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]

Tuesday, April 28, 1998

• 1106

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.)): Order. Here's our order of reference:

ORDERED,-That the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999: VOTES 1, 5, 10, 15, L20, L25, 30, 35, 40 and 45 under INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT, laid upon the table on February 26, 1998, be referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development (Extract from the Journals of the House of Commons, Thursday, February 26, 1998).

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(7), consideration of the 1998-99 Estimates, Part III - Report on Plans and Priorities, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and Canadian Polar Commission. Sessional paper No. 8520-361-119, Wednesday, March 25, 1998.

Today we are examining Vote 1.

Here today is the Honourable Jane Stewart, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Would you like to introduce your officials, Madam Minister? You have a statement to make. I know that you have a full agenda today and that you have to leave at about 12:30 p.m.. You have the floor.

The Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Canada, Lib.): Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Standing Committee. Thank you for inviting me to meet with you again. I welcome this opportunity to bring you up to date on some important developments that have occurred over the past six months.

[English]

I understand that the purpose of today's meeting is to discuss my department's report on plans and priorities, which sets out a new framework for action on aboriginal and northern issues. I'll welcome any questions you might have on this document at the conclusion of my remarks.

When we met last November, we talked about the appalling conditions in many aboriginal communities across Canada that are the context in which we are working. We talked about infant mortality rates that are double those of other Canadians. Life expectancy is about six years less. The unemployment rate is three times the national average and most aboriginal people live well below the poverty line. There is an alarming level of dependence on welfare, chronic unemployment, and a terrible and tragic legacy of youth suicide.

As we all know, these are not new problems, but they have been brought into the public conscience like never before by the final report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. The royal commission really did undertake the most exhaustive investigation of aboriginal living conditions ever in Canada. Its historic body of work has had a tremendous impact on governments, business people, social organizations, and many individual Canadians, including myself.

The commission has defined the problems so clearly and so forcibly that no one can deny any longer that they exist. I am encouraged by the increase in awareness and shift in public opinion that has come about since the release of the final report. The more Canadians understand the realities of life in aboriginal communities, the more they want us to find solutions, and the more they want to help us find those solutions.

On January 7 the Government of Canada released its response to the royal commission's report. It's called Gathering Strength—Canada's Aboriginal Action Plan, and it aims to help governments, aboriginal people, the private sector and others to work together to find and implement the solutions that have largely evaded us in the past.

• 1110

Gathering Strength responds to the royal commission's call for a new relationship—a stronger partnership with aboriginal people. It signals our commitment to develop new approaches to problems that have marginalized, penalized and victimized aboriginal people for far too long.

As you know, the Gathering Strength action plan is framed around four key objectives:

—First, to renew the partnerships by bringing about fundamental change in our relationship with aboriginal people, based on the principles of mutual respect and recognition, responsibility and sharing.

—Second, to strengthen aboriginal governance so that communities have the tools to guide their own destiny and to exercise their inherent right to self-government.

—Third, to design a new fiscal relationship that provides a stable flow of funds in support of transparent and accountable community development.

—And finally, to support strong, healthy aboriginal communities fuelled by economic development and supported by a solid infrastructure of institutions and services.

[Translation]

I believe some of you were in attendance that day in January at the launch of Gathering Strength. It was an emotional event for Aboriginal people, and for myself as minister. Making a public acknowledgement of past wrongs is never easy. But is was never more necessary in the history of our nation, and was long overdue.

[English]

The statement of reconciliation expressed regret for the many past policies and actions that have eroded the political, economic and social systems of aboriginal people and nations. To the victims who suffered physical and sexual abuse in the residential school system, the government said it is deeply sorry.

As you know, we committed $350 million to develop a community-based healing strategy to assist aboriginal people—Inuit, Métis and first nations, both on and off reserve—who have been affected by the legacy of physical and sexual abuse in residential schools.

It's now been four months since we unveiled Gathering Strength. We have said from the start that it will be over time, not overnight, that we will change things.

I would refer you to the plans, priorities and strategies section of my department's estimates for details on some of the deliverables we will be pursuing over the next three or four years. I would also like to describe some of the actions we already have under way.

Reconciliation has been our first priority, because we cannot look forward without first looking back and coming to terms with the impact of our past actions and attitudes. In order to renew partnerships with aboriginal peoples, we first need to heal old wounds.

Informed by consultations with aboriginal people, an independent aboriginal foundation will design and administer the healing strategy. The corporation will review and fund eligible community-based healing initiatives. A formal announcement is expected by early May on the role and priorities of the foundation.

Strengthening the partnership between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people also means resolving outstanding specific claims. I'm pleased to report that the federal government and first nations are working jointly to make recommendations on the creation of an independent claims body. This body would replace the existing Indian Specific Claims Commission, which was established as an interim measure in 1991. It would provide an impartial perspective on the specific claims process to address the real or perceived conflict of interest Canada faces when it acts as defender and judge of claims against itself.

Our second objective under Gathering Strength is to strengthen aboriginal governance so that communities have the tools they need to guide their own destiny and to fulfil their aspirations of self-government.

In my view, there is no better or more exciting example of enabling aboriginal people to regain control of their future than the creation of Nunavut. In less than a year, Canada will have a new, third territory in the north. The Inuit of the eastern Arctic will have achieved self-government through a form of public government that has been tailored to meet their needs, circumstances, and vision.

As you know, legislation has been introduced in the House to give the new territorial government the tools and authority to be effective, accountable, and responsive. This bill proposes important amendments to the Nunavut Act, and is a sign of concrete action and progress.

With all the excitement about Nunavut, we cannot lose sight of the need for political and economic change in other parts of the north. For example, we are continuing to support the work of the Government of the Northwest Territories and aboriginal and non-aboriginal people of the western Northwest Territories to revise the Northwest Territories Act. In this region, as in other parts of Canada, the completion of land claims and self-government agreements will continue to be a priority.

• 1115

In this context, one of the major issues we are exploring is how public government can accommodate the self-government aspirations of aboriginal people. In Yukon, the process of building new governance structures between federal and territorial governments and first nations is well under way, and will continue.

[Translation]

But providing legislative tools and mechanisms for good government is only part of the solution. We also need to help Aboriginal governments become self-reliant by ensuring that they have the fiscal autonomy and financial capacity to support their responsibilities.

[English]

This means looking at new options for financing aboriginal governments, including modern fiscal transfer agreements and the potential for these governments to raise their own revenues through taxation. Of course, accountability continues to be at the very core of these efforts to develop a new fiscal framework with aboriginal people—our third objective under Gathering Strength.

At our last meeting together, we spoke at length about the accountability that must underlie the new fiscal relationship we are designing. Let me bring you up to date.

I take my responsibilities as an overseer of federal funds very seriously, and expect to see that certain minimum standards are being met. In my travels across the country, I've had very frank discussions with first nations leaders on accountability. I've told them that it is a critical issue for me and I believe equally critical for them. I've stated clearly my position that first nations leaders must be accountable to their communities and to Canadians. The legitimacy of governments depends on their accountability to the people they represent. Canadians want to ensure that we are investing in strong, effective, and accountable aboriginal governments.

I need to see clear evidence that first nations have accountability systems in place that embrace the principles of transparency, disclosure, and redress. By that I mean that members of first nations have access to key information from their governments, such as plans, budgets, and audits, and what is spent on salaries, honoraria, and travel. I need to see that first nations members understand the rules under which their governments operate and can appeal decisions by their governments.

What have the leaders said in return? What I've heard back is that they understand and that they agree. They know that accountability is crucial to the ability to of their communities to function in a healthy and effective way. They know that any perception that they are not accountable can divide their people internally and damage their partnership relationships externally. That's also why communities—not just leaders, but councillors, elders and other members—resent any suggestion that all first nations face a crisis of accountability.

First nations expect their stewardship of public funds to be held to the same high standards as we hold other governments in Canada. They're serious about managing their money well. I think the proof lies in such initiatives as the framework proposal on financial accountability, which Alberta chiefs discussed with me earlier this month.

In British Columbia and Manitoba, aboriginal financial officers have established their own professional associations to share best practices and establish concrete working relations. In Saskatchewan, aboriginal business students at the Saskatchewan Indian Federated College are gaining first-hand accounting experience through a mentoring program with the provincial Institute of Chartered Accountants.

As well, I was pleased to see the Assembly of First Nations at the national level negotiate a memorandum of understanding with the Certified General Accountants at the end of March. As you may know, this agreement provides for training programs for first nations people and will encourage more aboriginal people to pursue the CGA designation. It will also help to ensure that first nations' needs and realities are considered as Canadian accounting standards evolve.

[Translation]

As you can see, many of these excellent examples of progress involve tapping into the considerable expertise of private sector partners, and that is very positive.

[English]

Yes, there are some first nations with serious financial difficulty. They know it and we know it. But the majority are working hard and successfully meeting the governance challenge in the same way other governments in this country do, such that they are seeing gradual improvements in social conditions, slowly building stronger infrastructures, ever increasing the numbers of businesses and so on.

We all know that overall the social conditions of aboriginal people are still grim compared to other Canadians, but beyond that, as we are tempted to stand back in judgment on the progress that aboriginal people are making for themselves, let's remember two things: first, that as a party to a paternalistic, dysfunctional relationship, we contributed to the uphill battle that communities now face to better themselves; and second, that there are haves and have-nots in every other Canadian community. We certainly don't have it perfect yet, so we should sooner join in than judge.

• 1120

That said, more work can be done on accountability, and more work is being done. My department is working with first nations and Inuit communities to continue to improve both the transparency and the professionalism of their accounting practices.

In fact, there is a certain irony in the fact that while we are seeing public calls for increased accountability, which in turn leads to criticism of my department for doing nothing, it is in fact the very processes we have in place that are the root of this dialogue. It is because first nations must disclose audits to their communities that members can then take issue with how the money is spent. It's because salaries must be disclosed that those numbers are being held up to community scrutiny. And it's because first nations must develop conflict of interest guidelines that individuals now have an additional tool to help them exercise their democratic rights. These are all measures and requirements of the department. They are concrete steps we have taken and on which we will continue to build in partnership with aboriginal people.

Our fourth objective under Gathering Strength is to support strong communities, people and economies. This brings us back to the essence of what government is all about, and that is making people's lives better. Government is about addressing the issues that touch individuals every day: education, housing, health care, jobs, and economic opportunity. Nowhere is the potential for building strong communities greater than in economic development.

On reserve, in government offices, on city streets, we all realize just how important business partnerships and opportunities are for aboriginal people. Just last week I attended the first ever economic renewal conference in Toronto, which brought together aboriginal and non-aboriginal entrepreneurs to find ways to forge new business partnerships. I look forward to seeing similar examples of cooperation and partnership when I attend the business summit meeting in British Columbia next week.

So across this country we are seeing an awakening, a growing realization in the private sector, in the provinces, and at the federal level that we all benefit when aboriginal communities thrive. And aboriginal people know this as well. In fact, aboriginal people own 20,000 businesses. They are determined to work in partnership to build a strong future.

[Translation]

Let me now take this opportunity to commend the Standing Committee for undertaking a review of Aboriginal economic development. I look forward to any recommendations you can provide that will help us find new ways to expand the Aboriginal economy and to create jobs for Aboriginal people.

[English]

In our efforts to strengthen economic development in aboriginal communities, we are also focusing on welfare reform. I know that you at this table have raised the possibility of reversing the ratio of our investments in economic development and welfare. This is exactly the direction in which we're going.

Toward this end we have established principles and guidelines with the Assembly of First Nations on welfare reform. We are also working to support specific initiatives at the community level that will reorient welfare systems away from passive income maintenance and toward active work and training opportunities.

In the north the government has committed in the last budget to work with northerners in developing a modern northern economic development strategy.

In March I was pleased to sign a historic political accord with several Micmac and Maliseet nations in the Atlantic region. We committed to work jointly with the Atlantic Policy Congress to develop practical options for a first nations welfare system that will help Micmac and Maliseet first nations to reduce welfare dependency and increase employability.

As I noted a few minutes ago, we can't change everything overnight. The royal commission itself called for a 20-year process of renewal. Some people are disheartened by such a long timeframe. I view it as a signal that it's time to get started.

We have a great deal of work ahead of us, but we're not alone. Canadians are engaged. They strongly believe in partnerships as the defining principle of our relationship with aboriginal people. I can say with certainty that the days of paternalism and disrespect are in the past.

• 1125

I encourage the standing committee to join this process of building new partnerships. As noted in Gathering Strength, we must engage all possible partners and use all possible resources to renew our relationships with aboriginal people. You, as individuals and as members of this committee, can be catalysts to improve the lives of aboriginal people in Canada. I look forward to your input and advice on how we can move forward together.

Thank you very much, monsieur le président.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you Ms. Stewart. We appreciated your statement. We can see that you have a great deal of work to do. We will now move to a question period, of five minutes per party. In the second round, I will give the floor to the Reform Party, then the Liberal Party, to the Parti Québécois, to the Liberal Party and so on. Is this agreeable?

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): It's the Bloc Québécois, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: The Bloc Québécois, excuse me.

Mr. Claude Bachand: You said the Parti Québécois.

The Chairman: I was thinking about...

[Editor's Note: Inaudible] Because I was thinking about Santa Clauses at the present time. Excuse me, Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Claude Bachand: That's fine.

The Chairman: Do you agree with this way of proceeding? Thank you.

Mr. Scott, please go ahead.

[English]

Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Ms. Stewart, for coming here today.

I listened with interest to your remarks, and I would like to say right off the bat that I'm very glad to hear you admitting that accountability is a very serious problem and in fact is an issue that badly needs to be addressed. I might remind you and agree with you when you say there's a real uphill battle that has been created for aboriginal people on reserves. We, the Canadian people, have had no input into that, or very little input into that; it has been the federal government over a long period of time that has created that situation.

However, I want to get to some questions and keep my remarks at a minimum. I would start out by noting that you talked about the fact that you want to move toward greater accountability, and I appreciate that. Are you prepared to say that people on reserves who have been coming to us and asking for information with regard to honoraria, salaries, and travel budgets are going to have direct access to those numbers through your department?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Thanks, Mr. Scott. Certainly the issue of accountability is not new to this government. If you read the Speech from the Throne in September, when we talked about the four critical priorities of this government over the course of the mandate, one of them was to focus on the issues facing aboriginal people. At that time we outlined the importance of building strong, accountable, and transparent aboriginal government. That, again, was reiterated very clearly and directly in our response to the royal commission, which also identified the importance of building strong first nations and Inuit governments. To that end, as one of the main themes in Gathering Strength and our priorities for working together, the issue of accountability and transparency is there.

What we're seeing, as I mentioned in my remarks, is increasingly rapid positive changes at the community level in first nations in terms of the understanding, appreciation, and implementation of strategies for the provision of data and information—

Mr. Mike Scott: Ms. Stewart, I see where you're going with this, but I'm just trying to understand.... These are the questions people want answered: are they going to have direct access to information with regard to honoraria that is paid out, travel budgets that are paid out, and salaries that are paid out? This is what people who are coming to us are looking for. I thought I heard you say something in regard to that during your remarks, and I simply want to clarify that.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: That's right. All these kinds of things are the sorts of content of information that first nations are understanding they must and will present to their community members. The strength of our partnership I think is dependent on making sure at the level of governance that understanding is clear and that the methods of implementation are developed in the communities, by the communities, and for the communities.

Mr. Mike Scott: Is your department going to require that? This is federal taxpayers' money—

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Precisely.

Mr. Mike Scott: —and it's people on reserves who are looking for these answers. Is this going to be a requirement of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development with regard to block funding that is paid out?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: As part of our funding agreements there is a requirement for information about decisions and allocations of funds made by the first nations to be provided to community members. The conversations we've been having, as I say, are very supportive of the development of initiatives, both political and fiscal, in terms of the provision of information.

• 1130

Some of the things I have to be watchful of are the requirements around access to information and sharing information in an appropriate fashion, as we've had conversations about before. But very clearly, the direction I have is for the audits I require. If those are not made available to community members, I will make them available to community members.

As far as the development of procedures and applications for transparency with community members, chiefs and councils right across this country are not only implementing the requirements my department places on them for federal dollars, in terms of the sharing of information, but for other decisions that relate to revenues they acquire, not from the federal government but from their own sources, to build practices and strategies that will allow for that information to be provided.

Mr. Mike Scott: I thank you for that. I guess I'm not really sure you answered the question.

I've had this situation many times since I've been a member of Parliament in my own riding, where a grassroots aboriginal person will come to me and say “I'd like to know what's going on with the finances on my reserve. My council and chief won't tell me, so I've written a letter to the Minister of Indian Affairs. The minister wrote back saying this is an internal matter for the band and it's not something the department is going to get involved in.”

Are you going to guarantee that when these people are looking for information, they will have it?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: As I said, in the context of our funding relationships and the requirements for audits that all first nations must complete and provide to us on an annual basis, we demand that salaries and honoraria are part of that, and that information is disclosed to the communities. If it's not received, I can present the audit or provide the audit to individuals.

There are other aspects of information that aren't necessarily assorted with federal dollars—own-source revenues and that sort of thing—that also are of interest to community members and for which first nations are building stronger accountability structures. Some have everything in place. Some are very good with their code of ethics and conflict of interest guidelines that are required. Others are evolving and developing.

The initiative, for example, in Alberta where all the chiefs are coming together and building and sharing best practices is a very positive sign of the interest and direction they're taking.

Mr. Mike Scott: I only have time for one more question, unfortunately. I have many questions I would like to ask.

Last fall there was an internal document from the department that showed that up to 75% of bands by province were in non-compliance with the department's own guidelines. You made public statements at that time that the number was in fact 3%. The fact is, in some cases it's a matter of 20 to 25 times higher than what you had said.

I wonder how you can account for this huge discrepancy between what you were saying the non-compliance rate was and your own internal documents, which were saying it was a multiple many times higher than that.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: This was not an issue of non-compliance. This was an issue of which communities were in what particular fiscal circumstances. This was an issue of what communities are in the process of either remedial action, as a result of their fiscal circumstance, co-management, or third party management. The numbers I have always spoken about are the same numbers you're speaking about.

This is a good opportunity to get these details on the record. There has been a considerable improvement in the number of first nations that receive unqualified audits. In the last ten years, the number of unqualified audits has gone from 57% to 83%. So 83% of the first nations have their audits done every year and get an unqualified opinion from an outside accounting firm.

Mr. Mike Scott: But that doesn't square with Dunwoody's own reports back to you that say up to 75% by province are in non-compliance. That's from your own internal documents that were made available to the public last fall. They do not square with what you're saying at all.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: But the issues we've been talking about in terms of the communities with which we are engaged for management, in some form or other, of their fiscal circumstances are the same numbers we have been talking about.

• 1135

In terms of compliance, we have a good compliance record with first nations providing those accounts to us and those outside audited reports. It's from those reports that we make decisions about how we need to engage with first nations who may need support to ensure that they stay in a healthy fiscal circumstance.

I want the committee to understand that when we talk about a remedial action plan, a community that is in a deficit-to-revenue ratio of 8%—so a very low cut-off point, essentially representative of one month's cashflow—is required to build a remedial action plan to take a look at their financing, to understand how they're spending their money, and to work with us to explain how they're going to turn that deficit circumstance around. That is about 18% of first nations, and those first nations change. Thankfully, very often we see communities going from a deficit position to a positive surplus position, and there are a number we can point to.

About 5% of first nations are in co-management, where there is a third party working with the first nation making decisions on how moneys are spent. Only 2% fall into third party, where there is a third party that is making decisions on the expenditures in that first nation. It's complicated, but it's extremely focused and direct.

As I say, when you think of an 8% deficit-to-revenue ratio, that's very low. So the idea is to keep attention to the particular fiscal circumstances, the result of the audits we receive, and use these programs to ensure that we maintain healthy fiscal relationships and fiscal realities in first nations.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Scott.

Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Claude Bachand: I have three questions.

First of all, concerning the Quebec government's new policy, I seem to have read in several places that you were delighted by the new policy. I also heard you say a little while ago that it would take some effort, and you were particularly pleased that the Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development was undertaking a review of Aboriginal economic development.

Under this new policy, the Quebec government has earmarked $125 million for development. This is a development fund. I know that Minister Chevrette has said that it would be important for the federal government also to contribute $125 million, which would make a development fund of $250 million.

I would like to know, first of all, whether you are receptive to Minister Chevrette's idea of the federal government joining forces with him and adding $125 million to his development fund. If so, will you take money that has already been allocated to the department or will this be new money? That is my first question.

My second question deals with the philosophy of the Indian Affairs Department. I have heard you say a number of times that you share my approach, that is that we need to reverse the ratio of welfare and economic development. When I look at the way the budget is set out this year, I do not see the figures fitting in with your philosophy. I will explain.

In 1997-98, for example, $597 million were earmarked for claims, claim support, etc., and this year, only $392 million is provided for this budget item, which is the reverse of what we all want to do, that is to ensure more financial autonomy for communities, give them self-government and make progress on land claims. Thus there is a contradiction between what you are saying and the figures that I see.

Another reason that I say that there is a contradiction is that the Indian programming budget will increase by $100 million this year, from $3.7 billion to $3.8 billion. So instead of moving toward self-government and the settling of land claims, the budget indicates that a little more money will be given for Indian programming. In the Indian programming part, the total budget for social development and welfare will be $1 billion, whereas $71 million is allocated for economic development.

We are therefore a long way from reversing the ratio of economic development and welfare. I would even say that this budget pushes the ratio even farther in the other direction. More money is being given for support than for development and land claims.

• 1140

How can you reconcile your intention to have people take control of their lives and to foster good economic development with the fact that the figures in your budget do not reflect that?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Thank you, Mr. Bachand.

[English]

Actually, I had an interesting day yesterday. I met with Minister Chevrette specifically on issues that we have, both having responsibility for first nations in Canada. I have been very pleased with the response of the Government of Quebec and the approach they're taking, which is fundamentally very much in line with our Gathering Strength response to the royal commission's report.

Specifically with regard to the notion of the economic development fund, what is important there is to note that the province has identified and recognized that strengthening their involvement in economic development is good for first nations in Quebec and good for the province generally.

What we talked about is the importance of recognizing that the contributions and the investments the department makes in Quebec for economic development and the increased investments by and large go directly to first nations. Something I don't want to happen is that we make decisions between ourselves that will affect individual first nations, but rather that as the details around this fund develop, we do it in a tripartrite fashion. The minister is extremely supportive of that, and recognizes that as we go forward in understanding how we can build their economic development fund in the province, we need to do it together.

In terms of the particular initiative, I'm encouraged by the interest all parties are showing. But again, what we need to ensure is that we don't create another set of decisions that doesn't allow us to be flexible within individual communities, recognizing their strengths and the partnerships that may exist around their particular traditional territories.

So we've had a very useful discussion on that. We agree that the parties all have to come together to decide how we will use those funds. We've also agreed that we need to maintain our own authorities for our money.

It's certainly my belief that as we move forward in this, the federal government will be able to find ways and means of using our money in a collaborative way so that resources are effectively used on the ground in first nations and we don't duplicate initiatives or leave big gaps. So this is a positive undertaking that we, the three parties, are working on together.

With reference to your second question, about focusing on economic development and moving away from welfare and your recognition of the support for land claims, I would agree that settling land claims is fundamental to our commmitment to building capacity and capability within individual first nations to continue their road to economic self-sufficiency.

In terms of numbers, we were quite successful last year and settled some particular land claims. I'm looking here at some of them: the Apsassin one, Blueberry River; Doig River Indian Band; the Manitoba treaty entitlement. So we had some successes that allowed us to make progress there.

Again, the amounts of money we project for use on claims is dependent on where we are in the process of land claim negotiation and the discussions. So we are not at all backing away from our commitment to land claims; it's just what we anticipate to be able to settle in the coming fiscal year.

I'd reiterate the importance of the work we're doing in partnership with the first nations on building an independent claims body. To my mind, that's critically important so that we do move away from the idea of the federal government being both judge and jury in this area.

Finally, with relation to your focus on spending in Indian and Inuit programs, I would note that our contributions focusing on economic development went from $57 million last year to $71 million this year, which is a 25% increase. Social assistance is slightly down from last year, from $671 million to $656 million.

Most importantly, I think what we're finding in this area—and I hope you will find it as you proceed with your review—is that there's a strong interest from other partners, from Canadians generally, to figure out how indeed they can assist us in building new economic development opportunities for aboriginal people.

• 1145

As I mentioned, at the end of last week we had the first economic renewal summit partnering aboriginal and non-aboriginal entrepreneurs, building that network. We're starting to see those approaches find their way right across the country.

I'm very hopeful we will be able to break through this old welfare cycle, and I appreciate, Claude, the contributions and comments you've made with regard to the importance of that. They certainly are reflective of the interest aboriginal people have as well.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: You just said that the economic development budget increased from $57 million to $71 million this year, and that the social development budget dropped a little to $656 million. However, in the table on page 18 here, it says: "social development, $656 million", which confirms your figure, but it also says: "welfare, $379 million". It is clear to me that the social development and welfare budget total $1 billion, and not $656 million.

Finally, in y opinion, the ratio is being destabilized a little, and that is why I feel that, under Indian programming, not enough emphasis is being placed on economic development. Just the services are included and the approach is that because there are more people on welfare, we will pay. Explain to me why the budget indicates $656 million for social development and $379 million for welfare. All that is tied to welfare.

[English]

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Well, it is and it isn't. You've had a chance to speak with Cynthia Williams, who is my associate deputy minister responsible for social assistance issues.

Before I make some comments, Cynthia, will you explain the social support services aspects that are related to infrastructure?

Ms. Cynthia Williams (Assistant Deputy Minister, Socio-Economic Policy and Programming and Program Re-Design, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Yes. Thanks very much.

The item that is listed as social support services includes such things as...in fact, a major component of it is child and family services. These are, for the most part, protective services for children. They're not part of the social assistance program. Provinces don't show them as part of their social assistance program. They are services provided for children who are in at-risk situations. Of course those children can be in any kinds of families, high-income or low-income families. That's where the bulk of that spending is.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: What we're finding is a very strong interest on the part of first nations in every province to find ways and means of moving from the passive to the active strategies.

My view is that we have to be flexible enough in the department to respond to the different realities that exist, region by region and province by province. So we're undertaking that with our regional directors and our provincial counterparts and first nations, so we can learn from initiatives that provinces are undertaking but also reflect the unique realities that exist in first nations.

As you will find, if you travel into more northern communities, access to things like day care and the services that are required so people can participate more actively outside the home are uniquely structured.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Earle.

Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): I also have three questions, but I will ask them in English.

The Chairman: No problem. At any rate, you speak French very well.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Thank you.

[English]

You mentioned in your presentation the setting up of an independent aboriginal foundation to administer the healing strategy, and you also mentioned a formal announcement expected in early May. Perhaps you could give us a bit of an informal announcement or indication of how this foundation will be structured. I'm thinking particularly about the composition in terms of say representation by women, by Inuit, by Métis, by grassroots aboriginal people.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: This is extremely important for us. One of the things that became clear to me as we were looking at dealing with our past, particularly the issue of residential schools and the physical and sexual abuse that occurred there.... As I crossed the country and talked to individuals, they told me that recognition on the part of the federal government is important for them so that they can begin the healing process, but they also need some assistance, in almost a triage approach, in terms of additional funding as people come to terms with this experience and need professional help, professional help that is reflective of their traditions and culture.

• 1150

They told me to please, please, don't take any of the moneys provided and add it to the existing political bureaucracies, and to please, please, don't create a structure where it's the Department of Health saying “These are the kinds of programs we will fund ”, taking a federal government approach to what appropriate healing is going to be. They asked me to please give them the opportunity to take this money, get it in the communities, and build programs that are going to speak directly to the unique needs in their particular first nation or community.

With that as the direction, we built along the pathway of finding an arm's-length foundation—at arm's length from government and at arm's length from other aboriginal governing structures—of men and women—selected essentially through the political organizations so that they are reflective of the Inuit, of first nations, on and off reserve, of the Métis—who have the respect and recognition of their communities to make decisions.

This board has come together and has worked very hard at building their articles of incorporation. We've built an extremely accountable relationship. It's arm's length but with all the accountabilities required for the allocation of funds and the decision-making process.

The arm's-length board will receive opportunities directly from first nations' communities, both on and off reserve, from Inuit communities, and from the Métis community, to make their decisions. They'll certainly report to their community members and to the federal government.

As I said, it will be early May, I think. George Erasmus is the chair of the committee. George was the co-chair of the royal commission, and very much engaged in this.

I've been most impressed by the way the board members, or at least the core board members who were brought together, have responded so rapidly to the need. They recognize how important it is for the moneys to begin to flow into the communities.

I think we have an opportunity here to show that we can provide servicing and funding in a different way that is responsive to the needs of aboriginal people.

Mr. Gordon Earle: You mentioned that strengthening the partnership involves resolving outstanding specific claims. You spoke about the creation of an independent claims body. I'm wondering if you could provide a bit more on that. As you mentioned, it's important that there be an impartial perspective on the claims process. One of the concerns to date has been the fact that claims are submitted to the justice department for a legal opinion before it's decided that the claim is valid. How is that corrected in this new body, and how independent will this new body be?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: First of all, again—and you've put your finger on it—this idea that the federal government is both judge and jury has been an extremely difficult one, in either real or perceived terms, as we proceed with the settling of land claims.

In 1991 the Indian Specific Claims Commission was established. They have, after the fact, where the federal government has rejected a claim, reviewed the circumstances, if requested. They've perhaps looked at things differently from us, or obtained different research and information. This then comes back to the department. In some cases where they have recommended approval for negotiation, we've accepted their recommendation. In other cases, we have not.

• 1155

That has been an interim strategy. What we're working on now, in partnership with first nations, is a new model that is at arm's length and that will have very clear jurisdictional responsibilities. Most importantly, it will also allow us, because this body will be independent, to do the research once, rather than investing funds twice to do the research on claims—once on behalf of the federal government and once on behalf of the first nation. I think that will not only streamline the process but allow us to use our precious resources a little more effectively.

We're at the stage now of trying to build draft legislation in partnership. That's a reflection of our new relationship. We're making good progress on it. I hope we'll have something for the committee to review and begin to work on before the end of the year.

Mr. Gordon Earle: So the legal opinions of that body would be independent legal opinions.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: The recommendations would come to us from this independent body.

Mr. Gordon Earle: My third question relates to the claims commission, and you touched upon it a bit in response to my colleague's question. It shows that spending will be down roughly $200 million on claims for this coming year. How does that correspond with the fact that we're setting up a new claims commission that, it would indicate to me, will probably generate more claims processes?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Again, the numbers that are projected here are estimates of where we think we can make progress over the course of time. As you know, and we've spoken about this before, the process of negotiating a claim can take an awful long time. I'm hopeful that with the independent body we will be able to find and streamline the process of negotiation. We won't be doing duplicate research. There will be one accepted view and other things we have learned over the course of time that can streamline the process.

So these are our best estimates as to how we should budget and will budget our claims envelope. Again, our interest is to get resolution and move forward. What we actually conclude—and our numbers may vary when we do the synopsis at the end of the year—is our best and anticipated belief of where we think we'll find a resolution to the negotiations for this year.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Earle.

Mr. Keddy.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Minister Stewart, for appearing today. I have several questions. A few have been asked already. I'd first like to make a comment.

You broke your speech into three categories. Your first point was reconciliation. I think we all recognize that, and I won't dwell on it too long. It certainly was extremely important to begin dialogue, but it hasn't begun or hasn't attempted to answer any difficult questions yet.

Your second point was on the aboriginal control of their own property. You cited Nunavut as an example, which is a bill that is certainly going through Parliament. I think it has the support of the majority of us at committee and the majority of the MPs in Parliament, as well as yourself. That was originally a Conservative piece of legislation and it's been ten years in the workings. It's taking a long time getting there, but it's not something we have to spend a lot of time dwelling on. It will go through Parliament, it will go through committee, and to use a colloquial phrase, “it's a done deal”.

However, from the letters I get in my office—and I'm sure they appear in the offices of every member of this committee—the questions are certainly about land claims. That seems to be a very significant issue. I have some concerns that the spending arrangements are dropping on land claims, as Mr. Earle has said. I'm not sure I agree with him entirely on that, but there are a couple of things on the land claims that haven't been mentioned here and need to be mentioned. I guess this is where my questions really lie.

When you mentioned land claims, you also mentioned the importance of aboriginal control of their own property. In the last Parliament, the first nations land management act was introduced and died in Parliament. It was never completed. I've written to you personally about this act. You've assured me you are looking at it.

• 1200

I realize you have a busy agenda. However, if we're going to move on land claims, we haven't even moved on the control of the first nations over their reserve lands. Whether it's as simple as cutting fibre and taking it to the local mill, or putting in a subdivision or septic field, they have to come back to the federal government for a permit. Then they go through the provincial and municipal governments, the local ones. Calling it a nightmare is not descriptive enough. It's certainly a minefield.

Now on top of that, we haven't addressed that problem. We are addressing some land claims, but we haven't addressed that very important issue. I don't know if we don't have our priorities mixed up. I'm not beginning to assume we can turn our backs on our land claims that are ongoing and will continue to be ongoing, but we have to come back and address the first nations land management act in some way, shape, or form. We've got another ringer thrown in there with the Delgamuukw case and the Supreme Court of Canada's assessment of that. How is that going to affect the ongoing land claims that are in the hopper now, and what about some type of first nations land management act?

I'll stop there and then ask another question. But those are two specifics. Please deal mainly with the first nations land management act and the Delgamuukw issue, if you would. Both of them are critical for this government and Parliament.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Thank you, Mr. Keddy. If I might, I'll speak to both of those, but I just want to clarify something. Maybe I'll ask Brent to reflect on this.

As I understand it—I'll find the numbers here—in terms of our land claims envelope and what we planned for and what we actually spent last year, there was a supplementary for $200 million in addition to what we had presented in our estimates last year. Again, I just want to reflect to the committee that we present here our best estimates of where we think we will achieve our final negotiation, but it does vary. Our stated intention has been to press on as best we can to settle these claims.

I appreciate that you, as members of Parliament, do hear from first nations in your ridings and out and about, because you're on this committee about their interest in getting their land claims settled. It is absolutely fundamental to their future and our commitment to doing what we can to build a bright future for them.

That brings me to the first nations land management act. I couldn't agree more with you about the importance of getting that legislation tabled. When I began to review it—it was presented prior to the election—there were a couple of aspects I wanted to reassure myself on, particularly around the issue of matrimonial property. As first nations would take more control over the decisions of the management of their land, it has been a concern of women in first nations communities that perhaps their interests, particularly at the point of a marriage breakdown, might not be able to be considered. In fact, unlike provincial legislation, in the Indian Act there is no reference to matrimonial property and how we deal with circumstances after the breakdown of a marriage.

So we have been working very closely with the 14 first nations who are signatories to this act. We recognize how important it is. From an economic development point of view, it's absolutely critical that they have the capacity to make some decisions and make them soon before options that exist are reduced for them.

But I had to assure myself that the interests of all community members would be taken into account. I've been very pleased with the response of the chiefs who will build codes specific to their community that are reflective of this requirement as a result of the legislation. So there will be changes to the legislation from the way it was originally tabled to reflect this. I hope we'll be able to present it fairly soon for your consideration.

The Delgamuukw case is a critically important one to us. You've all had the opportunity to reflect on it, I expect. The strongest message, from my point of view, that the Supreme Court presented was that in fact aboriginal rights do exist. We see them reflected in section 35 of the Constitution. The point being made by the chief justice was that they can continue to come to us and have those rights adjudicated upon in the courts, and in some cases we'll find rights and in some cases we won't, because every nation will be different. Rights exist in different ways, depending on the historical relationship to the land and what was there and the resources a community used and how they proved that exercising of use. The court said they could keep coming to the courts or you they could understand that as leaders they have to find ways of reconciling aboriginal rights in Canadian society.

• 1205

I didn't say that rights exist. It's not me; it's not even my government. It is in the Constitution and in the treaties. It's reflected in that regard. And as leaders, we have the responsibility at the federal and provincial levels and at the level of first nations and Inuit communities to reflect those rights in a way that is acceptable and that makes sense to us, shows respect in the existence of those rights. And we have the responsibility to do it at the negotiating table, because despite a decision that may be made in the courts on the existence on a right, it still has to be negotiated and reconciled and implemented.

That's why in British Columbia I feel positive about where we're at. The tables are still going. Our discussions with the great number of first nations that are part of the British Columbia treaty process are continuing. But as we are looking at the Delgamuukw judgment, we're doing it a different way. And rather than the province and the federal government and first nations going into their separate corners and asking what this means to us, we are working together to try to understand this decision and determine how to reconcile the decision in....

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I think it's very important, Minister Stewart, that we're trying to understand it, because everyone at this table has studied the decision, and certainly the decision is not clear. And I expect that it's not out of the courts yet.

However, that being said, it has left a serious cloud over treaty negotiations, over land claims, over specific native rights in Canada. It's very much a precedent-setting case, which I'd compare to the Sparrow decision. And we've had a bunch of spin-offs from that, such as the cutting on crown land in New Brunswick and in Nova Scotia.

That brings we into the other part of this and the importance of settling some of these claims, and that's the unease. You can call it misunderstanding, but there's certainly unease among the public at large and there has been a failure—and I won't just point the finger at you—of parliamentarians to educate the public on that. But certainly your department has the first responsibility there, and I think part of that is because we don't have a clear reading on Delgamuukw yet. If it goes back to the courts, if it doesn't go back to the courts, we know where the first round has gone.

Are you prepared to raise those issues with the Canadian public and explain the ramifications of the case? We have a situation in Nova Scotia, in the riding I represent, where violence has been threatened. It's a very serious circumstance. It's widely misunderstood and perhaps misinterpreted. A lack of information sometimes is a real problem among all the shareholders. It is incumbent on us, as government, to explain that situation and put a position statement out on where we stand. Are you prepared to do that?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: I couldn't agree more with you that there is huge importance and need for public education about our relationship with aboriginal people in this country, about the issue of aboriginal rights and aboriginal title, about how the courts are making decisions and about how different parties—provincial governments, ourselves, and first nations—are approaching the requirement to provide more certainty in how our relationship has existed in the past and how it should develop in the future.

• 1210

The Delgamuukw decision is critically important. As I say, we are all looking at it and trying to make sure that the approach we take to its implementation gives us the best framework against which to build a sustainable partnership with first nations in this country.

The thing, I think, that is positive, particularly if we look at the New Brunswick circumstance, where the government has said we have to get to the table with first nations to talk not only about the issue of the forests but also about land claims and self-government.... We have to reconcile these rights in a positive way in New Brunswick.

I think one of the most telling expressions of the resolve there is the message that first nations are sending, and that is, “Do you know what it felt like to actually be gainfully employed, to be participating in the economy of this country, to be able to go out and buy a car and put food on the table for my kids because I was working, because I had the dignity of work?” We're starting to see that.

That's the message that you're seeing in the public domain. You see the province encouraging the leadership to come to the table and begin negotiations. You see the third parties hiring. For example, I look at Irving, as I read in the paper, hiring Mr.—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Augustine.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: —Augustine to go out and begin.... These are positive developments.

As I say, for any of these important initiatives it's not going to happen overnight. But I think the Canadian public is starting to understand that we can make change. And part of it can be made just by making sure that aboriginal people are included in the economic development opportunities that do exist in Canada.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Stewart. I apologize, Mr. Keddy, but we're going to turn the floor over to Mr. Finlay because the Minister is leaving at 12:30.

[English]

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I would just like to comment on Mr. Scott's remarks about accountability. I'm very happy with what is said in here, but I want to point out that I think the words “partnership”, “community”, “new partnerships”, “new relationships” and “reconciliation” probably occur in about a three-to-one or four-to-one ratio with the word “accountability”. And I think that's the right emphasis, Madam Minister.

I want to go on to a couple of other areas of particular interest. I appreciate the questions of my colleagues.

The Canadian Polar Commission was established in 1991. It reports to Parliament through you. It is the lead federal agency in the area of polar science and is responsible for monitoring, promoting and disseminating knowledge in the polar region and contributing to public awareness of the importance of polar science to Canada; enhancing Canada's international profile as a circumpolar nation; and recommending polar science policy direction to government.

The estimates document notes on page 42 that one of the external factors affecting the Canadian Polar Commission is “government acceptance of recommendations as put forward”. One that is long-standing and still outstanding to a large extent is the response to recommendations of the commission, in particular, the recommendation in regard to contaminants in the northern environment. I refer to pictures of drums full of toxic waste sitting there. I want to ask what we're doing or what the timetable is to deal with these problems.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: The issue of contaminants in the north is an extremely important one. More and more my department, particularly in partnership with the department of the environment and the international conventions on persistent organic pollutants.... And understanding the way that these pollutants coalesce in the north and the fact that we are now are seeing manifestations in the traditional foods of our northern peoples.... This is extremely important to us in terms of understanding.

Our government has been very proactive in gauging the response of peoples in the north to help develop our positions on the international treaties we want signed, treaties which will require countries to reduce their use of these persistent organic pollutants. We are making progress in that regard.

In terms of land-use facilities where there are contaminated sites—and here we think of the DEW Line posts and others—the approach that we have taken as a department is to address them using a risk analysis basis. It would be wonderful if we had sufficient funds to go in and clean up all the messes that have been left. And indeed, for those of you who have travelled in our far north and seen some of the leavings, it's really unacceptable.

• 1215

Our approach, through utilization of our resources in the best way, has been to do risk assessment to understand where the sites exist that are particularly providing risk to surrounding communities and try to focus on the clean-up from that point of view. So it is an important priority for us.

Speaking about the work of the Canadian Polar Commission, it is a body that coordinates the research that's being done in the north, and there is considerable research being done. We are currently engaged in a review of the mandate of the commission so that we can keep it up to speed and reflective of changes existing in the north and interest there.

Mr. John Finlay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Konrad.

[English]

Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Five minutes?

I'm going to be splitting my time with my colleague here so he gets a question in.

The Chairman: Is it a new strategy? That's okay. Two minutes each.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Thank you, Minister. I would just—

Mrs. Jane Stewart: I guess it's me you're supposed to manage. They're pretty good with their questions, Mr. Chair; it's my long-winded answers. I apologize.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Thank you. With respect, Minister, would you please keep your answers short so that he has his opportunity? I think he has an important question.

Anyway, I want to get back to this Delgamuukw situation here. As was pointed out, the estimate for land claims is dropping. I don't mean to say this is a public relations exercise, but do you have people in your department working out new estimates for future costs? Secondly, do you really believe the Delgamuukw decision is not going to increase the amount? And shouldn't you be showing that in your estimates?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Indeed, the numbers as we show them are a reflection of what we anticipate we will—

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Pardon me, but you don't anticipate Delgamuukw costing anything between now and 2001?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: We have a claims envelope, and as you understand, the negotiating process—

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Well, it's what's in it.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: We are in the process of negotiation, and we look at all the negotiations. We have a great number of both comprehensive and specific claims before us, and they're all at different points, different positions in the negotiating cycle.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Can I stop you again? You answered that already with Mr. Keddy.

You had a five-page list of demands from the B.C. chiefs handed to you. Did that not create any difference in the amount you expect to spend on land claims?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Again, this is a rolling target, because we don't really know how fast we'll proceed with a particular negotiation. This is our best estimate for this year as to where we will be successful.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Okay, but your estimates go right up in time to 2001.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Yes.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: It shows a decrease every year. Are you really seriously thinking that the Delgamuukw decision is not going not affect claims at all?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Absolutely. We believe, as we continue our negotiations and make progress, there needs to be a reflection of how the Delgamuukw decision is going to play out.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: That's what I'm asking you.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: We're at the point now of understanding that, but it's not going to stop us from continuing on specific claims, which have really a different relationship to this decision than comprehensive claims.

Maybe I'll ask my official, but they are understanding your question differently. Maybe I'm not understanding your question, Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Do you expect an increase in the cost of land claims decisions?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: No, we're saying in terms of the impact we may have different things to consider in our negotiations with first nations. The impact of Delgamuukw, as I say, is under review right now, so it would be presumptuous of me to indicate what I think the results will be.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: That's one of the questions I'm asking, whether this is under review for cost estimates as well.

I'm going to pass to my colleague.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Konrad.

Mr. McNally.

[English]

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Minister, for coming.

• 1220

You mentioned earlier that you would provide information to individuals who asked for that information, accounts of financial responsibility, all the things my colleague mentioned. I'm wondering if you could further clarify in concrete terms how your department is going to account for the band use of taxpayer dollars once they're delivered. More concretely, exactly how is that going to happen, apart from somebody filing an access to information claim or writing you directly to get something from the department?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: I'm going to ask Brent Dibartolo to talk about the kinds of things that are included in the audit, so you'll have a sense of the information we require as a result of the audit annually from first nations. Then we can talk about further progress.

Mr. Brent Dibartolo (Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): I think the key is that first nations are all required to have independent audits done. Our financial agreements require that they provide copies of those audits on a consolidated basis to the members of the community.

Mr. Grant McNally: If I could interrupt, the conundrum is that we know what all the requirements should be, but then we see these examples of information not being available or not being made available to people at the local level. Certainly there could be a ministerial direction to do that, yet—

Mr. Brent Dibartolo: There is, and the financial agreements require the disclosure of that information, including salaries and honoraria information and the release of consolidated audits. We have, within the funding agreement, authority to withhold funds for bands that do not provide that information to the communities. When we've received it and they haven't provided it to community members, we make the information available to community members within the confines of the Privacy Act. There are circumstances now where we are withholding funds from bands that have not produced the information required under the funding agreements.

Mr. Grant McNally: You mention “within the confines of the Privacy Act”. There seems to be some difficulty for individuals on specific reserves in getting that information. The minister mentioned earlier she would provide an account to those who request it. How can that be facilitated in the more open and accountable way she mentioned throughout her comments on partnerships and what not?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Again, regardless of all that, there are issues of the Privacy Act and Access to Information Act we must reflect on. Any strategies in terms of provision of information have to be considered in light of those pieces of legislation.

Mr. Grant McNally: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Madam Minister.

Mr. Bryden.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have to say I disagree a little with my colleague Mr. Finlay. I think access to information, accountability, and transparency is an issue that should have the highest priority, for it leads to efficiency, fairness, and justice in any government, not to mention aboriginal governments.

I noted in your remarks to Mr. Scott that the government will guarantee that the instruments of transparency and accountability will be made available to community members. What do you mean by community members? Is this some group of people that's different from the public at large?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: This is particularly where the issue of the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act come in, in terms of who the community members are according to the band list.

Brent, could you comment on the details that have to be undertaken so we give the information to the right...?

Mr. Brent Dibartolo: We are demanding that first nations provide us with consolidated audits, which include financial information—from the advice we've received—protected under the Privacy Act because they include independent revenues.

Under our contribution agreements, the community members have a right to access that information, and should the chief-in-council not provide it to the community member as defined by the band list, we will provide it to the community members. But the advice we received from our privacy coordinator and the privacy commissioner is that given there is confidential financial information included in those audits, we cannot release that information to third parties.

So the direct answer to your question is yes, there is a difference in our minds between community members and the public at large.

Mr. John Bryden: I'll note then that your approach to this is that the aboriginal communities are corporations. This is a rule you'd apply to corporations.

I'll ask the minister a further question. I'm sorry the Bloc Québécois member is not here. Does the minister feel that in the freedom of information act that exists in Quebec—and there are similar ones in Ontario and British Columbia—the access to the information held by the Government of Quebec should be limited or should be given to Quebeckers by special favour, as opposed to other Canadians? In other words, should the community of Quebec, represented by Quebeckers, have special access to the documents defined under Quebec's access to information act, as opposed to Canadians at large?

• 1225

Mrs. Jane Stewart: I think I would respond to this by reflecting on your opening comments, Mr. Bryden, and the comments that I made in my speech that the issue of transparency and accountability is fundamental to the democratic process.

I would also note that as we proceed, we are constantly finding new ways, as a result of technology, availability of information, and interest in information, of providing that information, and new approaches—does that make sense?—to the provision of information.

In the case of first nations in particular, and again, as I mentioned in my comments, as a result of increasing requirements—some of them identified by the department, some of them identified by first nations—there is more information within the hands of community members, and as a result of that information there is a desire for even more information.

What we're starting to see in those communities that is of particular interest to me are some innovative ways that are reflective of community traditions in terms of the provision of information through community meetings. In one particular first nation, they've actually gone out and invited members from outside of the community to come in and receive questions from community members and then respond to them, almost in an ombudsman position.

The other thing we are recognizing is that—

Mr. John Bryden: Excuse me, Madam Minister. The chairman is indicating that he is going to pull the plug on me, and I would like to further my questions, if I may.

I'd like to observe that in every jurisdiction I know of, the freedom of information legislation or access to information legislation treats all requesters equally, and that the confidentiality or the “publicness” of a document is inherent in the document. Consequently, not only can any Canadian request in any province a document that's under the legislation, but anyone outside of a country can come into Canada and request a document that is available under our access to information legislation.

I suggest to you, Madam Minister, that I'm very alarmed that you are setting a double standard for aboriginal communities if you restrict access to public documents to members of those communities. Indeed, I fear that you are repeating the same type of patronizing paternalistic mistake that has characterized the federal relationship with aboriginal communities in the past. If you are going to have openness and transparency, then the public is the public, and it should not be limited to members of the community.

That being said, I would ask one further thing. Are you prepared to apply the same standards of access to information that currently exist in the federal legislation? Are you going to require it of these self-government communities you are dealing with? Are you going to apply the same standards that exist in the rest of the country to the aboriginal communities?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: There is no question that as this issue continues to be one of common conversation between the federal government and first nations, ensuring we have methods of accountability and disclosure of information and systems of redress that are reflective of the rest of the country is extremely important.

That doesn't presume that the rest of the country has it just right yet, either. Certainly, Mr. Bryden, this is an area of particular interest to you, and the energies you put into it indicate that we haven't got it completely right for Canada yet either.

One thing I'm particularly glad about is the recognition that for example the AFN, in partnering with the Canadian certified general accountants, are sitting there with the professionals who are providing the same kind of support and professionalism to aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians, recognizing there may be effective ways of building accountability structures in a public process that may be different but provide the same kind of information and security for first nations and others.

• 1230

I don't pretend to think that we have all of the system of accountability in place for our first nations or Inuit people, nor do I think we have it in place for all Canadians. I think that's one of the reflections we have as a democracy: it's to ensure that as we can and as we understand, we do provide the information the public requires to determine whether or not their elected officials are working on their behalf.

Mr. John Bryden: I have one very brief summing-up comment. Do you agree that you should have access to all documents?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: In the context of our understanding, in particular, I have to say we do speak with the privacy commissioner about what information we should provide and to whom. We act on his direction, so there are aspects of the accounts of first nations that we are directed to provide to certain individuals and not to others. We respect the advice of the commissioner.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Stewart.

Mr. Earle.

[English]

Mr. Gordon Earle: Madam Minister, you speak often of the partnerships with aboriginal people. What is the government's partnership position with respect to the sharing of resources? I'm thinking particularly of resources in the north, such as mining and the royalties that will ensue from mining operations, and ensuring that aboriginal people get the benefit of those resources.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: That's a very important question right across the country. As we're talking about the opportunities for economic development, access to resources is key. We, as well as the provinces, are being encouraged to understand that relationship.

We have fiscal tables under way now. I'm looking back at Bill Austin, who is leading our tables for example in Saskatchewan and in other jurisdictions where the provinces as well are interested in understanding if there is a more effective way of providing access to resources for first nations communities both south and north of 60 degrees.

We're also finding, as a result of better understanding within the private sector, that there's a new model of resource management being undertaken. More and more, rather than third parties communicating with first nations after the fact, we see that they are coming together before and writing impact-benefit agreements so that there are opportunities for employment, contributions for construction, and an understanding of partnership in the revenues from a particular site. This is extremely encouraging, and it's a much more functional approach than the one of the past where we saw road blockades and court actions.

All this is to say that first nations want to be part of the Canadian economy. They know and want opportunities for the employment of their community members. But the point is that they have to be part and parcel of decisions at the front end, as opposed to always being left until the end to be heard.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Earle.

Mr. Keddy, you are the last on the list. You will conclude the meeting with the Minister. You have two minutes.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you, Mr. President.

Minister Stewart, there are several issues. You know that we all raised a number of issues, and I think they have all been important issues. I want to go back for a bit to the Delgamuukw decision, which prompted the crown land cutting in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.

I understand that New Brunswick has made some very positive steps in the last couple of weeks and couple of days, in particular, I think, to begin to negotiate and have at least some dialogue and maybe negotiate an end to what's a strategically important issue for the natives in New Brunswick and private industry in New Brunswick specifically because of the amount of crown land. When that transfers over to Nova Scotia, it's a different issue altogether. There's not as much crown land. Seventy-two percent of the land in Nova Scotia is privately owned. The only province in Canada with more private landowners is P.E.I.

• 1235

As I mentioned before, there's a lot of apprehension on the part of private landowners. They don't know, and I don't think the courts have decided yet, what ramifications this case could have, how far it could go, who could be included. Again, I would ask that there be some public consultation.

There are two issues here. I don't know if it's possible, and I'm going to ask you if it is possible, to have a cease and desist order. Let's sit down at the negotiating table and negotiate this and meanwhile stop cutting until we know exactly where we stand.

The other issue back in New Brunswick is the Micmac Nation, which crosses the 49th parallel and the Canadian-American border. Actually, it's not the 49th parallel there. There have been a number of members of the Micmac Nation and certainly American citizens crossing the border cutting wood in New Brunswick, hauling that wood into the U.S.

These are all complications to a complicated matter. Specifically, we should be able to stop the border-crossing, I would think. Secondly, can we actively engage in consultation with the public and with the natives in Nova Scotia? It's an issue I'm very close to, having a background in the forest sector. It's not on fire yet, but it's hot.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: It is an important issue. It's a broad issue. I'd just like to clarify one thing. The case in New Brunswick is not based on Delgamuukw. It's the Peter Paul case. The decision of the court was that there was insufficient evidence to support the right to cut. That was what the decision of the court was, that there was insufficient evidence. Having said that—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: This court case.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: That's right. Having said that, there is an understanding and a recognition within the province, as shown by the actions of the government, that they feel there probably is a better way of building a relationship with first nations in that province, and I think we'll find a similar attitude in other provinces.

Regardless of what happens in the courts, the decisions have to be negotiated. The strength of what's happening now is the opportunity for all parties to sit down and see if there isn't a better way to deal with some very important aspects of our relationship with first nations in New Brunswick.

Again, if you want to look at the strength of Delgamuukw, it was—and I'll reiterate that—the direction to the leadership of the day to deal with this as leaders, sit down and figure out how we can provide access to resources, how we can provide and reflect on the rights as we read them in the treaties that exist.

What's so important—and I think this is one of the messages you're providing—is that there has to be a broader understanding of the relationship of the past, of what treaties are, what those contracts are about and how they can be reflected in today's society. I say that because these were agreements. They were agreements between parties.

We see specific claims as a result of a compromise of those agreements. We see the issue of interpretation of access to resources as a result of a compromise of those agreements. Those are the things the courts are discussing.

There's nothing stopping those of us who at one point in our relationships were signatories from reflecting on those arrangements and asking ourselves whether we are indeed being true to what those treaties were about. And where there aren't treaties, as is the case in British Columbia, are there things we can do to encourage the certainty of the relationship, to make sure that parties know who it is who has what jurisdiction and how we can proceed in a more functional relationship than perhaps we have in the past?

• 1240

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Understood. I understand the background of the treaties and the history of contact. But the B.C. case is going to have ramifications on all the rest of the provinces, I believe, whether there have been treaties signed or not. It's a precedent-setting case with enormous ramifications. It supports the Paul case in New Brunswick. It goes beyond anything we've ever comprehended before. It's like a bunch of dominoes: you set one up and they start to fall.

We can drag these things through the courts for the rest of eternity, or we can try to settle them and keep them out of the courts.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Yes. What you're saying is this is important. If what you're saying is we need to understand this and we need to proceed and include the Canadian public in this, and if what you're saying is that we agree we have to find a way of reconciling rights as they are deemed to exist and the relationship as it has been agreed to in past treaties, I couldn't agree more.

I think that's the strength of what we're trying to do through Gathering Strength: to find a way of doing it in partnership, to doing it together, to providing a positive, organized approach to these issues so that people don't have to fear them, don't have to be scared of them, don't have to be left wondering how to access resources, how to deal with first nations.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Thank you very much, Ms. Stewart.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: It was a pleasure.

The Chairman: We will now sit in camera because we must discuss three other items. Thank you, Ms. Stewart.

[English]

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Thank you, sir.

Mr. John Bryden: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Bryden, go ahead.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Chairman, could we ask the officials who appeared before us today whether they could supply us with the opinion of the privacy commissioner that provides the background for the decision that certain information of an administrative and financial nature of bands and Indian self-governments should be available only to community members instead of to the public at large?

I do believe this is quite a precedent-setting decision on behalf of the privacy commissioner, and I would certainly like to see some evidence of the opinion he's given to you, so I can respond to it.

Mr. Brent Dibartolo: We would be pleased to provide the documentation to you.

Mr. John Bryden: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

[Editor's Note: The meeting continued in camera]