Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on March 18th, 2010

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

I want to thank you and your officials for being here, Mr. Minister. Your answer to the question put by my colleague, Mr. Russell, bodes well for the work we have planned for Tuesday, as we are supposed to discuss the First Nations University.

I do not want to go back to that topic as Mr. Russell has covered it for the time being. I have a few questions for you, and I hope I will have enough time to ask them.

First, page 137 of the Supplementary Estimates (C) reads as follows:

Vote 1: $38,976,785 in total authorities is available: $28,518,000 (...); $4,792,000 from Vote 5 due to the deferral of the Indian Registry System ($4,162,000) (...).

Can we use that $4 million when it comes time to implement Bill C-3, further to the McIvor ruling?

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

That's not specifically about any funds that may be required under McIvor, although right now, with some border communities, we're engaged in an exercise for the secure status card.

Over the next number of years, it will apply to all first nations who are status Indians, and they will be able to acquire a secure status card. It won't happen all at once, but it will happen as we move forward. This money was set up as part of establishing the process of creating those secure cards in relationship with the Department of Homeland Security in the States and all of that.

It doesn't refer directly to McIvor, but it will refer to all status Indians, including those who are going to be registered under McIvor.

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

I have a follow-up question, if I may. Mr. Minister, has anyone anywhere in your department done any assessments, and are you in the process of studying the impact of implementing the McIvor bill? Has money been earmarked for that? I did not see any funding in the supplementary estimates. Has funding already been allocated?

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

No. We haven't earmarked money. I think you've been briefed on the process. We have the bill. We have the exploratory process that's going to deal with all the issues outside of McIvor. We also have an internal working committee that's going to examine the internal financial impact that will come from McIvor.

We have a working group. I can give you some names, which I can just now give you, because I just now have their contracts in place. The working group has been established. This is an oversight committee that will make sure that this work is done completely and accurately. The working group and the oversight committee is composed of David Emerson, the former Minister of Foreign Affairs; Ian Potter, former assistant deputy minister at Health Canada; Keith Martell, the executive chairman of the First Nations Bank of Canada; and Bill Austin, former assistant secretary at the Treasury Board.

The internal committee will be set up to oversee an internal working group, because the working group will have to include not only my department but also Health Canada and other federal departments, as necessary. This oversight committee, or this working group, including this group of folks I've hired to oversee this work, will look at the financial impact. It will try to give us a number and what it means not just to our department but to the federal government.

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

We were all surprised, myself, my colleagues and almost everyone. We read in the throne speech and in the budget that the government planned to implement the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples adopted by the UN General Assembly. One nothing for you.

But you say that the declaration will be implemented on the condition that it does not conflict with existing legislation and so forth.

Can you quickly tell us when the document will be signed? What are we doing in preparation for signing the document? What can we tell first nations about this?

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

That's an excellent question. In fact, I met earlier today with another of the leaders of one of the national aboriginal organizations, which are part of the group. I've met now with two of them, so far. But I plan to meet with all the leaders of the national aboriginal organizations as a starting place to get their input on the best way we might support the declaration.

There are different opinions. Some people say that we should do it at the United Nations, because it's a UN declaration. Some say that it's a domestic issue, and we should do it here in Canada. Maybe we should do both. I don't know. I'm being open-ended. I want to work with them to get their input.

We have the example of Australia, which did what we're doing. They considered it for a period of time and then decided to support it. We have that precedent. Many aboriginal people said that it was done well. In the Canadian context, my guess is that we're going to hear from some people who are going to say that they want something in there that shows respect for the existing treaties. They're going to want something that says that this is an aspirational document that doesn't take away from other rights and privileges we've acquired through consultation and agreement.

It's important that I work with aboriginal leaders—not just first nations, but Inuit and other leaders—to make sure that we get that language right and get the process to do it right. Again, I'm open to suggestions on whether we do it here, internationally, or otherwise. I don't want to be proscriptive yet.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Excellent.

Thank you, Mr. Lemay and Mr. Minister.

Now let's go to Ms. Crowder for seven minutes.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister and staff, for coming here today.

I'm going to ask four questions and then let you answer. For whatever you can't respond to today, perhaps you could supply the information.

The first question has to do with Jordan's Principle. I think you're probably well aware that in New Brunswick a report came out recommending that INAC and the province reach an agreement prior to September 1, 2010, on how to implement Jordan's Principle. New Brunswick has been musing about going to court to define their responsibilities and their liabilities.

So given what's pending there, what work will the department undertake to ensure that there are no gaps in services if the court defines New Brunswick's responsibilities as less than what they're currently delivering? There could be a gap between the federal and the provincial governments.

The second question I have is on the aboriginal financial institutions. I think you're probably well aware that the department's own report back on March 12, 2009, “Toward a New Federal Framework for Aboriginal Economic Development”, talked about the importance of the role of aboriginal financial institutions and said they should be enhanced. Yet when the loan loss reserve initiative was put out there, the AFIs were not invited to participate. Why were they left out of that process? How much money did the five players who were awarded the loan loss reserve actually loan out in the period that they've been responsible? That's question number two.

Question number three kind of bridges the supplementary estimates (C), the throne speech, and the budget speech. There was $30 million announced for post-secondary education and I wonder if the Province of B.C.'s First Nations Education Act is going to be funded out of that $30 million, because there have been ongoing negotiations about the funding, as you know.

My fourth question is around the Aboriginal Healing Foundation. I just think it's interesting that the money has been sunsetted, and although some organizations will continue to be funded until 2012, some will lose funding as of the end of March. Yet in the supplementaries, you indicate the need to continue funding the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, and there's new money in the new budget.

In a 2009 report that the department commissioned, it talked about the success of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation. They were highly praised in that report. In fact, one of the recommendations was that the “Government of Canada should consider continued support for the Aboriginal Healing Foundation...”. They note in this report that funding under Health Canada won't cut it, because they're not the same kinds of programs. So I wonder if you could indicate whether the government will consider implementing the recommendations from the evaluation that it commissioned.

Those are my questions.

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

Thank you. They're all good questions. I don't know if I'll get to them all, but let me take a stab at them in order.

Jordan's Principle, as you know, we've all supported in the House, so that's not in question. I think we can honestly say that the unfortunate profile that came out of Jordan's situation has been useful, in that it sensitized all levels of government to quit beating around the bush, but let's just get the services.

A tribute to everyone is that, by and large, it has been.... I haven't seen any cases that have fallen through the cracks. Everybody's being careful to follow through on this, both federally and provincially. I fired off a letter to all provinces saying that we're committed to work on it, so let's get this done as quickly as we can.

The government is at varying stages of discussion with provinces right across the country. We met recently with the Province of New Brunswick and in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island on how we can work together to implement this. My hope is that we can get those details determined. I'm not sure if there's a September drop dead moment. I know there's a high degree of cooperation. Everybody wants to get the essence of this nailed down. I sense a high degree of cooperation right across the country.

So those discussions are taking place. I can't confirm that anything will happen by September for sure, but I'm confident that we're going to get it nailed down, because I find good faith in all corners and in every government. So I think we'll be able to do that and it's my hope that we'll be able to do it with New Brunswick as we will right across the country.

On the aboriginal financial institutions, you're right, they're tremendously important. I've spoken about them many times. When I talk about economic development, I always try to have a component on AFIs, because they are critically important.

The loan loss reserve initiative is basically a pilot project, as you know. This is pretty typical of what we do when we branch out and do something we haven't done before. We picked five institutions, including the First Nations Bank of Canada. They're bigger institutions dealing with bigger loan loss provisions in an attempt to pilot that at these five institutions to see how much success we would have and to see--

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

I'm sorry to interrupt, but the AFIs had been involved in discussions with INAC around a risk premium offset program, which is actually very similar to the loan loss reserve program. So it's curious to me that they've been involved in all of this discussion yet are excluded from piloting it. It would make sense with their track record to have them pilot.

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

I guess you can argue both ways. But we know what the AFIs are particularly good at, and what they've been tremendously successful at is small and medium loans and coverage up to a certain amount. They have a lot of expertise in that and they've been very good at it.

Admittedly, though, some other institutions have other experience and other things they're also good at. So what the loan loss pilot project is about is to see whether that's the right way to go or not. It is only five institutions, it's not a pan-Canadian thing, and admittedly it is a pilot project. But the information we'll garner from that will tell us whether we should be looking at that model or another one. That's what a pilot project does, it gives you that information, and we'll get that feedback.

I don't have the dollar numbers on that in my notes, but we'll get back to you on the AFIs. Again, I have a lot of respect for them, and it may well be that we need to go back and beef them up going forward. I don't discount that at all. But we did need to explore, frankly, how we get the banks interested in lending money to aboriginal people. We need to find ways to encourage that. And increasingly, as our new aboriginal economic development framework talks about, there is a component of aboriginal financing that is out of the realm of what we used to consider par for the course.

It used to be that if a guy bought a gravel truck, he needed $100,000, so he went to an AFI and we made the deal. Increasingly there's a smaller number, but a significant number, of big projects; these are mining projects, things that are done in the oil sands, things that are done on wind power, whereby they're talking about a billion dollars now. The AFIs may be the vehicle to go, but frankly I think we need to find a way to get the banks involved and interested and we need to get them to bite. We need to say how can we make sure that you're part of what we see is an exciting new part of the world, and that is big projects for first nations--not the gravel truck, but a billion-dollar wind farm.

So we piloted that in part to get them involved and also just to.... Again, it's a pilot project, and we'll evaluate it. Admittedly, I'm not discounting that we may need to beef up the role of the AFIs as well. I'm not discounting that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Minister and Ms. Crowder.

Now, on those other two questions--

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

Maybe they'll come up too, but we'll get you....

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I know you and the department have been terrific in terms of getting back to some of these questions that linger, if we're not able to address them during the current meeting.

Let's move on to Mr. Duncan, for seven minutes.

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

Thank you very much, and I'll try not to ask four questions.

The budget has some very strong investments in child and family services and in education agreements. A lot of this was done under tripartite agreements. I wonder if you could talk about why those tripartite agreements are so important.

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

A tripartite agreement.... I've been delighted to sign quite a number of these, both on education and on child and family services right across the country. I think they're the way of the future, I really do. I just think to take advantage of some of that provincial expertise in service delivery.... They do a service delivery. They do it in many areas. The Constitution gives them jurisdiction in many of these areas, and they do it well. So not to take advantage of their expertise would be unwise, in my opinion.

In terms of these tripartite frameworks, if you will, that we've signed on child and family services, we've been able to not only fund and establish who looks after what but also who funds what. So on the funding that we've been able to put with those frameworks, this last year we signed agreements in Quebec and in Prince Edward Island, but we already had them established in Alberta, a significant one in Saskatchewan, and in Nova Scotia as well.

In every case we've been able to move from an apprehension model, where you just take kids out of the home when there's trouble, to a prevention-based model. It's what provinces did 15 years ago. We're 15 years behind the times. So by partnering with the province and with first nations, we're able to say, “Let's take advantage of the provincial expertise. They've already done this. They're good at it. They know how to make it work.” And with first nations that say, “Yes, you might know how to make it work, but we have our own sensitivities on our reserves or in our communities”, we make sure we dovetail that together. And we've been able to provide extra funds to make it all work. So that's a good example of how it works.

On education, as well.... I mentioned the one in Alberta that I signed earlier this year. I was there in June. I said in June that I'd like to see if we could get a tripartite agreement on education as soon as possible. That was in June of last year, and we negotiated that right down to the fine print and signed it off in February--done. People said we'd never do that with treaty first nations. These are the treaty groups in Alberta who called this historic. They equated it, in many ways, as being as significant as the treaty. That's how important they saw this. For the first time ever, they felt like they were now included in the decision-making process. The provinces bought in. As the minister there, Minister Hancock, said, we're not fighting about jurisdiction; we're fighting about how to get those kids the best education possible. And that's a great fight to have.

As you know, we have that in New Brunswick, a tripartite agreement in B.C., the one in Alberta, as I mentioned, and others across the country that are increasing....

Do we have a letter of understanding or a memo in Manitoba?

[Colleen Swords, Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

In Manitoba and New Brunswick.

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

And in New Brunswick.

[Colleen Swords]

Manitoba is a letter of understanding.

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

We're making good progress on all of those. Increasingly, first nation leadership is saying that tripartites are a way forward. Whether with treaty or non-treaty first nations, let's try to scoop up some of that expertise that the province has. It's just been great.

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

At this point, would you say we are no longer the driver of the exercise--the partners are coming to us to request that they be next in the lineup?

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

Success breeds its own success, right? This is happening across the country. There is lots of interest, and of course some professional jealousy almost.

The only thing I want to say is that the model that works in one province might not work exactly the same way in the next. In B.C. we have a legislative model. That's the way it has gone. It's very advanced, very sophisticated, and it looks like it's great.

But the MOU we have in New Brunswick is different, in some ways, they might argue, even superior. So we just say that you don't have to have a cookie-cutter approach. If you want to do business with us in a tripartite agreement on education, we're all ears. It doesn't have to be like Manitoba or like B.C. If you have an idea on how we could do this working together.... And it's a little different in each place, but every one of them says the same thing. It's just a night and day difference when you get the province involved and the first nation helping to call the shots.

The first nations also say in their agreement...it's right down to, “What do we expect from the parents? What do we want from our leaders in our communities? What's the chief's responsibility? What about education boards? What about the federal government and their obligations and their treaty words, and such?” It's down to that kind of detail.

When the chiefs got excited about it they said they were going to go back to their communities and say, “If we're going to improve the education system, parents, it will never happen unless you buy in”. And that's as important, in an education system, as the federal and the provincial governments and first nation governments themselves. But it's in that kind of detail that the success will be found. That's why the tripartite agreement focuses that attention not just on money--money isn't going to be important--but also on the structure of the education system itself. And I'm convinced tripartite agreements are the way forward.

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

I probably only have time for one more question.

I went to the aboriginal awards in Alberta sponsored largely by the Métis association, and once again I was reminded of the whole new relationship we have with the Métis. I wonder if you want to perhaps talk about what has transpired there and your role in making that happen.

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

I have a feeling I'm going to get cut off here, so I'll just quickly say a couple of things.

One watershed moment working with Métis was the signing of the Métis Nation accord. When we signed that, in September 2008, it spelled out in a nation-to-nation relationship how we were going to work together with one another.

Then we set some achievable goals. I'll just say on the one we talked about, support for Métis veterans, that I'd never been over to Europe for the D-Day celebrations, and I went this year on November 11. I must say that to see those Métis veterans and the Red River cart was one of the finest moments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Mr. Duncan.

Now we are going to the second round. This will be for five minutes now, and we are going to Mr. Bagnell first.