[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, April 16, 1996
.1110 
[English]
The Chairman: Order.
Thank you very much for being patient with us. We just had a committee meeting and we ended a bit late.
The order of the day is the main estimates of 1996-97. Today we are pleased to have with us Scott Serson, deputy minister; Brent Di Bartolo, assistant deputy minister; Gregor MacIntosh, assistant deputy minister; John Rayner, assistant deputy minister; John Sinclair, assistant deputy minister; and Jack Stagg, assistant deputy minister.
We are honoured to have so many assistant deputy ministers with us today. You must have a reason for bringing the full team, and it must be a good reason. We appreciate that.
There is a formality we normally go through here. I just discovered it. I call vote 1, and apparently this puts the meeting into motion. I won't ask why, though, because I've been here two and a half years and I've stopped asking why.
I ask you to take the floor and to introduce any other members of your delegation you wish to present to us. Carry on, please.
Mr. Scott Serson (Deputy Minister, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Developmemt): Mr. Chairman and committee members, we thank you for this opportunity to talk a bit about our main estimates for 1996-97.
The most important name left off the list is my colleague Shirley Serafini, associate deputy minister and my partner in managing the department.
Mr. Chairman, if you'll permit me, I'll give a brief overview presentation. Then if you feel there's the time, Mr. Di Bartolo is prepared to make a brief slide presentation as well.
I'd like to talk about two things specifically: the key factors that are affecting our expenditure profile, then the strategic directions of the department. As you know, the government has given DIAND very clear instructions to strengthen aboriginal communities and build partnerships for the future. Toward that end, we've developed a comprehensive work plan that sets out four priority areas for action: implementing self-government, achieving claim settlements, improving conditions in reserve communities, and supporting political and resource development in the north.
I'd like to talk briefly about each of these, but before I do that I want to mention just a few factors I have felt are important during the seven months I have been on the job as deputy minister, in terms of the levels of expenditure of our department.
The first one I want to mention is that under section 91.24 of the Constitution the department is funding basic province-like services on reserve, such as education, social services, infrastructure such as water and sewer, and local government. These basic services account for approximately 72% of the departmental budget. Another 15% of the budget relates to programs such as housing, economic development, and post-secondary education, which we feel are critical to providing some hope for future and long-term self-sufficiency and reduced dependency for those communities. The remaining 13% is primarily related to claims and northern affairs.
[Translation]
Secondly, there is a real explosion in the aboriginal population.
.1115
At the moment, close to two-thirds of the First Nations population living on reserves is under 30, and the aboriginal population is growing almost twice as fast as the Canadian population as a whole.
This situation creates a very strong demand for provincial-type services.
[English]
Third, there's been significant progress over the past twenty years in improving conditions on reserve. I'll cite just a couple of examples. Take the number of students remaining in school to grade 12. It was 31% thirteen years ago; it has increased to 73% in 1994-95. Labour market participation was 39% in 1981; it's increased to 47% by 1991.
But despite that progress, socio-economic conditions in many first nations communities continue to lag behind those in other comparable Canadian communities.
Again, I'll cite just a couple of examples. The infant mortality rate on reserve is still nearly double that of Canada in general. Life expectancy for first nations men, again, is 66 years; it's 74 years for other Canadian men. For first nations women, it is 73 years, compared to 81 for other Canadian women.
So, much has been accomplished, but much remains to be done if we are to meet the current demands for service and accommodate that growing future need.
[Translation]
As you saw in the budget, the program expenditures for Indians will increase modestly over the next three years. Expenditures will increase by 3% this year, and 2% in each of the next two years. These increases will allow us to continue funding certain basic provincial-type services on reserves.
However, I would not want you to think that the department is immune to the strict program review going on in the federal government. As Mr. Di Bartolo's presentation will show, the department has made and will continue to make significant progress in controlling its expenditures. For example, the department's expenditures for aboriginal people increased at an annual rate of 12% in 1990. Last year, the rate was reduced to 6%, and as I said earlier, this increase in expenditures will be reduced again to 3%, and then to 2% for the next two years.
[English]
As for the northern affairs program, the budget is significantly reduced by $17.5 million over four years.
During 1996-97, DIAND will spend almost $4 billion under the Indian and Inuit affairs program. The big items include education at $1.1 billion, social development at $1 billion, schools and infrastructure at $777 million, housing at $156 million, and local government and self-government at $355 million. Most of these funds will be directed at providing essential services and meeting the basic needs of aboriginal communities.
In addition to strengthening communities, as I said at the outset, we also are building partnerships. With this in mind, DIAND will be focusing an increased effort in 1996-97 on those processes of negotiation that will produce new relationships with first nations, settling land claims and negotiating self-government agreements.
Progress in these areas, along with the strategic use of all federal programming, will ensure aboriginal self-sufficiency and self-reliance, which we believe is the best way to improve conditions in aboriginal communities.
[Translation]
Let us now look at the issue of aboriginal self-government. The present government recognizes the inherent right to self-government as a right under section 35 of the Canadian Constitution.
.1120
Self-government has become the key to future relations between the federal government and the aboriginal peoples.
The government has also announced a practical policy to implement rights inherent in self-government.
Over the fiscal year, the department devoted approximately $3.8 million to activities related to self-government such as negotiations, the implementation of rights inherent to self-government and the funding of self-government agreements, such as the one entered into with the Sechelt and Yukon First Nations.
We expect to make significant progress in partnership with the aboriginal communities and the provincial and territorial governments.
[English]
My department will also spend $409 million to continue the process of settling and implementing land claims. The courts have directed us to settle land claims, but we also believe they offer benefits to the broader Canadian community in that they create an environment of certainty in terms of aboriginal rights, the land and resources, thus clearing the way for investment and economic development, which will benefit all Canadians.
Progress over the last two years has been excellent: five comprehensive claims have been legislated and 46 specific claims have been concluded. We intend to build on that momentum in 1996-97. Plans include continuing negotiations towards agreement in principles with a number of first nations, concluding final and self-government agreements under the umbrella of final agreement with six first nations in the Yukon, supporting the British Columbia Treaty Commission process, and settling 20 to 25 additional specific claims.
In terms of the north, DIAND's objective continues to be to support political and economic development in the territories. The creation of the territory of Nunavut in 1999 and restructuring of governance in the western Northwest Territories are important steps in this regard. As well, DIAND will continue to pursue efforts to transfer the remaining provincial-type programs to the territorial governments.
As for economic development, there are a number of major resource projects in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories that offer promise of jobs and economic opportunities for all northerners. Indeed, the discovery of diamonds and the possibility of one or two producing mines in the Lac de Gras area by the turn of the century should result in a significant and sustained growth in jobs in the mining sector over the next ten years, a far different picture from the historical boom and bust pattern.
We will be working to support these projects while ensuring the protection of the environment by modernizing and completing regulatory regimes. We will also continue our efforts to clean up waste sites hazardous to health and to fulfil claims and environmental legal requirements, as well as to maintain support for the circumpolar Arctic environmental protection strategy.
Spending under the northern affairs program in 1996-97 will be about $138 million, which is just over 3% of the total DIAND budget. This is also a $1.2 billion decrease in DIAND's budget from the previous fiscal year, but this is simply a reflection of the fact that we have transferred to the Department of Finance the program that makes transfer payments to the territorial governments. In 1998-99, expenditures under the northern program will be reduced by a further $2.5 million as a result of program review part II.
A final note I'd like to make is that spending on overhead will account for roughly 3.2% of DIAND's expenditure in 1996-97. Ten years ago it was almost 7%. Over the same time period, DIAND's staff has been more than halved, from 5,000 FTEs in 1986-87 to fewer than 3,000 in 1998-99. We continue to review internally in an effort to make savings. Again, Mr. Di Bartolo could expand on this in his presentation.
.1125
Finally, I just want to comment that we have been one of six pilot projects in terms of part III of the estimates. We'd certainly be interested in the committee's reaction. I can only say that for the department it's been a helpful process in terms of assisting us to focus on both objectives and results.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my overview. I'm in your hands as to whether you'd likeMr. Di Bartolo to make a brief slide presentation.
The Chairman: Yes, please do.
Mr. Serson: Okay. Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for your presentation.
I apologize for having not introduced you, Ms Serafini. I saw you there, but you weren't on the list. I was hoping someone would pick up on it; thank you very much for doing so.
Please proceed with your presentation.
Mr. Brent Di Bartolo (Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The presentation I'd like to make today is in three parts. I'd like to first provide a general overview of the environment in which the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs finds itself. Then I'll focus a little bit on spending plans for 1996-97, with comparisons to past expenditures. Finally, I'll provide a little bit of information on results we've identified in part III of the estimates.
As the deputy just mentioned, we are one of six departments involved in the pilot for the revised form of part III of the estimates this year. I know Treasury Board officials have briefed this committee on that pilot project, so I won't get into much detail. There are two points I would like to make, however.
First of all, the document you have before you regarding this year's part IIIs is divided into two parts. There's a planning document and a report on performance.
The Chairman: I apologize for interrupting. Some of the members have been briefed, but very few of us, so it won't hurt if you elaborate on the new process.
Mr. Di Bartolo: All right.
As I say, it's divided into two parts. The planning document is the first 56 or 57 pages. It has a different focus this year from that of past part IIIs of the estimates.
In my view, it's much more strategic. It provides a three-year spending plan, as opposed to past documents, which just focused on the main estimates year. Ultimately it will replace, and in fact this year we expect it to replace, the outlook document that was introduced last year by Treasury Board and was tabled with committees. You'll see the front part of the part III is very similar to the outlook document, and as I said earlier it's a little more strategic.
The last half of the document reports on past performance, and this has been a traditional component in part III of the estimates. The difficulty with it in the past has been that the performance information was scattered throughout the estimates in various sections. It was very difficult to comprehend and come to grips with, and the fact that it was included in the main estimates themselves put us in the position of tabling estimates in February or March that reported on performance of the previous fiscal year. Essentially we were reporting almost a year after the fiscal year was ended, which to say the least did not provide timely information to Parliament.
We are including 1994-95 performance information in this document, but the objective is to separate the performance document out as a separate document to be tabled in Parliament in the fall. So we would be planning to report on 1995-96 performance in the fall of this year.
Finally, the new format is simplified. In my view it's much more readable and intelligible. Again, we'd certainly appreciate any comments your committee has in that regard, and also any specific suggestions as to information needs you see yourselves having that we can provide through this format.
The deputy referred to program review phase two results, and they were announced in the budget the Minister of Finance tabled last month. I'll quickly highlight the key issues associated with Indian and Northern Affairs.
It extended program review fiscal targets to 1998-99. That program review confirmed once again the core roles for the basic services Indian and Northern Affairs provides on reserve. It confirmed the 3% growth rate for Indian programming for 1996-97, which had been announced in the previous budget, but reduced the growth in spending for the Indian and Inuit affairs program to 2% a year for 1997-98 and 1998-99.
.1130
We see the modest growth as improving the long-term sustainability for our programs, and also reflecting the growing aboriginal population. At the same time, the fact that we are significantly reducing our growth rates allows us to assist and support the government's objectives in terms of fiscal targets and deficit reduction.
The northern affairs program, as a separate program, will be reduced by 3.5% in 1998-99, the same as other government departments and programs.
We hear a lot of talk in town about how Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been exempted from program review and the implications of that. This chart clearly demonstrates the opposite. As the deputy said, we had growth rates of 12% in 1989-90. As a result of successive budget reductions and the program review exercises conducted over the last two years, we have a growth rate of 3% this year and 2% in future years.
To help put things in perspective, the total estimated aboriginal population in 1996 is about1.3 million. The pie chart included with your documents provides a breakdown of that. That represents approximately 4.5% of the Canadian population. That is a young population. You can see that about two-thirds of that population are under the age of 30; 36% are under the age of 15. Those kinds of demographics clearly result in increased pressures on certain programs operated by DIAND, including education. Ultimately, as the population ages slightly, there will also be a significant increase in the demand for housing.
The population we're talking about represents 4.5% of the Canadian population. This chart puts into perspective the federal government spending on aboriginal programs as a portion of its total program expenditures. You'll see that 5.9% of the program spending is in programs focused on aboriginal communities and individuals. When you recognize that roughly half of the total government expenditures are related to services provided to other Canadians by provincial governments, the 5.9% expenditure focused on 4.5% of the population is certainly not out of line.
I read the blues of the presentation the Treasury Board made to your committee on the new form of the estimates. I noted that one of the members observed that, given the number of the various departments involved in programming for aboriginals, it is very difficult to get a handle on what total government spending is. This chart gives you that summary: total government spending is$6.4 billion, of which $4.1 billion is planned for expenditure by DIAND, in 1996-97.
The other major players are Health, with 16% of the expenditures, slightly over $1 billion; Human Resource Development; the Department of Finance - and the number there reflects their transfer payments to territorial governments, and we've prorated the total transfers on the basis of aboriginal and non-aboriginal populations in the territories, to give you an indication of what the expenditures for aboriginals as a proxy would be; and CMHC and other government departments - for a total of $6.4 billion.
The following slides will provide a better breakdown and a more graphical representation of our expenditures.
.1135
It is worth noting that the first category of expenditures, basic services - which essentially represent the provincial types of services - accounts for 72% of the total departmental budget, or roughly 82% of the Indian and Inuit program budget. Other services are 15%; claims represent close to 9%; northern affairs 3.3%; and administration 1.6% of total departmental expenditures.
Under basic services, there are four categories. For local and self-government, we are increasing our expenditures in 1996-97 by $20 million. Schools and infrastructure see a significant increase in expenditures, up to $163 million. This is being focused primarily to address health and safety issues, sewage, water, and that sort of thing on reserves. In elementary and secondary education, you can see a reduction of $7 million in our planned expenditures for next year. That effectively, essentially reflects increased compliance and monitoring of population in schools. And there is a significant reduction in social development of $75 million. Again, that primarily reflects the fact that the social assistance payments made to aboriginals are consistent with those payments made by the provincial government in the various provinces. As we are all aware, there have been reductions in a number of provinces in terms of the social benefits being paid. The reduction here reflects the corresponding reduction.
As for the other services provided, post-secondary education is at $261 million. There has since been a decision internally - within the department - that we can find funds to reallocate an additional 3% to post-secondary education, reflecting the overall growth rate in the departmental budget. We've increased housing expenditures by $20 million, again in an attempt to address the housing issue on reserves. Economic development has a slight increase of about $2 million. Lands and trust services see an increase of $16 million. Cultural centres figures stay the same. And the administration program expenditures are being reduced by about $9 million for 1996-97.
Claims expenditures for 1996-97 are at $370 million. Of that total, $255 million relate to comprehensive claims, and the chart in the documents you have before you provides a detailed listing of the claims themselves that represent those expenditures. Specific claims require$106 million, and there is about $8 million for funding of native claimants and litigation support services.
I include the chart on northern program expenditures just because it looked so dramatic, but, as the deputy mentioned, it really reflects the transfer of the function to the Department of Finance in terms of them making payments of approximately $1.2 billion to territorial governments.
Again, as an historical trend, total departmental budgetary expenditures over the last ten years have more than doubled, going from $2 billion to close to $4.2 billion. We've made dramatic improvements in terms of the overhead associated with those expenditures, reducing overhead as a percentage of total budgetary resources from 7% to 3.2%.
The same is true in terms of FTEs or employees in the department, going from 5,600 employees in 1986-87 to a forecast 2,937 FTEs this year, while expenditures over that period more than doubled.
We've also made significant progress in terms of the total portion of the funding that's actually administered by bands themselves, going from 62% in 1985-86 to approximately slightly over 82% this year. That partially accounts for the reduction in FTEs and overhead in the department, but it has also been further addressed through administrative savings.
.1140
Accountability is a major area of interest, and this slide really tries to depict the dual accountability of the department and first nations.
There are administrative measures we can take that tend to put accountability more in the hands of the department than of the first nations themselves, but as you move through the statutes and look at constitutional responsibilities and authorities it's clear the accountability has to be shared between the department and first nations. Certainly as we move more towards financial transfer agreements with first nations we're focusing on the issue of accountability, both in the accountability first nations have through the department to Parliament and in ensuring the minister can be accountable to Parliament for the expenditure of public funds, and also in the accountability of first nations leaders to their community members. That's been the focus of our discussions with them recently.
I'd like to spend a couple of minutes graphically trying to reflect some of the results - not measures of output but actual results - in the situation amongst aboriginal communities.
In elementary and secondary enrolment on reserve, we and the communities have made significant improvements in enrolment in schools, ensuring not only that the opportunity for education is provided but that the opportunity is taken by the people eligible. There was a move from 80% enrolment rates in 1985-86 to 83% enrolment rates in 1996-97. While that represents only a 3% growth in rate of enrolment, when you consider the number of students eligible for enrolment is significantly increased, it translates into a dramatic increase in the students actually in school, from slightly over 70,000 ten years ago to 92,000 today.
Post-secondary enrolment has seen the same sort of increases. In 1981-82 only 5,000 aboriginals were enrolled in post-secondary institutions. As of 1994-95 that number was close to 27,000.
We've also seen increases in the highest level of schooling. The blue bars represent people with less than grade 9 education. Black represents some or full high school education. Red represents the number of people with high school education. The first two groups show a significant increase from 1986 to 1991 in percentage of people on reserve with high school education. It went from 22% to 31% over that period.
That's not to say everything is perfect. When you look at the third set of bars on that graph, which represents the Canadian population in 1991, it reflects the level of people with high school education in the rest of Canada. In percentage terms we doubled it on reserve.
Social assistance beneficiaries increased significantly from 1981-82 to 1994-95. That reflects the economic conditions on reserve, the limited job opportunities on reserve, and in some ways it reflects the overall economic condition. The rest of the Canadian population has seen significant increases in social assistance beneficiaries over that period also. But there have not been significant changes over the last five years, 1991-92 to 1994-95.
First nations child and family service agencies established by first nations, run by first nations, increased significantly over a five-year period, from 36 in 1988-89 to 59 in 1994-95. Another 68 agencies are now in the planning stages for future development.
.1145
In terms of infrastructure and health and safety conditions on reserve, again we've seen an increase over that same period in terms of the number of houses with water delivery and sewage disposal available to them, with 94% of dwellings having water delivery and 88% having sewage disposal in 1994-95. Again, that's clearly less than the overall Canadian services and there's more to be done in improving that situation.
Finally, housing conditions: The demographics we referred to earlier indicate that there will be increased pressures for housing. There has been progress over the last fifteen years, or over the ten-year period reflected on this chart, and that progress continued through the last five years in terms of the number of dwellings available, as measured in this chart by the dwellings with more than one person per room going from 33% to 21%. That compares to 1% of the rest of the Canadian population that's living in similar housing conditions in terms of the number of occupants.
That concludes my presentation, Mr. Chairman. I'm open to questions.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. I'm very impressed by the amount of information provided in that presentation and in that document. Not only will it help us in our work in the committee, but it will help us in talking to our constituents and the media, because there is a lack of information out there. I encourage you to share these documents with the media and with the community.
Do you have other presentations to make at this point? No? Then we will do a round of questions.
Before we finish today, the committee will decide how it wants to proceed for the future. Do you want one more meeting for the estimates? Before we adjourn, I will invite you to solve that problem.
I have a questionnaire that will be distributed to every member of this committee asking you about your impressions, your assessment of this new, improved reporting system. We are a pilot project and you will be involved in the reporting.
We will be holding a special meeting just to deal with the new system. If you agree with me, we'll try to do this very soon so we can complete that work and assist the committee that is promoting this.
Mr. DeVillers (Simcoe North): I have a question for Mr. Di Bartolo on slide 17, accountability. I wonder if perhaps he could elaborate a bit more on that slide. I didn't quite follow all the significance of the slide.
Mr. Di Bartolo: Essentially what that slide reflects is that there is activity in DIAND that's proceeding along three lines in terms of addressing the issue of accountability of first nations and to first nations.
We can make administrative and policy changes within the existing legislative framework that can improve accountability. Within this area we've moved essentially totally out of direct service delivery to more band-administered funding and services being provided by the bands, which implies accountability by the first nations themselves both to the government and to the community.
There are a series of different funding mechanisms, which provide progressively increasing authority to first nations in the use of their funds.
Mr. DeVillers: Is that the significance of this arrow?
Mr. Di Bartolo: Yes, as you move along from the administrative to the constitutional.
Mr. DeVillers: At the top we have arrows going both ways. I wasn't sure.
Mr. Di Bartolo: The major arrow is the one that shows the progression of accountability. The top dual arrow indicates that we see accountability going both ways: accountabilities of the department to first nations and of first nations to the department and to their community.
So there are administrative arrangements that we can make within the current legislative framework, and that's being done. There are also legislative changes that can be made to increase the authority of first nations, and associated with them, clearly, are responsibilities for accountability. Examples of that type of initiative would be the Cree-Naskapi and the Sechelt acts, which provided clear authority to first nations themselves and the accountability associated with that.
.1150
At the extreme right of that chart, you can see that reflects the constitutional change or constitutional interpretation in terms of recognition of inherent right. Section 35 of the Constitution recognizes existing aboriginal and treaty rights. As we're all aware, a series of constitutional conferences have tried to further refine and define what that means, but that simply reflects that there is the constitutional dimension, which has its own influences in terms of not only authority but accountability of first nations.
Mr. DeVillers: What does that measure on the progress? Is this like a progress chart?
Mr. Di Bartolo: That really reflects the whole range. By and large we are working within the administrative framework with most first nations at this time in trying to increase their authority and accountability through the various funding arrangements and the move towards financial transfer agreements. There have been some legislative measures adopted by government that affect certain first nations and the broader constitutional issue.
Mr. DeVillers: Thank you. That's very helpful.
The Chairman: Thank you.
On the list I have Mr. Bachand, Mr. Murphy, and Ms Bridgman. I encourage members to continue in the vein that has started in the first round, to ask questions to clarify certain parts of the presentation. I hope these will be very brief questions and even briefer answers, because once we do that round then we get into the meat of it.
[Translation]
Mr. Bachand.
Mr. Bachand (Saint-Jean): If I understand correctly, we will have to restrict our questioning to this morning's presentation.
The Chair: I would appreciate that.
Mr. Bachand: If we have any additional questions on the document, will we ask the departmental officials to come back?
The Chair: Yes, but even today, after the first round of clarification, we will get to the heart of the matter.
Mr. Bachand: I will skip the first part on claims and move to the second part of the presentation.
I have a very simple question about housing. When will the policy be released? A reference was made to 1996. We're all waiting impatiently for this policy.
With respect with post-secondary education, I see the department has increased the budget by 3%. However, I'm told there are still many young people in central Canada who are being told, unfortunately, that there is no more money available to fund their post-secondary education.
Will the 3% increase in the budget, which will move from $261 million to $267 million, finally make it possible for all young people to take post-secondary education? I've already mentioned to the minister that I found this unacceptable.
My final question is about accountability. Can you tell me whether there are still reserves in Canada where enumerators from Statistics Canada are denied entry?
I think this is an important point. I made a quick check, and on those reserves where Statistics Canada enumerators do not go, it seems that the number of births is very high and the number of deaths is very low. I don't know if this is by chance, but I think an investigation would be entirely justified. Your colleagues spoke earlier about the methods of funding education. Clearly, if there are more young people in school, the amount of funding will increase accordingly. If Statistics Canada's enumerators cannot get onto the reserve, I'm wondering how you can trust the figures that are provided by the band councils.
These are my first three first questions on the presentation. I will have others on the brief.
.1155
[English]
Mr. Jack Stagg (Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Strategic Direction, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): On the question of housing, we would hope to have a housing policy out sooner rather than later. I know an awful lot of promises have been made over the years.
We've taken a great deal of time to talk to first nations people about how they would like to see housing delivered locally. We want to make sure that when we deliver the policy it will be a policy that will serve us for some considerable length of time. We want to make sure the incentives are in the right place.
We see housing as probably, if not the largest, one of the greatest challenges all of us have, both first nations and us locally. We know the lack of housing and the poor housing contributes a great deal to other social pathologies locally in the community, and again, we would hope to have a policy probably within the next short while. We're a long way down the road. We certainly are hopeful of having a policy before the summer.
Again, we want to make sure the policy is going to meet the needs and requirements of first nations. We want to make sure we do that and do it right. We don't want to come back here again in the fall having prematurely released a policy that people can't work with. It's taken this much time so that indeed we get it right.
The second question is about PSE, post-secondary education. The 3% addition this year will add some limited number of students onto the rolls who were not on. I can't guarantee that will cover everyone. The 3% will also cover some of the increases we've seen in tuition in some of the provinces. You have to appreciate that over the last fifteen years PSE has increased some tenfold in terms of the funding. We've taken students from somewhere in the neighbourhood of about 2,700 in 1976-77 to over 26,000, as Mr. Di Bartolo's slide showed today.
We are trying hard to keep up. The demand in fact has somewhat outstripped supply. We have put an additional $20 million into this just in the last year, hoping to clean up most of the backlog we've had. We think we've been successful at that. I can't guarantee that every single student will have an opportunity of participating, but we have tried very hard, within a very limited budget and some fiscal restraint, to make sure that those who are capable of going to post-secondary institutions actually get there.
Again, I can't guarantee that everyone will go, but we've tried very hard to make sure education is one of those things that's been protected from some of the slowing down of the growth we've experienced in the department over the last few years.
[Translation]
Ms Shirley Serafini (Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Indian and Northern Affairs): As regards the census, we know that there are differences between the figures given in the census and our own figures, and we have worked with Statistics Canada to explain these differences and eliminate them.
The most important point is that we do not use the census figures for program purposes. We try to obtain specific statistics, for example for funding purposes we use the number of students in school.
[English]
Mr. Di Bartolo: Might I add to that? In terms of the population statistics also, we have introduced with this year's funding arrangements a requirement for each of the first nations to provide us with population statistics for on-reserve population.
The Chairman: Mr. Murphy.
Mr. Murphy (Annapolis Valley - Hants): Thank you for the clarity of your presentations. It's very helpful in understanding.
Elementary school population has increased, yet there's a decrease in the funding for elementary education. I think it's $7 million less. I was on the educational subcommittee, and we toured around. I just was wondering why there is that lessening.
My other issue is a little more complicated. I take note that the social assistance has gone up by another 5,000 or 6,000 people, and I think the economic development is a 1.3% increase.
.1200
I try to look at relating social assistance and economic development and social development. I might even ask what your meaning is for ``social development''. I'm looking at the relationship between.... If you invest in economic development at a greater rate, hopefully what we're looking at is that the social assistance records will come down. If we're working towards self-sufficiency for our aboriginal people, then I guess my concern is where we place the emphasis to make that self-sufficiency more of a reality.
I may want to go at it again, but anyway....
Mr. Di Bartolo: I think it's important that we be careful we're comparing apples with apples.
About the increased enrolment in elementary schools, the chart I provided reflects increases over the period 1985-86 to 1994-95. The decrease of $7 million between 1995-96 and 1996-97 is really a net decrease resulting from two things: some growth in the enrolment rate, offset by closer and more scrutiny in terms of compliance and ensuring the moneys we're paying to school boards are in fact for on-reserve aboriginal individuals. Closer compliance and scrutiny of those rolls has resulted in the net decrease of $7 million.
Mr. Stagg: About your comments on the connection between social assistance and economic development, we've had a number of lectures from our minister on this, about how we have about$1 billion worth of social assistance and approximately $53 million in economic development. He said he'd like to live long enough as minister to see that turned around in some fashion.
We are doing a number of things that relate social assistance to economic development. As you know, a number of provinces are taking some measure of risk right now in being creative and designing programs that in fact have a social assistance complement in economic development money and vice versa. Some are workfare programs. The other programs are programs such as assisting young people in getting their first jobs, subsidizing employers to hire people who are chronically unemployed. We're working with provinces and first nations to see some of that same kind of creativity occur in local first nations' residences.
We have a number of strategic initiatives programs we've worked out with Human Resources Development. I can mention a couple here if you're interested.
In Saskatchewan we have a first nations school-to-work transition project with the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations. It's about a $2.6 million project over three years. We would hope through that to create several dozen jobs, if not a couple hundred jobs, again for people who wouldn't normally be employed.
In Quebec there's des centres de formation en milieu urbain, the Quebec association of friendship centres. We're hoping to attract people to work within urban communities inside Quebec. It's about a $900,000 project over three years as well.
As I've mentioned, we have some provinces and jurisdictions that want to help with our Western Diversification or our specific economic development organizations to create jobs or job transitions, again for people who have been unemployed for a while and who want jobs. The Alberta project, again in conjunction with our Western Diversification Office, is about $1.5 million over three years. Again, we're hoping for several hundred jobs there.
In Manitoba there is the national environmental education and training program. This is a natural for first nations people, certainly in the west. We would hope to create an environmental education and training centre where first nations people would come in and learn formal management practices for silviculture and renewable resources.
.1205
We have a number of others we are working on now that have not been announced, but we're ever hopeful - as are other provinces and regions, including Ontario, British Columbia and the Northwest Territories - that we will see them in effect probably in the next three to five months.
It's a concern on our part that we try to find a way to use the money effectively and creatively. Giving out money year after year to dependents and reinforcing dependence is not anything that any one of us wants to see over the long term. It's a hard cycle to break, the progress is somewhat slow, but it's worth the effort to be creative and to do different things, to see whether or not we can break that cycle in some instances.
Mr. Murphy: On the social development thing, could you explain a little more what the funding is specifically geared to on the social development side? I taught social development at one stage of the game.
Mr. Stagg: In terms of social development, there's about a billion dollars. About 70% of that will go to what we used to call social welfare. This is the equivalent of provincial-type social welfare to provide income security. The other 30%, roughly about $300 million, goes to child welfare and adult services - everything from family violence initiatives that we try to aid in terms of efforts to stop family violence locally, to adult care services, in-home services, and special care services for adult people who have disabilities. That's the remainder.
The Chairman: Ms Bridgman.
Ms Bridgman (Surrey North): My questions actually are more for clarification of this report. On page 23, when you talk of water delivery and sewage disposal systems and the increase over the years, are we referring to a basic level, for instance, septic tanks versus big sewage processing plants?
Mr. Di Bartolo: Yes, it refers to very basic services.
Ms Bridgman: Very basic. And it's the same with the water services? It would be wells versus....
Mr. Di Bartolo: Yes, by and large, we are talking about small communities.
Ms Bridgman: Okay, good.
The education section on slide 18 notes the increase in elementary and secondary enrolment on reserves, and then the next page covers post-secondary enrolment. The page following that is the highest level of schooling. Is it safe to assume that we can take slides 18 and 19 as enrolment and then look at slide 20 for graduation purposes? We're talking about the number of people enrolled. I'm interested in knowing how many of those persons would go through the system and complete graduation. Would it be safe to correlate...?
Mr. Di Bartolo: I think we could probably draw the correlation. In looking at the slides very quickly, though, I suspect it would be impossible on the basis of just these three slides to do it because in some cases we're talking percentages, while in others we're talking absolute numbers. And absent the total population figures for those years, it would be very difficult for you to draw the correlation.
Mr. Serson: We'd be happy to try to provide that information for you.
Ms Bridgman: I think specifically the comparison I would like to make would probably be the enrolment rate to graduation rate, so that would be slides 18 and 19 versus 20.
I would also like to address slide 17 and make an observation. One of the main principles here for this whole process of decentralization.... Is that one of the overlying principles? We discussed earlier what this page means. If you're looking at this and if you put your mind in the context of decentralization, is that what's implied here?
Mr. Serson: I think what's implied here is an effort to move from devolution through to self-government while at the same time maintaining the minimum standards necessary for accountability to Parliament, and to work with first nations so that they understand the benefits of accountability to their own membership and begin to codify that and put it into their own statutes as they take on self-government.
.1210
Ms Bridgman: The last question I have, for clarity, is back on page 8, when we get to the pie in looking at the $6.4 billion. The title of this slide is ``Federal Programs''. I'm thinking of two specific examples I can use. One would be like the Brighter Futures program, which I would think comes under Health. So that would be part of the one-sixteenth. But are there studies in this as well? For example, some studies are being done on the Great Lakes. So studies are not included here, but -
Mr. Di Bartolo: No. These are programs aimed specifically at the aboriginal community amongst federal departments.
Outside of these programs there are likely to be studies that would have an impact on aboriginals or could be specific to aboriginals.
Ms Bridgman: Right, but they're not included in this.
Mr. Di Bartolo: No.
Mr. Serson: I think we'd have to look at the specifics. I know that Health Canada have something they call the EAGLE project that they're funding out of this.
Ms Bridgman: That's the one, I think.
Mr. Serson: Yes. It's probably caught up in that overall expenditure.
When you say ``studies'', we're more concerned about some research that may be done in some department that we're just not aware of. But that study is probably in that amount. We could confirm that.
Ms Bridgman: So it could come under Health.
Mr. Serson: Yes.
Ms Bridgman: I was expecting to see it under Environment.
Mr. Serson: No. Health takes the responsibility and the funding is there, if I'm not mistaken.
The Chairman: So by the next meeting can we expect an explanation of pages 18, 19, and 20 in relation to graduation?
Mr. Serson: Yes.
The Chairman: Your estimates are based on September 30 - or is there a follow-up throughout the year assessing drop-outs so you can put it into that report? Are the figures for funding established by the September 30 figure?
Mr. Di Bartolo: September 30, nominal roll.
The Chairman: Does page 19 reflect September 30, or is it a balance of what September 30 says relative to the numbers of students who drop out?
Mr. Di Bartolo: In most regions and provinces we do only one nominal roll count a year, and that's on September 30.
The Chairman: And that's what's on page 19?
Mr. Di Bartolo: That is what would be reflected in these trend numbers.
The Chairman: So some students could appear on that page every year but never go to school for more than a month?
Mr. Di Bartolo: Yes.
The Chairman: As long as we know.
Mr. Finlay (Oxford): We've spent some time on pages 18, 19, and 20, and I think there's a line we really need that isn't there. It is the number of school-age children.
If you look at page 18, for instance, the enrolment rate, as you mentioned, has gone up modestly; however, the number of students has gone up considerably. At the beginning, the deputy minister pointed out that the population growth of native and aboriginal communities is twice what it is in the rest of Canada. If we don't know how many school-age children there are, then we don't know whether we're winning or losing on this enrolment matter.
With respect to page 20, following what Ms Bridgman said, are these adults? Are these people who have finished school, or are they the highest level of schooling of the adult community?
Mr. Di Bartolo: The total community.
Mr. Finlay: So I suggest that you look into -
Mr. Serson: Number of school-age children.
Mr. Finlay: - putting a line there so we'll know whether we're winning or losing.
Graph 16 is another one that interests me. If I understand what it says, it shows us that more of the Indian and Inuit Affairs programs are being administered directly by the band. That's the point of it.
Mr. Di Bartolo: Yes.
Mr. Finlay: Maybe this is historic. If you look at the graph, it seems to be running in three lines; that is, there's a fairly steady increase from 1985-86 to 1991. The rate of devolution, if you like, or the rate of increase, drops from about 3% or 4% per year to just over 1% for the next three years. Then you project for 1994-95 that.... Now, that's probably because there's a critical mass you can't get over, perhaps, but I would like to think that the graph is going to keep heading to 100%. It seems that's what we're after.
.1215
Mr. Di Bartolo: Certainly with our approach in terms of moving toward financial transfer arrangements and working with the communities to develop the capabilities in the communities for financial management and the administration of these projects, our objective is just that: to continue that trend up to a full 100% administered by bands.
The Chairman: Mr. Harper.
Mr. Harper (Churchill): I guess I'll pose a question to whoever wants to answer the question. I thought the minister was going to be here this morning, as I had some questions for him.
The Chairman: Excuse me. The first round is on a clarification of the presentation, mostly. You will have a second round this morning, and there will be another meeting.
Mr. Harper: I wanted to ask a question on the claims expenditures. I wanted some clarification with regard to, more specifically, I guess, Manitoba. What I don't see being identified in the claims expenditures is the initiative that they.... Is it under this expenditure somewhere as to how much money is involved in that project?
Mr. Serson: I think we're probably dealing with it, Mr. Harper, under specific claims, forecasted expenditures, treaty land entitlement.
Mr. Harper: Under treaty land entitlement. What I mean is more specific. I'm talking about the dismantling of Indian Affairs.
Ms Serafini: That's not a claim.
Mr. Serson: That's under self-government.
Mr. Harper: It would be under self-government. I wanted to get a clarification of that.
The goal of the aboriginal people in this country is to become self-governing, and the government will recognize that. Somehow, when we sit around this table and ask the staff here to get down down to the details and the nitty-gritty of students attending, it shows the amount of authority the government has over individual people.
These kinds of questions should be answered by first nations governments. That's obviously the goal we're trying to attend to. But I just want to make that point, which is that somehow we're still in the dark ages in terms of.... We haven't proceeded very far. I just wanted to put that on record.
The Chairman: As chair of the committee, I heard what you said, but I certainly would not want to stifle any questions in this process. I want members to ask any question at all. Sometimes some questions could be embarrassing to certain individuals, but the process that's under way here is to ask those questions. If people feel there's another intent within the question, they will have to deal with that, but I want every member of this committee to be free to ask any question. That's the process we're going under, and I don't want to chair a process that is stifled.
Now we'll proceed to another round. We have forty minutes. Who will start?
Mr. Harper: I don't think he answered my question specifically on Manitoba.
The Chairman: I thought he had. Please do.
Mr. Serson: Could you repeat the question?
Mr. Harper: On the Manitoba project.
Mr. Serson: Manitoba dismantling would be dealt with under the self-government expenditures.
Mr. Harper: Yes, I wanted to identify the amount. How much is it?
.1220
Ms Serafini: It's still being negotiated for this year.
Mr. Harper: I guess I'll follow that up in my next round of questions.
The Chairman: Monsieur Bachand, ten minutes.
[Translation]
Mr. Bachand: I can just ask one or two questions. So can these people come back so that we can finish our questions?
The Chairman: Yes. I will suggest that our witnesses be invited to return and discuss this subject again with the committee on Thursday of this week. Then all committee members will have the time they need.
Mr. Bachand: I see. Thank you.
I have more specific questions concerning the brief. I imagine that there are enough deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers to answer. I will ask some of them now and I will keep the others for next Thursday.
On page 18 figures are given for overall claims. For 1994-1995, the figure of $147 million was projected, but the actual budget at the end of the fiscal year was $201 million.
Page 18 shows an increase in overall claims. It went from $200 million in 1995-1996 to$255 million and subsequently, and to $257 million at the end of three years.
As regards claims, there is a decrease. They go from 136 to 106, and then to 78. There are always many specific claims. Therefore, could you explain to me why there is a drop in the money spent for such claims?
I am in favour of reducing the price of food in the North. One of the key factors here is air service in the North.
I would like you to give us the costs for last year and the projected costs for this year. I would also like to know when you intend to suggest to the provinces that they might subsidize such a service, given the prospects of rising costs year after year.
Those are the two questions I have for now,l but I will continue on Thursday. Thank you.
[English]
Mr. John Sinclair (Assistant Deputy Minister, Claims and Indian Government, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): I would like to respond toMr. Bachand's question.
By way of overview, Mr. Chair, about 75% of all of the expenditures listed under claims basically relate to agreements that have been approved by Parliament or by some kind of a bilateral or trilateral agreement among first nations, the federal government and a province.
The increase that you see from 1995-96 into 1996-97 in claims reflects the fact that over the last two years the TFN, or the Nunavut land claim, has been signed. With the usual cashflow, there's an initial payment and then it goes up for a year or two before it trends down, and there's a little cap at the end.
We've also had the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation Final Agreement, which was reached in December, 1992, and the cashflow there starts to work in now. It's the same with the Sahtu agreement and, most recently, those reached with four Yukon first nations. So there's that kind of a cashflow working its way through the system.
What you're seeing in specific claims is the fact that in 1994-95 and 1995-96, there were rather large pay-outs under the Saskatchewan treaty land entitlement that was negotiated in 1992-93. Again what you have is treaty land entitlement starting to wind itself down. Interspersed in that will be Manitoba northern flood agreements as part of specific claims. And the other part of specific claims, other than treaty land entitlement, are all other kinds of specific claims.
.1225
Basically, what we had had over a number of years post-1990 was a very high level of activity. That's just naturally starting to trend down.
You're right, Mr. Bachand: there is a whole series of claims out there. A lot of them are in research, and it's a straight case of which ones we accept on the basis of legal and historical analysis and then what we can afford. You cashflow, and then you try to predict who will settle when. So comprehensive claims will stay up for a while.
On specific claims, the TLE from Saskatchewan and Alberta is trending down, and the non-treaty land entitlement, which are smaller claims - some of them are what we call fast-track, $500,000 or $600,000 to $3 million to $5 million - get settled when they get settled, and you try to figure out how that's going to work out.
So that's a rough explanation of about 18 or 20 different cashflows being layered together and being projected out over a number of years.
Mr. John Rayner (Assistant Deputy Minister, Northern Affairs, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Mr. Bachand, you asked a question on the northern air stage funding. My minister announced in January 1996 that the funding would be reduced by about 3%, from $16.1 million in the previous year, 1995-96, to $15.6 million for 1996-97. Part of that$16.1 million was in fact us meeting a debt that we had to Canada Post from the previous year. So the funding has been capped at $15.6 million.
In order to avoid any postal increases, we have recently put out a discussion paper - I'll be delighted to give you a copy of it - that contains a number of proposals for discussions with the stakeholders, including the provinces but also including the distributors and what not, of ways in which we could change the structure and criteria of the program to try to maintain the objective of getting nutritious food into these remote communities at reasonable prices.
If you had a copy of this, it would really answer a lot of the questions on what we're doing.
The plan would be to have consultations with this over the next three or four months and then in time to see what changes and modifications we could make to the program to enable us to go for another year without a rate increase.
Mr. Serson: I think in fact, John, the minister has written to the provinces and signalled his intent to discuss cost-sharing with them.
Mr. Rayner: Yes.
The Chairman: Mr. DeVillers.
Mr. DeVillers: On the issue of claims treaty land entitlement and claims, in central Ontario there is the Williams Treaty. I was just wondering if it's been budgeted in there and specifically what the involvement with the province is. I've been hearing that there's difficulty with the Ontario government in coming to a policy and dealing with these matters. I wonder if you could give us some information on that.
Mr. Sinclair: On the Williams Treaty, I don't think we are yet at the point where we have budgeted any potential settlement dollars.
Mr. DeVillers: So it's not included in these.
Mr. Sinclair: Not that I'm aware of, but I'll check and get back to you on that.
On the Williams Treaty, we have our negotiator. If I recall correctly - and again I'll confirm this with you - we're still waiting on the Ontario government to engage on that issue. Our negotiator has had a couple of meetings with his Ontario counterpart, but if I recall correctly, sir, I think they're still waiting on a mandate from their side.
Mr. DeVillers: Right, and I'm just asking what the consequence of that is to our process. Is there any way of proceeding unilaterally? Is that possible? Are we stymied if the province isn't playing ball?
.1230
Mr. Sinclair: My understanding is that if we don't have the province there it's not clear what we can do by ourselves. Again, I will get back to you on that.
I think this is part of what the deputy has done. With the change of government Ontario is developing a sort of shared agenda and finding out where people are on different files. I don't think we're into first gear yet on this one.
There were some discussions and I think all three parties, and certainly the united Indian councils, if I recall correctly, have made some responses to the provincial government on some of their positions. I think everyone is in a positioning kind of mode right now but I will get back to you with more information on that.
Mr. DeVillers: Thank you.
Mr. Serson: All I can say is that we keep the lines of communication open. We're quite aggressive in talking to them about this new policy statement they've put out and what it's going to mean for our files.
Mr. DeVillers: I understood it was due and now it's been postponed.
Mr. Serson: No, it's out.
Mr. DeVillers: Oh, is it out?
Mr. Serson: Yes. It's a very brief four-page.... It wasn't given much public play, but I noticed there was an article this morning or yesterday morning in The Ottawa Citizen on it.
The Chairman: Before we proceed, I will share the Bloc member's expression of appreciation to you for having the full team here. We enjoy asking questions and having somebody popping out with the answers. It's really constructive.
We'd like to clear up with you, though, if Thursday is acceptable to you. I know it's short notice and we have to be fair to you. It would be 11 o'clock on Thursday.
Mr. Serson: I think I can certainly be back, Mr. Chairperson. It's also a busy team. I'm not sure how many can, but I think we can find equally qualified replacements.
The Chairman: Okay. In all fairness to our witnesses, I ask members who have complex questions to feel free to communicate the questions to them before the meeting. That always helps.
Ms Bridgman, you have ten minutes.
Ms Bridgman: I have two comments. First, apparently the department proposed some amendments to the Indian Act, which were distributed to the first nations. Would it be possible for us to get copies of that?
Mr. Sinclair: I don't think there's any problem with that.
Ms Bridgman: The other one was also in the estimates on page 144. Apparently there's a list of 13 evaluation reports that were done. Is it possible to get copies of that or is that an internal document?
Mr. Di Bartolo: We make our evaluation documents available publicly.
Ms Bridgman: Could we get copies of those?
Mr. Di Bartolo: Yes.
Ms Bridgman: My question is actually about the Hamilton report. We spent a whole session with Mr. Hamilton. He gave us an excellent presentation in relation to his report. I wonder what the role of this report is going to be in the future of the department. It was out in late May apparently and I haven't really heard how this will be used or indeed whether the recommendations will be considered.
Mr. Serson: No, Ms Bridgman, the minister has continued to state that he is going to study that report along with the royal commission report, and we continue to do that work with our colleagues in the Department of Justice.
Ms Bridgman: So is it still under study?
Mr. Serson: It's still under study.
Ms Bridgman: Are there any parameters as to when we can expect some sort of decision?
Mr. Serson: It's a very sensitive issue. It's very difficult to predict when cabinet will consider it, but we're working hard on it.
Ms Bridgman: I think the Hamilton report takes a bit of a new path or direction, possibly, depending on how you want to look at it. I have some concerns because of the B.C. situation. The B.C. situation seems to be a little more advanced in the process of negotiating treaties. We have the Nisga'a, for example. It's an agreement in principle, with a projected date of about two to two and a half years for the negotiating program to the final decision.
And I think that for this Hamilton report, there should be some sort of a decision as to its role, because that indeed will have an effect. Two of the main issues were the aboriginal rights and the definition thereof and extinguishment. These are two major concerns within Canada. What do those two terms actually mean?
.1235
I'm a bit concerned that as the negotiations proceed, especially if there isn't some sort of decision within two and a half years, and we get this Nisga'a thing - for twenty-odd years they've been trying to get to where they're at - it would be a great shame to have to backtrack. So that would be my concern about the Hamilton report.
Mr. Serson: I think we share those concerns. We recognize how important the issues of extinguishment and certainty are to first nations in dealing with this issue.
Ms Bridgman: And the definition of aboriginal rights, inherent rights.
Mr. Sinclair: I'll add that first nations are obviously very interested in what comes of the Hamilton report, and indeed some of the royal commission recommendations - although I think Justice Hamilton's report is fuller.
Certainly provincial governments are equally interested and, as the deputy said, while we can't predict when this will be considered by cabinet, it's under very active review. We share your timing considerations, because I don't think the Nisga'a or the B.C. government or anyone else would want to have this hanging fire when they're approaching their final agreement. So the timing has to come together, and certainly that's what we're trying to work on.
Mr. Harper: On the Manitoba project, I spoke with the grand chief this morning with regard to the framework agreement. Apparently the talks on this process have broken down and it's becoming serious. If it's not resolved, I think it will be a guaranteed failure if the government doesn't approach or take this issue very seriously.
The problem seems to be that the negotiator who has been appointed, Mr. McIntyre, has a specific mandate to negotiate with the Manitoba chiefs on a sector-by-sector basis. I'll give you an example: education. He wants to resolve this portion or have this sector in place as soon as possible in order to proceed on that, but the chiefs' position is that they want a global approach, not dealing with education, emergency services, health, and so on. They weren't able to do that, and apparentlyMr. McIntyre doesn't have the mandate to do what they want.
It's not specifically dealing with jurisdiction, but rather that the chiefs feel that it's being approached with a sort of resource or financial interest or rationale behind it.
Could the department advise us of what their understanding of that process is? I specifically talked to the grand chief this morning, and that seems to be where the problem is. If this is not resolved, then I don't think it will go anywhere.
Ms Serafini: I was talking to Grand Chief Fontaine last week, as well as our negotiator,Mr. McIntyre.
When we entered into the framework agreement with the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, we were entering into a ten-year process to look at the restoration of jurisdictions and self-government through that period. But we also flagged in that initial agreement, signed by Grand Chief Fontaine and the minister, that there were four fast-track areas that we were going to try to focus on first - those included education, emergency services, fire protection, and capital - in dismantling the regional operations of the department. In the first year and a half of the agreement we've started to try to move forward on each of those.
At this point, in terms of this fiscal year, Mr. McIntyre was appointed as our negotiator very late in March and in fact had the very first set of sessions in meeting with the Manitoba chiefs last week.
The situation we're in is that work on education had been started a lot sooner. Work had been going on in education long before the framework agreement was signed, and therefore it's the most advanced in terms of getting towards a specific agreement. It's also the one area, at this point, that we haven't agreed on - work plan and budget - with the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs for this year. So what Mr. McIntyre was suggesting is that we get going on that, not precluding doing work on the other fast-track areas this year as well. But we were waiting for certain reports from the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs - I believe we've just received them in the last week or so - and we also had further discussions that were to take place between our regional staff and the AMC staff in terms of how we should structure our work plans in those other areas. So we're hopeful we can work all of these things out because we also see moving forward on this framework agreement as an extremely important priority.
.1240
The Chairman: You have one more minute and then we'll go to Mr. Finlay, but there is time left and we will come back to you afterwards.
Mr. Harper: According to my understanding, Mr. McIntyre suggested he had instructions or a mandate only to negotiate on the education sector of the agreement, that it wasn't at all his suggestion to proceed only with education. The problem seems to be that the chiefs want to proceed on a global basis to deal with those areas, and not just on the education portion of the agreement. He seems to be limited by that, and he was indicating to the chiefs that he had no mandate to talk about the other areas. That is where the breakdown is.
Are you telling me that this is not the case at all? That he didn't have the mandate is the understanding of the chiefs. If that's not so, it should be communicated to the chiefs thatMr. McIntyre has the mandate to negotiate the whole agreement.
Ms Serafini: His mandate is not only limited to education. He is our executive negotiator for the whole of the framework agreement. I think it's more a question of whether or not both parties are ready to advance into the substantive negotiations.
The Chairman: Mr. Finlay.
Mr. Finlay: I need some clarification of a statement on page 26 of the estimates. In the second paragraph, it mentions the ongoing self-government negotiations. In the third paragraph it says:
- The Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians has the mandate to negotiate with
Métis south of the 60th parallel and with off-reserve and non-Status Aboriginal peoples.
Mr. Serson: We have to be careful about what we say here, Mr. Chairman, because of course this is the mandate of the PCO. The PCO supports Madame McLellan in terms of her responsibilities as Métis interlocutor, and the PCO participates with those provinces that are interested in self-government negotiations with off-reserve and Métis people.
Jack, do you want to make a few comments about what's happening in that area?
Mr. Stagg: I'll make a few general comments.
I can't tell you specifically how many negotiations Ms McLellan has going now, but I can tell you that when we put the policy together we wanted to make sure the new inherent right policy was a policy that served all aboriginal people in Canada, not only the aboriginal or first nations people living on a specific land base.
On a specific land base, perhaps we can go further in terms of jurisdiction than we might if aboriginal people are living off reserve and if we're doing self-government things off reserve. Off reserve, for instance, we would see the possibility of the provision of delivery of services in and around an urban area. If aboriginal people in and around Winnipeg or one of the large urban centres in the west wanted to take on services, perhaps through the friendship centres, we would make administrative arrangements to do that.
For instance, Inuit people in the north have shown a preference for doing self-government agreements through public government systems. This wouldn't be quite the same as what we would be doing in southern Canada on reserve, but it's still a measure of greater self-reliance, larger community control, more community control, which is really the object for off reserve.
.1245
Mr. Finlay: And what is PCO, Deputy Minister?
Mr. Serson: Oh, sorry. It's the Privy Council Office.
Mr. Finlay: So then I'm asking a question about somebody else's turf, basically.
Mr. Serson: Yes.
Mr. Finlay: Okay, thank you.
The Chairman: We have fifteen minutes left, if you have any issues you want to get on the record or questions. Will you be requiring time, Ms Bridgman?
Ms Bridgman: Most of my questions today are for clarity. I want to get this all together and come back next time, but I would make reference to the Manitoba situation and specifics. It's not related necessarily to this treaty.
There were some difficulties with the Waterhen Reserve, I believe, in the election of the band council last November, I believe it was. An appeal was made. Can anyone sort of give me an idea as to the process or where that fits into the process? I don't know if it was actually made, but it's my understanding that an appeal was put in.
Mr. Gregor MacIntosh (Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Lands and Trust Services, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Ms Bridgman, I'll have to get back to you on that.
Ms Bridgman: That's fine, yes.
Mr. MacIntosh: There was another election, and there was a problem before that. I think they resolved -
Ms Bridgman: Yes, I just had a question as to where in the process that appeal is right now. I would appreciate that. Thank you.
The Chairman: The assistant deputy minister who just committed to reporting later, could we have your name please for the record?
Mr. MacIntosh: MacIntosh.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Harper: As for Mr. McIntyre's mandate, would you have anything specific in writing with regard to his mandate? What is his mandate by the department that you can provide me with that I can provide to the -
Ms Serafini: I'll check.
Mr. Harper: At what has he been directed? Can you at least provide me with his direction at this point, or to what is he limited, or what he can do?
Ms Serafini: I'll check what's available in writing. Certainly he's been appointed as the executive negotiator to move forward on all of the areas that are covered under the Manitoba framework agreement. It is not limited to one sector only.
Mr. Harper: It seems to be the issue that he was limited in negotiating, which is why the talks broke off. If we want this on track, I think we need to get it back on the table as soon as possible.
The other thing I want to talk about is the tree line entitlement. Maybe I'll ask the department as to what the status of that is in regard to this tree line entitlement in Manitoba. I had a brief discussion with the native affairs minister in Manitoba last week. He informed me that some progress had been made with regard to this process. Maybe you can enlighten us as to where this is at.
Mr. Sinclair: Yes, as my deputy was noting, Mr. Harper, those negotiations have been active for some months now. Very much now, all three parties are determining whether or not there are the elements of a deal. That deal, as in any treaty land entitlement, involves a quantum of land and cash. Then there are a whole series of necessarily demanding issues about what kind of land can be selected and how it gets moved onto the reserve, etc.
My understanding is that there have been a number of very useful bilateral meetings, for example, between Manitoba government representatives, those who are called the treaty land entitlement chiefs, and ourselves.
So as we work through that, I'm hopeful that there may be something positive to report in the next number of weeks or months, but I don't want to say anything more for fear of tempting the fates, because negotiations are very active, and I think people are starting to focus on what might be doable.
.1250
Mr. Harper: Have there been any future meetings scheduled between the Minister of Northern and Native Affairs and our Minister of Indian Affairs?
Mr. Serson: Not at this stage, Mr. Harper. I spoke to Chief Whitebird last night and I understand that they have a meeting scheduled next week to consider what's on the table.
Mr. Harper: I don't have any other questions.
The Chairman: Mr. DeVillers.
Mr. DeVillers: I have a question about the first nation Inuit community economic development program. What are the department's plans for that program?
Mr. Stagg: I think what you're referring to is what used to be called the ``Eskimo loan fund''.
Mr. DeVillers: I've heard it called the ``first nation Inuit community economic development program''. Is there a change in name coming as well?
Mr. Stagg: I'm sorry. I thought you said the Inuit loan program.
Mr. DeVillers: No. I mean the community economic development program.
Mr. Stagg: As you know from the estimates, we have a program of around $53 million. For about the last ten years Human Resources Development, which is responsible for training, and Industry Canada, which has the debt capital program for economic development, have attempted to coordinate those programs in some way to make each of those three elements effective as a full economic development program.
Mr. DeVillers: Yes.
Mr. Stagg: We have not been successful in doing that, but we hope we can in the next two to three months. We have a cooperative study among ourselves so that we can establish a program that will provide funding for training, that will link training to business creation, the debt capital from Industry Canada, and that will tie in community economic development and community priorities through our CEDO program.
Mr. DeVillers: Is Pathways part of that program?
Mr. Stagg: Yes, Pathways is part of it. That's the Human Resources Development portion of the program. We're hoping to get an integrative approach. In the meantime, we're going about two things. Last year we did a survey of our community economic development organizations to see which ones were functioning well, and we said to the organizations that were not functioning well that we would in fact withdraw the money from those organizations and add that to the capital fund for business creation. We've proceeded to do that.
Mr. DeVillers: I understand that at HRD there's been a new framework agreement for Pathways for delivery through the Métis Nation of Canada and there are now local agreements being done. Has your department been involved in that process of how this service should be delivered to Métis or aboriginal people?
Mr. Stagg: Yes. This is HRD's program but they have been consulting us all along the way and in fact they've shown an interest in getting together with us and with Industry Canada in rationalizing that program and the funds available there to help in economic development generally.
Mr. DeVillers: I'm aware that there's a split amongst the leadership of the Métis, between the Métis Nation and the OMAA in Ontario. It did cause problems in how it's actually getting through to those people.
Mr. Serson: Fortunately, or unfortunately, that problem would be more PCO's and HRD's than it would ours, because Métis and non-status are not groups we would serve.
Mr. DeVillers: So it's not part of your mandate and that's why you haven't been involved in it.
Mr. Serson: Yes.
Mr. DeVillers: Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
Before we conclude, I'd like to tell the members that having committed to sharing correspondence I receive, I received a letter from the national aboriginal financing task force, which has a pre-final report. I won't photocopy it for all of you, but I will make it available to the clerk and if you are interested in any parts of it, please contact the clerk. One of them is ``The Promise of the Future''. The other document is ``Access to Capital: Institutional Development''. There are also ``Regulatory Issues of the Subcommittee'', ``Using Communication Strategies to Gain Access to Capital'', ``Institutional Development'', ``Human Resources Subcommittee'' and ``Incentives''. These reports are available at the clerk's office, but they will not be photocopied and distributed to all.
.1255
To our witnesses, thank you very much for a very informative meeting. I can see that we're going to really learn a lot from this process. I look forward to meeting you again on Thursday.
Mr. Serson: Thank you very much.
The Chairman: Thank you, members.
We're adjourned.