Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Oct. 6th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Hon. members, witnesses and guests, welcome to the 29th meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

This morning and through the early part of the afternoon, we are welcoming three newly elected chiefs from their respective organizations. Each of them will have one hour.

We are going to begin by welcoming the newly elected national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Shawn Atleo.

Chief, it's great to have you with us here this morning.

We'll commence with the usual opening statements by our guest witness for approximately 10 minutes and then go right into questions from members.

Chief, we're glad to have you with us. You have approximately 10 minutes. If you go over that a little bit, that's fine also. We have the full hour, but I'm sure members will have many questions for you also.

Chief Atleo.

[Chief Shawn Atleo, National Chief, Assembly of First Nations]

Thank you so much. I see a clock behind you, so I will be self-governing this morning within the 10 minutes that you've identified.

Good morning to the committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Witness speaks in his native language]

I come from the little village of Ahousaht, off the west coast of Vancouver Island, and it is our way to acknowledge the Algonquin people.

Thank you so much to the committee for inviting me to be here this morning. Within the 10 minutes allocated, I'd like to provide some opening thoughts.

I hadn't really thought of it in that way, but yes, there are new individuals in the various leadership roles. It's happening amongst the national executive as well. We have new regional chiefs in British Columbia, Alberta, and Yukon. There seems to be a lot of this happening right now amongst first nations across the country.

To begin discussing what we've come here to cover today, I want to offer up some general comments and then some specific thoughts about a possible way forward, because of course having just come through an election.... I already apologized to Mr. Lemay for the 24 hours and eight ballots that occurred, and also to anyone else who went through that, as has been the case right across the country. But of course it was an election in which all of the candidates worked very hard, supported by their families and their communities, all with a deep care and concern for improving the lives and conditions of our people.

We all work in a very complex policy environment. The needs of our communities are, of course, some of the most acute that are faced in this country. There are ongoing pressures being faced by our communities. As national chief, it's my role to advocate for the chiefs for first nation governments, for those who sign treaties. We've been dealing with a cap, an imposed cap of 2%, since 1997.

We have some sense over the course of our history of lurching from conflict to conflict, if I can describe it that way, both in the courts, through many, many court decisions, and on the ground. Examples crop up nearly daily when it comes to relations between first nations and the government.

I can point very quickly to a number of them, including Akwesasne right now, with the border guards. I join Grand Chief Mitchell's call for a mediated solution to yet again another conflict of differing opinions about whose jurisdiction needs to be honoured. That community operates within five different jurisdictions in that area. There's deep frustration about the inability to come to some resolve.

We have a history of conflict, and I think it's our time to really examine and reflect on how we can do things differently. Our community, as you well know--this committee would know better than most--is very young. I saw some numbers that said 49% of our population is under the age of 19, which puts me, at the age of 42, amongst the older set in our demographic. This is very true, and we have a shortage of paid work in our communities.

The most recent focus on H1N1 not only draws attention to the issues of pandemic planning and the need to make sure we are well prepared for H1N1, but it also opens the window to the broader health conditions, to chronic diseases, to the broad issue of health supports in our communities, and to access to health services. We know that we have three times the rate of diabetes in our communities. We have deep structural and fiscal challenges in areas like housing, which impacts health. We have infrastructure needs and there is a need for ongoing work.

We have a need for healing to overcome the effects of not only the residential schools but the long-term lingering effects of colonialism in our communities and the constraints of the Indian Act. I'll come back to those with some specific thoughts.

First nations are increasingly looking to reach out and create new structures and authorities as a way of doing business. We're seeing examples of this across the country, examples of how to work independently and interdependently with other levels of government, including municipalities. I saw an example of this in Treaty 8 territory recently, in northeastern British Columbia. And of course there are new arrangements with industry.

We are well aware of what was said by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, and I quote:

The main policy direction, pursued for over 150 years, first by colonial then by Canadian governments, has been wrong. Aboriginal peoples must have room to exercise their autonomy and structure their solutions.

This still remains the most important aspect of what we would suggest today. We must be in a position to jointly design and deliver the solutions that impact our lives. This was further supported by the Harvard project in 2006 in a report authored by Stephen Cornell, which stated that the three key factors include self-rule, capable governing institutions, and a cultural match. Other work by Chandler and Lalonde in the area of suicides further supported these notions.

My own community had an incredible experience with major suicides happening in our communities. Thankfully, not only did the government work with us at that time, but Canadians worked with us. Business and industry stepped up and said, “What can we do to walk with you to address these issues?” It ended up a very successful leadership initiative that serves as one example of how first nations and governments can together reach out to the broader Canadian society to say, you know, these issues are happening right here in Canada today; we need to find some ways to really work together.

The way forward perhaps builds on that notion, an enabling notion, moving from constraint and imposed control to respect and recognition. To move forward based on interdependence and mutual accountability is always what the treaty relationship was about, it's what it still means today, and it's what it will mean going forward. We want to move from an assumption of dependence to sustainable funding and from unilateral delegation to tripartite harmonization. We have examples of tripartite agreements where we are able to overcome the jurisdictional gaps and sometimes the jurisdictional wranglings that occur. That means shared accountability as well.

The approach needs to be one of overcoming and bridging divisions, inclusive and open processes, and having culture and identity as a source of confidence and strength for first nations. So if, as the Prime Minister articulated, the residential school period was wrong, that it should have never happened and it should never happen again--there is an acknowledgement of the deep damage that was done under the guise of an education policy--shouldn't we then look at this issue of education as being one of the tools to support the reconnection of people with family, with land, with culture, and with the over 50 indigenous languages in this country that the experts suggest are in dire need of being supported?

I ran and was elected on four major themes, the first of which was supporting first nations families and communities. The second was around exercising and implementing rights, talking about treaties and aboriginal title and rights. The third theme was about the need to focus on economic and environmental interests--that convergence between a planet in peril and the issues of climate change that we all have responsibility for, but also noting the great market challenges that have happened in the recent past.

First nations haven't really been a part of the broader market economy in a significant way. If the economy is beginning to warm up, as experts would suggest, first nations don't want to be once again chasing the caboose of a train that's ready to leave the station. First nations want to be on board and helping to lead the way in a new market economy, one that tackles the issues of morality that have been challenging us, whether it's the Ponzi schemes or the collapse of Wall Street. I know that first nations have much to contribute to the discussion about building strong, sustainable economies, and doing it with a care for the environment.

In the area of first nations families, education will always bubble to the surface as an area of strong importance where we put a lot of effort. There's a report coming out today from the Community Foundations of Canada and it will be entitled, “Canada's Vital Signs 2009”. I've not seen this report. I understand it's being released today and it will touch on first nations high school graduation rates. It will not be a really positive report. We'll wait to see the findings, but I am flagging this because it's really important. While we are making progress in a number of areas, there are certain indicators, such as high school graduation rates, that will continue to be important for determining the future success of first nations throughout the entire country.

In the area of health, I'm pleased that we were able to sign a communications protocol on H1N1. It's important that this protocol be fully implemented, that first nations governments throughout the country work very closely with health authorities and other jurisdictions to ensure there are no gaps in information, that we're closing the gaps in planning, and that we're working from shared knowledge of whether we are fully prepared.

When I took office and the H1N1 issue arose, it was very clear that there were differing levels of information or understanding between jurisdictions. This is not helpful for individuals. This is not helpful for emergency planning. We still have a long way to go and we'll need to continue to be very diligent in that area.

With respect to child welfare, I think about Jordan's Principle and a similar concept, making sure we overcome interjurisdictional challenges, that we take care of the needs of the children and address issues around funding supports. We know we have too many children in care across this country, and that is another major issue of concern.

We want to continue to reflect that Canada is amongst the very small minority that have not supported the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I believe Australia has moved forward to express support. I heard from the former special rapporteur for the United Nations that the United States has begun to express tacit support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and we're pleased about that.

There have been specific ideas around the issue of treaties and treaty implementation, such as an office of a national treaty commissioner. With respect to comprehensive claims, the policy dating back to 1986, I think we need to advance the notion of removing barriers that inhibit successful outcomes and fail to support the implementation of agreements that are signed within that policy. I think, most recently, of my discussions in the Yukon with the Yukon self-government agreement.

I've touched on the economy and the environment. We have much more work to do in the area of consultation and accommodation by governments. This must be approached consistently, and it must be grounded in respect for first nations' rights and title and treaties.

When it comes to working with first nations governments, I suggest that we support the protection of both the collective and individual rights of our citizens. There are examples of this with the issue of citizenship. As opposed to once again having the unilateral decision-making by governments to determine issues around status, we would like to broaden that to citizenship. It is nations, after all, that determine who their citizens are. It's those who have treaty rights who determine who has the rights under that treaty. We want to table that sort of notion as well.

So how is it that we can work together? And these points will close my opening thoughts.

We have some ideas for creating parliamentary studies and/or special committees, for example, that this committee could consider striking in several areas, such as convening a joint committee between this committee and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to address violence against indigenous women and girls and to ensure that Canada has a full response in its report to the committee to end discrimination against women that is due November 2009. I would like to table that as one specific example.

Second, there could be a special committee to examine the fundamental barriers inherent in the current Indian Act framework. I mentioned citizenship or the issue of status. Why can't we take a broader view to issues such as status, looking at it through the broader lens of citizenship? Matrimonial real property is another such example. There are issues of justice and alternative dispute resolution.

When I raise these issues, I think about RCAP, which said that the history of policy-making for the last 150 years has been wrong and we need to do something significantly different. I think of the Penner report. I think of the negotiations that have been happening in British Columbia for around 15 years, the emerging experience in the Atlantic provinces with the made-in-Nova-Scotia process, and of course the experience of the courts and the conflicts, far too many conflicts, that have plagued our relationship.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Those are my opening comments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Merci, Chef. It is very much appreciated.

We'll try to get as many questions in as we can. We'll begin with Mr. Russell.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, National Chief. It's good to have you here. On behalf of myself and all the Liberal Party, I want to congratulate you once again on your historic victory.

I was in Calgary at the time and, being sleep-deprived by about six-thirty, I decided that sleep was going to be a bit more forthcoming than the eventual results. It was a fantastic time to be there, though. It was the first annual general assembly of the AFN that I've had a chance to attend.

You covered a lot of ground in your 10 to 12 minutes, but I was struck by your comment that we move from conflict to conflict, and that this has been the nature of our relationship with the crown for many generations. You mentioned the border issue in Akwesasne. Some of us would even say conflict-to-conflict will come up in the H1N1 policy, with maybe some jurisdictional wrangling about who is responsible for what.

I think of some of the legislation that has come before this committee. When certain legislation comes before this committee without the proper involvement of first nations or aboriginal people, there seems to be a hell of a lot more tension around this particular table. There is certainly a lot more conflict between the aims and aspirations of aboriginal people and what the government wants to impose. There is also the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and all of these things are somewhere in the mix.

You mentioned some processes that we could use, from a parliamentary perspective, to ease our way through some of these issues, instead of going from conflict to conflict. You talked about special committees on particular matters. But I also want to go back a little. You mentioned RCAP, and I want you to reflect a little on the Kelowna agreement. I know some people raise their eyebrows or nod their heads when we mention Kelowna, but it seemed to be a process that served, at least in part, to resolve some of the difficulties we have and to stop the conflict-to-conflict type of mood.

I'm wondering if that process had some value to you. Would it be a process that might help us build future relationships between the crown and aboriginal peoples? How important is a respectful process to you as national chief?

[Chief Shawn Atleo]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Russell.

I truly believe good process can produce good results. None of us likes process just for the purpose of process. I think our people and our communities demand much more than that.

When I reflect back on 2005 and those discussions that occurred and I think about the work that has ensued since then, one example stands out, and it was our ability to really build on that process in 2005. For first nations, we tabled a report. I co-authored a report with Dave Nahwegahbow to the chiefs and assembly, called “Recognition and Implementation of First Nation Governments”. It's a body of work that was approved by the chiefs in the spring of 2005 that builds on RCAP, that builds on the Penner report, and that from a first nations perspective suggests very strongly that there is a way we can do joint policy and legislative changes. First nation governments need to be involved, and the Assembly of First Nations can, where the chiefs support it, play a facilitative and coordinating role.

We have several examples that suggest outcomes. One was work that ensued in British Columbia. In my previous role as B.C. regional chief we signed a transformative change accord with the former Prime Minister, Premier Campbell, and the BC First Nations Leadership Council, and it has resulted in work in a number of areas--health and education.

At the national level, I think about the Specific Claims Tribunal Act process, a joint first nations and government process that produced an approach that changed fundamentally the way specific claims are handled, with a new independent tribunal that has yet to be fully operational. But we have expectations that this will bring an element of fairness and an element of independence to the process and, as many first nations suggest, will remove government from being that of both judge and jury on claims.

Most recently, I was in Regina, close to two months ago, meeting with the premiers. The premiers have agreed to establish a national aboriginal affairs ministers working group. One of the interests that the premiers were expressing, which I share, was the idea of having a first ministers meeting happen in 2010. I think there's a notion that good process equals the need to establish real working relationships to overcome those deep gaps of misunderstanding that occur and that result in conflict on the ground. I think as leaders we have a responsibility to examine every manner possible to engage in a process that will produce different results.

The core principle here is that in order to move away from the unilateral development of solutions and/or policy and/or legislation in isolation of first nations, we need to shift that around and, if we can, learn from some of our experiences most recently that it's time for us to return to a process of real engagement.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you for that. I believe that all of us share that something different has to happen. We just can't continue to repeat history.

I want to ask you about McIvor, as an example. This is a court case that has come down. We know it could be in an appeal stage. Putting that aside, and I want to come back to repeating history, how much engagement--well, that's the word the government uses--has there been between the government and the AFN on possible legislative approaches to McIvor, seeing that the courts have ordered the government to respond?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We'll have a short response, if we can, Chief.

[Chief Shawn Atleo]

We haven't had the full joint legislative effort offered or agreed to that we would like.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you very much.

We will now move on to Mr. Lemay from the Bloc Québécois, who has seven minutes.

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

Thank you.

Good morning National Chief. It is an honour and pleasure to welcome you today. I would like to make a short preamble, just as you did.

Your election, which lasted almost 24 hours, was the first time since Quebec's national holiday in the 1970s that I went to bed at 7:30 in the morning.

On a more serious note, I was in Calgary and some of my colleagues were there as well—I saw a number of them there—and I must say that I was truly impressed. It is important to me that you know that and share that with your colleagues. I was impressed by how much responsibility the chiefs and their assistants had. They—including many aboriginal women who are now chiefs—did exceptional work during the days they spent in Calgary. I saw that it was not just the election of a National Chief that was important; there were many other issues.

Today, you are lucky to have before you members of the government and others who aspire to form the next government. The issue I am interested in is how to eliminate the 2% cap. In your inaugural address, you said that education was extremely important, but if the 2% cap remains I do not know how you will manage given the birth rate in your communities. How can we, as MPs, intervene with the government? What initiatives have you taken to urge the government to eliminate this cap?

[Chief Shawn Atleo]

First of all, on two fronts, I think it is worth noting that we began the evening with 80% participation in the election for national chief. I think your observation is an important one to note. Twenty-four hours later, we still had over 70%, which was astounding. I think it's important to note that the leaders do care deeply about what's happening with the state of the affairs in their communities.

On the issue you've raised around the cap, I think about the over 60 schools needed in our communities right now. There are stories of kids taking class in tents in isolated communities. I refer to the point I made around citizenship in the McIvor case. We have to remember these are deep concerns an individual has about belonging within her family, the connection among family, and the connection of people with their nations.

The ideas we're suggesting here around parliamentary committees, that this committee drives an approach, is to really break from this notion of having approaches done in isolation of first nations. To suggest, first of all, that the approach on Indian Act status has not been sufficient, we also suggest there is a way forward if we can ask this committee to take the issues of the barriers of the Indian Act to a higher level. This does require all parties to overcome the partisan differences that may exist.

Mr. Lemay, exactly as you articulated in the beginning of your comments, the realities you are faced with in Parliament, the realities our communities face, require that this committee helps move us forward in some way, shape, or form to overcome differences in approach or differences in viewing how we might come to some conclusion. To take the issue of status, perhaps the approach is not what we would like, but perhaps that conversation needs to be broadened anyway to a discussion about citizenship.

I would suggest, in response to what you've raised here, that on the issue of the 2% cap we can quantify the needs of schools, the infrastructure needs, and the resources needed for teachers. As I referenced earlier, we have another report coming out today from the Community Foundations of Canada that would suggest to us very strongly that as a country we can do much better in the area of education. This is something we need to design together.

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

I have another concern; something I am quite familiar. As you know, I am from Quebec. In several communities, many aboriginals are leaving the reserves to go to the big cities where they lose their identity. It happens, unfortunately. I will have an opportunity to talk about that with the President of the Native Women's Association of Canada in a few minutes. They are also at risk of losing their lives.

With a very high birth rate, a 2% cap and communities that are literally exploding, are we not at an impasse? You are the new National Chief and I do not know what solutions you have in mind to address this problem. Education is important. It is essential because it opens the door to freedom. With an education we can take charge of our lives and grow. What can we, as politicians in Ottawa, do to alert the government to this problem of aboriginals leaving their reserve because of overcrowding?

[Chief Shawn Atleo]

Thank you.

I just saw a report from Indian and Northern Affairs that actually suggests first nations are not leaving the reserves in great numbers. It's recent data, and I think it would be important to have that information brought forward, because it's new information. There has been this notion that first nations are leaving reserves in droves, and the most recent information suggests otherwise. And so if they are staying home, first of all—it's the same thing as my point around H1N1—we should arrive at a place where we have the same information about what the realities of our communities are.

So to begin with that, one idea that I had was perhaps the need for an indigenous policy institute of some kind that would support all of our efforts when it comes to first nations issues, because it becomes often a war of data. And that can lead to divisions within and amongst the indigenous peoples themselves, a fight between on- and off-reserve that we need to overcome.

When I spoke earlier, when I talked about overcoming divisions, I was also talking about overcoming the divisions within and between first nations communities, overcoming the divisions between on- and off-reserve. The issue of citizenship speaks to an issue of divisions between status and non-status, and so we'd really value the idea of a parliamentary committee looking at these issues, perhaps even tackling this notion of the 2% cap and examining funding arrangements, moving away from discretionary funding.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We're going to have to leave it there. We're quite a bit over time there, Chief, if you don't mind. You can wrap up on that idea perhaps in one of the other questions and add it on, if you can.

Merci, monsieur Lemay.

Now we're going to go to Ms. Crowder for seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to welcome the national chief to Ottawa.

I was also at the Assembly of First Nations meeting in Calgary. Being from British Columbia, I have to admit that seeing the elders and all of the people there who came out to support it was an honour and a privilege. So congratulations to you, your community, and your elders, because I know they were a big support.

I want to make a brief comment before I start with my questions.

You touched on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In a recent report by Paul Joffe in September 2009, he talked about Canada's increasing isolation. He pointed out that in April 2009 the Labour government in Australia announced its endorsement of the declaration; that in the spring of 2009 both New Zealand and the United States indicated that they were in the process of reconsidering their opposing positions; and that Canada was increasingly isolated on the world stage. I think you made an important point, that the declaration elaborates on indigenous people's inherent rights, which throughout history have not been respected.

That's a bit of a context for a question I'm going to lead into.

What this committee is aware of and what we know is that since Confederation in 1867 we've had decades of neglect and outright denial of inherent rights. We also know that we have any number of reports. We've had Auditor General's reports. We've had the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. We've had court decisions and studies. They all largely pointed to the fact that conditions for first nations, Inuit, and Métis in this country are appalling and there is a need to move forward.

We can talk about funding, housing, water, and the environment, but if we don't actually address some of the underlying issues we're not going to move forward. You can put money into housing, but you have to address some of the issues around self-government.

Can you specifically comment on the fact that what we seem to be missing here is recognition of a nation-to-nation status? We don't have recognition and implementation of those self-government agreements and treaties once they're signed. There is a lack of recognition around the honour of the crown and the fiduciary responsibility.

I wonder if you can comment on whether dealing with those things that seem to underpin everything else might not help us move forward.

[Chief Shawn Atleo]

I completely agree.

A major area of concern that would perhaps suggest a way forward in our work is the comprehensive claims policy. I mentioned the Specific Claims Tribunal Act effort because it was a joint first nations-government exercise. It produced a bill. Perhaps we need to consider an effort that's comparable in the area of comprehensible claims policy. We look at section 35, where aboriginal title and rights and treaty rights are referenced. I heard a lawyer just yesterday suggest it's undeveloped. We haven't talked about how that is given meaning within Canada. That speaks to the nation-to-nation agreement.

I feel like I'm flogging his book, but I keep talking about John Ralston Saul's book A Fair Country: Telling Truths about Canada. He says this country was founded upon a relationship between first nations and the newcomers. The first nations--the Mi'kmaq, the Maliseet, the Mohawks, and the Métis--fought shoulder-to-shoulder with Canadians. This is a relationship between allies. It's a nation-to-nation relationship.

It's really time we reflect on the most recent history--the over 40 court decisions, to put a number on it, and it keeps going up. We witnessed the passing of the late Donald Marshall Jr. It has been 10 years since the Marshall case, and the Mi'kmaq are still looking to have their treaties rights respected and implemented in a manner that is mutually agreeable. How do we arrive at the mutually agreeable and satisfactory implementation and recognition? It can only be done jointly.

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

I assume this is your paper, It's our Time: a Discussion Paper for the Council of the Federation. It was part of the meetings with the ministers. I want to give you an opportunity to talk about this, because it often comes up that first nations governments are not accountable.

Back in 2006 the Assembly of First Nations put together a very good position paper, Accountability for Results, outlining that the Assembly of First Nations and the chiefs across this country were prepared to come to the table jointly to talk about accountability issues. The Auditor General, of course, had identified that the government of the day was not fulfilling some of its own responsibilities.

In the conclusion of your paper, It's our Time: a Discussion Paper for the Council of the Federation, you indicated that we must transform the process of engagement to include things such as “clear direction and leadership” and “dialogue and planning”, but you also talked about “shared accountability to ensure reporting and the tracking of results”. I wonder if you could talk about what you think are the important elements of that process—and I'll just leave the rest of the time for you.

[Chief Shawn Atleo]

What we're talking about—and we can link it to issues such as funding—first of all is that first nations have an incredible amount of reporting to do to the federal government. There have been efforts to reduce the level of reporting first nations have experienced, but it takes up an inordinate amount of time, this one-way accountability, I guess is the way I will describe it, that first nations experience with the federal government.

Really, the way forward needs to move from that experience to shared accountability, a shared responsibility. To accomplish that, you need to jointly design what that might look like. We have some examples. It could include some of the agreements I referenced earlier, such as the one in the Yukon. However, what the Yukon first nation governments will say is that they didn't sign an agreement with the Minister of Indian Affairs; they signed an agreement with the crown. Yet there seems to be a void of implementation policy, which suggests there is an area of work that we could strongly consider putting some effort into, because if there are issues with implementation of the agreements signed within the last 20 years, certainly there are issues around the implementation of treaties signed much earlier than that, such as in the case of the Mi'kmaq people over 200 years ago. And if we address these issues of implementation, it will encourage those who do not have treaties who are saying, why should I go to a table if there are problems around implementation?

I'm suggesting that perhaps there needs to be a high-level look at this, and perhaps that time is now, the time is right, to address it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Very good. Thank you, Chief.

Thanks, Ms. Crowder.

Now we'll go to Mr. Duncan for seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I offer our warm congratulations on your July 23 election and welcome you to the committee. I think your strong leadership has demonstrated itself throughout your career, and you're demonstrating that once again today.

You did talk about the complex policy environment we live in. I was in opposition in this same portfolio for many years. It's very enlightening to be a part of government and to recognize how many of the things you have talked about are things we are also seized with in many regards. There are challenges to changing the way we do things. If we can create a partnership on as many of those challenges as possible, I think we can do a lot.

There has been discussion here about the 2% cap in education. We know about the ongoing negotiations with the 13 first nations in British Columbia, the FNCIDA process, which I think will be a model for the rest of the country in terms of the comparability.

You've talked about the specific claims policy. I think that's a major advance. It was done jointly, and the Senate played a strong role.

On the education front, we know that the aboriginal youth are very important to Canada and to our future for all of us—this is not a first nations question; this is a Canadian question.

I appreciate your strong recognition of the role of the environment and economic development.

You talked about moving away from unilateral decision-making. I want to talk about process versus action. How can we move from process to action? You described four joint committees on some important subjects: violence, citizenship, MRP—the matrimonial real property—and alternative dispute resolution. I believe those were your four.

We went through a very painful process on the Canadian Human Rights Act amendments to be inclusive of first nations people in this country. Without leadership from the government, I believe that never would have happened. So I guess the challenge is how we would create a process that would better that. The example I'll pose is matrimonial real property. You said we should table something. We should maybe study it in joint committee. How can I be convinced that would have any different result than further status quo—in other words, no movement because no consensus could be reached? That's my question.

[Chief Shawn Atleo]

Thank you for that. I think we have to build on the areas that have worked as well as pay attention to what hasn't worked, where process becomes about process, and we become bogged down.

I'm always mindful of what my father told me when I was a kid in school. He said there's the hard way and the harder way. There are not necessarily any easy ways when it comes to what we're discussing. The difficult path is the one where we, from the very beginning, jointly identify an agenda, we jointly design an approach that builds on examples of success, like the specific claims.

We have over 16 years of negotiations in British Columbia. While we don't have a shared notion of whether or not the efforts that have been undertaken constitute the kind of success or the rate and pace of success that is acceptable to us, we need to jointly determine that throughout all the negotiations happening across the country.

I would suggest that we need—and that's the reason we're tabling some ideas here--to shift us from just reacting to some of the initiatives that government is rightfully responsible for and, because of legal cases that are arising, has to respond. Fair, we understand that, but I think this committee has an important role to play to recognize that this could place us in a position of greater peril and more short-term difficulty, while the long-term issues are not addressed.

I want to recognize Jeannette Corbiere Lavell, who has come into the room, president of the Native Women's Association of Canada, because of work she and others like her have done to address this notion of belonging with community. I know she will have much to say about the plight of first nations women across this country and the experience of unilateral policy decisions. We're suggesting there's a better way to do it and we've got some recent examples upon which to build. You mentioned the specific claims process.

I'll leave my comments at that for now. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

You have about 30 seconds left, Mr. Duncan.

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

I don't think I can launch into a question.

On the education front, I'll recognize your strong leadership as chancellor of Vancouver Island University and say that I do expect that negotiations in British Columbia are going to be successfully concluded, and this will be a strong measure that will lead us in a good direction very soon. I'd also like to say that some of the work that is being done on labour skills training for the aboriginal community is doing wonderful things at the college and trades level. A lot of very good things are happening, and I'm sure you'd be happy to expound on that at some time, but you probably haven't the time within this window.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Duncan.

Members, we have time for two short questions. We'll go to Mr. Bagnell and then to Mr. Dreeshen for three minutes only.

While that's happening, members, we'll have some documents circulated for your consideration and we'll take a short moment at the end of the next hour to consider that. It's a piece of committee business involving our northern economic development study.

Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

I was at Calgary, and it was great that you came to the Yukon. People really appreciated that. I'm not sure if you were there for my speech, which I gave in three different aboriginal languages.

You mentioned the committee on the status of aboriginal women to solve that problem. I think you should probably add the status of women to your suggestion of which committees should get together on that, because we have a committee on that.

I have two questions. One is related to the Aboriginal Healing Foundation. That money is expiring, and I don't think anyone would believe the healing is finished. We really need that to continue. I hope you'll be helping us push for that.

Second is that I really appreciated the fact that your radar screen includes the implementation of self-government and land claims, which I think is the biggest issue. You probably heard that in the Yukon that's the biggest issue for the chiefs there. In the past, they felt it wasn't an issue for either the federal government or the AFN as much as they would like, because they're a little bit different from the rest. Any plans you have in that area would be great, and I'm glad it's on your radar screen.

Last, the Senate committee did a great study on that, and I have a response from the minister, which I assume you have. If you don't, you can have this copy. Do you have any comments on the minister's response to the Senate's report?