AAND Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES AUTOCHTONES ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DU GRAND NORD

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, November 26, 1997

• 1535

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.)): We're ready to start. I apologize for being late.

In accordance with our order of reference and with Standing Order 108(2), we are proceeding with our examination of the programs, expenditures and performance of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

We are pleased to have with us today the Honourable Jane Stewart, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and some officials from her department.

Before we begin, I would like to point out that the minister can only spend an hour with us, in view of her very busy schedule. I would ask her to make an opening statement following which we will go to a single round of questions where each member from each political party will have ten minutes.

Are you agreed, Mr. Scott? Mr. Bachand? Mr. Keddy? Mr. Patry? Perfect. We can start then.

The floor is yours, Madam Minister.

The Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.)): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for your invitation.

[English]

Mr. Chairman, members of the standing committee, I really appreciate your inviting me to meet with you here today.

I want to begin by congratulating all of you on your appointment to this important committee. I look forward to working with you in the coming months as our government shapes a new relationship with aboriginal people and northerners.

I'd like quickly to introduce the officials I have with me. You will have met some of them, perhaps, in your briefings. Mr. Jim Moore is our assistant deputy minister responsible for northern programs. Cynthia Williams is the ADM for programs and policy. My acting deputy minister is Gary Wouters. Brent Dibartolo is the ADM for corporate services. John Sinclair is the ADM for claims and Indian government.

Given that this is our first meeting together, I'd like to provide an overview of the important issues that we'll face together over the next couple of years as a result of the work of this department.

Let me start with our northern responsibilities.

Our government's main priority in the north is the creation of the new territory of Nunavut in 1999. We are also continuing to promote the enhanced development of territorial responsibilities. Good progress is being made in the Yukon and discussions are ongoing in the Northwest Territories.

The need to protect the fragile northern environment while encouraging economic development initiatives, such as the opening of Canada's first diamond mines, is also high on our agenda.

By far, the bulk of my department's spending falls under the Indian and Inuit Affairs Program. In 1997-98 our spending for this program will increase by 2%, or about $81 million, to total about $4.1 billion. This funding enables aboriginal people to have access to many of the basic services that other Canadians receive through provincial and municipal governments: services like primary and secondary education, social services, local governance, and community infrastructure, including roads and water and sewer services.

Given this unique position, it is difficult to compare my department's spending with that of other federal departments, or to compare federal per capita spending on aboriginal people with federal per capita spending on non-aboriginal people.

I would note that a full 82% of spending under the Indian and Inuit Affairs Program is for these basic services, which, as I mentioned, other citizens receive from their provinces and municipalities. The rest of the money is used to provide services such as housing, economic development and post-secondary education, all of which are critical to long term aboriginal self-sufficiency and reduced welfare dependency.

So why is spending in my department growing, even at a modest rate, when other federal departments and agencies continue to face budget reductions? It's a legitimate question, and indeed one that I've been asked often in recent weeks. My answer is twofold.

First, growth in spending is essential to ensure the provision of basic services and reserves. Canadians expect no less. Our government does not intend to achieve deficit reduction at the expense of those least able to afford it. That doesn't mean first nations have not done their part in bringing federal spending under control. The annual growth in spending on aboriginal programs has gone from 11% in 1991-92 to 2% today. That has required many difficult choices by government officials and aboriginal leaders alike.

The second reason for the increase in funding is that the aboriginal population is growing at about twice the rate of the overall Canadian population. On reserves the growth rate is about 2.9%. The Indian population is also very young. Almost two-thirds of aboriginal people are under the age of 30. About 35% of reserve residents are under the age of 15. What we are witnessing is an aboriginal baby boom, and it's increasing the demand for school space, for housing, for public infrastructure, for social services, and for jobs in reserve communities.

• 1540

If keeping pace with this growing demand weren't enough of a challenge, we are also working to close the gap between on-reserve services and standards compared with those in non-native communities. And make no mistake, there is a significant and unacceptable gap. It astounds me, quite frankly, that some people sincerely believe that aboriginal people enjoy better living conditions than other Canadians; that somehow they are privileged and live as a privileged group in society. Nothing could be further from the truth. Although improvements have been made over the years, by every social and economic indicator aboriginal people continue to be the poorest of the poor. Indicators in areas such as infant mortality, welfare dependency, income level, and unemployment demonstrate that aboriginal people are worse off than other Canadians.

But there's another reality today, one of steady and ongoing improvements in reserve communities. Over the past two decades first nations, working with successive governments, have achieved progress in education, economic development, health care, housing, and virtually every other indicator of socio-economic well-being. For instance, today more than 96% of housing units on reserve have potable water, compared with 53% in 1977-78, and 92% have sewage disposal systems, compared with 47% in 1977-78.

In my view, one of the main reasons for these improvements is that first nations have assumed responsibility for delivering their own programming at the community level. About 83% of my department's funding for Indian programming is managed by first nations. My department's job today is not to deliver services on reserves directly but to work in partnership with first nations on program design and the development of financing arrangements which allow them to deliver their own programs.

This transfer of spending control raises the issue of fiscal accountability, and I know this is a concern to the committee members and indeed to all parliamentarians. Recently we have heard news reports about how some first nations communities are experiencing financial difficulties. What we don't hear about often enough, however, is that the vast majority of first nations manage their finances successfully.

We don't hear enough about first nations like the reserve formerly known as Big Trout Lake. Three years ago this community had a deficit worth more than $2 million. Today it has a surplus worth over $200,000, thanks to its hard work in reorganizing its operations and redirecting surpluses to the deficit. The first nation received an unqualified opinion on its most recent audit. We don't hear the stories about the Millbrook First Nation in Nova Scotia, or the Alexander and Miskisew Cree First Nations in Alberta, all of whom have successfully turned around their financial situations.

I'm not saying first nations don't have problems from time to time. However, our favoured approach is proactive, involving ongoing monitoring and prevention. In cases where the cumulative deficit exceeds 8% of a first nation's total revenues, we require a remedial management plan. At this point I would mention to the committee, though, that over 80% of first nations are managing below this threshold, are managing in an acceptable deficit position or in fact with a surplus. However, when required, these remedial action plans can be administered directly by the recipient, be subject to co-management processes, or, in extreme cases, involve a third-party manager. It should be noted that currently there are only 15 instances where the department has required a third-party manager to deal with financial problems. Many systems are in place to ensure financial accountability, and my department is working in partnership with first nations to strengthen accountability for public funds further.

The transfer of program responsibility, combined with land claims settlements and implementation of the inherent right of self-government, is helping Canada return to the relationship that existed at the time of first contact between Europeans and aboriginal people. Theirs was a government-to-government relationship based on mutual trust and respect. We need to restore that relationship fully, to make aboriginal people equal partners in the Canada of the 21st century.

I can assure you the political will is there. In the Speech from the Throne we made expanding opportunities for aboriginal people a priority for our government. The support of the vast majority of Canadians is also there. According to a recent Pollara poll, 80% of Canadians say the federal government should make aboriginal issues a high or medium priority.

• 1545

And with the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples I believe the catalyst for change is there. The royal commission's final report was a phenomenal undertaking and the result is a remarkable and significant resource as we address the issues before us. I think its greatest value, not only to me as minister but to all Canadians, is its call for a new model, a new way of seeing ourselves and our relationship with one another.

With that vision in mind, the federal government can build for the future. The private sector can build for the future. The provinces and territories can build for the future. It puts all of us on the same page and involves all of us in a common undertaking.

Our government is considering the report of the royal commission very carefully and we will be responding more fully in the near future. I know this will be later than the one year anniversary of the report, but I want to make sure we get it right.

As I mentioned a few minutes ago, progress is being made in closing the gap between socio-economic conditions in aboriginal communities and elsewhere in Canada. But there is still much to be done. In order to chart a new course I believe we have to focus our efforts in four areas.

First, we have to strengthen our relationship with aboriginal people. The time has come to renew a partnership based on mutual respect and responsibility.

Second, we have to work together to build stronger aboriginal communities. That means focusing on the basics, such as housing and water and sewer facilities. It means concentrating our efforts on economic development so that aboriginal people will have the training and the skills to become economically self-reliant. It also means investing in individual aboriginal people, especially children, so that we don't risk losing the contribution they can make to our society.

The third area of focus is governance. All governments must continually improve their capacity to govern under changing circumstances. The same is true of aboriginal governments. We must assist aboriginal people in increasing their capacity to govern themselves. We must work with first nations leadership to create new structures and we must help aboriginal people re-equip themselves through professional development programs.

Fourth and finally, we need to build a new fiscal framework, one with accountability at its very core, based on stable funding that fosters self-reliant first nations.

Strengthening the partnership, building healthier and stronger communities, enhancing the capacity of aboriginal people to govern themselves and establishing a new fiscal relationship—these are the keys to a better future.

As Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, I believe my role is to move us toward these objectives by facilitating and fostering partnerships among first nations, Inuit, northerners, other levels of government and the private sector.

I believe all of us must work together to make Canada a better place for aboriginal peoples. I know this committee will support that goal and I believe you have much to offer in helping us to achieve it.

I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me a few minutes to position my views as to where we are in the department and where we need to go. I look forward to the questions of the members.

[Translation]

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Madam Minister. Your words are encouraging. In such a short period of time as Minister of Indians Affairs, you've managed to find some solutions. By working together with the members here today, I'm confident that we will find even more.

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Scott for 10 minutes.

[English]

Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Minister, we would also like to join in thanking you for taking the time to appear before the committee.

There are many things in your address we find very interesting, which we would like to have discussed with you today, but in light of recent documents that have come into our hands with regard to accountability within the department I will focus my questions on that, if you don't mind.

Do you think that abuse of social assistance is as widespread as indicated in the document we have, the internal document from the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Indeed, one of the things that was set before me when I was first made minister was an appreciation for the level to which we contribute and invest in aboriginal people through the social assistance program.

Income support is very often the only support we see in many aboriginal families, and of course that's a reflection of the reality facing aboriginal people when it comes to employment opportunities.

Mike, you know the levels are very high.

Mr. Mike Scott: Yes.

• 1550

Mrs. Jane Stewart: It's my sense that in response to the Auditor General's report in 1994, where he focused on social assistance, we have addressed a number of things to try to satisfy some of his concerns. One of the things we did, as you point out, was commission a report that looked at circumstances facing the social assistance program. Just so you know, that report was received in 1996 and fundamentally forms some of the thinking that has been going into changing dynamics within the department.

Specifically, in response to your question, we have recently undertaken a regional review of social assistance, and the numbers that indicate practices outside policy are somewhere between 3% and 5%.

Mr. Brent Dibartolo (Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): There are between 1% and 3%.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: So we have been engaged in looking at compliance and our figures suggest those percentages, Mike. But beyond that there are a number of other initiatives we've undertaken to improve accountability.

Mr. Mike Scott: Thank you, Minister. I would like to make it very clear that nobody is suggesting for a minute that we want to withdraw funds for legitimate social assistance purposes. That's not what these questions are directed toward.

I'd like to point out that the department itself on the Internet has a document we have accessed. One of the findings in your document is

The present departmental compliance, monitoring and accountability framework is confused and weak. It does not adequately ensure that social assistance funds expended by First Nations are being used for their intended purpose as appropriated by Parliament.

Minister, you were talking about growing spending in your department. Again, it's not that we do not see the real need and the real problems on reserves in Canada, but given that your own analysis of departmental spending shows that a great deal of money has gone unaccounted for, wouldn't it be prudent on behalf of Canadian taxpayers and fair to the people living on those reserves who are asking for help to plug these big leaks before increasing your budget?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: The whole issue of modernizing the social assistance framework is tremendously important to me. I talked earlier about the need for a new structural relationship. It has become clear to me that Canadians want us to reduce the gap between aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians and the circumstances they face. To do that, we have to look at the services and programs we have in place. We very clearly have to consider social assistance. We anticipate spending this year something like $671 million in social assistance, and it's a huge investment.

What we understand and are seeing, I suppose as a result of some of the changing strategies the provinces are implementing, is there are better ways of investing that money and breaking the dependency cycle.

If you get a chance to read the royal commission, there's a full chapter about the impact the welfare state has had on Canada's aboriginal people, and there is a cry for a renewed commitment and focus to break the dependency—the cycle of no job, no work, no experience, no job. We indeed can learn from the provinces and take those investments and modernize them, make them more constructive and ensure that we are not only providing elements of income support, but also strategies that are more proactive and active in their measurements.

Mr. Mike Scott: Minister, in your own departmental analysis it says the present departmental compliance monitoring and accountability framework is confused and weak and does not adequately ensure that social assistance funds expended by first nations are used for the intended purpose, as appropriated by Parliament.

I would also point out the report says—and this is on your Internet site, Minister. The report on first nations social assistance completed for the Department of Indian Affairs states that social assistance recipients on reserves are able to double-dip or make multiple claims on income support programming with little chance of being caught. The report says this double-dipping can be nearly impossible to detect and occurs between federal programs and between federal and provincial programs.

• 1555

We've heard that welfare has been collected by social service employees. As a matter of fact, I've heard that directly.

I'd like to ask you, Minister, do you recognize this as a problem, and what concrete steps are you taking to address the problem?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Yes, Mike, indeed we do. The Internet information you're speaking about I believe comes from an internal audit done in 1996 as well.

In response to that and other indicators, as we indicate, that support changing and streamlining and modernizing the accountability structure for social assistance, there have been a number of changes made. It might be helpful for the committee to hear from my associate deputy minister, who can explain to you some of the strategies required in the accountability structure and also some of the positive results we're seeing as a result of those changes.

Brent.

Mr. Brent Dibartolo: As a result of that study we have taken significant steps to increase compliance reviews. Each region has developed a compliance plan and focuses on reviewing the social assistance payments within the region.

For example, Manitoba has established a process whereby we cross-check with provincial databases to ensure that there is no double dipping. Even with their increased focus and increased monitoring they've discovered only a 3% non-compliance rate.

Mr. Mike Scott: Minister, I have a sense, particularly with respect to comments you've made publicly over the last few months with regard to problems on the Stony Reserve, the Hobbema Reserve and others, that your departmental officials have been advising you that the problems aren't that serious. This document indicates that the problems are indeed very serious.

I appreciate that the document we were speaking to today is dated 1996, but there is a further report on the Internet—and we don't have a date on it—that mirrors the report we've raised today.

Minister, the question becomes, do you think your department is being square with you, and giving you the information you need? Because we have a sense, or I certainly have a sense, based on the remarks you've made publicly, and what we have found in this report, that you haven't been given all the information.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: I want to clarify some things for you, Mike.

First of all, the report on the Internet is a 1996 report from an internal audit. So you have that as a piece of data.

The other thing I want to make clear to the Canadian public, and do so here again, is that the vast majority of first nations—and there are over 630—manage their fiscal resources in an accountable fashion. Fully 82% received unqualified audits this year. We are making progress in that regard.

That's not to say there aren't first nations that are having problems. You referenced Stony, you referenced Hobbema. There are others. There was a question in the House yesterday about a first nation in New Brunswick.

In my remarks I've tried to explain to you the process we take. We require an audit of every first nation, every year. We review those. Where we find there to be a deficit of over 8%, we are required to insist on a remedial action plan in those first nations.

It can begin with a plan that's presented to us, that we review and accept, that will focus on managing the fiscal circumstances back to a surplus, back to a balance. If we can't find satisfaction there, we have other measures we can take. We can install a co-manager, where, along with the duly elected chief in council, there is another person determining how the money is being spent. If we find that this doesn't work, we can move to a third party circumstance, as we have done in the Stony community. Very often there is a recognized accounting firm that takes responsibility for the fiscal decisions that occur in the community.

So the program is in place. I want to be clear, Mike, that there isn't a broad-brush generalization that suggests that first nations are not accountable, because indeed they are.

There are some problems, and we have to deal with those. We have to partner with first nations to find the solutions, because I don't think any more that the solution is appropriate for the federal government to go in and think that we can wave the magic wand and say, “There, everything's fixed”. It's not like that. What we do have to focus on, as we do with every other level of government, is building and implementing modern strategies that will encourage transparency and accountability. If there is going to be true democracy—and that's what I hear you and the honourable member for Wild Rose asking for—if there is to be a circumstance in which the community is involved and does know what the decisions are, it has to be democratic, it has to be transparent, it has to be accountable.

• 1600

There are a huge array of first nations that are actually leading the way. Think of the Siksika, for example. They are in at the Stony Reserve, and are sharing with them their code of ethics, their code of conduct, in terms of managing as elected chief and council. This sharing of best practices is starting to happen more and more.

It's not going to be the federal government that finds the solutions. We have to partner in this, and recognize that no level of government has the edge on knowing what's best in terms of accountability practices. Together, I think we can share that.

Times are changing, technology is changing, requirements are changing. As we move to self-government, we are seeing, in the context of first nations themselves, the development and signs of increasing democracy and a requirement and demand for information on how decisions are being made. I view that as being very positive. We all have to commit to supporting that, and in the context of the work that we are doing and our understanding and partnership, I think we will be able to do it.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Madam Minister. Mr. Scott, your time is up.

Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): I've many questions for the Minister and I've selected six. I realize that she won't have time to answer all of them, but I would appreciate it if either she or her officials could provide written responses to any questions left unanswered here.

The Chairman: That's a good strategy.

Mr. Claude Bachand: What do you think, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: You're the one with the experience.

Mr. Claude Bachand: For some time now, I've heard you talk about ending the cycle of dependency of aboriginal peoples and say how important it is to provide assistance to them for economic development initiatives.

And yet, on page 29 of the 1997-1998 Estimates of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and the Canadian Polar Commission, under Plans and Priorities, we note in chart 2 that out of your sizeable budget of approximately $5 billion, as you mentioned earlier, $671 million are being allocated to social assistance and $57 million to economic development.

I've put this question to all Indian Affairs Minister who have been coming here over the years: why don't you try to reverse these figures so that $671 million goes to economic development and approximately $50 million to social assistance? Your argument seems somewhat flawed, in that you claim that economic development is important, whereas in actual fact you allocate few resources to this component. You spend more on social assistance. In my view, the economic development budgets need to be increased.

Secondly, I would like to follow-up on a question asked by my colleague. On page 25 of the Estimates, you refer to the dual accountability for funds invested. The document states that chiefs and councils must answer both to their membership and to Parliament. You've just indicated how you intend to exercise more control. You also talk about exercising more control over membership and of greater accountability on the part of members of aboriginal communities. You speak of transparency, disclosure and redress. In other words, any member of a community could go before his band council, mention that it has received federal government funding and ask how these funds have been invested. If he disagrees with the way the money was spent, redress is available to him and he can appeal the decisions that were made.

It is my understanding that the vast majority of band council chiefs are accountable for their decisions, but if this was not the case, what recourse would be available to you to correct the situation, given that you are among those who provide funding to the councils?

Thirdly, I found no reference in the Estimates to compensation for the harm suffered by aboriginal children while at residential schools. I already asked you a question about this in the House.

Fourthly, you mentioned that you will be responding to the Royal Commission's report in the very near future. When exactly will that be? I thought I heard you say that you would be responding this fall, but perhaps I misunderstood you.

My next-to-last question concerns the unification of lands at Kanesatake and the $18 million set aside for this purpose. I would like to know if the unification process is now complete or if more work remains to be done.

My last question concerns an issue which is near and dear to me, even though this is not, strictly speaking, a Quebec matter. I'm referring to Davis Inlet, a location that I have visited on several occasions. According to the table on page 69, it would seem that very little funding has been set aside for relocation activities. I believe that the planned expenditures for this year are $10 million, with future year requirements pegged at $70 million.

• 1605

The residents of Davis Inlet must relocate immediately. I know that there have been some discussions about Voisey's Bay where a very large nickel mine is located. I'd like to know if we could take some of the billions associated with Voisey's Bay and use several tens of millions of dollars to help these people relocate.

I've asked all six questions in succession. I'll let the Minister answer now and I'll expect to receive the remaining answers to my questions in writing.

[English]

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Maybe I can get through all six questions in five minutes.

[Translation]

Thank you for your questions.

[English]

In terms of the first question, you've hit the nail exactly on the head. This is the argument that the national chief makes as well. He looks at the number we're spending on social assistance and looks at the number on economic development and says we should reverse them. Indeed, if I'm not incorrect, my predecessor, Minister Irwin, when he was before the committee said the goal would be to actually reverse the numbers.

I think that's something we're discovering to be true in all jurisdictions, that the old welfare strategy was good for its time but now there are new levers, particularly the lever of economic development, that we have to focus on. We do have to work to change the relationship so it is much more proactive—there are active measures in terms of training and development—and that we connect first nations with the economic levers, resources, and access to those resources. They're critically important, and that's why it's important for us to have the provinces at the table with us.

In terms of the second question and how do we gain greater control over local first nations management, I would say I think it's not so much that we want to gain control; I think what we want to do is understand our role in facilitating the development of good, transparent, accountable governance. In one of his recent reports, the Auditor General really chastized the department for taking a dump-and-run approach, in saying okay, you guys can now all deliver the programs, so here, go do it, and that was the end of it.

What we realize now is that the role we can play in terms of facilitating, the capacity to govern, the capacity to manage, is a very real one. So indeed our strategies have to be focused on the department providing that service and being in the communities where it's appropriate to share best practices and encourage professional development. The one thing we can do if we don't get compliance with our accounting requirements is to withhold funding, as you indicate.

In terms of residential schools, I recognize that the honourable member has raised this in the House two or three times. I appreciate the interest you have in this particular regard. I too find it tremendously challenging. The chapter in the royal commission that talks about residential schools is very compelling. I myself have a residential school in my riding, so I have been aware of circumstances.

For some people, the residential school experience was all right. For others, there was indeed physical and sexual abuse that has scarred and marred their lives and the lives of their community. It's my hope that in responding to the royal commission we will be able to focus on this, because to my mind it is one of the examples of the relationship we've had in the past that has kept us from building a strong partnership and understanding the original treaty relationship that was once ours, 100 to 150 years ago.

In terms of the broader response to the royal commission, you're right; I had hoped that I would be able to respond by November 21. The work of the commissioners has been exhaustive, and in speaking with them there's no question in my mind that their participation in the development of this work has changed their personal lives as they've come to truly understand the lives and times of aboriginal people in Canada.

Unfortunately we've seen November 21 come and go. But the challenge I think I face is to take the opportunity where indeed we are finding first nations, the Inuit, the Métis, the provincial governments and territorial governments, and even the private sector saying we want a change; we want a structural change that is reflective of the recommendations in the royal commission. How can we do it?

I want to get it right, because this is an opportunity. As I mentioned, it's a catalyst for us to take all of the thinking and all of the information that has been coalescing and bringing us to what I think is the same page and build a framework where everyone can see their role and their way to contribute to making life better for aboriginal people. So it's a challenge, but one that has been the focus of my attention since becoming minister.

In terms of Kanesatake, I had the privilege a week and a half ago of visiting the community. I must tell you how impressed I was at the changes that have occurred since the darker days in the early 1990s. I believe the chief and council there are dedicated to making real change and understanding how they indeed can reflect the needs of their community in a better way.

• 1610

I applaud the work of our negotiator and the others at the negotiating table. We are seeing step-by-step improvements with the recognition of the cemetery lands and the changes there, and with a language program where Mohawk is being taught. With some difficulty, but improving relationships with the surrounding communities, it's my hope we can continue to make progress there. Indeed it's very important for us to do so.

With regard to Davis Inlet, this is an important initiative, not only for the department, but for the people in Davis Inlet. We have been working to ensure there's a project manager in place so the moneys can be expended and invested.

You bring up Voisey's Bay, and I feel optimistic that we are going to make progress in that part of Newfoundland and Labrador, in a way that the Inuit and Innu who live there and who find their territorial lands now being subject to great resource development can be part of that development. We are requiring impact benefit agreements to be signed between Voisey's Bay and the first nations and the Inuit there so that there is a capacity for those people to benefit and to participate, not only financially, but with economic and job opportunities.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Madam Minister and Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Earle.

[English]

Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): I too would like to thank the minister for the opportunity of asking questions, and I thank her for her remarks.

First, I note that in your remarks you spoke about building stronger communities, and I agree that's very important. As we are aware, one important aspect of building stronger communities is to have a good economic base and a good land base. That leads me to my question around land claims.

A short while ago I presented a concern around a land claim by the Pic River First Nation, a situation where this particular first nation has a land claim and the claim was submitted to the justice department for a legal opinion. The legal opinion, according to the first nation, was seriously flawed, and they pointed out why.

They requested an independent legal opinion. They requested that the department work in partnership with them to obtain an independent legal opinion rather than this matter having to go to court. They had initiated court action to preserve their right to do so, but they've indicated a very clear willingness to withdraw that action if you, as minister, agree to work with them toward an independent legal review. Can you tell me where that matter stands at the moment?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: There are a couple of things I'd like to say in response.

I'll let my assistant deputy minister in charge of claims talk specifically about Pic River, but one of the things that has been clear to me—and I see it at home; my home community, the Six Nations, has land claim requirements that we need to address.... One of the things we've been challenged on as a government is being both judge and jury when it comes to specific land claims. As such we've been working with the AFN, the Assembly of First Nations, to build an independent, arm's-length commission that would look at specific land claims. We've made some very good process with the technical working group of our staff and the AFN. The national chief presented some of the draft recommendations to the assembly in Quebec City three weeks ago now, and they'll be coming in to share their thoughts and concerns with me.

All that to say fundamentally I believe very strongly that the strength of the future for first nations communities will be dependent on us settling land claims, both specific and comprehensive. We need to have a process that is viewed to be independent but that also will allow us to speed up the process and be much more cost-efficient. Right now the first nations do their research, we do our research, much of it's duplicated, and it all costs money to do. If we could have an independent body that does the research for both of us, it seems to me to make a lot of sense.

I'd just turn to John to comment on Pic River.

• 1615

Mr. John Sinclair (Assistant Deputy Minister, Claims and Indian Government, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): On Pic River, the question was whether or not they met the criteria for a comprehensive claim. Our position has been that, as they already were part of a treaty, we believe there is no comprehensive claim.

This is one of the cases where once you say that it doesn't fall within certain policy criteria, people appeal. My most recent information is that it's in front of the Federal Court. It's in litigation, and at this point, once it's in front of the courts, we're not going to say a great deal more about it.

Mr. Gordon Earle: That's not exactly the question I asked. According to the information that was presented to me, I understand that, yes, the matter was presented to the court, but a court date had not arrived at the point when the parties approached me.

The parties indicated that they were quite willing to withdraw that court action, which can be done, as we all know. If both sides agree, the matter can be settled out of court. They were asking, quite simply, for the process you described, an independent legal opinion that would not put you in the position of being judge and jury. They were asking for that so the matter would not have to go before the court. I want to know if that request was granted. If not, why not?

Mr. John Sinclair: I may have to get back to you in writing on that, sir.

My understanding was that the question of independent legal advice was found difficult by us. We have our position. We've stated it in court. There's now an appeal. In that sense I don't think it went any further, but I can get back to you to give you a precise understanding of where it's at.

My information is that it's now been appealed by the first nation, and I think we're going by a straight litigation route. But I will get back to you to clarify that.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Thank you.

Just to close that off, can I get this commitment? If there's a possibility that you don't have to go by a straight litigation route, is the department willing to go by the non-litigation route?

Mr. John Sinclair: We're always ready to go by a non-litigation route, but because this talks about independent advice by Justice, I'd have to consult again with Justice, because I'm not going to bind another department. But I will explore that.

Mr. Gordon Earle: The minister mentioned investing in individual aboriginal people, especially in the children. So I come to the same issue that was raised by my colleague to the right of me, and that is the residential schools.

I realize from what you've said that it appears as if you want to address that issue within the context of the entire royal commission on aboriginal peoples. I guess I would contend that it is not necessary to treat that particular issue so as to have it wait until the entire report will have been analysed.

I think the 50 pages dealing with that particular topic are quite clear, and at this stage a simple apology would certainly set the stage for the healing process to begin. This is very important to the people who were abused, those adults who are suffering this and have suffered it for many years. I'm sure that a first step of saying officially by the Government of Canada “We are sorry” does not impede any further work that you might wish to do down the road.

So is the minister prepared to move in that direction immediately?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: This is a very good question. I imagine that the hon. member has heard some of the stories that individuals have faced as a result of this.

One of the things I have found absolutely fascinating as I try to understand the dynamics of this issue is that it is extremely important to understand the implications of any decision we make in support of healing. In the royal commission, for example, there was a suggestion that we should have a public inquiry, and that's one thing that could happen. My view is that we know what has happened.

One of the things that has become clear is that where there have been public opportunities, that can be good, but also it can be very bad when people dredge up things that they have, without question, repressed very significantly over the course of their lives. If that were to happen, there needs to be some kind of support for them afterwards so that they can indeed heal.

Looking at all the possible options to respond to this circumstance has been a challenge for us. Whether it be an inquiry, whether it be an apology, whether it be a healing strategy, whether it be language programs—there are so many options, and I get different recommendations from different individuals.

So the challenge is to recognize that whatever we do is going to have an impact, that in responding we can't just look at this as checking something off but that it is going to be extremely dynamic and it is going to impact on the lives of individuals, so we have to get it right.

• 1620

All that is to say I have found this one of the most compelling and interesting human studies to face us in this country, and it's something I believe all Canadians would like to have dealt with in a positive way, because we feel it to be a black mark.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Thank you.

I won't discuss the reference to the black mark in terms of how we do it quite often in human rights circles. We'll move on from there to the final question, and that concerns Ipperwash. Again, this relates to allowing healing to begin and obtaining answers.

As we're aware, there was a fatal shooting in 1995, of Dudley George, and first nations people have called for a public inquiry into this fatal shooting because there are many unanswered questions. Is the federal government prepared to support or to initiate a public inquiry to answer the questions that have been left unanswered in this tragic event?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: This indeed was a tragic event. As I've met with the George family, there's no doubt in my mind that they have very significant and lingering questions over the circumstances surrounding the shooting of Dudley George.

In our understanding of the jurisdictions, it's quite clear that all the issues that are of concern to the family fall into the provincial jurisdiction, and indeed that's where an inquiry should occur. It would certainly be my hope and my expectation that the province, knowing that citizens and constituents in the province have lingering and significant questions, would see fit to hold a public inquiry in this regard.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Madam Minister.

You have ten minutes, Mr. Keddy.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Thank you, Madam Minister, for appearing before the committee today. It's very much appreciated. A lot of us have a lot of questions we're anxious to ask, so I'll start.

There's one puzzling concern. Some people think this issue has been settled and I'm not at all sure it has been settled. I would like your definition of aboriginal self-government.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Fundamentally, when we look at the constitution, it's our government's view that indeed aboriginal rights are recognized in section 35 and section 25. Those are rights you and I established or developed, but indeed they are rights we have the responsibility to understand and reflect in our governing structures.

Our government presented, through my predecessor Ron Irwin, an inherent right to self-government policy which we feel is an avenue for us to reflect aboriginal rights in the context of the Constitution, the Charter of Rights, and the Criminal Code. It's our belief, and certainly this is the recommendation of the commissioners on the royal commission, that in building autonomous, concrete aboriginal governments we will be able not only to reflect those rights but also to provide a framework that will allow for the provision of better services, the provision of more culturally sensitive programming, a better definition of how we should be working together, and a clarification of how we should work together. To my mind, building a government-to-government relationship is tremendously important, because that clarification itself will demystify the concerns and perhaps the uncertainty that exists amongst ourselves; and I mean aboriginal people as well as non-aboriginal people.

In focusing on self-government, we are currently trying to develop tables where the jurisdiction in areas such education, justice, and hunting and trapping rights is being discussed. As such, it's important for us to have the provinces—

• 1625

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Excuse me a second, if you will. I understand that. The question I'm asking is this. There's a large degree of variance among the native peoples themselves on what self-government is. There's a large degree of variance among all the rest of the non-natives in Canada on what self-government is. I'll ask a direct question to you then: Do you recognize self-government for native peoples of Canada as a fait accompli? I think most of us do. We're headed in that direction. Do you also recognize that at the end of the day they're still under the aegis of the Canadian government and they're still recognized as Canadian citizens? Just a yes or no will be fine.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: I don't give yes-or-no answers, so if that's what you want, I'll pass.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Briefly, because I have a bunch of other questions.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Just fundamentally, our interpretation can be found in the policy on the inherent right of self-government. If you haven't seen that, you should get a copy. I'll be glad to make sure you have it.

We're starting to see it define itself in agreements we have written, particularly in the Yukon, as well as in the renewed treaty process in British Columbia. It's my sense that, very correctly, it's the way in which we have to go. We will find the expression of that at the negotiating table. That's where it happens.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I appreciate that answer. It's not a defined thing, I think.

Here's my second question. You made the statement that there was an 11% increase in expenditures in DIAND in 1992. That was 2% in 1998, which is certainly welcome news. However, on the other hand, we have a huge increase in the aboriginal population in this country. It's extremely significant. It's 30%.

We also have a lot of additional groups in this country seeking native status. Some of them have legitimately been overlooked. Some of them are seeking native status, but the minister or the courts will decide that. Are there any estimates of how many groups are out there seeking native status? What are the numbers of people? What will it cost? What would the projection be for DIAND if we recognize them all?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: I don't have a number; maybe someone at the table has one. I would just point you to a policy that exists within the department such that we are not in a position to extend reserve status unless it's a cost-neutral circumstance.

Is that response to the question—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: That's fine.

I have a couple of questions on Nunavut. Specifically, Nunavut will come into being, I believe, on April 1, 1999. There are a lot of concerns within the Government of the Northwest Territories now that this process won't be ready by then. They're in a situation in which the government might have to step in during the transition period and loan personnel, staff, or whatever to the new territory of Nunavut. I think they're very willing to do that.

The concern I've heard from them is that there hasn't been enough dialogue directly with DIAND about this. It seems that everything will happen at once on April 1, 1999. They're in a position in which their staffing requirements and budgets are such that they will be laying people off late in 1998. There's about a six-month lag there.

I'm sure you're well aware of that. Do we have a contingency plan—this new government is critically important to be successful for everything else we do in the future in Canada—so that there won't be that lag time as well as people and governments falling through the cracks?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: That's an excellent question. Let me assure you that the office of the interim commissioner in Nunavut right now has been tasked with the responsibility of ensuring that there is a sufficient framework in place for April 1999. This is so that the very important programs—I'm thinking here of the health programs—are at least available.

What we don't want to do, obviously, is proceed so far that those men and women who will be elected to the new government are given a fait accompli.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: No, no.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: So the challenge for us is to ensure that a framework is there that will ensure the delivery of services as the new government comes into fruition and starts to take shape.

In terms of discussing the progress, we had a leaders session. I just actually met with the premier from the greater Northwest Territories at lunchtime. I think we'll be meeting the principals in January to talk about the progress. But the office of the interim commissioner is in place. We're making progress. He's there to hire the skeleton staff for the bureaucracy and build the framework so the minimum requirements are in place to provide servicing.

• 1630

Mr. Gerald Keddy: The diamond development in the Northwest Territories is very exciting stuff for most people in Canada. A lot of people, including me, really didn't quite understand the scope and magnitude of it, and still don't. There's a major concern in the north about the sorting and all the work being done in the GNWT.

Have we taken that into consideration and have we looked at some type of program similar to what they've done in Australia, where they actually take part of their fee from the mining company in uncut stones? They have their own little diamond industry there. It's very fledgling, but it's an industry, and they do their cutting and employ a lot more people.

There's a major concern in the north that this won't be done there, and they desperately need the jobs. This is not petty cash we're talking about. There are all kinds of numbers, but the ones I like the best are $240 billion over 25 years. That's a significant industry.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: It's an excellent question, and indeed the development of diamond mines in Canada is a marvellous new opportunity for northerners and for all of us. We want to make sure we get the most out of the resource. When we're talking about value-added opportunities, I recently met with the Minister of Finance for the GNWT, John Todd, and Steve Kakfwi, the minister responsible for aspects related to the diamond mine. We have an interdepartmental and intergovernmental working group that will look at the possible options for value-added employment in the GNWT.

I would caution, however, that there are some requirements around that. Any value-added opportunities should not require governmental support. They should be self-sustaining and not need to be propped up by support from the government. They can't work in opposition to our commitments to international trade agreements like NAFTA or interprovincial trade agreements. So we're working on that. And you're right, we want to make sure we get the most value for our diamonds.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Keddy. Thank you, Madam Minister.

This has always been traditional for the committee when it considers the Estimates. I know that you have a very busy schedule. I will now move to the last questioner, Mrs. Longfield, who also has 10 minutes.

[English]

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Thank you. I appreciate this opportunity.

I was interested in the questions and the responses from opposition. I have several questions. I'll try to keep them as short as possible. The first two questions deal with funding.

We're told that 83% of funding goes directly to first nations and to other organizations and some 10% goes to the provinces for program services. Then there's 7% that is administered by DIAND under legal obligations. When I see money spent in that area I always question it. Could you assist me here?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: If I'm not mistaken—and I'll turn to my support staff here if I get it wrong—by and large those are for things like housing, post-secondary education, and other requirements that we feel are necessary to provide a full realm and strategy of services to aboriginal people in Canada. We spend about 3% on departmental administration and overhead.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Okay. So it's sort of misleading to categorize it as legal.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Yes. We can be far more specific than that. It goes to specific supports and programs like housing and post-secondary education. About 3% of that goes to administration and overhead.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Okay. We spend another $39 million or so on self-government. Could you flesh that out a little for me?

• 1635

Mrs. Jane Stewart: As we talked about earlier, our focus and the focus of our government is to move forward on our policy on inherent right to self-government. We have negotiating tables going on right across the country, where we are talking about negotiating self-government. We talk about really the restoration of jurisdiction at these tables. We first agree on what the jurisdictions of interest are and then make progress, as you would at any negotiating table, but those are the investments we're making to move towards the implementation of self-government.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Does any of that money flow directly to the various groups to help prepare their cases?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Indeed, the process we have in place in terms of signing agreements is an interesting one, and it's such that the moneys that are expended in terms of research and negotiating are, after a certain period of time.... How long is it, John, before the clock starts counting on moneys that are expended on negotiating?

Mr. John Sinclair: If I can just clarify, self-government moneys are of several kinds. Some are being contributed to existing self-government agreements—for example, the Sechelt agreement. We spend money on the self-government agreement relating to the Cree-Naskapi arrangements where the Crees provide a whole range of services themselves. There is other money provided by way of grants to support negotiation, and that's where, in effect, you're putting together not only an understanding of the jurisdictions and how you want them to relate and to be harmonized with federal and provincial jurisdictions, but also what are the structures of governance you want to put in place to ensure that you have an effective, efficient, and transparent kind of government. So there's a whole range of investments we're making there.

That's to be distinguished from loan money we provide to comprehensive claim negotiating groups, and that's a first call on their settlement dollars because there's something we can secure that against and it's working towards quite a different end. So there's a range of investments that are all under the heading of self-government.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: On self-government, I'm interested in what's happening in Manitoba. We have a framework agreement initiative. Are we on track? What's happening there?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Actually, it was one of the first and the largest initiatives that took our attention in terms of building strategies for self-government. The work is proceeding. I've just met with the chief of the MKO and the Manitoba chiefs and we are reviewing their work plan. The reviews of the past investments will be part of the continuing investments against the work plan. My sense is that there is a huge willingness and interest in moving forward and that the conversations that are occurring now, community by community, to explain the opportunities and the potential strength of the Manitoba dismantlement project, the framework agreement, are proceeding.

It's a huge project, a huge undertaking, but I think it's an appropriate one that reflects our government's commitment to move toward self-government.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I hate to put you on the spot, but do you have any timeframe?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: We have a requirement for work plans to be reviewed every year. We've been at this for three years now, and in terms of when we might see implementation....

Mr. John Sinclair: I think that's a couple of years off. To understand what we're talking about, we're basically saying to the 61—I think there are 61—first nations in Manitoba, okay, you'll take over all the services being delivered by Indian Affairs so that our footprint would disappear. But also you would bring in the services of other federal departments and you would have to harmonize that with provincial services on say child protection and family services and all the rest of it.

I think the focal point now is to determine, if we're going to do that, what would be the kind of architecture of governance so that we would ensure accountability and then how you divide it up. Is there going to be a capital authority that would do all capital works, a social services authority...? As people work their way through those kinds of design options, they start to understand how big a job it is.

• 1640

So I think we're a couple of years off from implementation, and if we would do it, it would probably be on one sector, where you would then say, “Okay, we have the structure; now let's provide services across the entire province.” So it's quite exciting, but it's rather daunting in terms of its scope.

The Chairman: Last question.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Okay, thank you.

Minister, you made reference to the work that's being done in British Columbia, I think in addressing one of Mr. Keddy's questions. We have an AIP with the Nisga'a now. How close are we to reaching a final agreement?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: The work in British Columbia is tremendously important. For some reason we stopped writing treaties 100 years ago, when we got to the province of British Columbia. I really do applaud the people of that province for taking hold of this initiative and partnering with us in the process of writing modern treaties.

The AIP has been signed. We are working very aggressively, all three parties, to come to a final agreement. It's hard for me to say when we'll have that final agreement. We're talking about a number of issues that are still satelliting around, but the will is there. Certainly the Nisga'a are anxious to get completion. The commitment from both the province and us and the Nisga'a First Nation is there to be at the table, and the work is being aggressively advanced.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mrs. Stewart. Are you running ahead of schedule?

The Hon. Jane Stewart: No, in fact I'm running 15 minutes behind schedule.

[English]

The Chairman: Do you have time for a second round, with five minutes for each questioner?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Oh, no. I'm sorry. I'm late by 15 minutes.

The Chairman: Okay, thank you very much.

[Translation]

We really don't have enough time. Quickly please.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): On a point of order, I would very much like the minister to stay for a little longer if that were possible, but as a member of the government side, I would like to have had an opportunity to speak.

If we were to go to another round, which would begin again with the opposition members, who I have great respect for and their questioning has been excellent, I would not be in favour of that. Several of us have waited here a long time, and we do have some questions that we'd like to ask the minister, if she had another five minutes or so.

If you do not have the five minutes, Madam Minister, that is fine. We will see you again and we'll get an opportunity to question you then.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Absolutely. I appreciate the patience of the committee, because I have scheduled my day for the timeframe that was agreed to, and I have commitments that I must meet. But I will be glad to return to the committee as you need information. Again, thank you for the commitment you are bringing to this table.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Madam Minister, for your visit. You are facing some formidable challenges. Since your appointment, I've taken some notes and followed your initiatives in an effort to come up with solutions to some of the urgent problems affecting Canada's aboriginal peoples. I'm confident that you have the strong political will to build a new relationship with aboriginal peoples and you speak clearly on page 7 of your brief of the “call for a new model”. In my view, that's important.

You are always welcomed here and we look forward to a second visit from you sometime in the next few weeks. Thank you very much.

I would also like thank members for their patience. I know that your task is not always an easy one, but I appreciate your commitment to the cause of aboriginal peoples.

The meeting is adjourned.