Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on March 10th, 2009

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

Thank you.

Obviously, Bill C-5 was the purpose of my last visit here, and I mentioned it in my opening remarks. It's an important bill. It was a long time being developed. It's an important bill, because I think in economic times like these we have to give maximum opportunities to first nations to benefit from the oil and gas reserves and the potential on their land.

This is an important and timely bill, and again, that's why I mentioned it in my remarks. The whole consultation, of course, precedes our government by several years. The previous Liberal government set up a consultative process--it has been going on now for eight or nine years--to try to update a piece of 35-year-old legislation. So it's not a partisan bill. It's not something we initiated, even. It is something, though, that we see the value of, because it's going to give economic opportunities to first nations.

There have been really intensive consultations over the last 18 months or so with the Indian Resource Council and with the 130 first nations they represent. There has been a real effort, on all fronts, I think, to make sure that we find that path forward that modernizes the regulations but also gives voice to the concerns of the Resource Council and the first nations. I have met with the IRC. I also gave them a letter--I think you have a copy--with the promise to work with them closely on the development of regulations that flow from it.

This has been going on for years and years. There are 130 first nations. There are the interests of the federal government and others. What we have is a good package of amendments to the bill that will do everything, I think, the IRC is looking for. I think that was their testimony before you. And we have an agreement to work on some of the other things that will be necessary going forward, including development of the regulations. You know, a lot of times, the devil is in the details, and the details are regulatory, so we're going to work closely with them. Also, there are some other things on their list of issues to deal with. There's an ongoing process to deal with those, as well.

As to the bill itself, I would urge the committee to consider the testimony of the IRC. What they have done, and my hat's off to them, is find a path forward with this bill that is a good path forward for the 130 first nations. If it is changed significantly, if there are amendments that change it significantly, certainly I'll have to go back to cabinet. I don't know what the amendments might be, but I would have to go back to cabinet. And my guess is that the IRC would have to go back and start a consultative process. My worry is that it's not simply a matter of going to the IRC and saying “what do you say”, and somebody stamping it. We have to get consensus from 130 first nations. So away we go again.

My concern is that if it's away we go again, we'll be back here a year or two or eight from now saying that it was too bad we couldn't have fixed it back then. And that would be a shame. I think we have to grab this thing while the grabbing's good. It's not because we couldn't do more work on it; it's just that the process is not simple. The process will start another round of consultations that will be expensive, and worse yet, will mean that the current system is in place until such time as we get another consensus. So I would urge the committee to consider the testimony of the IRC, which I think has done yeoman's work in hammering out that consensus and getting a pretty good piece of legislation with an agreement by the government that they'll consider other options, moving forward, that address some of their other needs.

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

Thank you, Minister.

How much time do I have?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

You have two minutes.

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

Another piece of legislation we've tabled is of course the matrimonial real property act. I'm pleased to see that we've done this. Of course we're reminded of it because we just had International Women's Day this past Sunday. It's a long-standing issue. I remember pursuing it at this committee in the mid-nineties, so I'm glad to see that the government has done something very important here. It's especially important for aboriginal women. International and local reports all say that we need to do a better job in this area. I wonder if you can tell this committee why this bill is so important and how it will assist aboriginal women.

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

Okay. It's another bill that's come about after a lot of consultation. Millions of dollars have been spent on consultation over the last number of years in a genuine effort to try to find that balance between making sure that we look after the rights of first nations to develop their own laws, and the rights of first nations women especially, or of families, we can say, to have access to some recourse. Again, this bill is an effort to try to find that balance.

My hope is that we can get it debated in the House, as we did in the last Parliament, and quickly get it into committee. I know there's work the committee wants to do on it, but I think the principle is sound. If the vote on second reading is an agreement in principle, my hope is that we can agree in principle that this is something we need to pursue.

Again, I realize that in committee there'll be many witnesses you need to talk to and so on, but the issue I would urge people to consider.... Just like the change in the last Parliament, when we finally got the changes to the Canadian Human Rights Act to make sure it now applies on reserve, that was a 30-year process, and in the end, after a lot of debate, it was the right thing to do. I thank all parties for eventually putting that through the House.

My hope is that the MRP will be the same. Let's debate it in the House and get it to committee. I think you folks could do excellent work in fleshing it out and making sure that we get the right kind of hearing for it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Duncan and Mr. Minister.

Now we're going to proceed to the second round. We'll get in as many questions as we can.

We'll begin with Monsieur Bélanger.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a series of questions. On the first one, I gather we got answers this morning to questions I'd asked on the supplementary estimates B. Perhaps we'll have quicker responses because they haven't been distributed yet, so I can't come back and ask questions.

On the Bs as well, I had asked, when Mr. Yeates last appeared, Minister, if he would send to the committee the criteria upon which the recommendations were being made for construction of new schools, and the recommendations themselves. He said he'd have to verify internally. I believe that since we have the minister and the deputy here, it couldn't be any higher internally, so will we get an answer now?

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

I can tell you.... By all means, we'll get you those criteria. I thought I signed off on that.

[A voice]

They're on the website, actually.

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

They're on the website.

On the criteria, there's a national ranking framework for schools. It lists the four priorities in the department's national priority ranking framework. There's a website that can give you that, but it starts with health and safety issues as the number one priority, and then there's a series: preserving the integrity of the infrastructure, making sure that it extends the life—

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

We'll look at them. We're short on time. But we'll get them?

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

Yes. They're on the website, but you will get them.

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

Thank you.

Will we get the recommendations as well?

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

We'll get the recommendations. As was asked about earlier by Mr. Russell, we haven't announced it. The only reason you don't have the list of the ten and the three.... I don't think it's going to change a bit, but what we have to do before we publicly announce them is go to those first nations and make sure they are ready for the facilities. We have to work with them to make sure. I don't just announce them arbitrarily.

They are ready. In my opinion, they are all going to be announced in the next two or three weeks, but I'm reluctant to just put a list down in Ottawa here and then find out that the first nations say there's a problem, that the design changed or there's a problem they needed to talk to me about. I don't think that's going to happen, so it should be available in the next two or three weeks.

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

Thank you.

In the supplementary estimates C, there's additional education billing for re-profiling and transfers. Is this something that will be ongoing? I want to make sure. The fact that you're coming at the end of the year with Cs would indicate that something has changed during the year. So what has changed during the year? Is it extra billing? Is it more students? Is it going to be an ongoing thing?

[Michael Wernick]

This is the vote transfer, Mr. Bélanger. What happens, as you probably know, is that we have a large vote for grants and contributions and we have a vote for the operating of the department. We've managed the operating vote very tightly and very carefully with the help of the chief financial officer. We realized about two-thirds of the way into the year that we weren't going to need all of the operating vote, so we've been able to move it into the grants and contributions vote and are able to do more things than we would have been able to do otherwise. If we hadn't done the vote transfer, the money would have lapsed.

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

That's not my question. If it's being transferred, is it because you need to cover more of the provincial costs of education?

[Michael Wernick]

It's essentially a waiting list system. We can do more this year than we would have otherwise done. We just work our way down lists and lists. So by freeing up some of the operating money, we were able to do more with the grants vote this year.

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

I think the question you had, though, is whether this is a permanent part of the budget.

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

Yes, that's part of the question. But we're talking about fiscal 2008-09, which ends in three weeks. So what more will you be doing in three weeks?

[Michael Wernick]

That money is essentially being spent because we knew by September or October we could move it from operating to grants and contributions.

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

So this is a retroactive application.

[Michael Wernick]

That's right. That's what the minister explained in his opening remarks, that we knew we would not need all this money, so we moved it out through the grants and contributions thing and this is the reporting to Parliament of that. So we're asking for the vote transfer from the operating vote to the G and C vote.

If we can squeeze any money out of the operating vote during the year to spend on the programming, we do that.

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

My colleague wanted some time too, and I'm a little.... What if Parliament said no--what happens then?

[Michael Wernick]

If you refuse the vote transfer?