic steps, the Government of Canada has not merely redressed grievous wrongs of the past. I believe we've also positioned ourselves to deepen and expand our partnerships with aboriginal Canadians and cultivate important new partnership opportunities.

These partnerships work, Mr. Chairman. Surely there's no disagreement about that. The list of partnership success stories is lengthy. It's too lengthy to recount here today, although I hope to get into some of that in the Q and A period. There are partnerships with provincial and territorial governments, with communities across the country, and with national and regional aboriginal organizations.

These vital relationships are the engine that have moved us forward and will continue to drive us ahead until all Aboriginal peoples in Canada can live fulfilling lives.

In September 2008 this government signed a protocol with the Métis National Council, as another example of a partnership, to begin discussions on a wide range of issues of interest to the Métis people represented by the MNC. Areas of interest include Métis/aboriginal rights, economic development, and federal-provincial Métis cooperation on socio-economic issues. That was an important protocol and it was a delight to sign that with President Chartier late last year.

The committee will recall that we started the fiscal year with $6.3 billion in main estimates, and through supplementary estimates (A) we received an additional $483 million, and this supplementary estimates (B) will include a further $425 million, which brings the total department appropriations to about $7.2 billion. This is in line with the planned spending forecast of about $6.9 billion outlined in the report on plans and priorities, recognizing that the forecast evolves as new initiatives emerge and other initiatives get delayed.

Approval of the supplementary estimates (B) is critical to further developing successful partnerships. With adoption of these estimates, the Government of Canada will transfer $275 million to the Office of Indian Residential Schools Resolution Canada to help this agency carry out its work in implementing the settlement agreement. Again, this is the second way in which this government has used my department's mission as a springboard to achieve enduring results for aboriginal Canadians.

We've listened to aboriginal business groups and an impressive national advisory board, the Aboriginal Economic Development Board, to discover the distinctive difficulties they face, difficulties such as access to capital. Armed with this knowledge, we've worked with first nations Métis and Inuit groups to deploy new financial and administrative tools that entrepreneurs need to expand their operations, cultivate new markets, create jobs, and truly enter the Canadian economic mainstream.

Again, approval of supplementary estimates (B) is essential to spur even greater entrepreneurship among aboriginal Canadians, and with adoption of these estimates, the federal government will devote some $20 million to help aboriginal entrepreneurs access business financing.

In this spirit of practical solutions that produce truly transformative results, we are also helping fund negotiating efforts. We're concluding comprehensive land claims and self-government agreements with first nations communities, and we're using the provisions of the Specific Claims Tribunal Act to accelerate the resolution of specific claims.

These are not timid actions. These actions help unleash the forces of economic growth and social development not only in First Nation communities but also in neighbouring non-Aboriginal communities.

Rather than continuing to rely on the failed approaches of the past, we're following this route--an accountable route, a prudent route, and a route that creates greater potential for genuine, enduring economic growth in first nations communities. It's a route that helps aboriginal Canadians and their families pursue meaningful lives, and with each step along this path we're helping meet the day-to-day needs of members of all of these communities: needs such as safe drinking water; quality homes; and a solid education for their children.

Now supplementary estimates (B) gives us the financial resources to take action on all of these fronts. There is $17 million to enhance education in first nations communities and nearly $26 million to support the Dehcho First Nations as they negotiate comprehensive land claims and an interim measures agreement. There is $21 million for the first nations child and family services program in Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan. It was a pleasure to sign those agreements; now we need to fund them, of course. Supplementary estimates (B) includes initiatives that total $425 million, which increases my department's budget for 2008-09 to $7.2 billion.

I'm pleased to report that this pragmatic, focused approach is reflected in the federal government's recent budget. From the standpoint of my department, Budget 2009 vividly demonstrates that an effective response to Canada's global challenges requires an even sharper focus on addressing the short- and long-term challenges that aboriginal Canadians face. Armed with that knowledge, we're working diligently to ensure that aboriginal Canadians play an even more vital role in Canada's economy. We're making $1.4 billion worth of sound investments to support these efforts: investments in training and skills development; investments in on-reserve and off-reserve housing; infrastructure; investments in health; water systems; and family and child services.

At the same time, Budget 2009 includes vital new measures that will protect and secure Canada's sovereignty and create more economic opportunities in the north. These measures support economic development and include investments in infrastructure, measures to increase the stock of social housing there, to bolster scientific research, and to improve and maintain sound environmental practices.

One of the economic development measures that I'm most excited about--and that we certainly campaigned on--was the new northern development agency. Budget 2009 provides $50 million over five years to create this stand-alone agency for Canada's north. It was something that was in the 2008 Speech from the Throne.

One of the core activities will be to deliver strategic investments in the northern economic development program, the SINED program. Everywhere I travelled in the north, I heard that this needed to be renewed, and it was renewed in Budget 2009 with funding of $90 million over five years. This will be a pillar of Canada's northern strategy and it will help us coordinate our efforts to help northerners build prosperous communities. We'll be working with them to build better futures for themselves and their families in the land they call home, which is an important part of Canada all of us appreciate.

These investments and measures, and those outlined in the supplementary (B) estimates, are the direct result of extensive consultations undertaken by me, the Prime Minister, and many other ministers, working with provincial and territorial governments, with aboriginal leaders, and aboriginal organizations. In fact, the Prime Minister had a lengthy private meeting with the leaders of Canada's five major national aboriginal organizations. He then followed that with a second working dinner with the same organizations, their leaders, and the premiers at which the concerns of aboriginal Canadians and northerners were front and centre. They were very good meetings, very productive, and you can see the results in this budget.

The budgetary investments build on our recent achievements and reflect our current priorities. They are the concrete steps we intend to take in the weeks and months to come.

They also demonstrate forcefully that we're committed to ensuring that aboriginals and people living in the north fully share in economic opportunity and that we'll continue to work closely with provincial and territorial governments and other willing partners to ensure that Canada not only makes it through these tough times, but also emerges even stronger than before.

We're also, of course, committed to strong accountability to Parliament and Canadians. I look forward to reporting on Budget 2009 regularly, and we'll be tabling a progress report on water in the very near future, which I'm sure this committee will be interested in. In that spirit of accountability, I thank you, Mr. Chairman and your colleagues, for this invitation this morning, and I look forward to responding to questions and comments from committee members.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Merci, monsieur le ministre.

Now we go to questions from members, starting with Mr. Russell.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Minister and deputy ministers.

I'm glad you took the opportunity to move beyond the supplementary estimates per se.

I want to ask a question about the Indian residential schools and the additional money. Of course, we all know the importance of making sure that there is full and effective implementation of that particular agreement, and a vital part of that is the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. And of course we've seen some setbacks in that particular regard. Can you give us a brief update on where we are in that particular process? What are some specific timelines? As you know, there are a lot of elders in the communities who are looking forward to this particular avenue to explore healing and reconciliation in their particular communities and in their own lives. So I want to know that.

Then I want to move very quickly on to a couple of other questions, if I could.

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

Thank you, Mr. Russell. That's a great question, and it's something that's top of mind for many people, and not just aboriginal people, of course, because the idea of reconciliation is for all Canadians. And I think we're all looking forward to the work of the TRC.

The TRC is, I think, back on track, if you will. Obviously, we had Justice Iacobucci, who chaired a committee of all the signatories to the settlement agreement--the churches, the Métis, the Inuit, the AFN, us. We were all there. We've gone through a process over the last couple of months to work on details, such as the governance structure, in more detail. It was spelled out by the court settlement. That was given to us by the courts, but what was clear was that everybody wanted to see more clearly what that governance structure might look like in actual fact in the day-to-day workings. It deals with things like the relationship between the commissioners; the setting up of the secretariat; the relationship between the commission and the secretariat, which is kind of the nuts and bolts of getting things done; the executive director's position; and the needed and welcome independence from the government, which is something we've insisted on and which, of course, is in the design of the commission itself.

Then in the last week or so, the other two commissioners issued a statement saying they have now resigned from their positions to give the commission a fresh start. The feeling now is that we can move ahead with a fresh start very quickly. Justice Iacobucci will stay in a position to kind of chair this committee. He's done some fine work to date, and the feeling from all of us is that he should stay in that position while we choose the new commissioners, because he not only was part of helping us put together the job description in more detail, he's also just been a good mediator, or a good facilitator, if you will.

That committee is now set up to choose the replacements. My deputy minister will be sitting on that committee along with senior representatives from each of those other groups. They can get down to work immediately taking nominations. And we hope that will be up within weeks. I'm not thinking it's going to take a lot of time.

Also, some of the work that's been done in the meantime--I mentioned setting up the secretariat, a lot of the nuts and bolts of getting the committee ready to go--means that these commissioners, when they're chosen, will be able to slip right in and I think start immediately, as quickly as they're willing to and want to. Again, they have complete independence, but I would assume they'll want to start immediately, and now the framework is there for them to do that.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

On a broader issue, you talked about an economic stimulus package. There is no mention of any stimulus for Métis organizations specifically within the budget. The Inuit organizations have indicated that there is very limited mention of their particular priorities when it comes to housing, for instance. There's no specific Inuit housing, although they're captured when it comes to some of the northern housing. But you take places like Nunatsiavut in Labrador and Nunavik in Quebec. You said you had consultations. Why was there not more in the budget to reflect the priorities of those particular organizations?

Secondly, when it comes to first nations, you talk about water and waste water. How many additional communities are going to be taken off the high-risk list? As I understand, you're going to be going down the list and just taking communities off.

When it comes to housing units on reserve, how many are projected to be built or refurbished over the two years with the additional stimulus?

Then, my final question, I know, is a bit long. Internal documents that your department has produced about the Indian government support programs have indicated that these programs are under-funded, that they're 25 years old, that in fact the first nations or tribal councils don't have the resources, either human or money. Even the program design is not adequate to deliver. Your own internal documents say that and they say that additional investments are at risk because of the lack of support under the Indian government support programs. Your own internal documents say you want to explore three options: a gradual approach, a transformative approach, or a legislative approach. You're recommending, internally, to go with the gradual change, which would increase funding by 25% to 50%. If you went with the transformative approach, it would be 50% to 100%. If you went with the legislative approach, it would be up to 200%. You've chosen the gradual one because it wouldn't trigger consultation. Can you speak to that?

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

I'm not sure how much time I have to speak to all of that. These are all good questions, though. I think I will just repeat what I said in the last committee meeting. If I don't get some of these very specific answers, we will answer those in writing afterwards. If I can't get to them all and the new chairman here bangs the gavel, we'll move on, but I'll get to what I can.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

He told me he's liberal.

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

Yes, I know. He's very liberal. He's very liberal with his time. I think we'll just leave it at that maybe.

I have a couple of things. One, to start with, is the high-risk water systems. You're right. Of course, it is a big concern to us. I think there were 193 communities when we first took office that were listed as high risk. It's now down to about 54, so we've made some good progress and there have been major investments in water. We are launching this year, by the way, on the recommendations of both the Senate committee and other reports, a national assessment of water system requirements for first nations across the country. This is going to be the first time ever that we'll have an actual engineering assessment of the actual needs because a lot of it is anecdotal--you get a “boil water” advisory in a headline. So we know the need is there, but we've never had the actual assessment done properly.

So that's going to be done this year as part of the assessment and really to set priorities for those high-risk systems. The budget gives us money for at least 18 extra projects specifically in the infrastructure money. They tend to be, as you know, very expensive but very necessary. So this will give us 18 more projects, but the other funding continues on as well.

So it's not that we had budgeting in 2009 and the other things stopped. The things from 2006, 2007, and 2008 continue on. So we're going to continue on with our water and waste water action plan, which has brought it down from 193 to 54. This will give us another 18, and then the rest of the money continues as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We really must go to the next question, Minister. Perhaps you could comment on that.

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

And maybe some of them will come up in other questions from other people as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you.

We will now go to the Bloc.

Mr. Lemay.

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

I hope you won’t subtract from my allotted time the time it takes to adjust the interpretation.

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

I’m ready, Mr. Lemay.

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

I know you’re always ready, sir.

Since we haven’t had time to see each other since last October’s election, let me start by congratulating you on your appointment. I’m happy that you are the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, since this provides the continuity within the department that has been sorely lacking since 2006. Without exaggeration and with all due respect, it seemed like a new minister was appointed every two weeks. I’m assuming then that you are now quite familiar with your department. My questions will relate to the issues under discussion today.

Firstly, I would like an update on the Specific Claims Tribunal Act that you spoke of in your opening remarks. How many claims are now being reviewed and what is their status at this time? Did communities have access to this Tribunal, or was the money merely used to set up this body?

Secondly, you stated that the government signed a historic protocol with the Métis Nation last September. The Supplementary Estimates contain a reference to the Beyond Powley initiative. Substantial sums of money have been allocated to developing a framework for managing Métis Aboriginal rights. Further to the Supreme Court’s decision in Powley, which dates back almost 10 years, has your department finally agreed on a definition of Métis? Have Métis communities outside of Western Canada been recognized? I’m talking about communities in Northern Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Are there any Métis communities in Eastern Canada, that is in the Maritimes, Quebec or elsewhere? Will this money go toward the management of Métis Aboriginal rights?

You briefly touched on the subject-matter of my second question, namely water initiatives targeting Aboriginal communities. Does this program apply only to communities governed by the Indian Act? I don’t like to use the expression “non-status Indian”, but does this program apply to communities located in La Vérendrye Park, in Winneway, in Abitibi-Témiscamingue and to several other communities “not yet recognized” under the Indian Act?

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

I am delighted to be here today. You have a great deal of experience as an MP, Mr. Lemay. Therefore, you understand very well the situation, particularly in Quebec, and that’s to our advantage.

The water initiatives I was talking about—the 18 new facilities we will be able to work on with this new money—are on first nations reserves, as is the program generally. The program is for working with first nations specifically on reserves.

Now, there are other programs the government has for water infrastructure in general. There are different ways that public governments and other governments can access money through other infrastructure programs, but our water and waste water management program is for on reserve. That's just the way the allocations go. And if someone is outside of the reserve system, then they need to work with Infrastructure Canada, and with other agencies, and with provincial authorities, local authorities, and their own authorities, to see how to handle that. But we restrict ourselves to working with on-reserve water systems.

On the Specific Claims Tribunal Act, which you mentioned, of course, we're very pleased with that. Actually, I do have a graph somewhere on the number of cases we've been able to deal with under the specific claims process, and we actually made some tremendous progress even before the Specific Claims Tribunal Act was in place. We've settled a record number of claims. I can get you the exact numbers, but we settled more than twice as many claims last year as any other year previously.

I think by the Specific Claims Tribunal Act being in the window—as you know, this is where it may go—I think negotiators on all sides have got more serious about settling these by negotiation. The Specific Claims Tribunal Act, which is a good way to handle these, is still an optional thing for first nations. They don't have to use it; it's an optional thing for them. But by having it out there as a place where they can go if they don't get satisfaction, I think all negotiators, both on the government and the first nations side, buckle down and get the job done. And we've seen a record number of cases handled and a record number settled over the last year, and in part because of that Specific Claims Tribunal Act being there.

It's on track; everything's on track on the Specific Claims Tribunal itself. The secretariat is in place. There's, again, a secretariat to do all the nuts-and-bolts work of it. They're consulting with chief justices in each province to select the senior judges who will work on this. I know I've spoken with Minister Nicholson about this. This is a priority for me and for him, and I know he's doing consulting as well with aboriginal leaders and with National Chief Fontaine, for example, to get his input on this.

There will be the dollars allocated in the estimates for this. It's receiving claims; that process has started. There's a three-year timeline in there, and the clock starts ticking when first nations submit that claim.

So it's all in order, and again, I'd just emphasize that it's helped make the rest of the negotiations go well. And that's been, for me, an unexpectedly good side bonus because it's kept everybody on their toes, saying, “You either get it negotiated or you're going to be in front of the Specific Claims Tribunal”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Okay, I think we have to sort of wrap it up there, if we can.

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

The Métis one, we're going to do in a--

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I appreciate that. I'm trying to use some discretion here, but perhaps we'll come back.

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

I would simply like to make one comment, Mr. Chair.

The Minister will probably not be able to answer some of the questions directed at him. Perhaps he could send a written response to these questions to the committee. The Métis question is extremely important. Perhaps the minister could respond quickly in writing after the meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

That's a fair request.

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

Fine. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Now we go to Ms. Crowder for seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for coming before us today. I appreciate your commitment to following up, because I'm going to ask you a number of questions that I know you won't have time to answer today.

I want to follow up on the specific claims for just one moment. The initial plans and priorities documents that came out laid out some targets and timelines. I think we would welcome a report on what those numbers look like. The Indian Specific Claims Commission, in their report on plans and priorities, indicated, of course, that they were wrapping up operations at the end of December. When I was looking at the supplementary estimates, what I didn't see was whether the money was just rolling over from the commission into this new tribunal support function or not. I wondered about the funding around that.

In addition, I understand that some nations received a letter telling them that they had six months to file additional information, and that either they would have to stay with their old claim without the new information, or any new, additional information after that six months would actually put them into the queue with new claims. A letter was sent out by Grand Chief Stewart Phillip from the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. I wondered about that process.

I have one other comment on the whole claims process. On page 80 in the estimates, there was funding under comprehensive land claims outside of British Columbia, but they've indicated in there that additional money has been asked for. Part of the ask was around “acquisitions and holding costs of surplus federal real property for comprehensive land claims negotiations”. Of course, in many of our ridings, land is a huge issue. I wonder if a report can be made on surplus federal real property that's been acquired to help resolve some of these comprehensive claims, particularly in light of the fact that in the recent budget speech we heard about the selling off of crown assets. Certainly, first nations would like to be first in line with that.

On education, on page 151 of the supplementary estimates there is funding “to support the implementation of new accountability initiatives and tripartite partnership initiatives for First Nations education”. I wonder if that funding will include things like implementation dollars for the British Columbia—First Nations Education Agreement. When you and department officials came before the committee back on May 14, Mr. Wernick and Ms. Cram both talked about the fact that the British Columbia—First Nations Education Agreement implementation process had not been sorted out. As late as December, it still had not been sorted out. I wonder if some of this supplementary money will go towards funding those agreements that are already in place.

As well, at the bottom of page 153, under the explanation under vote 10, it talks about the fact that “$294,903 in total authorities is available within the Vote due to reduced contribution requirements for Community Infrastructure in order to increase grants for Education in Nova Scotia”. We know there are serious community infrastructure needs. I wonder how it was possible to free up infrastructure money to put in grants for education in Nova Scotia. Although I would agree that the funding authority in Nova Scotia needs the money, I'm surprised that we would take money out of infrastructure for it.

The other two quick pieces are that I didn't see any money in the supplementary estimates for the implementation of Jordan's Principle, unanimously passed in the House of Commons, supporting the fact that two levels of government will put children first and not argue about who pays.

The last thing was on the PSSSP review that's under way in the department. It's creating a great deal of consternation in first nations communities because, in their view, they have not been involved in the consultation. I wonder if the minister could provide details on that consultation and if there's any intention around changing the way that funding is currently in place for first nations communities.

I know that's a lot. I know you'll respond to what you can and provide the rest in writing.

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

Thank you.

Those are all good questions, and many of them have been in the news. I hopefully can answer a couple of them, and we'll get the rest to you in written form.

You're right about the consternation that's caused sometimes. Maybe it's the Internet age, I'm not sure, but if somebody has something that people are worried about, there's a problem of some sort, within a week it can be across Canada and you have to fight to get the actual facts out. Maybe this is a good chance to do some of that.

One example is your first question on the specific claims and updating their claims within six months. There's no requirement for first nations to update their claims at all. There's no requirement. They needn't fear that. They're happy that claim has gone in. It's in the condition they're satisfied with. The claim is solid. They're sure about their claim. It's been accepted. They don't have to update anything. It's ready to go, and it will be processed.

We said that if you have new information, something has come up, an archeological review or some other document, and you would like to update it as a first nation--you have new information that buttresses your arguments--then by all means submit it.

But if they're happy with their submission--and I assume people are happy with it if they've put it in place--and they want to update it, they have six months. If they say they have some new documents that make their argument even stronger, then they can add it. But there's no need. If they have a complete submission and they're confident in that, then that six months is only for their benefit, if they want to use it.