Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 28th, 2009

[Michel Roy]

Not at all. It applies to all government interventions.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Everywhere, at all times?

[Michel Roy]

Always.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

That's it, Monsieur.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We'll now go to Mr. Albrecht for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to our witnesses.

I also will not be focusing my questions on Mary Quinn, but I'm very supportive of the notes here, where it talks about increased emphasis on the enhanced prevention approach. I certainly applaud that. I think that move is welcome and long overdue.

Mr. Borbey, on page eight you talk about the elimination of unnecessary duplication between the Nunavut Impact Review Board and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. We're all aware that many times duplication in environmental assessments can lead to undue delays. I'm just wondering if you can expand a bit on some of the initiatives that have been taken. If there have been obstacles in moving forward on getting rid of those duplications, where has the resistance come from, or is there good cooperation on all sides to move these projects ahead?

[Patrick Borbey]

Thank you.

This case, in particular, became obvious to us a couple of years ago as a result of some of the projects that are making their way through the Nunavut regulatory system. This was an issue where the CEAA did not correspond with the text of the land claim. Once we found that issue did apply in a particular case of one project, we engaged in discussions immediately with Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, which is the signatory to the land claim, and with CEAA to find a way to resolve the issue. We came up with a temporary solution in order to prevent a situation where you might have one project and two assessments. It's the principle of one project being subjected to only one environmental assessment.

We got an interim arrangement, and then we negotiated an amendment to the land claim successfully, which was done last year and approved by all parties. We're now embedding that change in the legislation that we're developing for the Nunavut regulatory system.

So that's an example. There are not other examples that I'm aware of where there is that kind of blatant duplication, but we have to be very conscious of that possibility. We also know that changes to the MVRMA are required to ensure that once a project such as the Mackenzie gas pipeline project has gone through the environmental assessment, when it goes into the next stage, the permitting stage, the clauses under the MVRMA cannot allow that project or parts of the project to be thrown back into environmental assessment.

So we've already made some changes there to the exemption list under MVRMA, and we're looking at other ways to assure that certainty.

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

Does the principle you're working on in relation to these two, Nunavut and Canada's Environmental Assessment Agency, apply to other territories and/or land agreements as well, or is it simply that one that you're focusing on right now?

[Patrick Borbey]

Now that the Nunavut case is resolved, there are no issues in Nunavut. It basically is resolved.

It's a fairly simple situation, because you have one single set of regulatory instruments, legislation, etc., applying over the whole territory--one aboriginal organization, one land claim. In the Yukon it's the same thing, one overall agreement. It's in the NWT that it's more complicated, because we do have a number of land claim signatories and there is a certain amount of complexity there that we had to work through.

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

Okay, thank you.

Also, the question of economic development, as Mr. Duncan indicated, has been high on our priority list for some time, and I know it is on yours. Can you just comment on some of the economic development measures in the Inuvialuit region over the last while and what kind of progress we're making on those?

[Michel Roy]

Economic development has been an element of the agreement that we have there. We sit down with the other signatories, the Inuvialuit and the Northwest Territories, and we all agree to work together on a more flexible approach, if I could say that, to evaluate, to assess what is going on right now in terms of economic development. The government invested $400,000 there, with the Inuvialuit, to do some studies and research to try to define ways of getting better results in terms of economic development, and that's going on. The first phase is done now, so the group will sit down together again and discuss the second phase of this approach.

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

Do we have some concrete examples of how that has actually been progressing over the last couple of years, or maybe examples of what you see on the horizon? I don't need them now, but I'd welcome some concrete examples of successful projects.

Thank you.

[Michel Roy]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I now hand over to Mr. Gaudet.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Chair, I don't often sit on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs.

Ms. Quinn, in your document, you state:

The Government of Canada is committed to providing the necessary funding for first nations child welfare that is provincially-comparable to support early intervention and prevention-specific services that work to reduce the number of apprehensions while building better overall outcomes. The Enhanced Prevention Focused approach includes two main components. The first is the development of Tripartite Accountability Frameworks that comprise shared goals, outcomes and performance measurement indicators, as well as clearly defined roles and responsibilities of each of the three parties.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Mr. Gaudet, can you speak more slowly, please?

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

That's too fast? All right.

You state this a little further on:

The second component involves working directly with first nations child welfare practitioners and provincial officials in developing a funding model that is specific and comparable to the particular province we are working with...

My question is simple. There are no results suggesting that services have improved. I heard this morning—and I don't remember whether it was on the radio or television—that 500 aboriginal women disappeared every year, some of whom were killed. Currently we only hear about administration. We invest money in tripartite agreements and all kinds of things like that, but we never get concrete results.

I have been sitting as a member for six years now, and I have never stopped hearing the same things concerning aboriginal people. How is it that there are never any tangible, visible results? We ceaselessly invest money, but it seems to me that everything goes into administration, meetings and so on. I'd like to get an answer from the three witnesses.

Thank you.

[Mary Quinn]

Your question is definitely very important.

Any time the department hears or is involved in serious issues involving first nations children, we certainly take it as a priority concern, whether it's in child and family services or in education or in family violence prevention situations, and we try to work with partners as much as we can to prevent those situations.

In terms of results, the formula for the provinces that aren't in the new model has a bias towards protection—that is, in terms of taking children out of their home because we don't have the capacity or the providers aren't able to provide services to keep them in the home if it's a safe situation. That decision of a caseworker to leave a child in the home or to take the child out of the home is probably one of the most serious anyone would ever take, because if made well it will be of benefit, but if a child is left in an unsafe situation it is certainly going to harm the child, the family, and the community. So these people have an extremely important job to do.

And the prevention, as was demonstrated by the Province of Alberta itself, when it moved to a prevention model for its citizens.... Alberta is seen as one of the more advanced provinces. They don't take that status for granted because the situation is too complex and touchy.

But to answer your question, I would say we really need to get the prevention model for child and family services into as many areas as we can. We hope to do that by 2013. We would love to do it sooner, but we have three provinces. The minister indicated at the committee that he hoped we would be moving very soon into more provinces. And if things go according to plan—but it depends upon fiscal situations and other conditions—we hope to keep moving province by province until we have them all. And when we have prevention, we hope to see better results.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We want to give some time for the other two to respond to Mr. Gaudet's question, so please continue, Monsieur Roy or Monsieur Borbey.

Monsieur Gaudet.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

The federal government is the trustee of aboriginal people. True or false?

[Mary Quinn]

In the case of child and family services, it's an area of provincial jurisdiction, and it's the provincial legislation for child welfare and the provincial ministries that, if they choose to, delegate their authorities and mandate to the agencies. And where the federal government comes in is to fund the services. So the two of us are involved. But in terms of the delegation of authority, that's provincial.

If there is an issue of compliance, the federal government and the provincial government will look at it, because there is sometimes not a strict line between whether there's a compliance issue solely on funding or how that might affect the delivery of a service.

So it is a rather complex area in the way both governments are involved, but at any interpretation, both levels of government—and obviously the first nation communities themselves and members—are extremely concerned because there is no bigger issue than that of vulnerable children and how to improve their situations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Okay, and we'll need to leave it at that.

Merci, Monsieur Gaudet.

Members, we're going to take a brief suspension while we change over for our next witness. As I mentioned earlier, members, if there is a desire to continue this area of study, then that will be open to the subcommittee when we meet early next week.

We'll suspend for three minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Members, let's continue. I realize the time is short here this morning, and I appreciate your understanding in that regard.

For our second hour we welcome representatives of the First Nations Finance Authority. We're glad we were able to make this happen for you this week, as I understand you were in the nation's capital. So we welcome Chief Joe Hall, the chair of the authority; Deanna Hamilton, the president and CEO; Steve Berna, the COO, chief operating officer; and finally, Tim Raybould, the senior policy adviser.

As is customary, our guests here this morning have ten minutes for opening comments and then we'll go to questions from members, with each question and answer period being approximately five minutes.

So we'll lead off, I assume, with Chief Hall. Merci.

[Chief Joe Hall, Chairperson, First Nations Finance Authority]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to everybody.

First of all, I want to tell you how pleased we are with the opportunity to address the committee this morning. Certainly we understand the challenges that arise in trying to accommodate so many groups, and we are appreciative of that.

There are many challenges in first nations communities, not the least of which is the ability to generate wealth and economic development activity in the communities so that they can develop the good governance required to take care of all the amenities.

In 2005 the passing of the Fiscal and Statistical Management Act was the beginning of an important move in Canada for aboriginal people. This act enjoyed full party support, and we're very grateful for it. I look at the act as a starting point for providing the tools that first nations communities need to access the market the way other governments do in this country. In the absence of these tools, first nations communities are reliant on federal funding. Their ability to improve their infrastructure and participate in the economy is very limited. In the changing world of today, first nations communities are in a position to generate different streams of revenue, and they are going to be looking for tools to leverage those funds, to take advantage of the opportunities to build greater infrastructure and capacity in their communities.

So with the passing of the act in 2005, our work started, and there's a lot that remains to be done. Our mandate is to assist first nations and aboriginal communities in this country, and we take that mandate seriously. We have assembled a good team to assist those communities in improving in their way of life. Our mandate is not for one specific group of communities. We look to serve all communities in this country, small and large, no matter where they're located.

This is an opportunity to access markets as other governments do. We see advantages for all communities, no matter where they are—especially the ability to access affordable capital at the same rates as anybody else in this country. In moving forward, we're trying to activate another critical part of the act that was passed in 2005. This would enable us to utilize other revenue streams in order to leverage funds for these communities. This will provide greater opportunities for first nations communities, and we look forward to that reality.

What needs to happen is straightforward. We need to assist communities that have other revenue streams. We need to see a speedy passage of the regulations contained in the act passed in 2005. These regulations would allow us to utilize other revenue streams and to leverage those funds. Our calculations suggest that these funds would leverage into a $3 billion capital fund that we could access to help those communities.

In these economically difficult times, we see that the ability to leverage these funds would reduce the pressures on the federal government to cash-finance projects. The pay-as-you-go method is not the best approach. We see that we can leverage funds so as to be able to build ten schools instead of one in a region, and this is very important.

We all woke up yesterday morning to find out that the economic situation in Canada is graver than we first thought. So we need to see these regulations passed so that we can move forward with this.

We also need to have the government put in place an economic stimulus leverage fund of $100 million that would allow us to go to the markets with a good credit rating—and certainly my colleague will talk about the importance of that—so that we can access those funds. We see this as an investment in Canada to essentially reduce the number of people who are at the door right now looking for capital projects that are desperately needed in their communities.

For this initiative, we've enjoyed support across Canada: the Atlantic provinces, the Six Nations, the Kahnawake, the B.C. Summit, Tsawwassen, Westbank, and the Yukon. I know that you've spoken previously both with Chief Mike Smith and with Chief Mark Wedge from Kwanlin Dun and Tagish. We too have spoken with them, and they certainly support this initiative to access these funds.

I'm going to close by saying that the importance of us putting this toolbox on their doorstep whenever they enter into impact benefit agreements or receive federal funds is that we have now a tool that all other governments have, not only in this country but across the world, whereby they can access and leverage their existing funds and use the market to get affordable capital to do the necessary work in their communities.

At this time, I'd like to turn it over to my colleague, Steve Berna, the chief operating officer for our First Nations Finance Authority.

Thank you.