Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Minister, for agreeing to come before our committee. We've been looking forward to this and we're looking forward to your responses to I'm sure many good questions around the table.
As you are fully aware, you hold a very large portfolio and there are many areas on which we would like to ask questions, so we're going to have to focus in on just some of the areas that your department administers. In my questions I'll be touching on treaty implementation, what we might see under the deficit reduction action plan, and the truth and reconciliation process.
In our committee we've been fortunate in our review on land use and lands management to hear from a number of first nation leaders on treaty negotiation and treaty implementation. As you're aware, modern treaties are negotiated over a very long time, with the first nations incurring substantial costs—and the government as well, of course—and those costs are deducted from the first nations settlement.
The treaties are of course constitutionally entrenched. Under the first nation final agreements and the self-government agreements, the government has committed to deliver additional funds, comparable to the relevant provincial or territorial jurisdiction, to establish education infrastructure, self-governance, and so forth.
We've been hearing concerns at our table, as well as in my meetings with first nations, that the government has been chronically underfunding using misplaced formulas. To establish and deliver self-government is far more costly to administer than for Indian reserves, I am advised by first nations, and many of these first nation communities are in very isolated areas, so the costs are highly escalated because they have to attract people to live in an isolated area and also provide housing, travel, and so forth.
I appreciate that you noted in the main estimates that additional funds are being provided for a large array of matters under treaties, including negotiation, the payout, and ongoing administration of those treaties. Yet the supplementary (C) estimates show $11.4 million transferred from treaty-related matters to other programs. I'm wondering if you could explain how you account for the reduction in payment, given the large demands.