Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 26th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Good morning to all members of this committee and to all of our guests. This is the 21^st meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. This morning, we welcome the minister.

Minister, on behalf of the members of this committee, welcome.

This morning we're here to review the main estimates for 2009-10.

As is customary, Minister, we'll lead off with your opening remarks. Then we'll proceed to questions from members. We're quite aware that you've taken time out of your other cabinet requirements and schedule this morning, so we'll try to get you finished here by 10 o'clock. Then we'll carry on with your officials, who we also welcome here today. You may want to take the time to introduce the officials who are accompanying you.

Let's proceed. Welcome.

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

Thank you, monsieur le président.

There's no place more important for me to be this morning than here, although there are important things happening in the House as well. I realize all of us are torn between making those choices. We're delighted to be here, of course.

I wish to thank members of the standing committee for welcoming me to talk with you about the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development's 2009-2010 Main Estimates—which provides us another opportunity to discuss the government's agenda for aboriginal and northern Canadians.

As minister over the past two years, I've had the privilege of visiting first nations and Inuit communities across the country and talking at length with aboriginal and northern leaders. What I've seen and heard has confirmed for me that I believe we are on the right track. We are making headway. We are addressing the pressing needs of aboriginal people and northerners in real, meaningful ways. We're building important infrastructure, resolving long-standing land claims, and improving access to better-quality services. We're helping communities and people across the country to look to the future with hope. I believe the members of this standing committee are active players in our success. You've been studying and reporting on priority and timely issues. You've accelerated critical legislation and you have collaborated to best serve northerners, Métis, and members of first nations and Inuit communities across Canada, and for that I thank you.

In particular, I want to thank you for your support and rapid approval of Bill C-28, An Act to amend the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act. It is delightful to see that move quickly. We waited a long time for that, and it's nice to see that move through the House and hopefully on to the Senate shortly. I'm also pleased that Bill C-5 has received royal assent. That is due, in large part, to the work here of this committee, and I want to thank you for that support.

Last night we had a vote in the House of Commons. I think we dodged a bullet, frankly, on Bill C-8. Frankly, I'm unsure exactly what happened between the time of the speeches in the House talking about the bill and the motion to hoist the bill, which would effectively have killed it. I read through your speeches, and many of you gave really passionate speeches about the need to address the concerns, especially of aboriginal women, when it comes to matrimonial property rights. Bill C-8 is an effort to not only address matrimonial property rights in a way that would allow especially women and children the protection that all other Canadians take for granted, but it was really an opportunity to put in place a mechanism to allow first nations to put in place their own culturally sensitive laws on their own lands without interference by the federal government.

My hope is that we can get back to business. I urge all parties to deal with the subject matter itself. I'm still hopeful that we can deal with that in the House, get it into committee, and have the good study of it that many of you have said you would like to proceed with. I would hope that this will be possible now as we get back to that.

Moving on past Bill C-8, we are committed to addressing the legacy of residential schools, speeding up the resolution of specific claims, and ensuring that safe drinking water is available to all members of first nations and Inuit communities. Our resolve is to tackle these specific areas because we believe it will enable communities to heal, to grow strong, and to plan for the future. Those are our three priority areas in these main estimates, three areas where we will focus our resources and our efforts in the coming year. But we must also continue to build on our more successful programs and services and continue to renovate those that may be falling behind. We must use tools to help grow local economies, to ensure access to safe and reliable drinking water, to build and repair schools and homes, and we must use these tools to enable aboriginal people to lead healthier and more fulfilling lives. We have set out, I believe, a clear, prudent plan.

Mr. Chairman, my department's main estimates for 2009-10 are an important part of that plan. The main estimates for this fiscal year are part of the sound, well-balanced approach we are taking to serve all Canadians. In the main estimates, roughly $6.9 billion is allocated to programs and services that address the critical human needs of aboriginal peoples and northerners. You will notice that this figure is an increase of some $666 million, more than 10% over last year's estimates. Allow me to explain why.

This year the estimates include $286 million for the Office of Indian Residential Schools Resolution of Canada. The responsibility for this office was transferred to my department in June 2008. Also new in this year's estimates are three other critical investments: $243 million to further implement provisions of the specific claims action plan; $138 million to continue taking action on the first nations water and waste water action plan; and an additional $93 million for ongoing programs that provide basic services to members of first nations and Inuit communities.

Mr. Chairman, these new investments will serve all northerners, Métis and members of first nation and Inuit communities.

Another vital element of our approach is to connect our aboriginal and northern agenda to the economic action plan set out in the January budget. Through the economic action plan, the government is dedicating more than $1.4 billion over two years to priority issues that impact the well-being of aboriginal peoples. More specifically, the government is dedicating $200 million to skills development and job training to ensure that members of first nations, Métis, and Inuit communities have the necessary tools to take part in and excel in Canada's workforce; $400 million to service residential lots and build, renovate, and remediate housing on reserves; $515 million to construct schools, ensure access to safe drinking water, and improve health, policing, and other vital infrastructure on reserves; and another $325 million to nurture partnerships with aboriginal organizations and provincial and territorial governments—essential partnerships that help deliver health programs and child and family services to first nations and Inuit communities.

In all, more than $535 million, over one-third of the $1.4 billion total, will flow through my department over the next two years—$260 million this year and the balance next year. I should note that the $260 million for this year is not included in the main estimates. It will be incorporated into the supplementary estimates, but I wanted to give an overview of it today in case there are questions on it. Supplementary estimates (A), for example, which were tabled on May 14, account for roughly $253 million of the $260 million for this year.

Through Canada's economic action plan, the government is investing more than $500 million in the north—funding that will benefit all Canadians, including aboriginal peoples. The greatest share of that funding—$200 million over two years—is to renovate and build much-needed housing in the territories. Other major initiatives include $50 million over five years to establish a regional development agency that will support economic growth in the north and $90 million over five years to revitalize the strategic investments in northern economic development initiative, a core suite of highly successful programs that my department has long delivered and that the new regional development agency will continue to deliver, once it's up and running.

This government also remains committed to Arctic science and will invest $87 million over two years in northern research facilities. Preliminary work has started towards the establishment of a Canadian high Arctic research station.

Finally, the government will invest $59 million over two years to stabilize the food mail program to provide access to healthy food in isolated northern communities.

Altogether, between my department's main estimates and the economic action plan, the Government of Canada's clear, prudent plan to meet the needs of northerners and aboriginal peoples totals $7.3 billion. As you may already know from the first report to Canadians on the implementation of the economic action plan in March, the government has already begun to allocate these funds. I've already identified and announced all of the projects for schools and water facilities and all of the Arctic science projects. They've all been announced, we are moving briskly to implement, and I would be pleased to take questions about them.

With the help and support of this committee, Mr. Chairman, we will continue to address the vital needs of northerners, of Métis, and of members of first nations and Inuit communities.

We will continue to ensure that every Canadian can achieve his or her potential and contribute to the future of our great country.

Thank you very much to you, Mr. Chairman, and to all committee members.

I am now more than happy to take any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Minister.

We will now move on to our first round of questions and answers. We shall begin with Mr. Bagnell, who has seven minutes.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Minister, I'm going to ask my three questions. If you would, just write them down and then go ahead and answer.

First, as you know, a couple of weeks ago there was a land claim implementation conference here. Jean and Todd and I attended, and the anger was palpable. People were very angry; hundreds of delegates said the land claim implementation system is just not working. An example was that one first nation was told they couldn't set up an agency that is allowed in their land claim. The department is breaking the law, basically.

The second question is on the damning report that just came out on the schools. I'm sure you're prepared to talk about that.

The third question is related to the First Nations Statistical Institute, vote 45. On March 23, 2005, the First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, Bill C-20, received royal assent. Four years later, is the First Nations Statistical Institute operational? If not, why not? Wouldn't you expect it to be operational? Wouldn't you agree that in the face of serious concerns about quality of life of first nations vis-à-vis other Canadians, the work of this institute is required urgently?

Thank you for coming, Minister.

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

Thank you, Mr. Bagnell. I appreciate those questions and I appreciate your ongoing--which I can vouch for--questions to me. Hopefully we can get you some of the answers as we go through this.

I met with the land claims implementation coalition in March. I did meet with representation of the coalition, and we discussed in broad terms the report they were going to table at that time. We talked about the need to better implement not just the land claims agreements we have, but also the renewals of them. This is a relatively new thing for Canada in recent years, and I've been saying since I've had this job that we need to do a better job, frankly, as a government and as a country in dealing not only with land claims and their ongoing implementation, but also with the renewal process. Many of the land claims, especially the earlier ones, didn't have the kind of detail written into the contract, if you will, that said here's how we deal with these problem areas. We're getting much better at that.

Some of the renewals that we've been able to accomplish and some of the new mandates I've had from cabinet deal with some of the critical issues that the land claims coalition has pointed out as systemic kinds of problems.

I agree with much of what they say in that we need to do a better job and that the renewal is critically important, because it's during that process, whether it be a five-year, a six-year or a ten-year process, that you identify the gaps. As I mentioned, I think we're getting much better at saying here's how we're going to address it.

I don't dispute the need to do better. When I was up in your turf the other day, up in the Yukon, I did meet with Chief Carvill. That's one example of the Yukon first nations that have a list of ongoing concerns, with which I know you're very familiar. Again, they relate to first nations exercising the rights that are theirs under the original land claims agreements and then saying that they're now ready to proceed to the next step. They want to deal with child and family service agreements or they want to take control now that they have the capacity to do more things that should be under their control.

We need to find ways to make that happen for them, and that comes with doing a better job, especially on renewals. I think we are doing a better job. For example, in the Tsawwassen treaty, which is not exactly the same, there's so much more detail, so much more in there. The agreement we had with the James Bay Cree, for example, talks about everything from.... The Cree-Naskapi act that we're debating in the House right now deals with mediation services, how we deal with problems. Instead of leaving it to the courts or a confrontational system, we detail how we're going to deal with this, and I think we're making vast improvements.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Could you answer the other questions? We'll run out of time.

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

The FNSI are now up and operating. They've sent me their corporate plan so they are functioning. The board has met with the deputy minister, and they are proceeding with their corporate plan down that path. There's a process in place to get a chief statistician now as part of their corporate plan. Obviously that's part of what they need to do.

I absolutely believe it is a critical option. There's no one way forward for first nations, but it is one of a series of very good options for first nations to take advantage of information. It builds capacity and allows them to take control more and more. It's just like the First Nations Land Management Act and the First Nations Finance Authority. There's a series of things that allow first nations to move ahead.

So the institute is up and running. They have a corporate plan and I have approved that plan. When their chief statistician comes on board they'll be able to do more of the tangible work that's necessary for first nations interested in accessing their services.

The last point you made was on the school report on the Parliamentary Budget Officer. I don't doubt there may be more questions on that, so if I don't answer them all here, we'll get to them.

I saw the report for the first time yesterday. It's obviously very technical and lengthy. I've asked officials to review not only the recommendations but some of the data. Frankly, there are some mistakes in the data. Either the information wasn't available or it wasn't clear. So we will respond to the report.

This analysis was done before Budget 2009. There was a gap noted in spending on schools. A good part of that gap, in my opinion, was addressed by the Budget 2009 action plan. It allowed us to top up the amount of money we were spending on school infrastructure. That allowed me to make the announcement on the 13 school projects this spring.

We'll have to analyze the rest of it and get back to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. As I say, there are some errors in it, but it deserves a good analysis and we'll be doing that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Bagnell.

Mr. Lemay, you have seven minutes.

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

Minister Strahl, I will make a comment on Bill C-8. Even if the amendment was defeated yesterday, that does not mean that you can assume that the bill will be adopted in its current form. All first nations—and I have support from the women of... As a result of the lobbying efforts carried out by the first nations of Quebec and Labrador, and Quebec Native Women Inc., the Bloc Québécois decided to alter its position and support the amendment tabled by our Liberal colleagues. That being said, if Bill C-8 were to remain as it is now in its current form, all members of the House of Commons, without exception, would vote against it.

Over the last two weeks, this committee heard testimony from the first nations affected by Treaty One. You are aware of the problems. We passed Bill C-31 concerning specific claims. Would it not be appropriate to set up a tribunal charged with the implementation of treaties? I understand that this is a tall order, but we believe, as do the first nations, that the federal government is very often in a conflict of interest when implementing treaties, as it is the one scheduling meetings, transferring money, etc.

I'm simply calling your attention to the possibility of creating a tribunal responsible for implementing treaties. For now, that is what I will call it.

Please be brief in your answers, as I have two other important questions to ask you.

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

Thank you.

Bill C-8, to briefly mention it, after last night's vote, is still before the House in its current form. My hope is that we can agree in principle that we need to deal with this issue. That's usually how we consider votes at second reading. Then it will come to this committee. I'm sure you'll have much to say about it, but my hope is still that we can make progress on it and agree in principle that we need to do something to address matrimonial property rights and pursue the subject. It's a gap in the law that needs to be filled.

I believe passionately that this is a case in which the perfect is the enemy of the good. This is a good bill, changed much with the influence of and in consultation with first nations. There are people who say it's not perfect, and that may be true, but perfection has been very elusive on this. It's been going on for many years—decades. People always want something a little bit different, a little more perfect.

My opinion is that allowing first nations to enact their own laws on reserves to cover the subject will lead to each one being slightly different, but will cover the matrimonial property rights. In my opinion, this is the closest we're going to get. I fear that if we search for perfection, we will never deal with this important issue. I urge people to consider that.

That being said, on the treaty implementation there are a couple of things.

In the Specific Claims Tribunal agreement there was a side agreement signed with the national chief that dealt with treaty implementation issues. In fact, we had our first-ever treaty conference in Saskatoon, which I spoke at, last year. It was a huge conference. Following that, the Assembly of First Nations, for one, and other groups as well, have taken the information that was gained from that conference. The Assembly of First Nations, for example, have passed a series of motions for their own organization for studying this subject matter and putting forward proposals for moving ahead. We've been working with first nations to do this, especially with the Assembly of First Nations, in this case.

There are other things in the works as well. For example, in Ontario there is a move afoot to see whether we need some sort of treaty commission in Ontario, what it might look like, and what involvement the Ontario government might have. Often it's federal-provincial-first nations issues that are stake. Those sorts of things are being discussed actively right now.

All recent treaties have access to mediation and arbitration to deal with treaty issues. That's the modern reality. Increasingly, whether we're talking about the numbered treaties or modern treaties, all of us are looking more and more at ways to stay out of the courts. The courts are always a place to go, if necessary, I suppose, and that's a fail-safe measure, but increasingly everyone is looking for either mediation or arbitration opportunities to try to deal with the issues. I think we are making progress on this. We'll have further follow-up on the treaty implementation with the Assembly of First Nations, as per the agreement.

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

The government has set aside $20 million for education agreements with the provinces. How will this affect the first nations, and the provinces? What is the purpose of this $20 million allocation?

According to rumours, it is expected that changes will be made to how reserves, communities, and aboriginal tribal councils are funded. I know that there have been meetings between your department and community leaders and directors. We would like to know what is going on. The first nations are worried about cutbacks in support funding for aboriginal reserves and governance.

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

Thank you, Mr. Lemay.

The first issue deals with the $20 million in the budget for extending the tripartite agreements under child and family services. I think that's the $20 million you're referring to—for child and family services, is it not?

Let me start by asking, if I may, to correct the record. This has to do with a question Ms. Crowder asked me in the House of Commons. I mistakenly said that we had agreements in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Prince Edward Island already. That's not true; it's actually Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Nova Scotia. I apologize. That was just a heat-of-the-moment, 35-second answer, Ms. Crowder, and I apologize for it.

This $20 million will allow us to complete the deals on child and family services with two more provinces and first nations in those provinces in an ongoing fashion. It will change the child and family service process from one of interdiction and taking children away, frankly, to one of prevention, working with first nations in those provinces to use the best of the provincial services, and working with first nations in a culturally sensitive way. I think we're very close to signing on two more provinces, which will, as I said in the House, get us halfway there—we'll have five of the provinces done—and we're hoping to do it very quickly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Minister.

Ms. Crowder, you have seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I too want to quickly address Bill C-8, matrimonial real property.

I think you're right, Mr. Minister, that there is a willingness to deal with this long-outstanding issue. Of course, the problem is the how. I was very passionate in my speech in opposition to the amendment that was proposed; however, in the interim, first nations leaders from across the country indicated quite clearly that they wanted that amendment supported.

I think the issue becomes how we tackle matrimonial real property. First nations people across this country feel that the consultation process has not been appropriately conducted. There may be differences of opinion around that, but they're very clear about it. I think there are a number of other ways we could tackle this without ending up in the kind of controversy we've had.

As always, in the past you've agreed to respond in writing to any questions that we couldn't have answered in committee. I'm presuming you'll do the same, so I have a number of questions, and some of them are probably fairly straightforward.

The government expense plan indicates—the page isn't numbered, but it's on the page after 1-12—that part of the decrease in the budget is from the sunsetting of the first nations SchoolNet. I wonder whether there are plans to deal with that.

Page 15-10 in the estimates indicates that “Contributions to First Nations for the management of contaminated sites” is going to be substantially reduced from last fiscal year. Could you comment on whether it's a fact that there are fewer contaminated sites? I went back to an old press release saying, “Dozens of reserves could contain abandoned military explosives”. It seems as though there are many contaminated sites out there, so if you would, comment on that one.

In the plans and priorities document, pages 37 and 48 talk about the urban aboriginal strategy. I know that friendship centres come under Heritage Canada, but I understand that the department is funding the Edmonton Aboriginal Transition Centre. I couldn't find in the estimates what source it was funded from and I wondered whether it was out of the urban aboriginal strategy. And then my question around it is: why are we funding an urban transition centre when we already have infrastructure in place for friendship centres?

My understanding concerning passports is that you have an allocation of money for secure status cards. I understood that as of June 1 there was going to be a secure status card in place that could be used to cross the border in lieu of passports. I know a number of bands have now received letters saying it won't be in place. Could you comment on that?

Here is the question I'd like you to answer verbally; the others can be dealt with in writing. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, on page 13 of the report, has indicated that it is difficult to talk about the money that's actually spent because of the fact that money is moved around. On page 7 in your plans and priorities report, under “Strategic Outcome: The Economy”, the department acknowledges that it “does not reflect in-year reallocations to address pressures in other program areas”.

So in the plans and priorities there's an acknowledgement that money gets shifted around. Part of the challenge the Parliamentary Budget Officer had was that money gets shifted around, so I wonder whether you could comment on whether the department has any intention of specifically earmarking money for schools so that it's not reallocated—not just for the capital expenditure, but for operations and maintenance as well.

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

Thank you. We probably won't have time to answer all those, so we'll obviously get back to you.

I can tell you that SchoolNet was renewed, just quickly, so that's a “good news” story.

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

It says, though, that there's a sunset. So is it going to be renewed for a period of time?

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

It has been renewed. We'll get the other details, including those on the passports. I think that is on the way to being a “good news” story, but there's more work to be done.

I have to comment on Bill C-8, just very briefly again, to say that I understand the difficulty. I think everyone around the table here wants to deal with matrimonial property rights. We've spent over $8 million on consultation over several years. We've had over 100 meetings to consult. We've consulted broadly. We've had special representatives. We've had contracts with women's associations, with AFN, and others. We run the risk of there never being enough consultation. My hope is that part of the consultation will be the committee work. I realize not all of it can be that, but we have really put a good amount of money, effort, and time into trying to consult. I've had first nations approach me and say, “We have a plan in place”, and I say, “But with the stupid Indian Act the way it is, I have no power to allow you to enact your own laws on matrimonial property, so you're stuck. I like your law. I wish I could give you the permission to take it over, but I have no authority to do that.” This law, Bill C-28, would allow me to say, “Great, you have a law. Take it over. It's yours.” But I can't even do that, and that's a pretty frustrating thing for you and for me. I see a big gap, and no one can fill it because there's this lack of authority. But we'll deal with that as we move through it, I guess.

Regarding the Parliamentary Budget Officer, you're right. At first glance--and again, we'll do the analysis--he does point out that money is moved around in order to look after different priorities. I think in part it is true—and I don't know that we can put it in a lockbox. One of the difficulties we have, if you will, in Indian Affairs—people in the committee understand, but I hope people in general in the public understand—is that it's not like being just part of a school board. Indian Affairs, for better or for worse, looks after everything that touches peoples' lives in these communities. So it could be everything from fire protection, flood relief, schools, roads, infrastructure, welfare, everything. Not often, but once in a while, a crisis will happen. A school will burn down. A flood will take place. Fire will cause an evacuation, and so on. Frankly, you can have money allocated for schools, and you can build a school, but you can't provide safe drinking water for it. You can't get the road that goes to it. You have no way of making fire protection part of it. Often we have to do a holistic look at how to help the community. I think the debate can really be on how much money we spend, but often it's very difficult to pinpoint and say we'll just put this in the box, and if it's outside the box, so sad, so sorry, no one can help you. Whereas if we have some flexibility, we can use money back and forth.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We'll have to leave it at that.

Sorry, Ms. Crowder, we're really over time there.

Thank you, and thank you, Minister.

Now we're going to go to Mr. Duncan for the last question of the first round.

Mr. Duncan.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Good morning, Minister.

I just wanted to clarify something first. When Monsieur Lemay was speaking on Bill C-8, I think we had a translation issue, because the English translation indicated that when Bill C-8 came back to the House, no one would oppose the bill, and I know that is not the intent. I just want to clarify the record.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

That's what I heard as well.

Perhaps, Mr. Lemay, you would like to clarify.

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

I will repeat what I said to the minister. It is not because the amendment was defeated yesterday that the government can assume that Bill C-8 will pass easily when it comes back for second reading. It is clear that the department must sit down with the first nations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is that understood now?

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Yes, I understood it, but I think if the broader audience were only listening to the translation it would have been problematic.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Okay, that's helpful.

Merci, Monsieur Lemay.

Continue.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

I have just one other comment on Bill C-8, the proposed matrimonial property rights legislation.

Minister, you talked about how long this issue has been around. I sat on this committee in the mid-1990s, and we were talking about it then. Here we are close to 15 years later and we're still trying to deal with this issue.

My question concerns the ongoing challenges in the north. You did talk about the north, and the government has made economic development a priority in the north. I wonder if you could update the committee on some of the progress that's been made. Certainly it's an area this committee has been wanting to delve into more deeply, so could you help us out a bit? Thanks.